T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
347.1 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | bouncy bouncy | Fri Mar 17 1995 22:23 | 1 |
| How sad.
|
347.2 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Fri Mar 17 1995 22:25 | 15 |
|
It is unfortunate that the day to day activities of the typical pastoral staff
of a typical Christian Church (yes, including the "fundamentalists" that many
sneer about) are not chronicled in the daily newsbriefs. Heck, just the
typical day in my own pastor's life would fill many a note in here. But, no,
I expect we'll be treated to the stuff that even the mainstream, anytown USA
Fundamentalist Pastors don't acknowledge as being Biblical or Christ like in
this topic so certain individuals can squeal with delight as they share the
"news" of what those hatemongering, murderous Christians are up to.
Jim
|
347.3 | | KAOFS::B_VANVALKENB | | Sun Mar 19 1995 14:09 | 14 |
| About a month ago a similar incident happened in Kitchener, Ontario.
A 2 year old (?) girl died while her grandparent and mother tried to
perform an exorcism. Apperently the girl was tied to the bed with a
rope across her neck. The cause of death was "brain swelling".
Nuts are everywhere.
The more radical/fundamental a religion is the more nuts they attract.
Brian V
(Mr squirrel)
|
347.4 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member in good standing | Mon Mar 20 1995 08:35 | 11 |
|
So are we to believe that all fundies are nuts and killers, Doug? I
challenge you to post articles about the good these people do as well
as the negative. Much much more good is done than evil. Just like
with the priests. Of course I know this doesn't fit your agenda......
Mike
|
347.5 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Mon Mar 20 1995 09:24 | 7 |
| The first thing that came to my mind when reading the basenote.
Religion in my my is identified as one who attempts to reach God.
Since the foundation of Christianity is a Holy God reaching down to
sinful man, thank goodness Christianity isn't a religion!
-Jack
|
347.7 | y | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Mar 20 1995 09:35 | 11 |
|
The Bible tells us that there will be those who come along invoking Christ's
name in this or that but their fruits, ie, their actions, will speak as to
their origin.
Jim
|
347.9 | liberal Christians that is | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Mar 20 1995 09:39 | 9 |
|
A very good book on liberals and how they attempt to misinterpret the
Bible is the Bible itself.
Jim
|
347.10 | Perhaps some here are too close to the trees? | ALPHAZ::HARNEY | John A Harney | Mon Mar 20 1995 09:50 | 27 |
| re: .last few
The problem seems to be that the "normal" Christains here in the
'Box say things like "well, the bible is simple to follow" and "you
don't have to dig hard to find the real meaning" and "there's ONE
morality, the morality described in the bible" and other sweeping
generalizations.
Here we have a group of people who THEMSELVES claim to have found
the answers to their problems in the bible, and it includes exorcising
devils, beating people to cast out demons, etc. What is clear is
that the bible, as written, has MUCH that's open to interpretation.
What's not clear is why "normal" Christians can't see that their
version is just as much interpretation as the fundies' version.
To recap: the honest answer is to say, "I believe your interpretation
is wrong, and mine is right because <blah>," not, "I have the REAL
answer, and yours is just an incorrect interpretation."
Oh, by the way, let's stop picking on the liberals for all their
faults and bad government ideas; what about the GOOD liberals, and
all the stuff they do? Doesn't their compassion and caring about
people count for anything? (Sounds dumb, eh? Think about how dumb
it sounds when we can't examine what some Christains say because of
"all the good things other Christians do.")
\john
|
347.11 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 10:22 | 12 |
|
I saw Doug post his note. My guess is he got it off the internet. Now
there are many people in here that may be fundies, who could also post some
stuff they feel is good. So why don't they?
Jim mentioned that his pastor had done some things that would make many
a good note, but then ended with bitchin about Doug, and put nothing in here.
Why?
Glen
|
347.12 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Mar 20 1995 10:37 | 33 |
|
> I saw Doug post his note. My guess is he got it off the internet. Now
>there are many people in here that may be fundies, who could also post some
>stuff they feel is good. So why don't they?
First, I resent the label "fundies". Second, the internet (as near as I
can tell) isn't filled with the everyday activities that Christians are
involved in. And, were I or any one to whom you assign the label "fundies"
to post such activities, I doubt they would meet with your "approval".
> Jim mentioned that his pastor had done some things that would make many
>a good note, but then ended with bitchin about Doug, and put nothing in here.
>Why?
I have no intention of posting my pastor's activities in here. I merely
was making a point, that in a topic about fundamentalism we are likely to
be treated to the extreme activities of those on the fringes of mainstream
Christianity.
Jim
|
347.13 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 11:12 | 13 |
|
Jim, sorry about the fundies thing. I will refrain from using it in the
future. Sometimes I just don't feel like writing words out, so I abbreviate.
Again, sorry bout that.
Now about the stories on the internet. Does it matter if it meets our
approval? If you feel it is something that is actually good, why not post it? I
mean, how can you complain that nothing good is being posted when you've stated
you aren't willing to post anything good?
Glen
|
347.14 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Mon Mar 20 1995 11:30 | 9 |
| The only thing "fundamental" about .0 is that it was fundamentally
wrong.
Perhaps this group were anti-fundies? Meaning, not following Biblical
fundamentals. I certainly can't remember any passage where Jesus beat
demons out of folk with a stick/whatever.
-steve
|
347.15 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Mar 20 1995 11:33 | 7 |
| > I have no intention of posting my pastor's activities in here.
Then quitcher bitchin' about the one-sidedness of the portrayals
you're likely to see. Iffen you can't be bothered to post examples
of fundamentalists who aren't wackos, you cede the field.
DougO
|
347.16 | | CSLALL::WHITE_G | you don't know. do you? | Mon Mar 20 1995 11:38 | 10 |
| There will always be those who try to discredit any type of
religon, but there will also be those who will question and criticize
different religons in order to learn more about how they operate. My
feelings as a Christian are that there are people out the that
interpret the Bible diffrently, but my understanding is that the Bible
teaches the love of God, and of your fellow man or women, not to beat
out evil spirits . There will always be a fringe element who get a
following , that may not represent who they claim to represent but go
off on their own . This poor woman was definately murder by Ms. Parks
and her followers .
|
347.17 | | POWDML::CKELLY | Cute Li'l Rascal | Mon Mar 20 1995 11:44 | 6 |
| seems to me, not so long ago, nancy posted a note about helping a
homeless family. what did she get for it? people accusing her of
the posting as a means of patting herself on the back. i can
see why others would be reluctant to do such posting. some folks
don't feel the need to open up something that personal to the inane
commentary of the 'box gallery.
|
347.18 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Mar 20 1995 11:59 | 25 |
|
> > I have no intention of posting my pastor's activities in here.
> Then quitcher bitchin' about the one-sidedness of the portrayals
> you're likely to see. Iffen you can't be bothered to post examples
> of fundamentalists who aren't wackos, you cede the field.
Somehow if I were to post messages about the souls saved and the lives
changed through the message of Christ, they'd be met by messages from the
anti Christian bigots speaking of "cramming it down their throats", or if
I were to speak of the folks looking for food/money whom we help almost
daily, it would be met with "you just want to cram your religion down their
throat".
No thanks.
Jim
|
347.19 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Mar 20 1995 12:14 | 7 |
| "souls saved" rhetoric would get you some sneers, doubtless, 'cause you
have not even a vague pretense of being able to prove such exist, much
less need, want, or can demonstrably be "saved". But about lives
changed, if that's what you think is good about funamentalist religion,
hey, post and let the box judge.
DougO
|
347.20 | Christlikeness | STRATA::BARBIERI | God cares. | Mon Mar 20 1995 12:16 | 12 |
| The simple thing I ask myself is, "Are they like Jesus?"
I don't think they were.
But, then again, I don't think I am!
WHERE is Christianity? Is it to be found?
I don't know. Us Christians are too much like the world and too
little like Christ to really make much of an impact on this world.
Someday...
|
347.21 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Mon Mar 20 1995 12:19 | 6 |
| .19
Right, DougO, let the box judge the way they did with Nancy. She did a
concrete, measurable thing that probably benefitted a homeless family -
certainly helped their attitude, which is good in itself - and she got,
basically, crapped on for trumpeting her own virtue. Pfui.
|
347.22 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Mar 20 1995 12:29 | 21 |
|
> "souls saved" rhetoric would get you some sneers, doubtless, 'cause you
> have not even a vague pretense of being able to prove such exist, much
> less need, want, or can demonstrably be "saved". But about lives
Just what I expected to read.
> changed, if that's what you think is good about funamentalist religion,
> hey, post and let the box judge.
No thanks.
Jim
|
347.23 | | SHRCTR::DAVIS | | Mon Mar 20 1995 12:37 | 7 |
| <<< Note 347.18 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>
> No thanks.
I don't blame you, Jim. You're a lot smarter than I am.
|
347.24 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 12:44 | 23 |
| | <<< Note 347.18 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>
| Somehow if I were to post messages about the souls saved and the lives
| changed through the message of Christ, they'd be met by messages from the
| anti Christian bigots speaking of "cramming it down their throats", or if
| I were to speak of the folks looking for food/money whom we help almost
| daily, it would be met with "you just want to cram your religion down their
| throat".
First off Jim, then you can't really bitch about one sidedness. But
second, do you really consider them bigots? You sit here and complain about all
the negatives of what's could possibly happen, but don't even think about those
who you just might help out. How many people out there have had a good part of
their lives spent listening to all the negatives for Christianity? People who
might go either way on the religion scale, but are leary to be known as one of
"them".
So you can keep on bitchin about the negatives, but if you want change,
you could do it.
Glen
|
347.26 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Mar 20 1995 12:46 | 6 |
|
re .24
?
|
347.25 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I don't want to go on the cart | Mon Mar 20 1995 12:53 | 6 |
| I didn't crap on Nancy, I was proud of Nancy. If there were more
Christians willing to do what Nancy did in their day to day lives,
more people would be willing to hear the message instead of berating
the messenger.
Glenn
|
347.28 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 13:13 | 16 |
|
Jim, in other words, you could very easily help many people, inbetween
the barbs. Do you think Nancy helped anyone with seeing that Christians can be
different than they are portrayed? I think so. While she got jabbed a few
times, she also helped people as well. And as was said a couple of notes back,
the more good that people see of the Christians, the fewer jabs that will
actually be taken at them.
But where you did say you are not willing to do this, then what I am
saying is you do not really have a legit bitch as you yourself are not willing
to provide any good pointers.
Glen
|
347.29 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Mar 20 1995 13:28 | 10 |
| >Right, DougO, let the box judge the way they did with Nancy.
Nancy's story would go just fine in this topic. And she got no flack
from me.
If the reasonable people don't speak up, they abdicate the field of
argument to the extremists. Seems Jim has chosen that path. It
matters not to me.
DougO
|
347.30 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Mar 20 1995 13:34 | 34 |
|
RE: <<< Note 347.28 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>
> Jim, in other words, you could very easily help many people, inbetween
>the barbs. Do you think Nancy helped anyone with seeing that Christians can be
>different than they are portrayed? I think so. While she got jabbed a few
>times, she also helped people as well. And as was said a couple of notes back,
>the more good that people see of the Christians, the fewer jabs that will
>actually be taken at them.
I'm sure few people come into the box looking for Christian testimonies.
> But where you did say you are not willing to do this, then what I am
>saying is you do not really have a legit bitch as you yourself are not willing
>to provide any good pointers.
I'm saying, that it would be nice if the "news sources" for such tragic tales
as posted in .0, printed articles about the good that Christians do. That is
all. As an example, I indicated that there are a number of things that my
church does and that there are countless other churches in the USA that do
the same.
Jim
|
347.31 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Mar 20 1995 13:35 | 13 |
|
> If the reasonable people don't speak up, they abdicate the field of
> argument to the extremists. Seems Jim has chosen that path. It
> matters not to me.
And .0 is resonable in a topic on Fundamentalists?
Jim
|
347.32 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Mar 20 1995 13:39 | 11 |
| > And .0 is resonable in a topic on Fundamentalists?
I know you'd prefer the dirty laundry be swept under the carpet, but
that isn't what its about, Jim. These people shelter under the same
hands-off tax laws, the same hands-off-they're-guaranteed-freedom-of-
expression protection as those who don't harm others. All sorts of
fundamentalists wear the label. Yes, its a real point on the spectrum
of fundamentalism (as is the World Trade Center bombing) and it is
quite reasonably included.
DougO
|
347.33 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Mar 20 1995 13:41 | 10 |
|
I have no desire to see any dirty laundry swept under the carpet, but thanks
for asking.
Jim
|
347.35 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Mon Mar 20 1995 13:50 | 14 |
|
RE: .34
There are AIDS "activists"
Feminist "activists"
Environemental "activists"
etc.
but a Christian who is an "activist" is labeled a "fundamentalist"...
go figure...
|
347.36 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Mon Mar 20 1995 13:50 | 9 |
|
RE: .19
> post and let the box judge.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
|
347.39 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 13:56 | 15 |
| | <<< Note 347.32 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
| These people shelter under the same hands-off tax laws, the same
| hands-off-they're-guaranteed-freedom-of-expression protection as
| those who don't harm others.
You know what would make for a real good story? Hearing that the
fundamentalists are getting together to fight against these people who
take the tax law breaks/FOE stuff. Maybe distancing yourselves from these
people in a LOUD way, and not as an after the fact thing will make people see
the difference.
Glen
|
347.40 | It ain't held JUST to Christians Andy | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 13:58 | 23 |
| | <<< Note 347.35 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>
| There are AIDS "activists"
Promoter of sex and drugs
| Feminist "activists"
Feminazi's
| Environemental "activists"
Al Gore :-)
| but a Christian who is an "activist" is labeled a "fundamentalist"...
Your 1 & two are pretty much in the same boat as your Christian analogy
Andy. Only your #3 shows any difference.
Glen
|
347.41 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Mon Mar 20 1995 14:07 | 3 |
|
In your no so humble opinion...
|
347.42 | :) | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Mon Mar 20 1995 14:08 | 12 |
|
re: .38
Awwwww.....
Just go merrily along and sing...
".....me and my Arrow...."
|
347.43 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 14:38 | 12 |
| | <<< Note 347.41 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>
| In your no so humble opinion...
No, it all depends on which side of the fence you're sitting on. Each
group knows how they view themselves. Each group knows how others view them. 3
groups you mentioned have a negative stigma attached to them. You can not deny
that.
Glen
|
347.44 | You're rat-holing (again) | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:02 | 21 |
|
Pay Attention!!!!
I'm not talking about fences or stigmas or how each views the other...
I'm talking about hypocrisy!!!
The term "activist" basically means someone is doing something...
whether good or bad is not the issue...
Those that are doers believe in fundamentals of their particular
affiliation (negative or otherwise)...
Why aren't they called:
AIDS fundies or
Feminist fundies or
Enviro-fundies...????????????????
|
347.45 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:10 | 23 |
|
Please don't say that word. (fundies) It upsets Jim.
If one views those of the Religious Right as Fundamentalist Christians,
which I might add some of them also go by that name, then wouldn't many view
all Christians as fundamentalists? It is definitely not an accurate picture,
but one that is thought of by many. I know many Christians who want nothing to
do with the funamentalist groups of Christians. Are you one who believes that
the wackos are under that label by other people or by their own doing?
| Those that are doers believe in fundamentals of their particular affiliation
Many of the wackos call themselves fundamentalist christians. THEY are
calling themselves that.
But for those cases where others apply it, why don't you just correct
them?
Glen
|
347.46 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:15 | 6 |
| .32>These people shelter under the same [...] hands-off-they're-guaranteed-
.32>freedom-of-expression protection as those who don't harm others.
How so? .0 says that the women who participated in the exorcism are facing
murder charges?
|
347.47 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:17 | 5 |
|
re: .45
Forget it... the rat hole you're trying to create is not worth
correcting...
|
347.48 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:20 | 14 |
| re: .21, Dick
> Right, DougO, let the box judge the way they did with Nancy. She did a
> concrete, measurable thing that probably benefitted a homeless family -
> certainly helped their attitude, which is good in itself - and she got,
> basically, crapped on for trumpeting her own virtue. Pfui.
Please help refresh my memory, as I don't recall which topic that was
discussed in, but I seem to recall Nancy mentioning that she got mail
from non-participants in the 'box accusing her of trumpeting her own
virtue. I do not specifically recall her having gotten crapped on
within the 'box. Am I mistaken? Can anyone point me to the string?
|
347.49 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:22 | 21 |
| no, not all christians are fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are
usually self-described as such, they proudly claim the label. They are
usually adherents to one of the religious traditions described as "of
the book", meaning Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. The self-description
seems to imply that they are the only sect to be interpreting the
book's doctrines correctly, down to its "fundamentals". This usually
means as literal an interpretation of the oft-translated 'book' they
follow as they can justify. And they try very hard.
A difference from the other extremists Andy lumped them in with is that
the other types are avowedly political. Religious fundamentalists,
while intruding often into the political arena, do so for religious
reasons, and in a tolerant democratic society such as ours, with the
protections granted to religions. In doing so I consider that they
abuse their privileges, and that their political shenanigans should be
curtailed, but I recognize, reluctantly, that the 1st amendment
prevents such for very good reasons. I still think they abuse their
privileges, but I don't advocate governmental actions against their
right to interfere in politics, until they break other laws.
DougO
|
347.50 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:29 | 9 |
| > I do not specifically recall her having gotten crapped on
>within the 'box. Am I mistaken? Can anyone point me to the string?
i can't point you to the string, but i believe you're correct.
the response in the 'box was mostly, if not all, supportive
in nature.
|
347.51 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:29 | 17 |
| >.32>These people shelter under the same [...]hands-off-they're-guaranteed-
>.32>freedom-of-expression protection as those who don't harm others.
>
> How so? .0 says that the women who participated in the exorcism are
> facing murder charges?
The state generally lets cults and other such do as they will until
they break other laws, Jack. That's what I'm talking about. This lets
the nutcases shelter in via the religious protection clauses in the
BIll of Rights with more mainstream religious traditions, free to
practise as they will. No matter how nutty or dangerous. And in
general, so long as they only hurt themselves, I consider it evolution
in action, and I'm perfectly willing to keep the government out of
their affairs. It is right and proper to lock up the perpetrators when
they kill someone, though.
DougO
|
347.52 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:35 | 11 |
| It matters not whether Nancy got crapped on here in the box (which
neither she nor I said happened) or whether she was crapped on in mail
by people who read here what she reported (which she said did happen).
The fact remains that she was crapped on for telling what she'd done
with her Christianity. And I can understand why she or any other box
believers might just be a little gunshy about getting up to be shot at
some more. The simple truth is that if someone does a good thing in
the name of one's religion, it's thumpism, while if it's done in the
name of getting a tax break or some other temporal benefit, it's the
equivalent of manna from heaven, pardon the juxtaposition.
|
347.53 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:41 | 8 |
| >> It matters not whether Nancy got crapped on here in the box (which
>> neither she nor I said happened) or whether she was crapped on in mail
>> by people who read here what she reported (which she said did happen).
you said "let the box judge the way they did with Nancy". that's
kinda misleading, at best.
|
347.54 | The descent continues... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:43 | 14 |
|
Interesting phenomena : DougO, who is angry with someone
apparently, thinks this note will have any effect other than
making a lot of people, including complete strangers, angry as
he is.
Glen, a member of an extreme minority, often persecuted unfairly
for their wacko outlandish behavior, takes such glee in bating
members of another minority whose members perceive themselves as
persecuted.
And the defiant intolerance of the sure continues on all sides.
bb
|
347.55 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:47 | 7 |
| .53
SOMEBODY in the box judged Nancy, even if it might have been only some
read-onlies. Like it or not, read-onlies are part of the box
population just as much as we who blather on and on here.
Sorry you were misled.
|
347.56 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Mon Mar 20 1995 15:52 | 6 |
| >> SOMEBODY in the box judged Nancy, even if it might have been only some
i thought it was posted in more than one conference, but maybe
not. anyways, making it sound as though it's not safe to post
such things here because one would be crapped on when there may not
even have been one single note doing so is misleading.
|
347.57 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:21 | 7 |
| > DougO, who is angry with someone apparently, thinks this note will
> have any effect other than making a lot of people, including complete
> strangers, angry as he is.
Eh? Whence these erroneous assumptions?
DougO
|
347.58 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:42 | 20 |
| | <<< Note 347.54 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
| Glen, a member of an extreme minority,
Extreme INDEED! Outlandish maybe. :-)
| often persecuted unfairly for their wacko outlandish behavior,
bb.... if I didn't know any better, I'd say you were trying to prove a
point here or get some sort of knee jerk reaction. :-)
| takes such glee in bating members of another minority whose members perceive
| themselves as persecuted.
Bating???? Why bb, what ever gave you that idea? I stand behind
everything I have said. Really.
Glen
|
347.59 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:44 | 6 |
|
I know of one other conference it was in for sure, (Christian). It MAY
have been in CP. If it had been in others, I am unaware of that.
Glen
|
347.60 | definition | KAOFS::B_VANVALKENB | | Mon Mar 20 1995 16:53 | 22 |
| lets work on a definition for fundamentalist.
I envision 2 classes.
1. Take a small section of the bible or a small verse and use that to
spinter a religious Faction.
Ex) Snake handlers
2. Opt for a more literal translation of the bible. (which disagrees
with most main line religions today).
Ex) Baptist, JW
Any one got a problem with this definition.
Brian V
|
347.61 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Mon Mar 20 1995 17:11 | 72 |
| Slaying Suspect Was Once a Church Youth Leader
She called TV `demonic,' pastor says
Tara Shioya, Chronicle East Bay Bureau
Eun Kyong (Jean) Park, the fundamentalist Christian missionary charged
with fatally beating a young woman in a ritual to cast out demons, once
frightened church youth group members by telling them to stop watching
television, calling it ``demonic.''
The Rev. Hoon Bae, pastor of the Richmond Korean Baptist Church where
Park, 30, was a youth director last year, said in an interview
yesterday that a concerned parent relayed what Park had said. Bae said
he reprimanded Park, telling her he did not condone that way of
thinking. ``I told her `never to say that because the Bible doesn't say
that,' '' said Bae, shaking his head emphatically. ``And after that she
stopped.''
After that incident, Bae said he kept a ``close eye'' on her, although
he acknowledged that he did not attend any of Park's youth group
sessions during the time she worked there. He first met Park when she
visited his church last February on a missionary tour.
Bae said he hired her without references or a resume because the
position was only part time. He offered her a full-time job, but Park
declined, saying she needed more time to carry on her missionary work.
The church paid Park $800 a month to work as a youth director, leading
two-hour group sessions Saturdays and some Sundays from about March to
August 1994.
Park received an additional $300 monthly to help support three young
Russian women who were living with her then. One of the them,
19-year-old Natasha Baboulina, is also charged with murder.
Bae said Park did not seem ``dangerous,'' and had good ``leadership
qualities.'' But gradually it became evident that Park's religious
beliefs differed from those of Bae's church.
``We believe in the Bible, we follow the Southern Baptist doctrine,''
Bae said. ``We don't follow demonism. I'm only preaching the Gospel --
I never preach about demons.''
Bae said he is at a loss to explain what theological beliefs might have
led to last week's violent events.
Park, her mother and three other followers of her Jesus-Amen Ministries
are charged with murdering 25-year-old Kyong-A Ha at Park's Emeryville
apartment March 8. Ha died after Park and her followers allegedly
struck her repeatedly on the face, ribs and abdomen.
Bae has instructed his congregation not to talk to anyone outside the
church about Park, advising members to refer all questions to him. As a
Chronicle reporter interviewed youth group members, a church elder
politely asked her to stop, mentioning that the teenagers were shocked
and ``possibly confused.''
But some younger members of the 5-year-old church expressed their
disbelief that the woman who had once taught them the Bible is now
charged with murder.
``She taught me how to be a true Christian,'' said a 13-year-old girl
who did not want to be identified. She described Park as a gentle
person, with a kind heart and a ``really strong relationship with
God.''
Others said at times Park's religious zeal was more than noticeable.
``She was fine -- she was nice,'' said 14-year-old Dae Chung, somewhat
reluctantly. ``She was always a little wired, though.''
Published 3/20/95 in San Francisco Chronicle
|
347.62 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Whatever happened to ADDATA? | Mon Mar 20 1995 19:29 | 8 |
| <<< Note 347.49 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>
> Fundamentalists are
> usually self-described as such, they proudly claim the label.
Did the people in .0 self-describe as such? Why should you
get to decide who, from among those who don't self-describe
as such, also should be declared "fundamentalist"?
|
347.63 | CULT de jeur | SX4GTO::WANNOOR | | Mon Mar 20 1995 19:57 | 19 |
|
On NPR today, there was a discussion stemming from this...topics
discussed included
What is a cult - what are the "business practices" of one, how does
one guard against such manipulations and deception recruitment, what
are a cult's characteristics etc. Based on the collective wisdom during
the show, I understand why the Emeryville PD stops short of calling
that group a cult, and instead settled for a "sect". One of the main
id is deceptive recruitment which apparently didn't happen here, but
that group does have a "prominent leader" and that the members of a
cult takes up the value system, behaviour of that leader, and actually
obeys the leader without question. That is a characterictic of a cult.
It seems to me personally the murder was the result of cult
worshipping. It just so happens that the cult bases and associates
itself with the Christian faith.
|
347.64 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 21 1995 09:36 | 13 |
|
Joe, the fundamentalist part comes from this line of .0:
Park was ordained through the United Fundamental Church in Los Angeles and
received further training in an evangelical church in San Francisco and a
Baptist church in Richmond. Park incorporated the Jesus-Amen Ministries in Los
Angeles in 1992, according to records on file with the secretary of state.
|
347.65 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Tue Mar 21 1995 09:41 | 6 |
|
Watching DougO I think it is fair to suggest that fundamentalists are
those evangelicals who are very active politically. That should narrow
down the discussion considerably, making it manageable.
jeff
|
347.66 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! | Tue Mar 21 1995 09:55 | 6 |
|
I think we should let DougO have his little note to himself...
I get the distinct visual impression of this mad little scientist
cackling to himself everytime he types reply filename.ext and then
ctrlz
|
347.67 | Sounds like murder to me | DECLNE::REESE | ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround | Tue Mar 21 1995 12:09 | 27 |
| This episode seems very extreme, even for a fundamentalist group.
Although snake handling has been banned by law for quite some time;
in most rural areas of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee etc. it still
goes on.
About a month ago one of the night time shows, can't remember if it
was 2020 or Dateline did an interesting article on snake handling.
I had difficulty watching it because I HATE snakes!! These groups
are so small that it's hard to describe them as congregations of
any church. The belief is you can handle snakes (vipers) and come
out unscathed if you have not sinned; you sin, you get bitten.
The reporter who did the article followed one group for months.
They allowed him to video them when they were handling the snakes.
He eventually got so caught up in it he handled a snake himself
one night. At no time did this group try to FORCE the handling of
the snakes upon the people present (at least they didn't do it when
the camera was rolling).
Authorities having been trying to stamp this practice out for decades,
but haven't been able to do it. Usually they only time they hear any-
thing is when someone gets bitten and dies (happens all the time).
I'm sure family members and "church" members to encourage people to
handle the snakes, but the reporter indicated that after visiting
with several groups he never saw any of them force someone to pick
up a snake who did not want to.
|
347.68 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | I don't want to go on the cart | Tue Mar 21 1995 12:18 | 1 |
| I would have been rattled by such an experience.
|
347.71 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | aspiring peasant | Tue Mar 21 1995 13:00 | 4 |
| I'm sure the Amway folks aren't disturbed by being compared to
fundametalists either.
Brian, not a fundamental Amwayist
|
347.72 | Snakes are the good guys... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Tue Mar 21 1995 13:07 | 9 |
|
Well, I'm out of the closet. In my 20's, I kept a snake - a Boa
named Fred. I fed Fred mice and handled him daily. When I moved,
I had to sell him.
If there is re-incarnation, I think I could go for the constrictor
lifestyle.
bb
|
347.73 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 21 1995 13:48 | 7 |
|
Glenn, I think thossssse people are absssssolutley ssssssssinisssssster.
|
347.74 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 21 1995 13:50 | 2 |
| Yesterday ATC had a story on the guy who wrote the snake handling book.
Sounds like the same guy that .67 talks about.
|
347.75 | + | POWDML::BUCKLEY | you'll be gone tomorrow... | Tue Mar 21 1995 16:53 | 2 |
| I can't stand anyone on node CSLALL:: ... I sense a trend here ...
|
347.76 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | aspiring peasant | Wed Mar 22 1995 08:46 | 6 |
| Speaking of religious nutters, the Tokyogassing may have been
perpetrated by an obscure fanatical religious organization. A raid on
the organization turned up chemicals similar to those used in the
gassing, according to NPR.
Brian
|
347.77 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Mar 22 1995 10:06 | 6 |
|
BUCK'S BACK!!!!! BUCK'S BACK!!!!!! YYYEEEEEEHHAAAAAA!!!!!
|
347.78 | | POWDML::LAUER | Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces | Wed Mar 22 1995 10:25 | 5 |
|
BUCK'S FRONT!!!!! BUCK'S FRONT!!!!!!
Er, just trying to go with the flow and all that.
|
347.79 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | KFC and tandem potty tricks | Wed Mar 22 1995 10:37 | 1 |
| I won't say BUCK'S BOTTOM!!!! I won't.
|
347.80 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | KFC and tandem potty tricks | Wed Mar 22 1995 10:38 | 1 |
| The BUCK'S stop here by the way.
|
347.81 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Mar 22 1995 11:11 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 347.79 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "KFC and tandem potty tricks" >>>
| I won't say BUCK'S BOTTOM!!!! I won't.
You just did....
|
347.82 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | KFC and tandem potty tricks | Wed Mar 22 1995 11:14 | 1 |
| Oh ya.
|
347.83 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Wed Mar 22 1995 11:21 | 7 |
|
Hey, seeing we're in this topic and praising Buck and all, does that
make him a religious fundamentalist?
|
347.84 | | MPGS::MARKEY | Specialists in Horizontal Decorum | Wed Mar 22 1995 11:35 | 8 |
| >Hey, seeing we're in this topic and praising Buck and all, does that
>make him a religious fundamentalist?
Well I, for one, worship his Peavey 5150 amp! :-)
A sign! A sign! He's sent us a sign! :-)
-b
|
347.85 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | KFC and tandem potty tricks | Wed Mar 22 1995 11:39 | 1 |
| Juniper berries?
|
347.86 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Mar 24 1995 18:21 | 21 |
| 1. I have been in training and my job has kept me out of soapbox for
quite a while now. Having just caught up with this topic, let me
emphasize that no-one trashed my note here in the box on the homeless
people. I was written offline by someone who read it here.
I posted that note here and in YUKON::CHRISTIAN only.
And I should say thanks for the encouragements that came from many of
you. However, I must agree with Jim that its risky posting positive
notes about our Christianity in this forum. Most of the time we are
accused of "thumping"... the difference between the two notes; homeless
vs testimonial is that it was an act of charity versus a conversion
story. I think most people respond to ACTIONS of LOVE versus TALK of
LOVE. :-) right?
Secondly, since DougO asked for some testimonial type notes, I will be
posting two... one is my own, which was posted last version... and one
is not my own, but came via an email from a woman who I've never met,
but was completely blessed by her testimony. I don't believe she works
at Digital anymore.
Nancy
|
347.87 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Mar 24 1995 18:21 | 113 |
| I was only 2 years old when my parents divorced. My father not knowing
what else to do, promptly took me to live with his mother and father in
Kentucky. You see, my mother didn't want me. For 6 years, my
grandparents gave me the only "home" I ever had. However, what happened
during summer visitations in Florida (with my parents) was a nightmare.
My parents both lived in Tampa, Florida. During the summer, starting
at 4 years of age, my grandmother would put me on a plane to my parents.
In Florida, my father would pick me up and off we would go to his den of
darkness. My father's abode had pornography on the walls and in the
bathroom. At night he would molest me when he thought I was asleep.
During the day we didn't acknowledge anything had happened between us.
I was so young (I know it started before 4) that I didn't know any
different. I remember by age 6 asking my friends if there fathers
visited them in bed. They would all look at me shocked, so my shame
would stop me from talking about this.
At age 6, my father (who I now know was an alcoholic) liked to stop at
the bars and drink. So, my Father would leave me in the car and have
barmaids come out and bring me a grape soda and take me in the bushes
to relieve myself. At closing, he would amble out drunk and somehow
only God knows we made it home!
During this time, Mom was busy with her beaus. She had met the man of
her dreams and was not interested in me. I saw her on weekends sometimes,
but not a lot. I usually stayed with a neighbor or my older sister, if she
was there. My sister lived with my mother's parents.
Then 2 years later, at 8 years old, I began another transition. My
mother was pregnant and decided she wanted me to live with her. She got
married and my little brother was born.
Having a stepfather and 3 stepsisters was more then difficult for me.
My stepsisters, as well as our "new baby brother", all slept in the same
room. I had one stepsister who didn't like me or my mother. She physically
and verbally abused me whenever I was left in her care. She was 8 years
older than me. Her abuse along with the *other* abuse made me feel very
insignificant. I became an uncooperative child. It felt as though my
very soul had been taken from me.
Because of the amount of alcohol and dysfunction in our home, my
stepfather and mother had frequent violent, drunken fights. Sometimes my
stepfather would go in the closet, pull out the shotgun, and shoot
up the house! God only knows why no-one ever got hit by a stray bullet.
It is impossible to describe the total emptiness in my heart when as a
little girl I listened to them fighting. To liken it to a cold, dark,
pit with no escape, touches the surface.
To further worsen matters, a year later when I was 9, my father met a
woman who had a daughter my age, whom she willingly turned over to my
father's bed. I now had competition for the only "constant" person in
my life, my father.
When I was with my mother, there was a lot of verbal abuse. She also
consumed her fair share of alcohol, which worsened things. I was angry
that my mother never "protected" me. My father's house was full of
pornography everywhere for everyone to see. But at this time, she took
me there, faithfully, every weekend and left me with him. She never
questioned what kind of environment I was in.
Then, though no-one else, not my sister, not my mother, not my
grandparents, no-one picked up on an overly sexual 10 year old, except
my stepfather who took notice, and was now making nighttime visits to my
bed.
All of my stepsisters had married and the only other person in the room
besides me was my infant brother. Therefore, it was safe *for him* to
make his visits.
But there was no safe place for me as a child. This continued until I
was 13. I had become so rebellious and my mouth was rather filthy as
well. When my mother would request that I do something, I would shout
obscenities at her and tell her to do it herself. I now hated this woman
who didn't protect me with every fibre of my soul. I begged my mother to
spend time with me and she never did! She didn't spend enough time with
me to gain confidence, so that I could tell her the pain I was carrying
around.
Then finally, relief came. My mother had called Juvenile Hall and
fabricated a story that I was on drugs and skipping school (I was
considered incorrigible). The truth is I *never* took drugs, and I
*never* skipped school. I was on the honor roll! But no-one asked me,
they just went to my school, on my 13th birthday and the Florida State
authorities picked me up and placed me in their custody.
When I was brought in front of the Judge who heard my mother's case, I
was asked this question, "How do you feel about living with another family
that is not your own?". My response verbatim without blinking an eye was,
"Anything is better then living with these people." The last words I
spoke in front of my mother for a very long time.
Praise God, He had His hand on my life. I went into a Christian foster
home. Once settled in (that took some doing), I resisted the plan of
salvation for about a year. Then my foster parents gave me a book to
read entitled "Run Baby Run" by Nicky Cruz. In that book when Nicky asked
Jesus into his heart, I knelt on my bed and asked Jesus into my heart and to
forgive me of my sins.
Many miracles occurred in my life after my faith in Christ.
Immediately, the hate for my mother turned to love. My biological
father paid for me to go to a Christian School, where I was blessed to
hear the powerful preaching/teaching of Godly men like, Jack Hyles,
John R. Rice, Bob Gray, and Lester Roloff.
My life verse, that I have claimed since I was 14 is Psalms 27:10,
"When my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will
take me up."
|
347.88 | Conversion from Occult | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Mar 24 1995 18:22 | 101 |
| ==============================================================================
From: ELMAGO::ABENAVIDEZ "I have decided to follow Jesus" 14-NOV-1994 18:25:00.37
CC: ABENAVIDEZ
Subj: RE: Call for papers
I never did get a paper in to you, but as one of the last things I do here
at Digital, I decided to give a brief testimony as to the miracle of salvation
in my life and just recently an answer to a mother's prayer. You don't have
to publish it if it is too lengthy.
I would not be able to list all the things that God has done for me. But here
it is in a nutshell.....
After what seems a lifetime of searching I really do feel like I've been
awakened from a bad dream. I accepted Jesus Christ as my LORD and SAVIOR at
the age of 28 just after coming out of a long separation and not so messy
divorce but a very bad marriage. I had two young children, both boys.
The sins in my life leading up to my conversion are so many. I've been
forgiven so much...so I am very much grateful to what the Lord has done. It
involved drugs, fornication, adultery, the occult. I can't believe that He
accepted me.
As a child I was molested in the back yard of my own home. It was not
a re-occurring thing, but I could never forget what happened and a hatred
began to grow in my heart for men and even my parents for not realizing the
danger and protecting me. People sometimes remarked that I always looked so
sad. As I entered into adolescence I became rebellious.
At thirteen I had found friends who could get me liquor and was drinking a
fifth of vodka before school in the morning. At sixteen I fell into a
relationship where I was routinely beaten, then raped. The thoughts in my
mind even turned to murder, not even thinking of consequences, just wanting a
way out of it. Then it occurred to me that it would be easier to end my own
life. So one day, I was alone, I took a bottle of tylenol and couple of glasses
of whiskey and took it. Then I waited thinking it would be very quick,...
nothing happened. That night I went to my room and fell asleep. I was awakened
in the middle of the night gagging and vomiting. My mother heard me and wanted
to take me to the hospital, not knowing what was happening. I refused.
I began to shake and vomit and did so until the next morning. God's grace was
upon me I believe, even then. I came out of this even more angry but decided
to never attempt this again. If someone had to pay, it would not be me...
I went into a marriage at this time, not really caring whether it worked or
not. It was another abusive relationship, though not physically. There was
almost daily use of drugs and adultery in the marriage. After six years, there
was nothing left to salvage (in the world's eyes at least) so I took my two
sons and quietly divorced.
The occult was very attractive to me, reading any occultic literature I could
find, I was attracted to and attracted the same type of people to me, who
wanted to "read my cards" or "show me a spell to get rid of my enemies". I
had abstract dreams and found books to learn to interpret them. I began to
sell my skills in hand writing analysis. People were so hungry to know the
future and find out something about themselves. But I still couldn't find an
answer for myself. I began to have dreams about demonic beings, sometimes not
knowing if I was actually asleep or awake. I had whirlwind relationships,
thinking this is the way everyone has to be (right?). There's just got to
be more to life than this..I began to think...
About this time, my younger brother gave his life to Jesus (in the Air Force
of all places!) He came home on leave and told me about Jesus. I listened and
told him "I already know" I know all about religion, but I knew about religion
without the power in the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ. None the less,
I went to church with him and not even intending to, practically leaped out
of my chair at the altar call. Even though I had sat through an altar call
before. I cried with JOY as my burdens were lifted from me!
It's been nine years since that day. One year later I was married to a
man who also loves God with all his heart in that same little church. Along
with my stepson two more little boys have been added to the family so that
makes five sons. We are now pastoring a small church. People sometimes tell
me that "I" needed to get saved, but the truth is ALL of us fall short of
the Glory of GOD.
God is still on the throne. He delivered me, gave me dignity, and healed my
bitterness. He can change any impossible circumstance in HIS Grace,
HIS timing and mercy, and still is changing lives with miracles.
Just recently my oldest son came down with a deadly form of strep, called
Beta Hemulytic Strep (spelling may be wrong, basically a flesh eating strain
of strep) Thinking it would go away (teenage logic???) he did not tell us
about the ulcers that were growing around his ankle. I felt a stong burden
for him especially him at this time to pray and fight for him spiritually and
did so every morning, not know what was wrong. By the time we found out,
cultures were in,...etc...tests positive...It had been three weeks and I was
not even prepared for what it looked like.
The last word from the doctor is "You're a very lucky young man, For some
reason, I don't understand, it did not go to the next level and stopped at
your skin". He is alive and did not lose his leg. I praise God every day for
walking me through this every step of the way.
Annabel
[Annabel's last day at Digital is today (18th) as the ABO plant closes down.
After 11 years with the company, she says she is "very happy to be TFSO'd"
and will now have the opportunity to spend more time with her children
and help her husband in the ministry. Her youngest is 2, the oldest 16.
Please pray for her, and thank and praise our Lord for plucking her out of
the life that had enveloped her. He is SO GOOD!!! - Richard]
|
347.89 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The Completion Backwards Principle | Mon Mar 27 1995 15:04 | 16 |
| RE: .88
Ahem, well. Not to piss anyone off or anything, but why do
Christians feel the need to parade the perennial losers
and misfits who can do no more than admit their own lack
of self-motivation, responsibility, or social adaptability?
For people like the original author of .88, Jesus is the
latest in a long list of mechanisms they use to deny
responsibility for their own life.
I'm hardly impressed with testimonies like .88. I'd be more
impressed hearing from someone who managed to lead a decent
life in the first place and for whom Jesus is the Savior, but
not a crutch.
-b
|
347.90 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 27 1995 15:55 | 27 |
| | <<< Note 347.89 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>
| Ahem, well. Not to piss anyone off or anything, but why do Christians feel the
| need to parade the perennial losers and misfits who can do no more than admit
| their own lack of self-motivation, responsibility, or social adaptability?
Brian, I'm sure what I'm about to say will be useful for you...DUCK!
I do understand what you are saying, but if someone had it easy, and
gave testimony, many might not be AS impressed. If someone went through literal
Hell before the conversion, it is much more impressive, and helps show what He
can really do in tough times. I do agree with you that both should be talked
about, as in real life you have so many different kinds of people in different
situations who were saved.
| I'm hardly impressed with testimonies like .88. I'd be more impressed hearing
| from someone who managed to lead a decent life in the first place and for whom
| Jesus is the Savior, but not a crutch.
Brian, even for one who has had a decent life, Jesus would still be a
crutch. There is so much to go through once one gives their life to Jesus, that
leaning on Him is done as when one gives up their life for Him, they depend on
Him for answers, guidance and such. Does this make any sense?
Glen
|
347.91 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Mon Mar 27 1995 16:00 | 13 |
| .90
> even for one who has had a decent life, Jesus would still be a
> crutch.
If you had the faintest idea what Christianity is all about, you would
understand that there's a difference between a crutch and a friend. I
do not lean on Jesus. I am responsible for my actions. Was your
mother a crutch when she forgave you for unintentionally breaking her
Limoges vase (or whatever)? No. You still broke the vase, and it was
ENTIRELY your fault. But she continued to love you, and she may have
elected to punish you less, or not at all, because you were sorry. Get
the picture?
|
347.92 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 27 1995 16:15 | 15 |
|
Dick, if you read the rest of the note, you would see what it was I
refered to as a crutch. If you have a problem, do you ever ask Jesus for help?
I do. He's the first one I ask. If someone else has a problem, I ask Him to
help them out too. I depend on Him to get me through each and every day. Most
Christians I know also do the same. He is a crutch, as He is called upon first
by many to help with jams they might have gotten into, etc. He is more than
JUST a crutch, like you said, He is also a friend.
If I do something on my own, then I am responsible for it. But that is
a different subject altogether.
Glen
|
347.93 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 27 1995 16:43 | 4 |
|
Brian, did you try and fix your Mr to a Miss/Ms or Mrs?????? I saw it
me boy.....
|
347.94 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The Completion Backwards Principle | Mon Mar 27 1995 16:46 | 19 |
| > Brian, I'm sure what I'm about to say will be useful for you...DUCK!
Nope, I said it, I'll take the heat for it. That's the difference;
I didn't say, "I think this, I'm a nasty evil foul-smelling budgie
for thinking it, but Jesus saved me so it's OK."
I said it, I think it, and I'm %100 responsible for the content.
Look, I think spirituality is a wonderful (and necessary) thing.
My own spiritual journey indicates that there's some portion of
people who "get it" and then there's some other portion of people
who are just so dense that they wouldn't "get it" if it screamed
at the top of its lungs while knocking them about the head.
Mr .88 strikes me as a case in point. Christianity, like all
Spiritual paths, attracts its share of cluelessness. Most
religions, however, are wise enough to keep the idiots locked
in the closet, and not parade them about for public viewing.
-b
|
347.95 | Wrong topic, I know | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Mar 27 1995 16:49 | 8 |
| > Most religions, however, are wise enough to keep the idiots locked
> in the closet, and not parade them about for public viewing.
If the Libertarians could only learn this, we might be able to see the
end of this silly two_parties_are_one political system of ours . . .
:^)
|
347.96 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 27 1995 16:49 | 18 |
| | <<< Note 347.94 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>
| Mr .88 strikes me as a case in point. Christianity, like all Spiritual paths,
| attracts its share of cluelessness.
Brian, you must be religious then. Mr .88 married a man. I don't think
Mr .88 is a man though. You're clueless Brian.... heh heh....
| Most religions, however, are wise enough to keep the idiots locked in the
| closet, and not parade them about for public viewing.
Like they did with some priests? No way pal. I'd rather have them deal
with their laundry, whether dirty or not, than to have them hide it away.
Hiding just gives a false outlook on the reality of any given situation.
Glen
|
347.97 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The Completion Backwards Principle | Mon Mar 27 1995 17:05 | 20 |
|
>Like they did with some priests? No way pal. I'd rather have them deal
>with their laundry, whether dirty or not, than to have them hide it away.
>Hiding just gives a false outlook on the reality of any given situation.
I don't see the Catholic Church parading pedophile priests as
an example of how effectively God can help sinners, do you?
What I'm talking about is entirely different. I'm talking about
the PR wisdom of using testimonies such as .88. I don't mean
to pick on Nancy for posting that either. Turn on TBN or 700
Club and the testimonies are skewed heavily in the direction
of the losers. Are losers that common? Or has the church
simply given up on the rest of the non-losers that they would
risk alienating them by stressing the underbelly of civilization?
Maybe _someone_ is impressed with stories like .88, but I'm
certainly not.
-b
|
347.98 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Mon Mar 27 1995 17:20 | 2 |
|
I know just what you mean, Bri.
|
347.99 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Mar 27 1995 17:30 | 21 |
|
Unfortunately TBN and to a lesser degree, the 700 club are not good sources
for views on Christianity/testimonies. Its the local everyday church where
everyday people like you and me come to the realization that there is a
separation between God and man, and the bridge (not crutch) is Jesus Christ.
I've known people from all walks of life (including like .88) who have
come to Christ.
I'm not saying folks on TBN/700 club are not truly Christians, but they tend
to sensationalize the conversion almost to where the spotlight is on them
and not Jesus Christ.
I believe .88 is real. Call her clueless/whatever. But one cannot deny that
a change has happened in her life and she is on a different track.
Jim
|
347.100 | fundamental snarf | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member in good standing | Mon Mar 27 1995 17:30 | 3 |
|
This one's for you, Di....... ;')
|
347.101 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The Completion Backwards Principle | Mon Mar 27 1995 17:43 | 13 |
| >I believe .88 is real.
No offense, but I don't believe her. I sense she's full of something
regarding her knowledge of occultism, and this makes me wonder if she's
any less full of something after meeting Jesus...
> Call her clueless/whatever. But one cannot deny that a change has
> happened in her life and she is on a different track.
There's a fine line between a track and a rut, and given the
history of .88, I'd be more inclined to believe the latter...
-b
|
347.102 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 27 1995 17:44 | 22 |
| | <<< Note 347.97 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>
| I don't see the Catholic Church parading pedophile priests as an example of
| how effectively God can help sinners, do you?
It actually does Brian. It shows one, that even one who is like they
are can see the sin, and then deal with it. That says a lot about how God can
help sinners. But remember, I said dirty laundry, OR NOT. People can have
little quirks about them and still be great Christians. To hide them away
because of the quirks is a disservice to God, and the person. (imho)
| Turn on TBN or 700 Club and the testimonies are skewed heavily in the
| direction of the losers.
I wouldn't call them, or anyone else for that matter a loser. Troubled,
maybe. :-) But Brian, they are the stories that grip the most people. They are
the ones that get broadcast the most. But they are far from the only ones
mentioned.
Glen
|
347.103 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Mon Mar 27 1995 17:46 | 9 |
|
RE: .101
Brian, please correct me if I am wrong, but I was left with the
impression that you passed judgement on the validity of the womans story.
Is this true?
|
347.104 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Mon Mar 27 1995 17:54 | 8 |
|
For the record (not that anyone gives a rat's patoot), I _don't_
agree with a lot of what Brian has said - just the part about
not being particularly impressed with this type of story. I'd
rather hear accounts from regular types, if from anyone, though
I can pretty much do without that too.
|
347.105 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The Completion Backwards Principle | Mon Mar 27 1995 18:06 | 12 |
| > Brian, please correct me if I am wrong, but I was left with the
>impression that you passed judgment on the validity of the womans
>story. Is this true?
Well, I am skeptical. I see a lot of dime-store occultism here,
someone who would throw in with the New Age moment at the drop
of a hat. That can be a useful clue barometer.
With such nonsense comes a lack of credibility. Is credibility
automatically reinstated when one finds Jesus?
-b
|
347.106 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The Completion Backwards Principle | Mon Mar 27 1995 18:09 | 11 |
| > For the record (not that anyone gives a rat's patoot), I _don't_
> agree with a lot of what Brian has said - just the part about
> not being particularly impressed with this type of story. I'd
> rather hear accounts from regular types, if from anyone, though
> I can pretty much do without that too.
The Lady Di, wisely sensing that I am moving closer and closer
to self-destruction here, chooses to distance herself. Were
it that I had the same wisdom... :-) :-) :-)
-b
|
347.107 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Mar 27 1995 18:17 | 25 |
|
RE: <<< Note 347.105 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>
> With such nonsense comes a lack of credibility. Is credibility
> automatically reinstated when one finds Jesus?
Good point, and I believe the answer to that is no, or at least not im-
mediately. "You shall know them by their fruit" it says in the Bible..some
folks claim to have "found" Christ and you wouldn't know it by their lives..
Larry Flynt, Publisher of Hustler Magazine for one. Some get on their feet
immediately and one can see the fruits of their conversion. Others, get up,
stumble, get up, stumble, but the truth of their conversion is evident.
Ultimately, its hard to judge, and I've learned (or I think I've learned)not
to, though I don't believe examining one's fruit, so to speak, is judging.
But, I've witnessed some significant changes in lives as a result of one's
coming to Jesus Christ.
Jim
|
347.108 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The Completion Backwards Principle | Mon Mar 27 1995 18:23 | 17 |
| >But, I've witnessed some significant changes in lives as a result
>of one's coming to Jesus Christ.
Most certainly. And those changes are usually for the better.
It is not my goal to "judge" the validity of the testimony at
hand... my original question relates to its value. I've gone
down an unfortunate rathole here regarding my opinion of
what she said, which is insignificant.
But perhaps, even as Rome burns, I can redirect this... does
this type of testimony "reach" a significant amount of people?
As I said, it certainly does not have the desired effect on
me... so, am I alone in that reaction (well, it seems Lady
Di is with me, at least as far as that goes).
-b
|
347.109 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Mon Mar 27 1995 18:37 | 24 |
|
> But perhaps, even as Rome burns, I can redirect this... does
> this type of testimony "reach" a significant amount of people?
> As I said, it certainly does not have the desired effect on
> me... so, am I alone in that reaction (well, it seems Lady
> Di is with me, at least as far as that goes).
Generally speaking, I must admit that as a Bible believing, Baptist Church
member, I will occasionally wonder about such things. Why? Not sure.
Perhaps because my own "conversion" was not quite as "spectacular" its
difficult for me to identify with the person. However, knowing people
personally who have experienced similar conversions, I know it happens.
I don't put a limit on what Christ can do.
There are some groups of Christians who *all* seem to have come from
similar backgrounds as .88, and as I said before the focus seems to be
on the person, rather than Christ.
Jim
|
347.110 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | oh-oh. It go. It gone. Bye-bye. | Mon Mar 27 1995 18:39 | 16 |
| For the record, I'm more than a little offended that
thre's a perception that if someone "read cards"
and "analyzes handwriting" they've suddenly become
capable of breaking into rituals idolizing
Satan at the drop of a hat.
I read cards, runes, and analyze handwriting. I do not
idolize Satan. I will not perform acts which hurt other
people. I am a member of a religion as old as the earth,
and I am proud of what I believe and what I have acomplished
with my life.
This lack of understanding is what leads to violence
and intolerance of all faiths.
Mary-Michael
|
347.111 | Reference to a long-running debate on alt.paganism | MPGS::MARKEY | The Completion Backwards Principle | Mon Mar 27 1995 18:54 | 5 |
| >I am a member of a religion as old as the earth,
Or as old as Gardner, whichever came later... :-)
-b
|
347.112 | | TINCUP::AGUE | DTN-592-4939, 719-598-3498(SSL) | Mon Mar 27 1995 19:35 | 12 |
| So far the testimonies seem to suggest self-centered healing and read like: "I
was a lousy person, then I found Jesus and I no longer do the dumb things I used
to do."
I would like to see one that says: "I was an OK person, then I found Jesus, and
now I help at an interdenominational soup kitchen downtown, I provide safe
housing for battered wives, I donate to Goodwill without any concern for the tax
writeoff, ...".
Why does the Jesus salvation seem to only be selfishly applied?
-- Jim
|
347.113 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Mon Mar 27 1995 19:40 | 5 |
|
>>Why does the Jesus salvation seem to only be selfishly applied?
that's an extremely good question.
|
347.114 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Tue Mar 28 1995 00:01 | 24 |
|
>I would like to see one that says: "I was an OK person, then I found Jesus, and
>now I help at an interdenominational soup kitchen downtown, I provide safe
>housing for battered wives, I donate to Goodwill without any concern for the tax
>writeoff, ...".
I take it you're certain that none who accept Christ do any of the above. I
give, not as liberally as I'd like, but I give money and time, don't take
tax writeoffs for any donation (and I know many who do the same). There are
many, many Christians who do the above and more. Shall we wear hats and T
shirts that identify us as Born Again Christians so someone can keep score?
>Why does the Jesus salvation seem to only be selfishly applied?
Unfortuntately I believe this to be true in some cases, but not as
much as you might think.
Jim
|
347.115 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | aspiring peasant | Tue Mar 28 1995 09:29 | 7 |
| I think the point made several times already is why are the testimonies
we see and hear in the box and elsewhere always stories of despair and
hopelessness? Where are the folks that had okay, non-abusive,
non-selfdestructive pasts that "saw the light"? Where are the
pedestrian stories of converts that got the holy V-8 slap?
Brian
|
347.116 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 28 1995 09:43 | 20 |
| I think the purpose of the sensationalistic-type conversion stories
(mine not being one of them), is to show that no matter how far "gone"
or how rotten a person you think you are, there is a loving God who
will accept you and love you as you are. This type of love changes
people. The more their life went astray, the more thankful and the
more drastic the change will seem to be (there is a huge change,
obviously, in Satan worshipers who come to Christ...and I have heard more
than one story regarding this type of conversion).
The point is not is saying 'I was a lousy person and now I'm great'.
If this is what you get from .88 then you are not reading it in the
intended context. The point is more like 'I was a rotten person, but
God accepted me as I was ANYWAY'. These types of conversions should
give hope to anyone who feels they are too far away from God to be in
His plan.
It is never too late to accept God's grace, His free gift to mankind.
-steve
|
347.117 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Tue Mar 28 1995 10:07 | 35 |
|
RE: <<< Note 347.115 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "aspiring peasant" >>>
> I think the point made several times already is why are the testimonies
> we see and hear in the box and elsewhere always stories of despair and
> hopelessness? Where are the folks that had okay, non-abusive,
> non-selfdestructive pasts that "saw the light"? Where are the
> pedestrian stories of converts that got the holy V-8 slap?
Here's one. I grew up in a fairly normal family. My mother died when I
was 8, my Dad remarried, we lived in a nice suburban San Francisco area,
and there was no abuse. I came to know Christ rather simply, through a
series of people that God put in my life. I'd gone to churches much of
my life but had never heard the Gospel or the plan of Salvation. But,
these people over a period of time gave me enough to the point one night
laying awake I *knew* God was calling me. I wasn't even attending a church
at that time, but I knew I needed to be. At the age of 27 my then wife and
I found a church, liked it, met with the pastor and asked Christ into our
lives..pretty simple.
Like I've said before, every day in churches there are stories like mine..
typical people, living normal lives who come to Christ. There are those
like .88, and like much else in our world, the sensational testamonies
make news. In the Bible we see everyday people coming to Christ and we
also see the "sensational". God can, and does, work wonders in people who
come to Him.
Jim
|
347.118 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 28 1995 10:10 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 347.115 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "aspiring peasant" >>>
| Where are the pedestrian stories of converts that got the holy V-8 slap?
Brian, that was too funny. Ya definitely got a way with words. :-)
|
347.119 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Tue Mar 28 1995 10:12 | 7 |
|
>> Like I've said before, every day in churches there are stories like mine..
>> typical people, living normal lives who come to Christ.
And like (we've) said before, it's inspiring to hear about those
people, in fact to some of us, more inspiring than hearing about the
up-from-the-pits-of-despair people.
|
347.120 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | aspiring peasant | Tue Mar 28 1995 12:11 | 5 |
| Thanks Glen and ditto what Di said.
|
347.121 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Mar 28 1995 13:35 | 4 |
| How sad that one cannot see that God can restore a person to wholeness,
and take a whole person and convince them of their brokenness.
|
347.122 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Tue Mar 28 1995 13:38 | 3 |
|
.121 Is that just a general lament or did you have any particular
unseeing person(s) in mind?
|
347.123 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The Completion Backwards Principle | Tue Mar 28 1995 14:00 | 35 |
|
Guaranteed to set my BS detector off big time: someone prattling
on about the occult, and especially "demonic beings".
Unless there are some very specific "keywords" used in relation
to the discussion, intended for those who are aware of the meaning
of such keywords through initiated status in hermetic orders,
what you have are one of two things: a liar or a fool.
Either one is extremely unpleasant. Add to this a person who
does this as "past tense", meaning that they were once a fool
but now make wild claims regarding their foolishness, which
presently makes them a liar.
Yes, this is sad. Very sad, because this is the type of person
that a lot of the more visible elements of the Christian faith
tend to use as an example. And I question the wisdom of such
examples, as have others.
The norm, of course, is stories like Jim's. And that is where
faith in God works its true miracles.
The media stresses what most people consider the worst of the
Christian faith... those whose doctrine can best be described
as "live and let live as long as everyone lives in the manner
of which I approve, because of course, the way _I_ live is
exactly what God had in mind..."
The flip side of the coin is the Christians themselves who
have shown absolutely no PR savvy. With the mix of money-
grubbing hucksters, reformed New Agers and bad hairdos
that dominate the Christian media, it's no wonder the average
person can't make any sense out of any of it.
-b
|
347.124 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Tue Mar 28 1995 14:13 | 6 |
|
But Brian, Christianity is not a monolith. And why would someone look
to the media (of all places) for a fair/accurate representation of
Christianity?
jeff
|
347.126 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Mar 28 1995 14:23 | 11 |
| The truth is Jimbo was right in the very beginning of this note,
stating that notes testimonial in nature would be trashed.
All DougO asked for was testimonies showing how Christianity helped an
individual. That's what I put in here.. and take a look at the
responeses!
I find it interesting and thankful that no-one took pot shots at my
personal testimony.
Nancy
|
347.127 | You = generic you | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Mar 28 1995 14:27 | 11 |
| Di,
re: .121
God works in both ways.. what is beneficial to you, may not beneficial
to another. I believe to lament on the usefulness of the testimonies
put in there thus far is to be somewhat shortsighted, while appearing
to be all-knowing.
Nancy
|
347.128 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The Completion Backwards Principle | Tue Mar 28 1995 14:31 | 42 |
| >But Brian, Christianity is not a monolith. And why would someone look
>to the media (of all places) for a fair/accurate representation of
>Christianity?
I'm tempted to describe my role here as "devil's advocate", but
I'm afraid the intended humor would be lost... :-)
I seem to be doing a very poor job of making my point. As you
are probably aware, I have very little trust of the media,
_any_ media. Media == propaganda in my view.
I want to get my information elsewhere... perhaps I'm a person
searching for God's message. I come here, expecting to see
something that will plant the seed of faith in my heart. So
what do I find instead? An _extremely_ fishy story.
_Maybe_ just _maybe_, that story reached someone and had the
desired effect on them. On the other hand, it had rather the
opposite effect on at least one other person.
And therein, lies the point. The point is, when you're trying
to present Jesus, I think it's worth putting a little thought
into exactly what you're presenting. In the case of the
testimony given here, one could conclude just as easily that
Jesus has had _no_ effect on this person's life, that Jesus
is in fact just the latest "thing", a passing phase... plus,
such testimonies, as someone else mentioned, seem very self-
centered and hardly have anything to do with the saving grace
of Jesus Christ... it's mostly "poor poor pitiful me" kinda
stuff.
Nancy's previous story, about helping a homeless family,
is more the type of PR I think Christians should be doing.
On the other hand, the best effect of such PR is not in
the telling, but in the doing.
But for now, I think I've said pretty much all I have to
say on the subject. I know I've come dangerously close to
offending people, and that was not my intent... Just
engaging in a bit of thought provocation...
-b
|
347.129 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Mar 28 1995 14:40 | 24 |
| .128
re: "poor, poor pitiful me"
I've often wondered if that is what my own personal testimony sounds
like. I hope not. But facts are facts, and I've not embellished one
of them in my note. The truth is that my testimony is mild compared to
many abuse situations of which I am personally aware.
I worked on the streets of San Jose, teaching young girls just prior to
Jr. High how to stay out of gangs, sex and drugs by a commitment to
Christ. I could only do this because of my own upbringing, which has
offered me insight that only one who has been there can really share.
I am not unique, I am rather common place in most of Christianity
today. And most ashamedly, I am not unique in failure. While my heart
strives to do right, I've fallen short of my own personal standard far
too many times.
I'm almost 37 years old, and I learn something new every day about
myself, about life and about others.
Nancy
|
347.130 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 28 1995 14:53 | 14 |
| > All DougO asked for was testimonies showing how Christianity helped
> an individual.
Well, not quite, but those certainly fit here. What I want is a
discussion of fundamentalist behavior of all types; testimonies,
lawsuits, abusive situations, terrorism...Christian or whatever.
Anything that carries the fundamentalist label is fit for this topic.
I'm sure a few people choked when they read your statement, though!
Can anyone imagine Covert reading that line with a straight face?
Or Joe Oppelt? Or Aristotle? Those guys think I'm a church basher
;-).
DougO
|
347.131 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum | Tue Mar 28 1995 14:59 | 12 |
|
>> How sad that one cannot see that God can restore a person to wholeness,
>> and take a whole person and convince them of their brokenness.
Nancy, do you not see how self-righteous this sounds? What makes you
think that anyone in here who believes in God "cannot see" that God
can restore a person to wholeness, etc.? No-one who questioned the
testimony in .88 or its usefulness has said they can't see these things.
And if you weren't referring to anyone in here, then it must be
a general lament, no?
|
347.132 | I'm being serious, too! | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:04 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 347.124 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
| But Brian, Christianity is not a monolith. And why would someone look to the
| media (of all places) for a fair/accurate representation of Christianity?
I know, watching the 700 club and stuff really makes me want to puke
sometimes.
Glen
|
347.133 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:05 | 10 |
|
Are the bunch in Japan who may have been involved in the nerve gas attack
considered fundamenalists? Or are sects of buddhism exempt?
Jim
|
347.134 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:06 | 13 |
|
> I know, watching the 700 club and stuff really makes me want to puke
>sometimes.
So don't watch it..
Jim
|
347.135 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:07 | 7 |
| RE: .133
Jim,
If they respond to terms like "thumper" and "fundies" then they fit the
bill...
|
347.136 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The Completion Backwards Principle | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:07 | 44 |
| RE: Nancy
>I've often wondered if that is what my own personal testimony sounds
>like. I hope not.
Not at all...
>I worked on the streets of San Jose, teaching young girls just prior to
>Jr. High how to stay out of gangs, sex and drugs by a commitment to
>Christ. I could only do this because of my own upbringing, which has
>offered me insight that only one who has been there can really share.
I see your point. If someone has had a difficult life, it is
easier for someone who has had similar experiences to reach
them. But this goes back to my point about understanding
your audience. The readers of Soapbox for the most part are
not people who are struggling with these issues in the same
way an adolescent would be.
> I am not unique, I am rather common place in most of Christianity
>today. And most ashamedly, I am not unique in failure. While my heart
>strives to do right, I've fallen short of my own personal standard far
>too many times.
I think it is the "common place" ones who have potentially
a greater effect. If I'm searching for an accountant,
let's say, I would probably be skeptical of someone who
told me they used to steal large sums of money, but now
they're OK. Well, if I'm searching for spiritual guidance,
I'm more inclined to want help from someone who wasn't
a member of the "Religion of the Month Club", or who
threw in with any and all forms of foolishness at the
drop of a hat.
>I'm almost 37 years old, and I learn something new every day about
>myself, about life and about others.
This is life itself; we all learn the same lessons, regardless
of faith. Faith perhaps gives one a different "spin" on these
lessons... but some people seem to be saying "although I've
screwed up every single chance I've ever been given, I'm
fine now because I'm saved." Uh uh.
-b
|
347.137 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:10 | 7 |
| I don't believe they self-describe as fundamentalists, which I've
previously described. They don't seem to have a written doctrine,
instead relying on the pronouncements of a select inner circle and a
headliner. If you want to include them, though, I wouldn't object;
perhaps I should change the title of the basenote.
DougO
|
347.138 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:11 | 4 |
| > If they respond to terms like "thumper" and "fundies" then they fit the
> bill...
Bambi's friend responds to "Thumper."
|
347.139 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:55 | 26 |
| | <<< Note 347.126 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
| All DougO asked for was testimonies showing how Christianity helped an
| individual. That's what I put in here.. and take a look at the responeses!
Did you look at them Nancy? People stated they would like to see more
of the normal responses. Nothing wrong with that. The lady in the note kept
jumping from thing to thing, so it really is no wonder that people would say
it's just another stop along her journey through life. People may not have
worded things the way you might have wanted to, but the content of their notes
was that they wanted to see more of the normal savings, and that they
questioned the woman who says she is saved now. I mean think about it Nancy,
she has made so many changes, who is to say this is where she will stay?
| I find it interesting and thankful that no-one took pot shots at my personal
| testimony.
Nancy, people know you. They know what you're like. If they have any
questions, they can ask you because you're here. They see your faith in you,
so it is easier to see it as being real. With the person in .88, they can't see
that as they are really just reading about where she is at this time.
Glen
|
347.140 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:57 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 347.134 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>
| So don't watch it..
Most of the time I don't Jim.
|
347.141 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Tue Mar 28 1995 15:59 | 4 |
|
Only when you feel like puking?
|
347.142 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Mar 28 1995 16:07 | 7 |
| .138
The woman who gave her testimony has been faithful to Christ for quite
some time now over 5 years as I recall. Doesn't sound like its passing
any time too soon. :-) I hope this helps.
Nancy
|
347.143 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | | Tue Mar 28 1995 16:24 | 9 |
|
re: .138
"thumper" vs. "Thumper"
I think Thumper knows he's a thumper without causing too much
distraction...
|
347.144 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Squirrels R Me | Tue Mar 28 1995 16:28 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 347.141 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>
| Only when you feel like puking?
It helps get rid of the dry heaves, and helps promot puking. I guess a
finger would work for both. :-)
|
347.145 | | CSOA1::LEECH | Go Hogs! | Tue Mar 28 1995 16:41 | 18 |
| re: .138
To add to Nancy's last note, I think that the "jumping into this and
that" is a common theme for many who are looking to fill a void in
their life.
I liked the phrase (forget who said it): "There is a God-sized hole in
everyone's heart." At least, that's how I remember it (I've probably
assassinated the phrase 8^) ).
Those who earnestly seek God, will find Him. That's why that void is
there, to get us to search for Him in earnest. Unfortunately, there
are a multitude of cults waiting to snare the seeker. The Bible has
been given to us to help us sift out the truth, and keep us from the
wrong path.
-steve
|
347.146 | | KAOFS::B_VANVALKENB | | Tue Apr 04 1995 13:51 | 16 |
| why look outside of yourself ?
there are so many questions about life that are unanswered and likely
will always be unanswered. Making some arbitrary thing responsible for
these things is not an answer it is merely a crutch designed by those
that are unwilling to accept reality.
If you have an emptiness in you heart it is because "you think"
something is missing. Like a child that hopes for a horse for their
birthday and is dissapointed with a Celebris.
Try loving someone that is flesh and blood or get a job that you
find satisfying.
Brian V
|
347.147 | strikes a chord | RDGE44::ALEUC8 | | Tue Apr 04 1995 13:53 | 5 |
| .146
way to go
ric
|
347.148 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | You-Had-Forty-Years!!! | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:19 | 29 |
| ZZ Try loving someone that is flesh and blood or get a job that you
ZZ find satisfying.
The 2nd greatest commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself.
This along with loving God was all summed up in the law and the
prophets.
Loving ones neighbor is a nice metaphor; but within its context there
is a lot more involved. Discipline for example is an element of loving
flesh and blood. Rebuking, exhorting, and admonishing are elements of
love but to be exhorted for something can sting.
Jesus is spoken of as the greatest teacher by many...yet when it really
comes down to the rubber meeting the road, the same people reject alot
of what Jesus said. The greatest act of love Jesus did was to give his
life as a ransom for the world. Yet he explained over and over again
that he had to do this because of the sin of man and the eternal
separation man incurs through sin. If this isn't the greatest example
of loving flesh and blood, I don't know what is.
As far as finding a job that is satisfying, the majority do not. And
even if you do, remember that in light of eternity, it is a very short
time. Remember the movie Scrooge? Under the shroud of the ghost of
Christmas present, there were two children. The ghost said to Scrooge
"This boy and girl are called Ignorance and Want. Beware of these two
children but especially the boy (Ignorance)). We need to realize the
whole picture of what true love encompasses.
-Jack
|
347.149 | $$$$$$$$ to me | KAOFS::B_VANVALKENB | | Tue Apr 04 1995 14:31 | 18 |
| Hey, take good advise where ever you can get it
But I'll give you a break.
Take good advise from me and I wont make you worship me for the rest
of your life or tell you that you are inherently bad.
Brian V
A small cheque will be sufficient.
Remember it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to get to heaven.
: )
|
347.150 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Wed Apr 05 1995 11:05 | 9 |
| The problem is many people refuse to take responsibility for their
lives. They become intrenched in a concept of authority, such as
government or the god concept. This allows them to place the blame on
others instead of examining reality and working for that which they
desire. They use myth, fantasy and emotions, that have no basis in
reality, and then complain when what they desire is unobtainable. They
blame everything except themselves.
...Tom
|
347.152 | | SHRCTR::DAVIS | | Wed Apr 05 1995 12:09 | 7 |
| <------- -.2
C-
But welcome back, anyway, Tom. :')
|
347.154 | B average is not so bad | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Wed Apr 05 1995 14:06 | 13 |
| > <<< Note 347.152 by SHRCTR::DAVIS >>>
> <------- -.2
> C-
> But welcome back, anyway, Tom. :')
Thanks, and I'll take the C- in this topic. Taken with my A+, that
gives me a B average. Won't get me into medical school, but probably
any Church sanctioned school around. :-)
...Tom
|
347.155 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Apr 05 1995 15:25 | 18 |
| .150
It's funny you and I actually agree in principle on something, which is
that accountability is a big issue. It's also interesting that you
throw God into the "blame" category for this one.
The reason I am who I am today is because of "accountability" as God
defines it in the Bible. It is my belief that we "individually" stand
before God for judgement and therefore, my accountability is to Him for
every choice I make in life.
This accountability offered me the venue to escape from the harm of my
parent's behavior towards me. I no longer became an extension or
reflection of them, but became an individual before God with the
ability to change my life's direction and make better choices.
Nancy
|
347.156 | | TINCUP::AGUE | DTN-592-4939, 719-598-3498(SSL) | Wed Apr 05 1995 16:22 | 16 |
| Re: .150
You have expressed a belief I've had for many years, far better than I ever
could.
Swaggart's tearful plea in front of his TV audience after getting
caught sharing a motel room with a working woman comes to mind as an
example of "It's not my fault". If he had his head on straight, he
wouldn't have been there in the first place, or at least acknowledged
why he was there.
Instead, he operates with: "I can go to the motel. If I get caught,
then I'll repent later, for I was born a sinner and its not my fault
and God will forgive me, later."
-- Jim
|
347.157 | sinfully ugly | HBAHBA::HAAS | recurring recusancy | Wed Apr 05 1995 16:33 | 8 |
| re: Swaggart
What he should be really sorry is who he got caught with. OOOGLEE in the
extreme. Frighteningly ugly!
And the guy's back on TV, too...
TTom
|
347.158 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Wed Apr 05 1995 16:36 | 6 |
|
... and didn't he try to claim he was just having a wank
anyway, so he wasn't really sinning _that_ badly.
What a maroon!
-b
|
347.159 | | WAHOO::LEVESQUE | luxure et supplice | Wed Apr 05 1995 16:45 | 1 |
| Really. If you're going to sin, you may as well make it worthwhile. ;-)
|
347.160 | | NETCAD::WOODFORD | Spring'sSprung.SmurfetteSurfacesSoon. | Wed Apr 05 1995 17:00 | 4 |
|
My sentiments exactly Mark. :*)
|
347.161 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Apr 05 1995 17:11 | 11 |
| As far as I can see Swaggart is an extreme embarassment to Christ. And
furthermore, shouldn't be in a place of spiritual leadership.
I believe in forgiveness, but I also believe in accountability and God
makes it clear that those who are in his position should suffer the
consequences [natural] of his actions.
I don't think there's a Christian in the group here that believes that
accountability stops at the point of salvation.
Nancy
|
347.162 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Apr 05 1995 17:13 | 10 |
| .159
While this is certainly worth a BIG GRIN, it's also a dangerous way to
think and live. This simply igonores that God is not mocked, that
whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap.
One who sows little seed, reaps little harvest.
One who sows MUCH seeds, reaps MUCH harvest.
This goes for the bad as well as the good.
|
347.163 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap!Yap! | Wed Apr 05 1995 17:27 | 10 |
|
Boston Globe 4/5/95 pg. 17 (World Briefs)
Turk reportedly kills his sisters
BONN - A 30-year old Turk shot and killed his two sisters, aged 20 and
21, and then tried to kill himself out of shame for their Western
lifestyles, German police said yesterday. Family members told police
the man "felt his honor as the older brother had been deeply tainted by
the overly-Western lifestyles of his sister." (Reuters)
|
347.164 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Wed Apr 05 1995 18:10 | 13 |
| RE: Note 347.155
>It's also interesting that you throw God into the "blame" category for
>this one.
I don't blame "god". I simply think that one of the many reasons that
God (and government) was invented by man was to escape
personal/individual responsibility for reality. This includes those who
knowingly use these authoritarian concepts to extract a living from
those who are using god/government/or anything that presumes authority
over the individual as a crutch.
...Tom
|
347.165 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Apr 05 1995 22:00 | 20 |
| > I don't blame "god". I simply think that one of the many reasons that
> God (and government) was invented by man was to escape
> personal/individual responsibility for reality. This includes those who
I don't see how believing in God absolves one from individual
responsibility. The concept of individual responsiblility is
tantamount to spirituality.
> knowingly use these authoritarian concepts to extract a living from
> those who are using god/government/or anything that presumes authority
> over the individual as a crutch.
I'm not sure I follow you here, but it sounds like you are condemning
Pastors, Presidents, Senators, etc., for the positions they hold?
Furthermore, lumping government and Christianity together is exactly
why one of the founding principles of this country is to keep them
separate. Confuse me some more. :-)
|
347.166 | | CSOA1::LEECH | yawn | Thu Apr 06 1995 09:51 | 16 |
| >I don't think there's a Christian in the group here that believes that
>accountability stops at the point of salvation.
Not only does it *not* stop, but those who know God's truth are held
*more* accountable than those who are ignorant of His word. We are
called to be the salt and light in this world, therefore we are to
be above reproach.
Swaggart fell hard. Though God will forgive him, he should NOT be back in
the ministry. His witness is marred as a leader, and he should have
stepped down from the pulpit. Not that he should stop serving God,
just that he should serve in a non-leadership position, IMO.
-steve
|
347.167 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Apr 06 1995 11:42 | 7 |
|
Steve,
You speak of Swaggart as if he were a bonafide man of the cloth.
Do you believe that to be the case rather than that he is simply
a money grubbing hack preying on folks through the media?
How about Jim Bakker? Is he supposed to be for real, too?
|
347.168 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Apr 06 1995 11:44 | 4 |
|
Jack, how about this one.... did they THINK they were a man of the
cloth? It's something I've always wondered about.
|
347.169 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Thu Apr 06 1995 11:46 | 31 |
| RE: Note 347.165
>I don't see how believing in God absolves one from individual
>responsibility. The concept of individual responsiblility is
>tantamount to spirituality.
What responsibility do you have to look at the world and make a
decision, based on the reality of it? Every time thoughtful effort needs
to be exerted the decision seems to be to see what the Bible says. So,
now you can say that the decision is made and not make any
effort or take responsibility for the result.
>I'm not sure I follow you here, but it sounds like you are condemning
>Pastors, Presidents, Senators, etc., for the positions they hold?
Yes!
>Furthermore, lumping government and Christianity together is exactly
>why one of the founding principles of this country is to keep them
>separate. Confuse me some more. :-)
Who made this principle? Government and churches (mainly Christianity).
Why did they do it? To perpetuate themselves. The reason I lump them
together is because they both live by the same principle. They convince
people that they are an authority (know more about what is good for the
individual than the individual does) then use force, coersion or fraud
to perpetuate their livelihood.
Just IMHO.
...Tom
|
347.170 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Friend will you be ready? | Thu Apr 06 1995 12:00 | 17 |
|
FWIW Swaggart was booted out of the denomination he represented, so he went
out on his own. Any man in a position of leadership and who knows even
the basic Biblical guidelines for such leadership, should know that, while
God has forgiven him, he should step down from his place of leadership.
Bakker is another one (and as far as I know he has not assumed any position
of leadership). Leaders in the church, particularly pastors/preachers/evange-
lists have an awesome responsibility for the people whom they pastor, I
believe God will take their respective failures/egos quite seriously one
day.
Jim
|
347.172 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Special Fan Club Baloney | Thu Apr 06 1995 12:42 | 2 |
| Bakker and Swaggart were victims of the power they attained. They
couldn't handle it.
|
347.173 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159 | Thu Apr 06 1995 12:45 | 6 |
|
I doubt that people like Bakker or Swaggart fall from grace. I think
they're con artists from the get go; their business is thumping. That's
how they make their money.
Who supports them? Dummies, of course.
|
347.174 | | SHRCTR::DAVIS | | Thu Apr 06 1995 12:54 | 20 |
| <<< Note 347.169 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>
Well, it's nice to see that your sabbatical into the wilderness hasn't
shaken your objectivist zeal, Tom!
You'll be happy to know I haven't changed much, either. So naturally...
...I think you've got it arse-backwards. You're all to happy to lay the
blame for all of mankind's ills on institutions, instead of individuals.
How is that being more responsible? Do you think that man is inherently
good, and that only by the currupting influence of the institutions he
creates is he lead astray? Isn't there some sort of logical disconnect
there?
Regardless, you're just howling at the moon. You could no more remove these
institutions from the human world than turn dogs into cats.
Tom jr
|
347.175 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Thu Apr 06 1995 13:06 | 9 |
| RE: Note 347.174
>Regardless, you're just howling at the moon.
The basis of all religion, I should be able to con people into joining
the "Church of Tom" in about 2000 years.
|
347.176 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 06 1995 13:09 | 4 |
| > The basis of all religion, I should be able to con people into joining
> the "Church of Tom" in about 2000 years.
With good reason, if you're alive then.
|
347.177 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Thu Apr 06 1995 13:18 | 5 |
| re: .176
One does not have to be alive to perpetuate a religion, as we all know.
...Tom
|
347.178 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 06 1995 13:33 | 1 |
| How does a dead person con people?
|
347.180 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:00 | 7 |
| RE: Note 347.178
>How does a dead person con people?
Christianity is based on this concept.
...Tom
|
347.181 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:02 | 2 |
| Seems to me the whole point of conning people is to make some money.
That's why I question your use of the term. Dupe, maybe.
|
347.182 | | CSOA1::LEECH | yawn | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:29 | 19 |
| re: .167
I give him the benefit of the doubt. I can't sit here and judge a man
I know very little about, as to whether he is/was "for real" or not.
Whether he is an authentic preacher or a crook is something that can only be
determined by his intent- which only God and Jimmy know for sure.
As far as Jim Bakker, I tread lightly as well. It is not for me to say
that he is/was not "for real". My opinion is that he and Swaggart
are not two people I care to watch/listen to. I've seen them both on
tv, so my personal choice is not made blindly (and this was before all
the trouble started).
Once a preacher falls in such a way, I feel he gives up his right to
a leadership position.
-steve
|
347.183 | | SMURF::BINDER | vitam gustare | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:42 | 12 |
| FWIW, I just thought I'd throw in what the Curmudgeon's Dictionary says
about teevee evangelists. :-)
evangelist, television, n. A salesman and con artist whose
business it is to prey upon others' masochism by extorting
financial contributions in return for threatening them with
hellfire and damnation.
There is a certain class of clergyman whose mendacity is only
equalled by their mendacity.
-- Archbishop Frederick Temple
|
347.184 | Con or Dupe, still describes it! | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Thu Apr 06 1995 14:53 | 14 |
| RE: Note 347.181
>Seems to me the whole point of conning people is to make some money.
>That's why I question your use of the term. Dupe, maybe.
Money, power, security, recognition, trying to increase self-esteem,
love or any number of reasons can be the reason for a con. And then
there are some who really believe they are the son of god. Just depends
on what a person wants and what they are willing to do for it. Oh, I left
out insanity. I'll change to dupe though, if you would like. However,
whatever you call it, con, dupe, swindle, cheat, fraud, doublecross,
graft, they are all synonymous.
...Tom
|
347.185 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Fri Apr 07 1995 18:04 | 17 |
| > The problem is many people refuse to take responsibility for their
> lives. They become intrenched in a concept of authority, such as
> government or the god concept. This allows them to place the blame on
> others instead of examining reality and working for that which they
> desire. They use myth, fantasy and emotions, that have no basis in
> reality, and then complain when what they desire is unobtainable. They
> blame everything except themselves.
> ...Tom
What is the context you are placing this comment in? No doubt some
folks eschew taking responsiblity. Some folks do take responsibility.
Neither, alone, says anything about how one takes responsibility for
one's true guilt before a holy God or whether one can even take such
responsibility or if it makes a difference.
jeff
|
347.186 | This id SOAPBOX right? | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Fri Apr 07 1995 18:30 | 28 |
| >What is the context you are placing this comment in?
Individual responsibility in the world.
>No doubt some folks eschew taking responsiblity. Some folks do take
>responsibility.
Right, note that I did say many, not all.
>Neither, alone, says anything about how one takes responsibility
>for one's true guilt before a holy God or whether one can even take
>such responsibility or if it makes a difference.
GUILT??!! What are we quilty of?? Unless I have committed some
objective crime that results in force, threats of force, coersion or
fraud against someone, I am guilty of nothing. Religious institution
use the quilt concept to convince you that you owe some sort of
debt for so-called sins, just because you are alive. And where does the
payment for this debt go? Into their pockets. They steal peoples
money, time and lives with the use of deception. When all along they are
the thieves, they are the criminals because of this deception. We are
the sinless ones, those of us who work and produce and are a benefit to
human live, whether deceived by these self-proclaimed authorities or
not.
Sorry, didn't mean to get off on a rant. I guess I do that sometimes. :)
...Tom
|
347.187 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Special Fan Club Baloney | Fri Apr 07 1995 18:36 | 1 |
| <-- Bad cold?
|
347.188 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Fri Apr 07 1995 19:00 | 3 |
| Must be allergies :)
...Tom
|
347.189 | This reply was subconsciously induced, and not my fault | DECWIN::RALTO | Made with 65% post consumer waste | Sun Apr 09 1995 22:05 | 5 |
| >> -< This id SOAPBOX right? >-
At least it's not an ego thing...
Chris
|
347.190 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Special Fan Club Baloney | Sun Apr 09 1995 22:50 | 1 |
| A Freudian reply?
|
347.191 | | SHRCTR::DAVIS | | Tue Apr 11 1995 16:04 | 7 |
| vvvvv
> use the quilt concept to convince you that you owe some sort of
> debt for so-called sins, just because you are alive. And where does the
This is only true of patchwork theology.
nnttm
|
347.192 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Ain't Life Fun! | Tue Apr 11 1995 16:22 | 9 |
|
> the quilt concept
>This is only true of patchwork theology.
Now that's funny! :) I'm trying to think of a rathole based on patchwork
theology. I'll come up with one in time.
...Tom
|
347.193 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Gone ballistic. Back in 5 minutes. | Tue Jul 11 1995 09:54 | 9 |
|
CAIRO (AP) - A 13-year-old girl was repeatedly beaten and then died of
suffocation after a fundamentalist Muslim leader ordered her punished
for uncovering her face in public, police said yesterday.
Samar Imad-Eddin Yousef was ordered punished last week by Mohamed Aqil,
the self-proclaimed "prince" of the Ancestors Group, a small fundament-
alist Muslim sect.
|
347.194 | | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Tue Jul 11 1995 10:54 | 4 |
| The normal outcome of religious fundamentalism. No one should be
surprised.
...Tom
|
347.195 | | CSOA1::LEECH | And then he threw the chimney at us! | Tue Jul 11 1995 11:11 | 4 |
| A rather broad brush you got there, Tom.
-steve
|
347.196 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Jul 11 1995 11:47 | 4 |
| Tom is displaying his usual categorization of religious fundamentalism
most likely because some nun spanked him in front of the class when he
was little...prolly did the emotional trauma thing to him or some
such...
|
347.197 | | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Tue Jul 11 1995 12:47 | 19 |
| >A rather broad brush you got there, Tom.
I don't think so. History is full of the results of religious
fundamentalism. If left unchecked, these fanatical movements always
reach the normal evolutionary conclusion of such dogmatic righteousness,
ultimately leading to oppressive, mass-murdering theocracies like Iran
>Tom is displaying his usual categorization of religious fundamentalism
>most likely because some nun spanked him in front of the class when
>he was little...prolly did the emotional trauma thing to him or some such...
Nice try Jack, though being spanked by a nun is your ultimate fantasy,
I've never been in that situation. No, rational thinking and
observations from history lead to the conclusion that religious
fundamentalism leads to tyranny, manipulation, force and ultimately
death for those who who dare not agree, when these fanatics come to
power.
...Tom
|
347.198 | For What It's Worth | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Jack Martin - Wanted Dead or Alive | Tue Jul 11 1995 13:08 | 8 |
|
Last I heard, religious fundamentalist, and religious fanatics were not
the same thing.
Of course I could be wrong, it has happened once or twice....
:-)
Dan
|
347.199 | | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Tue Jul 11 1995 13:25 | 6 |
| >Last I heard, religious fundamentalist, and religious fanatics were not
>the same thing.
True, except for the normal evolution of one to the other.
...Tom
|
347.200 | Oh, and SNARF ! | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Jack Martin - Wanted Dead or Alive | Tue Jul 11 1995 13:38 | 5 |
| Specificity may help the issue....
:-)
Dan
|
347.201 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Tue Jul 11 1995 14:09 | 4 |
| ZZ Nice try Jack, though being spanked by a nun is your ultimate
ZZ fantasy,
Ho ho!
|
347.202 | | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:24 | 16 |
| >Specificity may help the issue....
.193 was pretty specific and I mentioned Iran. We could talk about the
obvious Salem witch trials, and extreme reactions like Jonestown. How
about the crusades? Actually I can't find a society that evolved to
being run by a fundamentalist that wasn't as I mentioned. It is
interesting to note that the decline into the dark ages coincided with
the rise of Christianity. 6th century Rome finally collapsed under the
christian stranglehold and was repeatedly ravaged and looted. The
population of about a million was reduced to about 50,000 and the city
layed in ruins. The advanced hygiene, science and culture of rome was
abandoned as Christianity took hold. I'd be interested in an example of
a fundamentalist controlled country that didn't result in mass death
and destruction of the populas.
...Tom
|
347.203 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Jack Martin - Wanted Dead or Alive | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:30 | 7 |
| re: .202
BTW - There are indications that the individuals in the Salem witch
trials had been exposed to a fungi that was the original source of
LSD...
Dan
|
347.204 | | NETCAD::WOODFORD | SoManyDipsticks,SoLittleOil. | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:32 | 14 |
|
WHAT?!?!?!?! We're talking here about 19 people that were brutally
murdered for something they were not guilty of, and you're saying they
were exposed to chemicals????
What planet do you live on Dan??
Terrie
|
347.205 | cogito ergot? | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:35 | 5 |
|
.203
Which individuals? The hapless victims of religious fundamentalism
or the folks that killed them?
|
347.206 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:37 | 3 |
| Yep, there's a theory that moldy rye caused people to hallucinate. A type
of mold that grows on rye (whose name escapes me) produces something similar
to LSD (maybe lysergic acid?).
|
347.207 | no cogito | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:39 | 2 |
|
You f-ergot?
|
347.208 | thanks | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:41 | 1 |
| Of course. Ergot is the mold. Ergotamine is the hallucinogen.
|
347.209 | | NETCAD::WOODFORD | SoManyDipsticks,SoLittleOil. | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:43 | 17 |
|
Ok, everyone repeat after me......
Ohhhhhhhh, Puhleeeeeeeeeze!
:*)
Terrie
|
347.210 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Jack Martin - Wanted Dead or Alive | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:43 | 6 |
| Thanks Gerald,
I thought I was going to have to face an irate Terrie all by
myself.... whew !
:-)
Dan
|
347.211 | | NETCAD::WOODFORD | SoManyDipsticks,SoLittleOil. | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:47 | 12 |
|
irate? How do I rate? :*)
Sorry Dan, I forgot the smiley....
:*)
Terrie
|
347.212 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:50 | 3 |
|
RE: Terrie, on a 1-10 scale, I'd say a 12.....
|
347.213 | | NETCAD::WOODFORD | SoManyDipsticks,SoLittleOil. | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:55 | 13 |
|
Oh Mike, you're just rackin' up those brownie points today, aren't you?
:*)
Gotta love it....
Terrie
|
347.214 | | GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER | NRA member | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:55 | 4 |
|
I'm a tryin, Terrie. Anything you want me to do, just ask.....
|
347.215 | | NETCAD::WOODFORD | SoManyDipsticks,SoLittleOil. | Tue Jul 11 1995 15:57 | 5 |
|
Oh, how the mind does a'wander..................
|
347.216 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Jack Martin - Wanted Dead or Alive | Tue Jul 11 1995 16:26 | 8 |
|
Geeee Wiiiizzzz.....
I turn my back on you two for a couple of minutes and you're at it
again.
:-)
Dan
|
347.217 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Tue Jul 11 1995 19:18 | 1 |
| How do you know the witches didn't kill the fundies at Salem?
|
347.218 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Buddy, can youse paradigm? | Tue Jul 11 1995 22:31 | 11 |
| I recall having read the paper that hypothesized that ergotamine caused
hallucinations among those who were tried as witches. The writer made
a good circumstantial case, as I recall. The season (for bread-mold)
and the climate were right, among other factors.
None of which diminishes my admiration and support for ::RALSTON's
position about religious fundamentalism of all stripes. Look, if you
need additional examples, at the "mishugas" perpetrated on the
citizens of Israel by the hyper-orthodox Jewish clerics. It ain't the
exclusive province of Muslims, no, not by a longshot...
|
347.219 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Wed Jul 12 1995 12:14 | 8 |
| .218
> ergotamine caused
> hallucinations among those who were tried
Since most of said victims denied any witchcraft, and since there never
was ANY reliable testimony even SUGGESTING witchcraft, perhaps you mean
that there were hallucinations among their delators???
|
347.220 | | LJSRV2::KALIKOW | Buddy, can youse paradigm? | Wed Jul 12 1995 12:24 | 7 |
| Again working from old flaky backup archive tapes, my memory sez that
the denials of witchcraft by the ACCUSED (for it was they, I believe,
that the modern writer hypothesized were affected) mesh rather nicely
with the hypothesis that 'twere ~LSD that bonked their heads & caused
'em to do the kind of weird stuff that their neighbors took to be
witchery.
|
347.221 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | Jack Martin - Wanted Dead or Alive | Wed Jul 12 1995 12:43 | 8 |
|
I read a report of a "witness"? whose testimony certainly sounded like
he'd been trippin'. Something along the lines of the accused had
visited him in his bedroom... had appeared from a bright colorful
ball... and performed unmentionable acts,... etc
:-)
Dan
|
347.222 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Wed Jul 12 1995 12:46 | 14 |
| .220
Theories I've seen attribute the initial accusations to simple childish
high jinks (jeez, she's such an ugly old biddy, and she was mean to us,
let's call her names, "That old witch!"), which - once having caused
action against their targets - had to be maintained in order to prevent
parental retaliation. Once rolling, it became a matter of hysteria.
Another one I've seen suggests that it was the adult delators who had
been tripping, as suggested in .221. 1692 was a year of partial
famine, and everyone in Salem Village (n.b., NOT modern Salem but
rather Danvers) was likely to have indulged in a spot of hallucinogen.
I'd be interested to see your sources.
|
347.223 | | DASHER::RALSTON | cantwejustbenicetoeachother?:) | Wed Jul 12 1995 13:36 | 6 |
| >visited him in his bedroom... had appeared from a bright colorful
>ball... and performed unmentionable acts,... etc
This has happened to me before.... :)
...Tom
|
347.224 | | MPGS::MARKEY | The bottom end of Liquid Sanctuary | Wed Jul 12 1995 13:37 | 4 |
|
<-- but then you wake up, all gooey like...
-b
|
347.225 | | STOWOA::JOLLIMORE | Back from the Dead | Wed Jul 12 1995 13:48 | 4 |
| You were probably visited by a form of psychic vampire known as a
Succubus.
(Where's Steve Kallis Jr when you need him?) ;-)
|
347.226 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Wed Jul 12 1995 15:17 | 50 |
| Stepfather 'hit boy with riding crop for giggling'
By David Graves
A JEHOVAH'S Witness beat his 11-year-old stepson with a riding crop if
he giggled during Bible studies at home, a court heard yesterday.
He also chastised the boy for supporting Lincoln City football team,
because he claimed their mascot, the Lincoln Imp, was a symbol of the
devil and they were "Satan's team", Lincoln Crown Court was told.
The 46-year-old man, who cannot be named, was also said to have beaten
his 14-year-old daughter with the crop for dating a boy who was not a
Jehovah's Witness.
Steven Lowne, prosecuting, told the jury: "The regime in this household
went beyond reasonable punishment. Having a riding crop lurking in the
background to cause pain is going beyond lawful chastisement. It
amounts to assault and cruelty.
"Sometimes they were hit with the metal part of the crop. The boy was
struck so hard he was marked by the crop over 60 times."
Mr Lowne added: "If the children cried in bed they were struck all the
harder so they had a reason to cry."
The boy, who was allowed to befriend only other children of Jehovah's
Witnesses, told the jury: "We would get hit for laughing when we should
not have, like when we were studying the Bible.
"We would have one warning and then the next time we laughed we would
get the riding crop. Then if we carried on laughing it would get harder
and harder."
The boy claimed he was hit mainly on the hands, but sometimes on the
legs if he was "really misbehaving".
His stepsister told the court: "I had a boyfriend and that is really
not allowed in the Jehovah's Witnesses. If I spoke to him I got the
crop for that. He wasn't a Jehovah's Witness."
When he was interviewed by police their father claimed the crop was
used mostly as a sanction but occasionally as a punishment.
He denies two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He and
his wife, both from Lincoln, are also charged with cruelty.
The case continues.
The Electronic Telegraph Wednesday 12 July 1995 Home News
|
347.227 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Wed Jul 12 1995 15:23 | 4 |
| Why d'ye suppose the man "cannot be named"? This is apparently a
criminal case of child abuse, not a religious matter, despite the
umbrella of "religion" that so often overshadows abuse by Jehovah's
Witnesses of their children.
|
347.228 | for the kids? | HBAHBA::HAAS | improbable cause | Wed Jul 12 1995 15:27 | 3 |
| Maybe it's a privacy issue cause the kids are under age?
TTom
|
347.229 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jul 12 1995 15:29 | 2 |
| Sounds like England to me. I believe their courts are more into privacy than
U.S. courts.
|
347.230 | UK law | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Jul 12 1995 16:07 | 10 |
|
Coulsd be a few reasons.
If the prosecutor is still addressing the jury, it's still sub
judice(?) and the paper may not be able to name him.
The judge can instigate a gag order if he feels that there's a
good chance the guy is innocent as charged and he should not suffer
the glare of publicity.
|
347.231 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Jul 13 1995 13:42 | 13 |
| This belongs here, not where it was posted originally. -DougO
================================================================================
Note 319.881 The truth of the Bible 881 of 881
TROOA::COLLINS "Gone ballistic. Back in 5 minutes." 9 lines 13-JUL-1995 09:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We have ruled that there is a biblical prohibition against evacuating
Israeli army bases and handing [the West bank] over to the control of
the goyim. This poses a danger to lives, and a danger to the existence
of the country. [For that reason], every Jew is forbidden to take part
in the evacuation of a settlement, camp, or facility."
- Rabbi Chaim Druckman
|
347.232 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Gone ballistic. Back in 5 minutes. | Thu Jul 13 1995 15:07 | 8 |
|
Itching to moderate, Doug?
I thought about putting it here, but I decided that it might be
interpreted as an anti-semetic move on my part.
Cross-post it as you wish, however.
|
347.233 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto | Thu Jul 13 1995 15:20 | 12 |
| >Itching to moderate, Doug?
not a chance.
>I thought about putting it here, but I decided that it might be
>interpreted as an anti-semetic move on my part.
I copied it here because it is so typical an example of
intransigent fundamentalist zealotry in action. No other
interpretations need apply.
DougO
|
347.234 | | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Thu Jul 13 1995 15:35 | 33 |
| Israel in uproar over rabbis' West Bank pullout ban
� 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.
� 1995 Reuter Information Service
JERUSALEM (Jul 13, 1995 - 10:48 EDT) - Jewish rabbis touched off a
political firestorm on Thursday by ruling that Israeli soldiers
must disobey orders to evacuate army bases or settlements in the
West Bank.
"People are talking outright of fears of civil rebellion, grave
incidents of lawbreaking, and rabbis' calls for revolt," Israel
Radio newsreader Yoram Ronen said to start a morning newscast.
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, enraged by the edict issued on
Wednesday, called it "one of the most severe things a small number
of rabbis...could do. It is inconceivable Israel be turned into a
banana republic." Last week Rabin likened a small group of
hardline U.S. rabbis to "ayatollahs" when asked if he foresaw a
possibility that Jewish settlers would try to torpedo his peace
moves.
The rabbis view the West Bank as an integral part of the biblical
Land of Israel which they maintain God deeded to the Jews in the
Old Testament. They oppose the troop withdrawals envisaged in a
handover to self-rule. The military, anticipating the rabbis'
ruling, said on Sunday it expected troops to remember that
officers' commands took precedence over Jewish religious edicts.
Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper published a poll on Thursday showing 77
percent of Israelis believed the rabbis had erred in issuing the
order. The poll of 507 Israeli adults showed 22 percent believed
the rabbis were right in ruling on the issue.
|
347.235 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Thu Jul 13 1995 18:52 | 3 |
| Of course the Rabbis are right, Rabin is giving away the country.
I wish they at least cool it until my pastor returns from there.
|
347.236 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Thu Jul 13 1995 20:47 | 6 |
| "Can't we all just get along?"
The answer, currently, is no of course. In time traditions
and ethnic prejudices (on all sides) may fade, and maybe then
both sides will no longer have to worry about watching their
backs. Until then it is foolish to assume that all is peachy.
|
347.237 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Tue Jul 25 1995 01:03 | 23 |
| >Rabin is giving away the country.
Oh, baloney, Mike. Rabin can not give away the West Bank; it isn't his.
The United Nations gave away the country when it partitioned the land
and gave half of it to millions of secular Europeans a great many of
whom do not practice Judaism.
Prior to that, a huge percentage of the population were indigent Jews
and those gentiles grafted into Israel by having joined the Church.
Some areas (Bethlehem, Nazareth) were more than 70% Christian Arabs,
who have a biblical right (by virtue of their grafting into Israel)
to share the land with faithful Jews.
The "troubles" have caused the Christian Arabs to emigrate in droves.
And thus the land has been lost to the biblical Israel, both Christian
and Jew.
The biblical solution would be for everyone there to live together,
sharing the land in peace, and forming a new people worthy of being
called God's sons and worthy of the promised land.
/john
|
347.238 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Tue Jul 25 1995 08:22 | 7 |
| .237
> The biblical solution would be for everyone there to live together,
> sharing the land in peace, and forming a new people worthy of being
> called God's sons and worthy of the promised land.
What part of the book of Joshua did you miss reading, /john?
|
347.239 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Painful But Yummy | Tue Jul 25 1995 10:24 | 1 |
| Ai! That was a good 'un Jack!
|
347.240 | | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Tue Jul 25 1995 18:00 | 7 |
| What's your source for this "Christian Arabs" claims? I'm not saying I
disagree, but I never heard of such numbers.
Anyway, the eternal covenant between God and Abraham was for the Jews. Not
Christians, not Arabs, not even Christian Arabs.
Mike
|
347.241 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jul 26 1995 00:21 | 18 |
| > What's your source for this "Christian Arabs" claims? I'm not saying I
> disagree, but I never heard of such numbers.
In the article on Nazareth in the 1978 edition of the Encyclop�dia
Britannica: "[Christians] now form the majority of the population."
Further details were contained in various materials I obtained
for my trip to the Holy Land three years ago and other study of the
matter.
I occasionally worship with an Arab Christian community, at the
Cathedral of the Holy Annunciation in Roslindale. These are mostly
people who have left Lebanon and Palestine because of the troubles.
Hanan Ashrawi, one of the prominent Palestinian negotiators, is
an Arab Christian from the town of Nablus.
/john
|
347.242 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jul 26 1995 10:47 | 3 |
| It's true that some small areas of the West Bank are mostly Christian,
but the vast majority of West Bank Arabs are Moslems. Who is Arafat
talking to when he says he still believes in Jihad?
|
347.243 | The Middle Eastern version of Flight-From-the-Inner-City | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jul 26 1995 11:18 | 7 |
| Thirty years ago the percentage of Christians in both Palestine and
Lebanon was dramatically higher.
Bethlehem, specifically, has shifted from 70% Christian to 70% Moslem
during that time.
/john
|
347.244 | where did they go? | EVMS::MORONEY | The gene pool needs chlorine.... | Wed Jul 26 1995 11:47 | 0 |
347.245 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Painful But Yummy | Wed Jul 26 1995 11:48 | 1 |
| The Trilateral Commission.
|
347.246 | re .244: Maybe Ernest Zundel knows | CALLME::MR_TOPAZ | | Wed Jul 26 1995 11:50 | 1 |
|
|
347.247 | Toledo | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Jul 26 1995 11:59 | 3 |
| Cleveland, Roslindale, etc.
/john
|
347.248 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Careful! That sponge has corners! | Thu Aug 03 1995 09:25 | 14 |
|
ANKARA (Reuter) - A Turkish mother and daughter have been shot dead
by male relatives for dressing immodestly in the latest violent dis-
pute over Islamic dress code.
Emine Deniz, 40, and her daughter Hamide, 22, were gunned down in the
street in the Black Sea province of Samsun by four male members of
their family for "dressing revealingly," the Milliyet newspaper said
yesterday.
Only last week an Islamist militant in the sleepy northern town of
Gumushane killed the head of a legal association who refused to let
female lawyers wear Islamic headscarves in court.
|
347.249 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Prepositional Masochist | Thu Aug 03 1995 10:18 | 1 |
| Oh boy, with family like that, who needs enemies?
|
347.250 | But, watch your back..... | DECLNE::REESE | ToreDown,I'mAlmostLevelW/theGround | Thu Aug 03 1995 10:23 | 2 |
| Wonder if Betty Friedan could anything with those dudes?
|
347.251 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Idontlikeitsojuststopit!! | Thu Aug 03 1995 12:02 | 12 |
| >A Turkish mother and daughter have been shot dead by male relatives for
>dressing immodestly in the latest violent dis-pute over Islamic dress code.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, mainly because it's fun to
be a pain in the butt, that this is the normal outcome of religious
fundamentalism. It wouldn't surprise me that, if things continue as they
seem to be going in this country, it won't be long before shooting
homosexuals on sight will be legal. By the way I don't think that the
citizens of this country will allow this to happen, at least I hope.
...Tom
|
347.252 | IYNSHO... | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 03 1995 12:07 | 1 |
|
|
347.253 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Idontlikeitsojuststopit!! | Thu Aug 03 1995 12:10 | 5 |
| >-< IYNSHO... >-
Of course, if it makes you feel better>
...Tom
|
347.254 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Thu Aug 03 1995 12:13 | 18 |
|
Yeah, in my Fundamentalist Baptist Church we talk about shooting our kids
all the time..why my pastor stands up there in the pulpit and pounds on it
while telling us to shoot our kids if they don't behave. We also meet weekly
to make plans for the day when we can go out and shoot homosexuals
Frankly, I can't recall the last time I heard the word "homosexual" or "gay"
from the pulpit in my church. We do hear a lot about the sin in our own lives
and the need for folks to come to Christ, however.
Jim
|
347.255 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Idontlikeitsojuststopit!! | Thu Aug 03 1995 12:31 | 5 |
| .254
Sounds like you should get out of there quick!
...Tom
|
347.256 | | SHRCTR::DAVIS | | Thu Aug 03 1995 12:53 | 8 |
| <<< Note 347.251 by DASHER::RALSTON "Idontlikeitsojuststopit!!" >>>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again, mainly because it's fun to
> be a pain in the butt, that this is the normal outcome of religious
> fundamentalism. It wouldn't surprise me that, if things continue as they
And Stalin was the natural outcome of Athiesm. So what are you trying to
say?
|
347.257 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:04 | 4 |
| .256
Fanatic fundamentalists, including fundie athiests are dangerous to
people who do not follow their teachings precisely.
|
347.258 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | I press on toward the goal | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:06 | 5 |
| ZZZ Fanatic fundamentalists, including fundie athiests are dangerous
What about fanatical feminists? Sincerely asking!
-Jack
|
347.259 | | CSC32::M_EVANS | proud counter-culture McGovernik | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:08 | 1 |
| Fanatics of all kinds are dangerous, either to themselves or others.
|
347.260 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:11 | 1 |
| Atheists. NNTTM.
|
347.261 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | It ain't easy, bein' sleezy! | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:26 | 9 |
|
>...it won't be long before shooting homosexuals on sight will be legal.
But much more interesting would be shooting liberals on site ! :-)
I have a Bloom County comic strip about just that... :-)))
Dan
|
347.262 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | We the people? | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:32 | 5 |
|
hehe...I remember that Bloom County strip...:)
|
347.263 | To think that Dan and I have something in common.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:33 | 4 |
|
Do you remember it enough to know what was used as bait?
-mr. bill
|
347.264 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | We the people? | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:43 | 8 |
|
"No Nukes! No Nukes!"
:*)
|
347.265 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:45 | 5 |
|
re: bait...
Ummmmm...some old copy of some magazine? Was it Rolling Stone?
|
347.266 | | SMURF::BINDER | Night's candles are burnt out. | Thu Aug 03 1995 13:45 | 1 |
| "Nuke the unborn gay baby whales for Jesus!"
|
347.267 | Fatal fashions... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | | Thu Aug 03 1995 14:01 | 5 |
|
Although Digital has no dress code, I have seen outfits that might
justify the Moslem's actions.
bb
|
347.268 | | DEVLPR::DKILLORAN | It ain't easy, bein' sleezy! | Thu Aug 03 1995 14:04 | 15 |
|
<rustle> <rustle>
No Nukes, No Nukes
<BANG>
Gun Control ! Gun Control !
I think I wounded him....
OWWW, Socialized medicine...
:-)
Dan
|
347.269 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Idontlikeitsojuststopit!! | Thu Aug 03 1995 14:35 | 13 |
| >And Stalin was the natural outcome of Athiesm.
You are absolutely correct. I will restate:
This is the normal outcome of absolute Thiesm. When the government
evolves to being controlled by Thiests, dictatorships result with the
corresponding elimination of freedoms and individual rights. This
results in the allowance of executions for those who do not conform to
the subjective laws established by that government. Hence, family
members killing other family members, as has happened in the absolute
thiesmistic state discussed.
...Tom
|
347.270 | Better, but still somewhat YO | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 03 1995 14:58 | 2 |
|
|
347.271 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Idontlikeitsojuststopit!! | Thu Aug 03 1995 15:10 | 5 |
| >-< Better, but still somewhat YO >-
Not somewhat, Totally MO.
...Tom
|
347.272 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 03 1995 15:29 | 3 |
|
Yeah.. but you are getting warmer....
|
347.273 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Idontlikeitsojuststopit!! | Thu Aug 03 1995 16:14 | 5 |
| >Yeah.. but you are getting warmer...
I think I'll stop then. It's already too hot around her. :)
...Tom
|
347.274 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | Been complimented by a toady lately? | Thu Aug 03 1995 16:52 | 6 |
|
You in ZK????
:)
|
347.275 | | DASHER::RALSTON | Idontlikeitsojuststopit!! | Thu Aug 03 1995 18:52 | 3 |
| NO, NEVER!!! :)
...TOm
|
347.276 | What, never? | POWDML::LAUER | LittleChamber/PrepositionalPunishment | Thu Aug 03 1995 22:42 | 2 |
|
|
347.277 | Beverly? | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Thank You Kindly | Thu Aug 03 1995 22:43 | 1 |
|
|
347.278 | | SMURF::BINDER | Night's candles are burnt out. | Fri Aug 04 1995 10:39 | 1 |
| Well, hardly ever.
|
347.279 | | SPSEG::COVINGTON | When the going gets weird... | Fri Aug 04 1995 10:42 | 1 |
| never at dusk.
|
347.280 | | POWDML::LAUER | LittleChamber/PrepositionalPunishment | Fri Aug 04 1995 10:51 | 4 |
|
Never on Sunday.
|
347.281 | | TROOA::COLLINS | Who's in charge here? | Sat Jan 06 1996 15:33 | 13 |
|
Actually, this note clearly deserves to be reposted in this topic.
================================================================================
Note 319.1365 The truth of the Bible 1365 of 1376
USAT05::SANDERR 15 lines 5-JAN-1996 17:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silva:
All one can say about you is you'll get what you deserve...sooner or
later.
|
347.282 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Sat Jan 06 1996 19:35 | 1 |
| I couldn't agree more...really!
|
347.283 | | SCASS1::EDITEX::MOORE | ALittleOfMazePassagesTwisty | Mon Jan 08 1996 01:59 | 3 |
|
Actually, according to the argument, you might get what you don't
deserve.
|
347.284 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Mon Jan 08 1996 17:45 | 2 |
| <--depends from who's angle you're looking at it from..... reality, or the
zealot's....
|
347.285 | | SCASS1::EDITEX::MOORE | ALittleOfMazePassagesTwisty | Tue Jan 09 1996 00:33 | 4 |
|
Well, I'm looking at it from my angle.
;^)
|
347.286 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Would you like a McDolphin, sir? | Tue Jan 09 1996 10:41 | 5 |
|
That's "whose angle", Glen.
JTYLTK [Just thought you'd like to know]
|
347.287 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity | Tue Jan 09 1996 11:29 | 2 |
|
Uhh....ok....errr...thanks....
|
347.288 | this reply also fits in this topic ;-) | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Tue Jan 09 1996 12:06 | 17 |
| > And what if his truths are not false?
Hey, in that case, my opinions are incorrect. We'll die and I'll
go to hell. [I consider the prospect ridiculous, but you asked.]
> Seems that you are making a value judgement on Covert's truth, to me.
That's true. But you'll notice that his insistence that he has the
truth makes a similar value judgement about the beliefs of anyone who
feels differently. The rest of us have the courtesy in public
discourse to label our opinions as such. His monomania, his insistence
that his opinions *are* true, not conjectures, is discourteous. But
over time, his shrillness obscures his message more than anything else
he could do, so he'll get exactly what he has earned; a reputation for
discourtesy, and no converts.
DougO
|
347.289 | And they are all right, too!! | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Feb 02 1996 15:41 | 1187 |
| Watchman Fellowship's 1995 Index of Cults, Occult Organizations, New Age
Groups, New
Religious Movements, and World Religion
By Rick Branch, James Walker, and the Staff of Watchman Fellowship, Inc.
Introduction
Annually Watchman Fellowship publishes an index issue of the Watchman
Expositor. The 1995 Watchman Expositor Index contains brief definitions,
descriptions or cross references on over 1,100 religious organizations and
beliefs. This year's index is expanded to include world religions
(including Christianity) and related doctrines. Watchman Fellowship is a
Christian apologetics and discernment ministry (please see "Publication
Information"). Thus, many references ("Jesus," "Gospel," "Christianity,"
etc.) contain definitions that reflect the beliefs of Watchman's staff.
While Watchman Fellowship does not hold to the beliefs of non-Christian
religions and doctrines, we also attempt to describe these beliefs
factually, fairly and accurately. Readers are asked to assist in this
effort by suggesting corrections or improvements (please read "A Word from
the President").
This is by no means a "complete list" of cults and religions. Watchman
Fellowship maintains over 10,000 files and a research library of over
25,000 books and periodicals on religions, cults, new religious movements
and related teachings. This index is not intended to be an exhaustive list.
The absence of a religious movement from this index does not mean that
Watchman Fellowship endorses the organization.
Entries include: world religions, new religious movements and entities
related to them, cults, occult groups, and organizations and businesses
linked to the New Age Movement. By using the terms "cult," "occult," and
"New Age," Watchman Fellowship is in no way implying that these individuals
(their followers or leaders) are necessarily evil or immoral people. It
simply means that such groups seem to promote doctrine or practices which
may be considered outside the realm of historic Christianity.
Cult,
by its primary dictionary definition, the term cult just means a system of
religious beliefs or rituals. It is based on a farming term in Latin
meaning cultivation. Sociologists and anthropologists sometimes use the
term cult to describe religious structure or belief patterns with meanings
(usually non-pejorative) unique to their disciplines. In modern usage, the
term cult is often used by the general public to describe any religious
group they view as strange or dangerous. Thus, cult can describe religious
leaders or organizations that employ abusive, manipulative, or illegal
control over their followers' lives. In addition to these usages,
Christians generally have a doctrinal component to their use of the word.
Cult in this sense, is a counterfeit or serious deviation from the
doctrines of classical Christianity. Watchman Fellowship usually uses the
term cult with a Christian or doctrinal definition in mind. In most cases
the group claims to be Christian, but because of their aberrant beliefs on
central doctrines of the faith (God, Jesus, and salvation), the
organization is not considered by Watchman Fellowship to be part of
orthodox, biblical Christianity. Research material available.
Occult, the term, "occult" come from the Latin occultus or "hidden." Generally
the word is used of secret or mysterious supernatural powers or magical,
religious rituals. The word "occult" in this publication is used to
describe any attempt to gain supernatural power or knowledge apart from the
God of the Bible. Generally it refers to witchcraft, satanism,
neo-paganism, or various forms of Psychic discernment (astrology, seances,
palm reading, etc.). Research material available.
New Age, New Age is a recent and developing belief system in North America
encompassing thousands of autonomous (and sometime contradictory) beliefs,
organizations, and events. Generally the New Age borrows its theology from
pantheistic Eastern religions and its practices from 19th century Western
occultism. The term "New Age" is used herein as an umbrella term to
describe organizations which seem to exhibit one or more of the following
beliefs: (1) All is one, all reality is part of the whole; (2) Everything
is God and God is everything; (3) Man is God or a part of God; (4) Man
never dies, but continues to live through reincarnation; (5) Man can create
his own reality and/or values through transformed consciousness or altered
states of consciousness. Research material available.
CULT INDEX
A Choice Experience
A Course In Miracles
Abbey of Thelema Old Greenwich
Academy For Guided Imagery
Adelphi Organization
Adeptco
Qabalah teachings.
Advanced Organization of Los Angeles (AOLA)
Adventism/Adventist
AEgis at the Abode of the Message
Aetherius Society
Agasha Temple of Wisdom, Inc.
Agon Buddhism
Ahmadiyya Movement
AION
Alamo Christian Foundation
Alan Shawn Feinstein Association
Aletheia Psycho-Physical Foundation
All Souls Unitarian Church
All Ways Free Madison
Allah: See "Islam."
Alphabiotic New Life Center Dallas, TX
Alphasonic International Los Angeles, CA
Amalgamated Flying Saucer Clubs of America
Ambassador University Big Sandy, TX
Ambassadors For Christ Tustin, CA
Ameba San Francisco, CA
American Babaji Yoga Sangam New York, NY
American Fellowship Services
American Foundation for the Science of Creative Intelligence
American Gnostic Church
American Imagery Institute Milwaukee, WI
American Leadership College, Inc. Osceola, IA
American Society for Psychical Research, Simon Newcomb New York, NY
American Study Group UT
American West Publishers Tehachapi, CA
American Zen Center
AMOOKOS
Ananda Marga Denver, CO
Anchor of Golden Light, Dorothy and Henry Leon Grants Pass, OR
Ancient Wisdom Connection N. Myrtle Beach, SC
Answers Research and Education
Anthroposophical Society, Rudolf Steiner Chicago, IL
Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God, Inc. Birmingham, AL
Aquarian Academy, Robert E. Birdsong Eureka, CA
Aquarian Age Teaching, Ruby Focus Sedona
Aquarian Church of Universal Service, Paul Shockley Portland, OR
Aquarian Educational Group, Torkom Saraydarian Sedona, AZ
Aquarian Foundation, Keith Milton Rhinehart Seattle, WA: Universalist,
Yoga, Spiritism, theosophical philosophy.
Aquarian Minyan Berkeley, CA:
Aquarian Perspectives Inter Planetary Mission Montgomery, AL
Aquarian Tabernacle Church Index, WA
Ar nDraiocht Fein, P.E.I. Bonewits Nyack, NY
Arcana Workshop Manhattan Beach, CA
Arcane School, Alice Bailey
Arete Truth Center, Paul Lachlan Peck Las Vegas, NV
Arizona Light Phoenix, AZ: New Age periodical.
Arizona Metaphysical Society, Frank Alper Phoenix, AZ
Arizona Network News Scottsdale, AZ
Arm of the Lord Warren, OH
Armstrong, Garner Ted
Armstrong, Herbert W.
Armageddon Time Ark Base Operation, O.T. Nodrog Weslaco, TX
Aromatherapy Seminars Los Angeles, CA
Arunachala Ashram, Bhagavan Sri Ramana
Asatru Free Assembly Denair, CA
Ascended Masters
Ascended Master Teaching Foundation Mt. Shasta, CA
Ascended Masters School of Light, Toni Moltzan Carrollton, TX
Ascension Week Enterprises Santa Fe, NM
ASCENT Foundation, Larry Jensen Sedona, AZ
Asheville Meditation CenterAsheville, NC
Assemblies of the Called Out Ones of "Yah,"
Assemblies of Yahweh, Jacob Meyer Bethel, PA
Assemblies of Yahweh (7th day) Cisco, TX
Assembly of Scientific Astrologers,George Cardinal LeGrosoplin, MO:
Assembly of YHW YoshuaPueblo, CO
Associated Readers of Tarot International Carbondale, IL
Association for Christian Development, Kenneth Westby Auburn,WA
Association for Past-Life Research and Therapies, Inc. Riverside, CA
Association for Research and Enlightenment, Edgar Cayce Virginia Beach, VA:
Association for the Understanding of Man Austin, TX
Association Sananda & Sanat Kumara, Inc. Mt. Shasta, CA
Astro Computing Services San Diego, CA
Astrology and Psychic News N. Hollywood, CA
Atlantic Pagan Council
Aum Shinri Kyo, Shoko Asahara Tokyo, Japan
Author Services, Inc.
Avanta Network Palo Alto, CA
Avatar Flagstaff, AZ
Awareness Research Foundation, Inc. North Miami, FL
Ayurvedic Lifestyle Center, Pearl Miller Reno, NV
Baba, Sai
Baha'i; Mirza 'Ali Muhammad; "the Bab"
Bear Tribe Medicine Society Spokane, WA
Bet Hashem - The House of YHWH New Haven, IN
Beth El Shaddai, Dick Amos Plano, TX
Beth HaShem, Jacob Hawkins Odessa, TX
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
Bhakti Yoga
Bible Believers, Inc.: See "Branham, William."
Bible Studies Fellowship San Diego, CA
Bible Way Publications Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Biblical Church of God Santa Cruz, CA
Biblical Research Centers
Bioenergy
BioEnergetic Synchronization Techniques
Biointegration, Ross Algelo Dallas, TX
Bio-Magnetics
BioPsciences Institute Minneapolis, MN
Black Moon Publishing Cincinnati, OH
Black Muslim
Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna
Blue Lotus Wilmot, WI
Blue Mountain Center of Meditation, Eknath Easwaran Petaluma, CA
Blue Rose Ministry, Robert Short Joshua Tree, CA
Blue Star, May Thunder West Point, TX
B'nai Noah
Body, Mind and Soul Houston, TX
Body, Mind and Spirit Providence, RI
Book of Changes
Book of Mormon
Bookmark Santa Clarita, CA
Borderland Science Research Foundation Garberville, C
Boston Church of Christ, Kip McKean Boston, MA
Bradshaw, John
Brahma
Branch Davidians, Benjamin Roden
Branhamism, William Branham Jeffersonville, IN
British Israelism
Brotherhood and Order of the Pleroma, Richard Duc de Palatine Sherman Oaks
Brotherhood of Eternal Truth New Albany, IN
Brotherhood of SeTh Ellsworth, ME
Brotherhood of the White Temple, Inc., M. Doreal Castle Rock, CO
Buddha's Universal Church San Francisco, CA
Buddhism
Builders, Norman Paulsen Oasis, NV
Builders of the Adytum, Ltd., Paul Foster Case Los Angeles, CA
Cantillation Research Foundation, John Diamond Valley Cottage, NY
Castle Rising Denver, CO
Catholicism
CAUSA
Center for Action and Contemplation Abuquerque, NM
Center for Advanced
Communication and Training Carrollton, TX
Center for Alternate Realities Durango, CO
Center for Personal and Planetary Empowerment Austin, TX
Center For Spiritual Awareness, Roy Eugene Davis Lakemont, GA
Center for Wisdom Spirituality Paradise, PA
Center for World NetworkingSoguel, CA
Center of the Light Great Barrington, MA
Centric Houston, TX
Cesar San Antonio, TX
Chakras
Champaign-Urbana Church of Christ
Channeling
Chapel of Prayer, Eleanor Button Houston, TX
Chi
Chinmaya International Foundation, Swami Chinmayananda Piercy, CA
Chinmoy, Sri
Chinook Learning Center, Fritz and Vivienne Hull Clinton, WA
Chiromancy
Choosing Light, Inc. Mill Valley, CA
Chopra, Deepak
Christ Cathedral for Divine Abundance
Christ-Consciousness
Christ Family, Charles McHugh
Christ Light Community
Christadelphians, John Thomas
Christian Community
Christian Foundation Canyon County, CA
Christian Millennial Fellowship Hartford, CT
Christian Renewal
Christian Rose Cross Church Olympia, WA
Christian Science
Christianity, Jesus Christ
Chrysalim
Chuang-tzu
Church at San Diego
Church For Positive Living, Dean Davis Bedford, TX
Church in York, Bernar
Church of All Worlds, Otter ZellBerkeley, CA
Church of Christ: See "Churches of Christ."
Church of Christ-Consciousness
Church of Christ Jesus
Church of Christ, Scientist
Church of Christ, Temple Lot, Granville Hedrick Independence, MO
Church of Christ with the Elijah Message, Otto Fetting Independence, MO:
Church of Cosmic Origin, Inc., Hope Troxell June Lake, CA
Church of Divine Influence
Church of Essential Science Scottsdale, AZ
Church of E Yada di Shi-ite,
Church of God and True Holiness, Robert Carr Raleigh, NC
Church of God Evangelistic Association, David J. Smith Waxahachie, TX
Church of God, Faith of Abraham Wenatchee, WA
Church of God Family Counseling Cente
Church of God General Conference Oregon, IL
Church of God, International, Garner Ted Armstrong Tyler, TX
Church of God Philadelphia Era, David Fraser Pasadena, CA
Church of God, Seventh Day Caldwell, ID
Church of God (7th Day) Salem, WV
Church of God, The Eternal, Raymond C. Cole Eugene, OR
Church of Hakeem, Hake
Church of Illumination Quartertown, PA
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City,UT
Church of Jesus Power, E.S. Cooke, Sr. Boulder City, NV
Church of Light, Elbert Benjamin Los Angeles, CA
Church of Metaphysical Christianity, Russell Flexer Sarasota, FL
Church of Perfect Liberty,
Church of Satan, Anton Szandor LaVey San Francisco, CA
Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard
Church of Seven Arrows Wheatridge, CO
Church of the Brigade of Light Charlotte, NC
Church of the Final Judgement
Church of the Great God, John Ritenbaugh Charlotte, NC
Church of the Living Stone Mission for the Coming Days, Bang-ik Ha Seoul
Church of the Most High God Marvel, TX
Church of the Most High Goddess, Mary Ellen Tracy Los Angeles, CA
Church of the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness
Church of the New Birth
Church of the New Jerusalem
Church of the Plains Indians
Church of the Tree of Life San Francisco, CA
Church of the Trinity, A. Stuart Otto San Marcos, CA
Church of the White Eagle Lodge, Jean LeFevre Montgomery, TX
Church of Universal Love, Linda Foreman El Paso, TX
Church of Unlimited Devotion
Church of Y Tylwyth Teg Smyrna, GA
Church Universal and Triumphant, Mark Prophet (CUT) Corwin Springs, MT
Churches of Christ
Circle Network News Mt. Horeb, WI
Circle of Life, Dorothy Espiau Houston, TX
Circle of Light Dallas, TX
Circle of Light, Inc. Honolulu, HI
City of the Sun Foundation Columbus, NM
Clifford E. Hobbs Foundation Newport, WA
Cole-Whittaker, Terry
College of Divine Metaphysic, Joseph Garduno Glendora, CA
Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles
Comfort Corner Church Lawrenceville, GA
Common Boundary Chevy Chase, MD
Communion Letter San Antonio, TX
Community of Jesus Orleans, MS
Conciliation Ministries, Dusean Berkich Lawrence, KS
Confraternity of Deists Homosassa Springs, FL
Confucianism, Chiu King
Congregation of God San Jose, CA
Congregation of God Seventh Day, John Pinkston
Congregation of the Firstborn, Raymond Glenn Grapeland, TX
Congregation of Yahweh Pittsburgh, PA
Conscious Living Foundation Drain, OR
Consciousness Connection Las Cruces, NM
Constellation, Elton Powers Dallas, TX
Contemplations, Inc., Ed Heinemann Durango, CO
Continuum Foundation Chino Valley, AZ
Cooneyites
Cosmerism
Cosmic Awareness Communications Olympia, WA
Cosmic Communication Commune Decorah, IA
Cosmic Light of Peace Center
Cosmic Science Research Foundation, Edward Palmer Portland, OR
Cosmic Wisdom, Clark Wilkerson Honolulu, HI
Council of Light Honolulu, HI
Council of the Magickal Arts Austin, TX
Coven Gardens Boulder, CO
Covered Bridge Canyon Spanish Fork, UT
Creation Calendar, Verlis W. Johnson Kermit, TX
Creme, Benjamin
Crossroads Church of Christ
Crowley, Aleister
Crusade of Innocence
Chrysalis Foundation Durango, CO
Crystals Consciousness, Warren Klausner San Diego, CA
Crystals Horizons Santa Barbara, CA
Crystal Pathway Denver, CO
Crystals
Daily Word
Dalai Lama
Dallas Fellowship, Inc. Arlington, TX
Davera Mission Church Korea
David, John, Learning Institute
David, Moses
Davis, Hayiland Albany, NY
Dawn Bible Students East Rutherford, NJ
Dayspring Resources, Leonie Rosenstiel New York, NY
Delphi School Sheridan, OR
Denver, John
Deseret Shadow Church
Devil
Di Mambro, Joseph
Dianetics
Discover Seminars Irving, TX
DiscoveryWest Valley City, UT
Divali
Divination
Divine Light Center, Swami Omkarananda
Divine Light Mission, Maharaj Ji
Divine Science Denver CO
Divine Science of Light and Sound Marina del Rey, CA
Divine Word Foundation Warner Springs, CA
Dixon, Jeane
Doctrine and Covenants
Dominion Press San Marcos, CA
Dorene Publishing Arlington, TX
Door, The, Wayne Mitchell Prescott, AZ
Dowsing
Druid
Druidism
Dual Covenant
Dualism
Dungeons and Dragons
DuPage Church of Religious Science, Donald E. Burt Naperville, IL
Dyer, Wayne
Dynamic Monarchianism
Eagle's Cry Denver,CO
Eadie, Betty
Eagle's Path Grand Junction, CO
Earth Church of Amargi St. Louis, MO
Earthmother Therapy Center
Earthsong, Wendy MossDallas, TX
East West Journal Syracuse, NY
Eastern School Press Talent, OR
Ebon, Martin
Ecclesia Athletic Association, Eldridge Broussard, Jr.Los Angeles, CA
Eckankar, Paul Twitchell
EcstasyOjai, CA
Eddy, Mary Baker
Effective Learning Systems Edina, MN
Elmwood Institute, Fritjof Capra
Emmanuel, J. David Davis Athens, TN
Emerald Circle
Enneagram
Epiphany Bible Students Association Mount Dora, FL
Esalen Institute, Michael Murphy Big Sur, CA
Esoteric Order of Dagon, Soror Azenath 23rd Abita Springs, LA
ESP
ESPress, Inc. Washngton, D.C.
Essene Gospel of Peace, Edmond Bordeaux Szekely
Essene Light Center, Mary L. Myers Charlotte, NC
est, Warner Erhard
Eupsychia Austin, TX
Evangelical Christianity
Evolutionary Kingdom Level Above Human Richardson, TX
Exaltation
Extrasensory Perception (ESP)
Faith Assembly Church, Raymond Jackson Jeffersonville, IN
Faithbuilders Fellowship San Diego, CA
Faithful Word Chicago, IL
Faith Temple, Rosemary Cosby Salt Lake City, UT
Family, The, Charles Manson
Family, The, David Berg
Family of Love, The
Farm, The, Stephen Gaskin Summertown, TN
Farrakhan, Louis
Fate Marion, OH
Fellowship For Spiritual Understanding, Marcus Bach Palos Verdes Estates
Fellowship of Isis
Fellowship of Universal Guidance Glendale, CA
Fellowship Press Noblesville, IN
Feminism
Feraferia Eagle Rock, CA
Fifth Epocal Fellowship Chicago, IL
Fitch, Joseph
Firewalking Institute of Research and Education Twain Harte, CA
First Church of Christ, Scientist, Mary Baker Eddy Boston, MS
First Demonic Church, Efrem Del Gatto Italy
First Temple of the Craft of W.I.C.A.South Chicago Heights, IL
First Universal Church of God-Realization, Bhagavan Sri Babajhan-Al-Kahlil
First World Conclave of Light San Diego, CA
FirstZen Institute of America New York, NY
Flirty Fishing
Flying Saucer Information Center Pasadena, MD
Form Criticism
Fort Worth Bible Students Fort Worth, TX
Fortunetelling
Forum, The
Foundation Church New York, NY
Foundation Church of Divine Truth Washington, D.C.
Foundation Church of the Millennium
Foundation Church of the New Birth
Foundation Faith
Foundation Faith of the Millennium New York
Foundation for Co-Creation, Barbara Marx HubbardGreenbraie, CA
Foundation for Higher Spiritual Learning Centreville, VA
Foundation for Inner PeaceFoundation for Life Action, Tara Singh Los Angeles, CA
Foundation for Shamanic Studies, Michael Harner Norwalk, CT
Foundation for Unlimited Consciousness, Rain Morgan Orcas, WA
Foundation of Human Understanding, Roy Masters Grants Pass, OR
Foundation of Light and Metaphysical Education Hurst, TX
Foundation of Revelation San Francisco, CA
Fox, Matthew
Fraternity of Light Philadelphia, PA
Free Soul Sedona, AZ
Free Spirit Brooklyn, NY
Freewinds Relay Office Clearwater, FL
Friends Review Hillsboro, OR
Fundamental Christianity
Gabriel Society, Ruth Harders Western Springs, IL
Gaia
Gandhi Memorial Center, Swami Premananda Washington, D.C.
G.A.P. Ministries Elm Grove, WI
Garvey Center Witchita, KS
Gateway To Light, Lloyd G. Sellman Dewey, AZ
Gateways Institute, Jonathan Parker Ojai, CA
Geller, Uri
Germain
Global Church of God, Roderick Meredith Glendora, CA
Global Family Palo Alto, CA
Globalism
Gnostic Catholic Church of Canada Edmonton, Alberta
Gnosticism
Goddess
God's House of Prayer for All People, Samuel T. Allen Dallas, TX
Golden Association, Ann Rogers San Jose, CA
Golden Book of the Theosophical Society, The
Golden Dawn, John Phillips Palmer Lumberville, PA
Golden Dolphin, Sheila Balenger Greenback, WA
Golden Eagle Sanctuary Hot Springs, AR
Golden Lion, Ann Alexander Houston, TX
Golden Quest, Hilda Charlton Lake Hill, NY
Golden Wheel, W.E. Reeve England
Good Cheer Press Boulder, Co
Good, Joseph
Grail Foundation of America, Abd-ru-shin Binghamton, NY
Grand Canyon Society Scottsdale, AZ
Great Invocation
Great Lakes Fellowship
Great Lakes Pagan Association Techumseh, Mi
Great Lakes Society for Biblical Research Jenison, MI
Great White Brotherhood
Greater Grace World Outreach, Carl H. Stevens, Jr. Baltimore, MD
Group for Creative Meditation
Grove of the Unicorn, Galadriel Atlanta, GA
Guardian Action International Deming, N
Guided Imagery
Guideposts
Guild For Hermetic Revelation Houston, T
Gunvik, Sigurd
Gurdjieff, George I.
Guru
Guru Devy San Francisco, CA
Halloween
Halpern, Steve
Hare Krishna
Harmonic Convergence
Harr, Brian Rochester, NY
Hartley, Harriette Arlington, TX
Hatha Yoga
Hatikva Ministries, Joseph Good Port Arthur, TX
Hawkwind, Charla Hawkwind Hermann Valley Head, AL
Hay, Louise
Healing Arts Expressions Solvang, CA
Healing Center Sarasota, FL
Health and Wealth Gospel
Health Conscious Services, Christ Singh Khalsa New Yor
Heart Consciousness Church Middletown, CA
Heart Dance Mill Valley, C
Heaven and Earth Gloucester, MA
Heaven's Magic
Heresy
Heretic
Heritage Institute Plainfield, WI
Hermit, Jan Moody Topsham, MA
High Point, Vance Harris Willard MO
High Wind Association Milwaukee, WI
Hinkins, John-Roger
Himalayan International Institute of Yoga Science and Philosophy, Swami
Rama Honesdale, PA
Hinduism
Hippocrates Health Institute West Palm Beach, FL
Hoffman, Teri Dallas, TX
Holiness Tabernacle Dyer, AR
Holistic Health
Holistic Life University San Francisco, CA
Hollyhock, Rex Weyler Blaine, W
Hohm Community, Lee Lozowick Tabor, NJ
Holy Body of the Coming Jesus Christ Mission in New Yor
Holy Grail Foundation, Leona Richards Santa Cruz, C
Holy Order of MANS, Earl Blighton
Holy Shankaracharya Order Stroudsburg, P
Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity
Homeopathy
Homewords, Susan Johansen Salt Lake City, UT
Horoscope
Horus/Maat Lodge
House of Divine Bread, J.L. Mociulewski Bayonne, N
House of Prayer for All People, William Blessing Denver, C
House of Yahweh Abilene, TX
House of Yahweh Odessa, TX
Houston, Jean
Hubbard, L. Ron
Hunger Project
Hyperborea, Mark Roberts Dallas, T
Hypnosis
I AM Movement, Guy Ballard: Occult, New Age, pantheism
I Ching
I DO Twin Falls, I
Identity Movement
Iglesia Ni Cristo, Felix Manalo
Imagery
Imagine, Nora Jennings Springfield, MO
Impossible Possibilities, Marshall Lever Annapolis, MD
Infinity Institute International Royal Oak, MI
Inner Connection Lewisville, TX
Inner Light New Brunswick, NJ
Inner Light Foundation, Betty Bethards Novato, CA
Inner Light Institute, Christina Thomas Memphis, TN
Inner Peace Movement, Francisco Coll
Inner Space Center
Inner Technologies, Richard Daab Fairfax, CA
Inner Vision Brooklyn, NY
Inner Way, Bruce Derby Homeland, CA
Insight magazine Washington, D.C.
Insight Transformational Seminars, John-Roger Hinkins
Institute for Advanced Perception, Harold S. Schroeppel Oak Park, I
Institute for Bio-Spiritual Research Coulterville, C
Institute for Family and Human Relations Los Gatos, C
Institute for the Advancement of Human Behavior Stanford, C
Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research, Henry Kinley Los Angeles, CA
Institute of Esoteric Study Milwaukee, WI
Institute of Greater Awareness, Steve Mazzarella Denver, CO
Institute of Judaic-Christian Research, Vendyl Jones Arlington, TX
Institute of Mental Science Nashville, T
Institute of Mentalphysics, Edwin Dingle Los Angeles, CA
Institute of Noetic Science, Edgar Mitchell Sausalito, CA
Institute of Sorcery Hillsdale, I
Institute of Spiritual Unfoldment
International Assembly of Wizards Brooklyn, NY
International Association of Scientologists England
International Church of Christ
International Community of Chris
International Fundamental of Astrological Sciences New York, N
International General Assembly of Spiritualists, Fred Jordan Norfolk, V
International Mahayana Yoga Association, Bo-In Lee Jamaica Plain, M
International Meditation Society
International Metaphysical Association New York, NY
International Religious and Magical Order of Societe, La Couleuvre Noir
International Society of Divine Love, H.D. Prakashanand Saraswati Austi
International Society for Krishna Consciousness
International Space Science Foundation, Rick Ardyn Salt Lake City, UT
Into the Light Tahlequah, O
Intuitive Explorations Quincy,
Invisable Fellowship Boulder, CO
Inward Bound, Alexander Everett Arlington, TX
Iridology
Isis New Age Center Denver, CO
Isis Unveiled
ISKCON
Islam, Muhammad
Isthmus Institute Dallas,
Jainism, Mahavira
Jamilian University of the Ordained, Gene Savoy Reno, NV
Jehovah's Witnesses
Jesus
Jesus Christ
Jesus Only
Jihad
Johannine Daist Communion, "Da Free John." a.k.a. Franklin Jone
John-David Learning Institute Carlsbad, CA
Jones, Jim
Jones, Vendyl
Jouret, Luc
Joy Lake Mountain Seminar Center Reno, N
Joy of Living Roosevelt, N
Judaism
Kabbalah
Kairos Foundation
Karma
Karma Yoga
Katherine Brooklyn, NY
Kemp, Daniel Patchogue, NY
Kerista Consciousness Church San Francisco, CA
Keys College, Ken and Penny Keys Eugene, OR
Keys To Understanding
Kingdom Voice Publications, Joseph Jeffers St. James, M
Kirpal Light Satsang, Sant Thakar Singh Kinderhook, N
Klassen, Frank Ft. David, T
Knight, J.Z.
Koresh, David
Kosmon
Krastman, Hank
Krieger, Dolores
Kripalu Yoga Retreat, Amrit Desai Summit Station, PA
Krishna
Krishnamurti Foundation of America Ojai, CA
Kundalini
Kunz, Dora
L. Ron Hubbard Gallery Hollywood, CA
Laksmi
Laodicean Home Missionary, John Krewson Ft. Myers, FL
Landmark
Lao-tzu
Laughing Dove Albuquerque, NM
Laymen's Home Missionary Movement, Raymond Jolly Chester Springs, PA
Lazaris
LDS
Lectorium Rosicrucianism Bakersfield, C
Lemurian Fellowship Ramona, CA
Liberal Christianity
Liberation Theology
Life Enhancement Systems Houston, TX
Life Training Dallas, TX
Life Understanding Foundation Santa Barbara, CA
Lifespring
LightCanal Winchester, OH
Light Connections Cardiff, CA
Light of the City Ministry Renton, WA
Light of the Holy Spirit, Harry Lee Holmberg Bativia, I
Light of the Universe, Maryona Tiffin, OH
Light of Truth Church, Fra Zarathustra Pasadena, CA
Light of Truth Church of Divine Healin
Light of Yoga Society Cleveland Heights, O
Light Speed, Zavi and Zava Sedona, A
Lighted Way Santa Monica, C
Lightworker Azel, TX
Literary Criticism
Little Flock
Lively Stones Fellowship Palatka, F
Living Waters, Lois Roden Waco, TX
L/L Research Louisville, K
Llewellyn New Times St. Paul, MN
Lor'd Industries Hancock, WI
Lotus
Louis Foundation, Louis Eastsound, WA
Loving Relationships Training, Sondra Ray
Lucifer
Lucifer Trust
Lucis Trust
Lumen Foundation San Francisco, CA
Lumin Essence Productions Oakland, CA
Luna Astrological Services Flint,
MacLaine, Shirley: New Age, seminars
Mafu
Magi Center, Inc. Paradise, CA
Magic
Maharishi Ayur-Ved Foundation
Maharishi International University, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Fairfield, I
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Mahavira
Mahikari, Kutama Okada Houston, TX
Malcolm X
Mandragore New York, NY
Mantra
Marah Madison, NJ
Mark-Age Miami, FL
Martindale, Craig
Master of Life, Dick Sutphen Agoura Hills, CA
Masters, Roy
Matagiri Sri Aurobindo Center, Inc
Maya
Maya Factor, Jose Arguelles
Mayan Order San Antonio, TX
McKean, Kip
Meditation
Meditation Group for New Age Ojai, CA
Mega
Megiddo Mission Church, L.T. Nichols Rochester, NY
Meridians
Messianic Assemblies of Yahweh North Warren, PA
Metaphysics
Metaphysical Institute for Research and Development Dallas, TX
Metaphysical Union, Hank Krastman Encino, CA
Meyer, Aleta Albuquerque, NM
Michael, Sandra
Midwest Research of Michigan, Owen Stitz Walled Lake, M
Miller, William
Mind Power Technique
Mind Science
Miracle Distribution Center Fullerton, CA
MISA, John-Roger Hinkins
Mo Letters
Modalism
Mohammed
Monarchianism
Mon-Ka Retreat and Universal Mother Mary's Garden of Healing, Energy
Monotheism
Monroe Institute, Robert Monroe Faber, V
Moon, Sun Myung
Moonies
Mormonism
Moyer, Bill
Muhammad
Muhammad, Elijah
Muscle Testing
Music Square Church
Muslim
Mysteria Products Company
Narconon Los Angeles, CA
Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad
Nation of Yahweh, Yahweh ben Yahweh,a.k.a., Hulon Mitchell, Jr. Miami, FL
National Council for Geocosmic Research Westchester, I
National Institute for Clinical Application of Behavioral Medicine
Mansfield Center, CT
National Spiritual Science Center, Alice Tindalli Washington, D.C
National Spiritualist Association of Churches Cassadaga, F
Native American Spirituality
Natures Sunshine, Kristine Hughes Spanish Fork, UT
Necromancy
Nelson, Bernard San Antonio, TX
Neo-Orthodox Christianity
Neo-Paganism
Neo-Pythagorean Gnostic Churc
Neuro-Linguistic Programming
New Age
New Age Church of The Christ, Thomas Printz Long Island, NY
New Age Church of Truth, Gilbert Holloway Deming, NM
New Age Community Church Phoenix, AZ
New Age Journal Brighton, MA
New Age Medicine
New Age Music
New Age Symposium Houston, TX
New Age Teachings Brookfield, MA
New Church
New Dimensions Foundation San Francisco, CA
New Life, Vernon Howard Boulder City, NV
New Realities Washington, D.C.
New Thot Free Thot, Bill Greenhouse Los Angeles, CA
New Thought
New Times Seattle, WA
Nichiren Shoshu of America (NSA), Daisakqu Ikeda Santa Monica, CA
Nightingale-Conant Chicago, IL
Nirvana
Niscience Glendale, CA
Nizhoni School of Global Consciousness Galisteo, NM
NLP
Noahides
Nova 8 Pueblo, CO
Nova Mystery School
Numerology
OAHSPE, John Newbrough
Oasis Fellowship Florence, AZ
Occult
Occult Americana Panesville, OH
Olcott library Wheaton, IL
Omega Institute for Holistic Studies Hudson River Valley, NY
Omega Press New Lebanon, NY
One to Grow On, Trenna Sutphen Malibu, C
Oneness
Order of Rhea Chicago, IL
Order of the Cross, J. Todd Ferrie
Order of the Solar Temple
Order of the Star
Ordo Adeptorum Invisiblum Chicago, IL
Ordo Templi Ashtart (OTA) Pasadena, CA
Ordo Templi Baph-Metis (OTB), James M. Martin Corpus Christi, T
Orr, Leonard
Orthodox Christianity
Ouija Board
Our Lady of Enchantment, Sabrina Danville, C
Out-of-Body Experience (OBE
Pacific Institute, Louis Tice Seattle, WA
Pacific West Fellowshi
Pagan Spiritual Alliance, Selena Fox Mt. Horeb, WI
Pagan Way Philadelphia, PA
Paganism
Palm Reading
Pan-American Indian Association
Panentheism
Pantheism
Papa Jim San Antonio, TX
Parapsychology
Parascience Institute Evanston, I
Past Life Regression
Pastoral Bible Institute Milwaukee, W
Path of Light Charlotte, N
Pathways: Ramana Maharshi Sarasota, FL
Patripassianism
Peace Community Church Washington, D.C.
Peace Pole
Peacevision Houston, TX
Peale, Norman Vincent
Pearl of Great Price
Peck, M. Scott:
Pelley, William D.
People House Denver, C
People's Temple Christian Church, Jim Jones Jonestown, Guyana
Peyote
Peyote Way Church of God, Anne L. Zapf Willcox, AZ
Phanes Grand Rapid, M
Philadelphia Church of God, Gerald Flurry Edmond, OK
Philadelphia Congregation of Yahweh, William Scampton Philadelphia, PA
Philosophic Community Center Denver, CO
Philosophical Publishing Co. Quakertown, PA
Philosophical Research Society, Manly P. Hall Los Angeles, CA
Plain Truth, The
Planet Health Arlington, TX
Plural Covenant
Polytheism
Positive Confession
Potter's House
Power for Abundant Living
PPPANA Macan, GA
Prana
Process Church of the Final Judgement, Robert de Grimston
Process Theology
Proclus Society and Neo-Pythagorean Gnostic Church Chicago, IL
Project X
Prophet, Elizabeth and Mark
Prosperity Doctrine
Prosperos, Thane Santa Monica, CA
Prosveta U.S.A., Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov Los Angeles, CA
Protestantism
Prout Northampton, MA
Psionics
Psychedelic Venus Church San Francisco, C
Psychiana, Frank Robinson
Psychic
Psychic Healing
Psychic Learning Center, Martha Woodworth Rockport, M
Psynetic Foundation Anaheim, CA
Puranas
Pursel, Jach
Pyramid Power
Pyramidology
Quartus Foundation, John Price Boerne, TX
Quest For Excellence Dallas, TX
Quimby, Phineas P.
Radiant School, Kenneth Wheller Mount Shasta, C
Radical Feminism
Rainbow Dallas, TX
Rainbow Charlotte, NC
Rainbow Earth Dwelling Society, J. Christine Hayes San Antonio, T
Rainbow Group
Raja Yoga
Ram Dass, a.k.a. Richard Alpert
Ramtha
Rastafarianism, Marcus Garvey
Ray, Sondra
Rebirthing
Rebirthing International, Leonard Orr
Redactor
Redfield, James
Reflexology
Reformation
Reiki
Reincarnation
Religious Science, Ernest Holmes
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS)
Reverend Ike, a.k.a., Frederick Eikerenkoetter, II
R I Research New York, NY
Rice, Anne
Rice, Nancy Broomfield, CO
Roberts, Jane
Robins, Anthony
Rock of Ages, The
Rocky Mountain Institute of Yoga and Ayurveda Denver, CO
Rocky Mountain Research Institute Fort Collins, CO
Rocky Mountain Spiritual Emergence NetworkBoulder, CO
Roman Catholicism
Ro-Hun Therapy
Rosicrucian Anthroposophic League, S.R. Parchment New York, N
Rosicrucian Fellowship, Max Heindel Oceanside, CA
Rosicrucian Foundation, Swinburne Clymer Quakertown, PA
Rosicrucian Order (AMORC), H. Spence Lewis San Jose, CA
Rosicrucianism, Christian Rosenkreutz
Rowan Tree, Paul Beyerlf Minneapolis, MN
Rune
Russell, Charles
Sabellianism
Sabo, Sandra Gloucester, MA
Sacred Cycles, Bette Barr-Glover San Juan Capistrano, CA
Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, The, John Allegro
Sacred Name
Sacred Order of Mystic Christianity Mountain View, CA
Sadhana Society Prescott, AZ
Sage Center, Ann Garner Arlington, T
Sage Woman Point Arena, CA
Saint Germain
Saint Germain Foundation Schaumburg, IL
Salvation by Grace
Salvation by Works
Samhain
Sanctuary of Gaia Santa Cruz, CA
Sanctuary of Revealing Light, Mildred Smith
Sankirtana
Santeria
Satan
Satanism
Savior of All Fellowship Montclair, CA
School for Esoteric Studies New York, NY
School of Ageless Wisdom Arlington, TX
School of Alchemy Boulder, CO
School of Metaphysics, Dennis Rodgers Norman, OK
School of Natural Order, Ralph M. deBit Baker, N
School of Thought, Hope Troxell June Lake, CA
Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures
Science of Mind Church, Lunn Gardner Mobile, A
Scientology
Scripture Research Association College Park, M
Scully, Nicki Eugene, OR
Search and Prove St. Paul Park, MN
Second Adventist Movement
Secret Doctrine, The
Secrets, Norma Cox Marshal, AR
Seeing Beyond Capitola, CA
Self-Realization Fellowship, Paramahansa Yogananda Los Angeles, CA
Self-Revelation Church of Absolute Monism, Swami Premananda Washington
Serpent Seed
Seth
Seven Oaks Madison, VA
Seventh Day Adventists
Shafenberg Research Foundation, Ernest Shafenberg Kingfisher, OK
Shaman
Shamanism
Shambhala Institute Asheville, N
Shambhla Publishing Boulder, CO
Shared Heart Foundation, Joyce and Berry Vissell Aptos, C
Shenoa Retreat Center Philo, CA
Shepherding
Shintoism
Shiva
Siddha Yoga Dham of America, Swami Muktananda Paramahansa South Fallsbur
Siegel, Bernie
Sikhism, Nanak
Silva Mind Control, Jose Silva
Silver, Marshall Tempe, AZ
Singer, David
Singh, Sant Thakar
Sino-American Buddhism Association San Francisco, C
Smith, Joseph
Societas Rosicruciana In America, Palmer New York, N
Society of Pragmatic Mysticism, Mildred Mann New York, N
Solar Quest Seneca, MD
Soka Gakkai International (SGI)
Solar Temple
Songs of David Marvel, TX
Sons of Noah
Sophia
Soul Sleep
Soulmates
Sovereignty, Inc. Eastsound, WA
Spangler, David
Spiritism
Spiritual Advancement of the Individual Foundation, Sai Baba Los Angeles
Spiritual Advisory Council Orlando, FL
Spiritual Frontiers Fellowship, Author Ford Evanston, IL
Spiritual Hierarchy Information Center Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Spiritual Horizons Church Houston, T
Spiritual Research Society, Edward Cain Grand Rapids, M
Spiritual Science Institute Santa Barbara, CA
Spiritualism
Spring Hill Institute, Robert Gass and Judith Gass Tierr
Stallone Astrology Center, Jacqueline Stallone Toluca Lake, CA
Star Center for the Americas Montgomery, TX
Starlight Mystic Awareness School, Diane Tessman Poway, CA
Star Quest Argyle, TX
Starshine Center Corpus Christi, T
Stelle Group, Richard Kieninger Stelle, I
Steps to Awareness Telluride, CO
Sterling Management
Stil-Light Retreat Center Waynesville, N
Students International Meditation Societ
Subliminal Messages
Sufi Order of the Sons of the Green Light New York, NY
Sufism
Summit Lighthouse
Summum Salt Lake City, U
Sun, The Chapel Hill, NC
Sundoor, Peggy Dylan Twain Harte, CA
Superet Brotherhood for mankind, Josephine C. Trust Los Angeles, C
Supersensonic Energy Technologies Boulder Creek, CA
Sutphen, Dick
Sweat Lodge
Swedenborg Foundation, Emanuel Swedenborg New York, NY
SYDA
Synchronicity Foundation Faber, V
Taff, Signe Quinn Sedona, AZ
Taj Mahal Agra, India
Talisman
Tao Te Ching
Tao Tsang
Taoism, Lao-tzu
Tara Center, Benjamin Creme North Hollywood, CA
Tarot Cards
Teachers of Light
Technicians of the Sacred Burbank, C
Temple of Danann, Michael Ragan Hanover, I
Temple of Kriya Yoga, Goswami Kriyananda Chicago, I
Temple of Set, Michael Aquino
Temple of the Ascended Master, Ted M. Pierce Yarness, A
Temple of the People, William Dower Halcyon, C
Temple of the Psychedelic Light and the Church of the Realized Fantasy
Temple of the Universe, Amrit Desai Alachua, F
Temple of Truth
Teresa, Joan Power Products Mars Hill, NC
Teutonic Temple, Clarence Bartholomew The Dallas, O
Texas Wholistic Network Azel, TX
Therapeutic Touch
Theosophical Society in America, Helena Blavatsky Wheaton, IL
Theosophical Society - International Pasadena, CA
Theosophy, Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
Theosophy Company Los Angeles, C
Third Eye
Thought Trends Roswell, GA
Tibetan Buddhism
TM
Torres, Penny
Touch for Health
Touch Stone San Francisco, CA
Touch Therapy
Trance Channeling
Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Transformational Seminars
Tree of Knowledge Westchester, IL
Trick or Treat
Trinity
Tritheism
Triumph Prophetic Ministries Church of God, William Dankenbring Altadena
Triumph Publishing
True Mother and True Father
Tucson Tabernacle Tucson, AZ
Two by Twos
UFO
UG Farmingdale, NY
Unarius Academy of Science, Ruth Norman El Cajon, C
Unarius Education Foundation, Ernest Norman El Cajon, C
Understanding Inc., Daniel Fry Tonopah, AZ
Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO)
Unitarianism
Unitarian-Universalist
United Lodge of Theosophists New York, NY
United Pentecostal
United Research, James V. Goure Black Mountain, NC
Unitology Thought Indianapolis, IN
Unity of Knowledge Foundation, Edith May Custard Arlington, V
Unity School of Christianity, Charles and Myrtle Fillmore Lee's Summit, MO
Unity Villag
Universal Christian Movement Glencoe, IL
Universal Faithists of Kosmon, George Morley
Universal Harmony Foundation Seminole, FL
Universal Life Church, Kirby Hensley Medesto, CA
Universal Life Church of the Seven African Powers Miami, F
Universal Life Temple New Port, MI
Universal Light of Christ Church, Pat RaimondoAzle, T
Universal Mother Mary's Garden, Mary Pacquette Grass Valley, CA
Universal Network Aztec, NM
Universal Spiritualist Association Chesterfield, IN
Universal Temple of Divine Light, Don Slocum Baton Rouge, LA
Universalism
Universariun Foundation, Inc. Portland, O
University of the Christ Light Charlotte, NC
University of the Trees, Christopher Hill Boulder Creek, C
University of the 12 Rays of the Great Central Sun
Upanishads
Upper Triad Manassas, VA
URANTIA Brotherhood Chicago, IL
Vedas
Verse 1 of Psalms 91 Marvel, TX
Virgin Birth
Vishnu
Vision Quest
Visions Travel Los Angeles, C
Visualization
Voice of Reality Phoenix, AZ
Voice of the Olive Tree, Inc., Bernard Harland Monrovia, C
Voodoo
Waldorf School
Warren Bible Students
Watchtower
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Charles Taze Russell Brooklyn, NY
Way Corps, The
Way International, The, Victor Paul Wierwille New Knoxville, OH
Western Nath Order Seattle, W
Whirling Dervish
White Dove International, Stuart Wilde Taos, NM
White Dove Partridge
White Eagle
Whitelights Westlake Village, CA
Whittaker, Terry Cole
Whole Life Network Santa Cruz, CA
Wholistic Innerworks Foundation, Randy Barns Durango, CO
Wicca
Wikima Arlington, TX
Wilde, Stuart
Williamson, Marianne
Willow Keep Wilton, N
Windsong Explorations, Bonnie Simrell Nederland, CO
Wisdom Institute of Spiritual Education Dallas, TX
WISE International Los Angeles, CA
Wise Woman Center, Susan Weed Woodstock, N
Witchcraft
W.J. Publishers, Brother Stanley Toronto, Ontari
Woman's Circle El Prado, NM
Women's Federation for World Peace, Hak Ja Han Moon New York, N
Womyn Healing, Sandra Boston de Sylvia Greenfield, M
Word-Faith Movement
Word Over the World
World Community, J.E. Rash Bedford, VI
World Tomorrow, The
Worldwide Church of God, Herbert W. Armstrong Pasadena, CA
WOW
Yahweh ben Yahweh
Yahwehism
Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah, David Barnard Rockport, MO
Yang
Yes Education Society Washington, D.C
Yi King
Yin and Yang
Yoga
Yoga Journal Berkley, CA
Yoga Research Foundation, Jyotir Maya Nanda Miami, FL
Yoga Research Society Phildelphia, PA
Yogi
Zen Buddhism
Zen Master Rama, a.k.a. Frederick P. Lenz
Zendik Farm, Wulf Aendik Boulveard, C
Zentech, Don Mead Surry, ME
Zerubbabel, Inc. Hopkinsville, KY
Zodiac
Zoroastrianism, Zoroaster
Zygon International, Dane Spotts Issaquah, WA
|
347.290 | It takes all kinds | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Feb 02 1996 15:48 | 4 |
| My favorite is "The Church of Unlimited Devotion"
They worship Jerry Garcia. They believe that Garcia's guitar is a channel for
God
|
347.291 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Feb 02 1996 15:58 | 5 |
| >And they are all right, too!
What do you mean by this? That all of the cults listed are "right"?
/john
|
347.292 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | mz morality sez... | Fri Feb 02 1996 16:02 | 2 |
| i think he means right as in correct. like you always are,
john.
|
347.293 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Fri Feb 02 1996 17:03 | 4 |
| So is he saying that these groups are "right" simply because the
Watchman organization lists them as being "wrong"?
/john
|
347.294 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | We shall behold Him! | Fri Feb 02 1996 17:13 | 8 |
|
I think he is saying that all of the groups claim "they are right".
Jim
|
347.295 | I forgot the :-) | GENRAL::RALSTON | Fugitive from the law of averages | Fri Feb 02 1996 17:47 | 2 |
| So many groups, so many who know what is right, errrr correct, errrr valid
errrrr well you know.
|
347.296 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Jun 04 1996 17:11 | 29 |
| ZZ I didn't say that, you did. I didn't even imply it. What I said was
ZZ | you are limiting your effectiveness.
ZZ Then they must be too, right?
Wasn't sure where else to post...but since I'm a fundamentalist...
Glen, my belief, has been documented a few times in this forum and should
be of no surprise to anybody.
The Holy Spirit can only dwell in a regenerated, redeemed individual.
The Holy Spirit cannot dwell within the life of an individual unless
they are MADE righteous. As you eloquently stated, goodness and
righteousness can ONLY come from God, correct? Therefore, since the
Holy Spirit can only dwell in a person who has been redeemed by the
righteousness bestowed from God, I would challenge you to answer your
own question...since by your logic, and Jesus for that matter, no good
comes except that which is from God.
Jesus is the redeemer, you believe this correct...since redemption can
only come from God. Remember, by your logic, the goodness within us
comes only from God...and I commend you on this position. If one
denies this redemption, how does one allow themselves to be utilized by
their full potential by God.
-Jack
P.S. Remember Glen...GOD ONLY USES people...the power doesn't come from
people but from God alone. Congratulations on acknowleding this point.
|
347.297 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Jun 04 1996 17:13 | 8 |
| By the way...two notes...
I repeated in same paragraph and used comma inappropriately. My
apologies to the grammer crackpots.
Secondly, I pounded this point over and over...that being goodness only
comes from God because I don't want Glen to suddenly come down with one
of his amnesia acts.
|
347.298 | crackpots | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Jun 04 1996 17:25 | 2 |
|
Okay, now apologize for .297, Jack. ;>
|
347.299 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Jun 04 1996 17:38 | 1 |
| Ooops....that's right...you are.....I sorry!!!!!
|
347.300 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Jun 04 1996 17:39 | 1 |
| Crackpot wacko zealous snarf!
|
347.301 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Jun 04 1996 17:39 | 1 |
| Glen, please address .296!
|
347.302 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Jun 04 1996 17:42 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 347.299 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
> Ooops....that's right...you are.....I sorry!!!!!
I didn't meant the crackpots comment - I meant the writing
errors. ;>
|
347.303 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Jun 04 1996 17:47 | 3 |
| OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH....(Edith Bunker voice!)....
Me vewy sorry kimosabee!
|
347.304 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Jun 04 1996 19:12 | 6 |
| >The Holy Spirit can only dwell in a regenerated, redeemed individual.
>The Holy Spirit cannot dwell within the life of an individual
>unless they are MADE righteous.
Jack Martin, a man possessed. :)
|
347.305 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jun 04 1996 19:21 | 1 |
| I think he really deserved that. :-)
|
347.306 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Wed Jun 05 1996 00:03 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 347.296 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
Jack, with all you wrote, it was based on beliefs, not on the Bible. So
I would have to answer my question as no, as my question was based on your view
of me and the Bible.
Glen
|
347.307 | | EDITEX::MOORE | GetOuttaMyChair | Wed Jun 05 1996 03:04 | 4 |
|
> my question was based on your view of me and the Bible.
Through a glass, darkly. Just like me and the Bible.
|
347.308 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Wed Jun 05 1996 09:21 | 1 |
| <---so you wear glasses to read the Bible? :-)
|
347.309 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Jun 05 1996 10:26 | 18 |
| Glen, that's good. I assume your "no" answer is in regard to the question
of people of other faiths living up to their full potential.
Now, to my next question....
Z Andy, if a glass house is why one should not judge, then no one should
Z judge, PERIOD. We all sin. Each thing we do wrong is a sin. No sin is
Z greater than another.
Glen, John the Baptist was beheaded for the crime of uttering these
words....
"Herod, it is not lawful for you to have your brothers wife"
Was John the Baptist Judging and was John the Baptist within the realm
of correctness by doing so?
-Jack
|
347.310 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Wed Jun 05 1996 10:30 | 14 |
| .309
> John the Baptist was beheaded for the crime of uttering these
> words....
> "Herod, it is not lawful for you to have your brothers wife"
> Was John the Baptist Judging and was John the Baptist within the realm
> of correctness by doing so?
The answer to the first question is NO. He was merely citing the LAW,
not making a moral judgment of any kind. Therefore, the second
question is meaningless because it assumes an affirmative answer to the
first.
|
347.311 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Jun 05 1996 11:09 | 9 |
| Dick, John the Baptist was making an indictment on Herod...this is why
he was thrown into prison. Herod was having relations with the wife of
his brother, Phillip. The reference is Matthew 14, 1-5. You will find
in scripture that most indictments against sinners were based on
scripture...since the Mosaic law was the hingepin of their society.
Therefore, I continue to query Glen on this matter. Was it proper for
John the Baptist to give a judgemental indictment such as this? If so
then how does this practice pertain to the church today?
|
347.312 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Wed Jun 05 1996 11:22 | 13 |
| .311
> John the Baptist was making an indictment on Herod.
It's accepted among believers that John disapproved of Herod's boffing
Herodias in terms of its being a sin. But the indictment he actually
delivered wasn't in those terms. He didn't say, "You're sinning
against the LORD your God." He certainly could have said that, but
what he did say was, "You're breaking the law." Where the law came
from is immaterial, the same as it's immaterial where the law against
driving 75 in a 55 MPH zone came from. A cop doesn't expound his or
her personal feelings on the speed limit, he or she cites the LAW.
Which is what John did.
|
347.313 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Jun 05 1996 11:37 | 20 |
| I think the apostle Paul would disagree with this...considering the law
as they understood it had powerful ramifications. Consider the
incident that happened in Corinth where a young man was
disfellowshipped for having an elicit affair with his father's wife.
Paul as both an apostle and a prophet understood the actions of this
young man were not in harmony with the nature of God, and took it upon
himself to admonish the church for its approval of this behavior.
I as a fellow believer claim this authority to admonish my brother in
Christ just as it is your obligation to do so. And by the way Dick,
you have done such a thing in the past.
So Glen, hopefully you have been following along and have a clearer
understanding...although I have told you this time and time again and
you in response have, as you are now, maintaining your silence.
Glen, are we called to admonish our brother and sister in faith toward
righteousness...just as Paul the apostle did and just as John the
Baptist did?!
-Jack
|
347.314 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Wed Jun 05 1996 11:48 | 21 |
| | <<< Note 347.309 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
| Glen, that's good. I assume your "no" answer is in regard to the question
| of people of other faiths living up to their full potential.
The no is that I can't know if they do or not. I don't think the Bible
has anything to do with living up to one's potential. So in their religions,
where the Bible is not part of it, the non belief of the Bible is not keeping
them from reaching their potentials.
| "Herod, it is not lawful for you to have your brothers wife"
| Was John the Baptist Judging and was John the Baptist within the realm
| of correctness by doing so?
Telling someone they are doing something wrong is not judging them in
the sense that I thought people were talking about. It's none of John's
business what Herod does.
Glen
|
347.315 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Wed Jun 05 1996 11:50 | 12 |
| .313
> incident that happened in Corinth
Citation, please? Surely you couldn't mean 1 Corinthians 5, which is
about as hazy as one could get - Paul says "it is reported that there
is fornication among you."
Bear in mind that in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul enjoins the congregation to
deliver a man who boffs his father's wife to Satan for destruction of
the flesh in order that the soul might be saved. In other words, kill
the perp so he can go to heaven. Yeah, right.
|
347.316 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Wed Jun 05 1996 11:50 | 18 |
| | <<< Note 347.313 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
| I think the apostle Paul would disagree with this...
Yes, he probably would. But he was a man with many opinions..... so it
is expected.
| Glen, are we called to admonish our brother and sister in faith toward
| righteousness...just as Paul the apostle did and just as John the
| Baptist did?!
You can try and direct someone to what YOU feel is the correct path. If
a person does not follow that path, you can no more say they aren't living up
to their potential than anyone else. Because at that point you have judged
them. And that is the type of judging I am talking about.
Glen
|
347.317 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Jun 05 1996 11:52 | 1 |
| Did they do it in the back seat of a car with fine Corinthian leather?
|
347.318 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Jun 05 1996 11:53 | 11 |
| Z Telling someone they are doing something wrong is not judging them in
Z the sense that I thought people were talking about. It's none of John's
Z business what Herod does.
In that society, it was very much John's business...considering the
Mosaic law was the hingepin of that culture...or it was supposed to be.
Glen, the church is not a libertarian organization. If you are living
in sin, you need to turn from it...Repent and change your ways.
-Jack
|
347.319 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Wed Jun 05 1996 11:57 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 347.317 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
| Did they do it in the back seat of a car with fine Corinthian leather?
If you had that note in .318, it would have been quite the
accomplishment. Chrysler had the 318 engine, afterall. :-)
|
347.320 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Jun 05 1996 11:57 | 7 |
| Dick,
The destruction of the flesh is not necessarily referring to death.
Whatever the destruction of the flesh was referring to, it worked
because the young man repented and was brought back into fellowship.
-Jack
|
347.321 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Wed Jun 05 1996 11:58 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 347.318 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
| Glen, the church is not a libertarian organization. If you are living
| in sin, you need to turn from it...Repent and change your ways.
Jack, once again... you can try to lead someone away from what you
believe is a sin. But you can not say that they have not reached their
potential if they don't. Because at that point you have judged them.
Glen
|
347.322 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Jun 05 1996 12:10 | 5 |
| Z Jack, once again... you can try to lead someone away from what you
Z believe is a sin. But you can not say that they have not reached their
Z potential if they don't.
Why's that?
|
347.324 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Wed Jun 05 1996 12:11 | 5 |
| .322
Because you are making judgments of their potential, and you are
basing those judgments on your religious beliefs rather than on any
objective criteria. Judgment, pure and simple.
|
347.323 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Wed Jun 05 1996 12:12 | 15 |
| .320
> The destruction of the flesh is not necessarily referring to death.
Odd. The Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 5 is sarx - if taken in the
literal sense, as many fundamentalists insist the whole Bible must be,
excepting only Revelation, this is the flesh-and-blood body. Destroy-
ing it means corporal death. This passage, FWIW, is the very one that
the Spanish Inquisition based its policies of the auto da f� on.
> the young man repented and was brought back into fellowship.
I asked once for a citation. Apparently this incident is one you have
made up out of whole cloth. (The reference in 1 Corinthias 5 asks why
the alleged perp was NOT disfellowshipped.)
|
347.325 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Jun 05 1996 12:31 | 24 |
| I think two different converstaions are being mixed up here. Glen was
stating to Andy that we should not judge...this was one exchange. Then
Glen and I had an exchange as to how his lack of faith in scripture as
an authority is stunting his potential...which by the way is a bonafied
observation and I stand by it. Glen then said "Oh great...then myself,
moslems, and Jews are going to hell..." or some wacky reply out from
left field which had nada to do with the conversation. It was then
that I said something to the effect of..."If Righteousness comes from
God alone, and the Holy Spirit can only dwell within a believer, then
I believe somebody not of the faith is not living up to the potential to
which God can use them....since as Glen concurred, righteousness can
only come from God and the Spirit of God can only dwell within a
believer.
See Dick, the basic problem with Glen, and I speak of this as an
observation, is that Glen like much of the populace has fallen into the
clap trap of relativism. Translation...God is the rock in your back
yard...if you so choose it to be. God is nature...if you so choose it
to be. Truth is subjective to the belief of the individual and truth
as an element of reality does not exist. Now this observation will
most likely be challenged as flawed...I'm sure of it. But that is
certainly the impression I'm getting.
-Jack
|
347.326 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Wed Jun 05 1996 12:36 | 7 |
| Jack, you are still judging Glen. You are saying, "If *only* you would
put your faith in scripture, you would be a better person." The real
truth is that if he did put his faith in scripture he would be more
like the kind of person *you* think he should be. But he might be a
less spirit-breathed person for doing that - you simply have *no* way
to tell what is really in his heart or how the Paraclete is working in
him. You are, therefore, passing judgment on him.
|
347.327 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Wed Jun 05 1996 12:49 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 347.322 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
| Why's that?
Read the rest of the note you took that from.
|
347.328 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 05 1996 12:51 | 15 |
| .326
Uhmmm....
Let me see if I can add anything to this circular discussion.
As Christians who believe the Bible, we also believe the judgement to
which we submit is from God. In order to submit to this judgement we
must understand His ways, and His criteria for success. We also
believe that this criteria for success is the same for everyone. So,
the very stick by which you say Glen is being measured is the very same
stick by which Jack himself is measured. It is not a question of what
Jack THINKS, but what Jack BELIEVES is that criteria.
|
347.329 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Wed Jun 05 1996 12:58 | 27 |
| | <<< Note 347.325 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
| I think two different converstaions are being mixed up here. Glen was
| stating to Andy that we should not judge...this was one exchange.
And you should now look as to why Andy was judging. Try it.
| Then Glen and I had an exchange as to how his lack of faith in scripture as
| an authority is stunting his potential...
Which by the way is a bonafied example of areas you should not judge.
| Glen then said "Oh great...then myself, moslems, and Jews are going to hell...
If you're gonna quote me, at least get it right. I asked you (which you
never answered) if my not believing the Bible makes me not live up to my
potential, does it also make the ones you listed above not live up to their
potential. Could you answer it now?
| is that Glen like much of the populace has fallen into the clap trap of
| relativism.
No, reality.
Glen
|
347.330 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Wed Jun 05 1996 13:05 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 347.328 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
| So, the very stick by which you say Glen is being measured is the very same
| stick by which Jack himself is measured. It is not a question of what Jack
| THINKS, but what Jack BELIEVES is that criteria.
And that is what we are talking about. Jack may believe something is
right, or something is wrong. He may be right, he may be wrong.
No one gets upset if Jack says X is wrong to him. But people get upset
if Jack says someone is not reaching their potential because they don't do what
Jack believes.
Glen
|
347.331 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 05 1996 13:11 | 12 |
| .330
Okay, now what? You know that Jack is not convinced that what he
believes is his own. That it is God's criteria. You KNOW that Jack
measures himself by this criteria as well.
So, there is no hypocrisy in the above. And furthermore, in Jack's
mind there is no judgement that he owns because the criteria is the
Bible.
From where comes your criticism towards Jack?
|
347.332 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Wed Jun 05 1996 13:26 | 9 |
| .328
It is an axiom that what Jack (or anyone else) BELIEVES are God's
criteria is not the same thing as the criteria themselves.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now
I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
- 1 Corinthians 13:12, KJV
|
347.333 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Wed Jun 05 1996 14:31 | 25 |
| | <<< Note 347.331 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
| Okay, now what? You know that Jack is not convinced that what he
| believes is his own. That it is God's criteria. You KNOW that Jack
| measures himself by this criteria as well.
Partially right. Are you willing to say that everything that Jack
believes in is 100% correct? I don't think you will make that statement about
him, be, or yourself. I do think Jack's, your, and my beliefs are believed to
be true by individual selves. But that doesn't mean we are really right. As we
humans find out time and time again, we can be wrong.
| So, there is no hypocrisy in the above.
Only if Jack is God, as one would have to be perfect in order for what
you just said to not be true.
| From where comes your criticism towards Jack?
Reread my notes.
Glen
|
347.334 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Jun 05 1996 14:39 | 4 |
| Z Only if Jack is God, as one would have to be perfect in order for what
Z you just said to not be true.
Oh ye of little understanding!
|
347.335 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Wed Jun 05 1996 14:55 | 5 |
| | <<< Note 347.334 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
| Oh ye of little understanding!
I like it when you are looking into your mirror. :-)
|
347.336 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Wed Jun 05 1996 15:47 | 47 |
| .330
Some people do not like it when others believe in absolutes, and speak
out on it. Some folks have an aversion to this kind of concrete
reality that can unravel their rationalizations, and reveal their
futile way of thinking for what it is. Better to argue
against absolutes than to do an indepth self-analysis using the
scriptures as a filter; it is much easier than forcing one to face the
truth about themselves. Better to believe that God gave us nothing
concrete upon which we can stand, so we can continue in our persuits of
the flesh. After all, nothing is absolute, so how can we be certain
that what we do is wrong.
This isn't directed specifically at you, Glen, it just so happens that
your philosophy of morality (and your .330 8^) ) has prompted my
comments- which, of course, are based upon the same criteria as are
Jack's comments- the Bible. God speaks very clearly on this, in
warning, of following one's own ways rather than God's ways.
Although there are certainly grey areas in the Bible, there is also a
concrete message of good and evil- of sin and righteousness. There is
no confusing the two, though society is doing its best to do this very
thing. Because one thing is grey, they try to broad brush it all to be
gray, even those portions that are crystal clear. Rationalizations
serve no one (except a certain entity that many do not believe exists).
You KNOW from what perspective Jack is coming, as do all who note here.
Taking him to task for judgeing is unfair (though I think that is was
Mr. Binder who did this, not you), as you KNOW his comment are
rooted in his beliefs- it is too obvious to ignore. If you feel his
beliefs are wrong, fine, but don't be getting upset when he discusses
things in this way. I see no judgement but one screened through God's
Word. You do not believe the Bible is God's word. Fine. You
disagree.
If you don't believe the Bible to be authoritative, none of this should
bother you a bit. Of course, being a Christian, I wonder how you can
trust the Bible's account of Jesus (a bit of irony, IMO). If it was
written by faulty humans, certainly a story as wild as God coming to
earth to die for mankind to remove sin, is rather fantastic.
Without a solid foundation, faith is like a building
- when hard times (powerful storm) come, it tends to fall apart.
-steve
|
347.337 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 05 1996 16:31 | 5 |
| .328
Acknowlegement made. But your preaching to the choir with me, Dick.
Nancy
|
347.338 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Wed Jun 05 1996 17:34 | 9 |
| .337
I assume you were responding to my .332, which was a response to your
.328? :-)
> preaching to the choir
As I well know. I'm not sure Jack understands the difference between
his perceptions and reality, however. :-)
|
347.339 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Wed Jun 05 1996 17:51 | 43 |
| | <<< Note 347.336 by ACISS2::LEECH >>>
| Some people do not like it when others believe in absolutes, and speak
| out on it.
Steve, can a human being achieve an absolute? I think not (imho). There
is always a tweak here, or there..... and that is endless. Only God can achieve
an absolute.
| Although there are certainly grey areas in the Bible, there is also a
| concrete message of good and evil- of sin and righteousness.
It's all grey.....
| You KNOW from what perspective Jack is coming, as do all who note here.
| Taking him to task for judgeing is unfair (though I think that is was
| Mr. Binder who did this, not you), as you KNOW his comment are
| rooted in his beliefs- it is too obvious to ignore.
It does not matter if it is his beliefs or not. It does not make it an
absolute, so he can not state someone is not getting the most out of their life
if they don't match what Jack believes is right.
Someday it may even come to pass that you or I were wrong on this
homosexuality thing. We both don't see that day coming, but only God knows.
| If you don't believe the Bible to be authoritative, none of this should
| bother you a bit.
Errr..... Steve, I believe that you can't reach your full potential
because you think a mere history book called the Bible is the inerrant Word of
God.
| Without a solid foundation, faith is like a building when hard times
| (powerful storm) come, it tends to fall apart.
This is bull dooties. People who believe the Bible fall apart under
pressure everyday. And they are supposed to have that solid foundation you talk
of. A book isn't going to cure this. Only Him.
Glen
|
347.340 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Jun 05 1996 20:10 | 24 |
| >After all, nothing is absolute, so how can we be certain that what we do
>is wrong.
Absolutes do exist, just not in the mystical world of religion. As a law
of nature expressed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, facts
asserted as truth are never certain. But, principles contextually
determined through integrated and honest knowledge are always certain.
For example, one can have certainty about the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle without paradox or contradiction. Metaphysically one can be
certain that any particle always has an exact position and momentum at
any exact time. But, epistemologically one can be certain that exact
position and momentum cannot be simultaneously measured, at least not
directly. Measurements can be validly done in Euclidean/Galilean/Newtonian
coordinate systems or in noneuclidean/relativistic/quantum-mechanical
systems, depending on the object measured and the accuracy desired. And
finally, the indeterminate and probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics
does not negate the laws of identity, noncontradiction, or cause and
effect. The decay of radioactive atoms, for example, are both indeterminate
and probabilistic. But, each decay has an identifiable, noncontradictory
cause. Working within the realms of fact, as opposed to unfounded
mystical illusions, always leads to the discovery of absolutes.
Religions, in order to foist their mystical illusions upon the masses,
need to assert that absolutes do not exist.
|
347.341 | | USAT02::HALLR | God loves even you! | Wed Jun 05 1996 21:48 | 3 |
| tom:
whatcha been smokin?
|
347.342 | ? | MFGFIN::E_WALKER | | Thu Jun 06 1996 02:17 | 4 |
| re.340::
Very impressive. What did it all mean?
|
347.343 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Thu Jun 06 1996 08:38 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 347.342 by MFGFIN::E_WALKER >>>
| Very impressive. What did it all mean?
It means he was right... there are absolutes.... cuz he was absolutely
wrong! :-) (sorry, couldn't resist)
|
347.344 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Jun 06 1996 09:59 | 1 |
| It's really up to the photons you perceive as you read his note.
|
347.345 | re, .340 - here we go again (sigh)... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jun 06 1996 10:32 | 67 |
|
> Absolutes do exist, just not in the mystical world of religion.
Of course, this is your assertion. Others disagree.
> As a law of nature expressed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
> facts asserted as truth are never certain.
This is not a correct encapsulation of Heisenberg, who is often
garbled. He says you CAN know either the EXACT position or EXACT
momentum of a particle, but not BOTH. Thus, facts CAN be certain.
Just not all the ones you need.
> But, principles contextually determined through integrated and honest
> knowledge are always certain. For example, one can have certainty about
> the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle without paradox or contradiction.
> Metaphysically one can be certain that any particle always has an exact
> position and momentum at any exact time.
No fair ! ANYTHING can be "certain" if you allow "metaphysics".
But no system of metaphysics is demonstrable to others' satisfaction.
And people profoundly disagree, both as to whether there is any such thing
as a valid metaphysics, and among those who believe in it, what it is.
The only statements one can actually demonstrate deductively can all
be shown to be one or another sort of tautology, e.g. 2+2=4. Any other
"truth" requires observation or dependence upon axiomatic assertions.
And in the ballgame you are playing, an atheist's axia can carry no
more weight than a theist's, without special pleading.
> But, epistemologically one can be certain that exact
> position and momentum cannot be simultaneously measured, at least not
> directly. Measurements can be validly done in Euclidean/Galilean/Newtonian
> coordinate systems or in noneuclidean/relativistic/quantum-mechanical
> systems, depending on the object measured and the accuracy desired. And
> finally, the indeterminate and probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics
> does not negate the laws of identity, noncontradiction, or cause and
> effect. The decay of radioactive atoms, for example, are both indeterminate
> and probabilistic. But, each decay has an identifiable, noncontradictory
> cause.
This is correct.
> Working within the realms of fact, as opposed to unfounded
> mystical illusions, always leads to the discovery of absolutes.
You have not demonstrated this. I don't believe it. You "think" that
your observations lead to "absolutes", but others, observing exactly
the same facts, reach diametrically opposed absolutes.
> Religions, in order to foist their mystical illusions upon the masses,
> need to assert that absolutes do not exist.
Religions vary in this regard. Some assert axia, some do not. And
for that matter, so do atheistic philosophies vary in this regard.
You've used a lot of big words, but your contention fails at being
non-mystical, in the sense of appealing to logic alone. I see this
constantly in your notes on this and similar subjects - an apparent
inability to see that your contentions, which you rush through, appear
to be completely unsubstantiated to anybody who has no initiation
into them. One can only conclude you are propounding a philosophy
which differs little from a religion. In fact, some abstract theists
write almost exactly this sort of thing themselves.
bb
|
347.346 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Thu Jun 06 1996 10:55 | 7 |
| .345
> axia
What is this "axia"? The plural of axiom is axioms - if you're trying
to be cute and take it back the the Latin neuter plural you're showing
your ignorance because the Latin word is axioma (plural axiomae).
|
347.347 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Jun 06 1996 11:10 | 3 |
|
<crowd contemplates this hideous blunder in shocked silence>
|
347.348 | i'm sorry, hare binder | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jun 06 1996 11:13 | 20 |
|
Yes, it's axioms, Mr. Binder. And yes, it wuz a poor cuteness.
I sort of like "postulates" better, as a word I think, as Euclid
is often translated.
The Greeks had all these arguments millenia (there !) ago. You
really only get three ways to "prove" anything :
(1) Assert it. Axion, postulate, assumption, etc.
(2) Deduce it. Demonstrate it follows from axioms. That is, that
it is a tautology, no matter how complicated.
(3) Observe it. This cannot be absolute, because it is inductive
and probabilistic. Observed "facts" are depended on all the
time, even though we know they aren't sure bets. They do have
the property that as more random observations repeat the
conclusion, they approach certainty as a limit, but never reach
it.
bb
|
347.349 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Jun 06 1996 11:30 | 5 |
| I love it when bb's hair raises on the back of the neck. :)
Let me simplify. Knowledge is knowable and once known becomes an
absolute. Religions don't like absolutes because the ever increasing
knowledge within society continually disproves their mystic theories.
|
347.350 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Jun 06 1996 11:48 | 2 |
|
.345 very astute, as usual.
|
347.351 | well, sure | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jun 06 1996 11:52 | 31 |
|
We're actually not as far apart as you think, Tom. I'm sure you
are reacting hostilely to the "revealed", prophetic religions as
popularly practiced - the faithful are preached to, and are inured
to unsettling observations. I am reminded of the handwaving of the
"young earth" theists in here. I can't accept philosophies that
clash so strongly with my own reasoning from my own observation.
In my experience, these can be just as unbelievable when atheistic.
Marx expounded the "Labor Theory of Value", according to which things
must be of equal value if equal labor was put into them. But this
clashes so starkly with what I see in every store window, I can only
conclude that Marx tried to "will it to be true", rather than actually
going and looking at costs, prices, or utility to a customer.
Sure, ever since data got stored, observation has been cumulative,
and complex deduction once done and verified, is also stored. The
effect is overwhelming over eons, and "science" becomes a religion,
of sorts. Yet, science has its limitations as to applicability.
I mean that it's really more a tool or method for dealing with
observations when these become very numerous, complex, and apparently
contradicting. But about matters we cannot approach through
observation, such as aesthetics, or ethics, science is useless.
Thus, many people, even scientists, have no difficulty speaking of
a realm of "God". In its least assertive form, this means merely
those areas of life where we seem to see a truth but can find no
means but assertion to "prove" it. At the limit, I see theism as
not so vary different from what you write in your notes.
bb
|
347.352 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Jun 06 1996 12:17 | 5 |
| All this postulation has my head spinning. Tom you'll never get it like
this. :-) :-)
|
347.353 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Jun 06 1996 12:35 | 22 |
|
Well, OK. I can't accept philosophies that clash so strongly with my
own reasoning from my own observation either. But I mean that
personally, not universally. I conduct my life along the lines of my
own personal philosophy and often voice my opinion. However, never
would I take steps to force my philosophy on others. My perception may
be incorrect but the christians in the BOX seem to use whatever tools
are available to force their "morals" upon me and everyone else. We all
remember Joe Oppelt.
I would appreciate it if you would explain this statement.
>At the limit, I see theism as not so vary different from what you write
>in your notes.
I personally consider my thinking to be as far from theism as one can get.
The confusion may be that it is difficult to write in full context.
Replies in the BOX are like political sound bites. A point gets
presented but is never the entire story.
Perhaps I should start a Personal Philosophy topic. Over time a person's
entire thinking would become evident.
|
347.354 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Jun 06 1996 12:36 | 5 |
| >All this postulation has my head spinning. Tom you'll never get it
>like this. :-) :-)
I just need someone to draw me a picture. :)
|
347.355 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Thu Jun 06 1996 12:51 | 9 |
| .349
In the realm of morality (which is what I was talking about in my
previous note, BTW), it is religion that claims there ARE moral
absolutes, therefore your statement is false (that religions do not
like absolutes).
-steve
|
347.356 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jun 06 1996 12:57 | 25 |
| Z I conduct my life along the lines of my
Z own personal philosophy and often voice my opinion. However, never
Z would I take steps to force my philosophy on others. My perception
Z may be incorrect but the christians in the BOX seem to use whatever
Z tools are available to force their "morals" upon me and everyone else. We
Z all remember Joe Oppelt.
I find this interesting. First you state that the Christians in the
BOX....then you qualify this by stating we all remember Joe Oppelt.
This is of course a fallacy that we all make from time to time. Don't
worry, I forgive you Tom, for putting all the Christians into a box so
to speak...no pun intended! :-)
Typically I will not force my morals upon you or anybody else...why
would I? I'm short on them myself! :-) I will however engage in
dialog with others who claim for themselves to be believers...to which
I openly exercise the free right to point out to them when I perceive
them as right on or summarily full of crap. I find alot of this in the
box because I see doctrine spoken of here that is unqualifiable by the
standards of scripture.
Whenever I engage in discussion with somebody who doesn't believe in
God or Christianity...I usually am in response mode.
-Jack
|
347.357 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Thu Jun 06 1996 14:00 | 13 |
| | <<< Note 347.356 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
| Typically I will not force my morals upon you or anybody else...why
| would I?
Why would you say the above, but tell me that because I don't believe
the Bible to be the Word of God, I haven't reached my potential?
Glen
|
347.358 | you know THIS, surely, Glen... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jun 06 1996 14:05 | 7 |
|
A promise not to use force does not constitute a promise not
to preach.
Two different things.
bb
|
347.359 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Jun 06 1996 15:26 | 17 |
| Tom,
\_/ \_/
\__/
(oo)
+--\/--+
/)\ SC /(\
\| \ / |/
~ / \ ~
/ \
/______\
|| ||
~ ~
|
347.360 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jun 06 1996 15:39 | 18 |
| Z Why would you say the above, but tell me that because I don't believe
Z the Bible to be the Word of God, I haven't reached my potential?
Sorry Glen...you're fair game. From what I've seen of you, and I say
this with respect, I see you compromising God's holiness for your
personal gain. Your ideas regarding the validity of scripture tell me
you either lack understanding in what the basis of Christianity is all
about...or you aren't what you really claim to be. In my eyes, you
place a heavy importance on your identity...and you campaign that
identity for all to see. I personally don't have a problem with that
until it crosses the line of compromising God's holiness. It is then
that I see potential being stunted....
Sorry Glen, attending another church doesn't exempt you from being
exhorted. Lord knows I've gotten mine from people in these
conferences!
-Jack
|
347.361 | No one is *fair game* | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Jun 06 1996 16:02 | 17 |
| It is my opinion that this kind of noting does more harm than good for
the cause of Christ, Jack.
Your note did not have a semblance of "respect" that I could see
towards Glen, but more respect for your beliefs in God. If you had
stated the direction of your respect correctly, I wouldn't be so hard
on you. But the truth is you've confused it. You say you are
respecting Glen with your exhortation, but in reality your note was
more in correcting perceptions about God's holiness.
One can feel rather good about having run 200 miles for God, but if
along the way you punched people as you passed them, I dare say your
win would not be pure.
Take care Brother,
Nancy
|
347.362 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Thu Jun 06 1996 16:25 | 20 |
| | <<< Note 347.360 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
| Sorry Glen...you're fair game. From what I've seen of you, and I say
| this with respect, I see you compromising God's holiness for your
| personal gain. Your ideas regarding the validity of scripture tell me
| you either lack understanding in what the basis of Christianity is all
| about...or you aren't what you really claim to be. In my eyes, you
| place a heavy importance on your identity...and you campaign that
| identity for all to see. I personally don't have a problem with that
| until it crosses the line of compromising God's holiness. It is then
| that I see potential being stunted....
Then Jack, you DO force your morals onto others. If they aren't the way
you believe is the correct way, you put them in their place.
Glen
|
347.363 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jun 06 1996 16:36 | 22 |
| Glen, as a fellow brother in Christ, it is your responsibility to
understand scripture in order for us to better understand the direction
God wants us to pursue holiness. You have failed in this...time and
time again. I used the word "respect" only to say if you are in fact a
believer, then I do not refute your claim. I do challenge it but I do
not refute it.
As far as foisting my morality upon you...sorry, I disagree. I have
done no such thing. What I have said was that if in fact you are
living in such a manner not in harmony with God's plan toward
sanctification, then repentence is in order. I make no apologies for
this and I reject the notion that this is the judging Christ warned us
against in the gospels. We are called as a church to be a holy and
sanctified people. There are things in my life as well that I need to
work on...but I have identified and isolated these areas to myself. I
do not wear them proudly on my sleeve.
You are fair game Glen, because you identify with believers. Being a
Unitarian Universalist does not exempt you from the tenets of
scriptural exhortation.
-Jack
|
347.364 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Thu Jun 06 1996 17:02 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 347.363 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
| Glen, as a fellow brother in Christ, it is your responsibility to
| understand scripture in order for us to better understand the direction
| God wants us to pursue holiness.
According to your beliefs, yes. But not mine. If you say just what you
did above, everything is cool, as it is your beliefs and my beliefs being
discussed.
When you say I am not living up to my potential, you then are forcing
your beliefs onto me. Something you say you try not to do.
Glen
|
347.365 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jun 06 1996 17:32 | 17 |
| Z When you say I am not living up to my potential, you then are forcing
Z your beliefs onto me. Something you say you try not to do.
Glen, think of it kind of like your ghastly diversity training.
It isn't something that is foisted upon you. It is something that we
as two employees have in common. As employees, we are required to
follow the policies and guidelines Digital has set forth. So in a way,
you see tenets of scripture somewhat as I see your diversity training.
Something being forced upon me.
Incidently, I am not forcing anything. My expounding of scriptural
tenets is nothing that can't be countermanded with middle finger
extended to the heights or simply ignoring me...or refuting me with
scripture which by the way you haven't done ever since I can remember!
-Jack
|
347.366 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Jun 06 1996 17:35 | 6 |
| > <<< Note 347.365 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
> Incidently, I am not forcing anything.
Agreed.
|
347.367 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Jun 06 1996 20:24 | 12 |
| Jack:
I used Joe Oppelt because I knew him personally to involve himself with
religious and political movements. The goal of these movements was to
manipulate the laws so as to force his "moral" values upon the populas.
This type of action fits my own personal definition of immoral.
Steve:
I am interested in a list of moral attributes, accepted by religions.
|
347.368 | | USAT02::HALLR | God loves even you! | Thu Jun 06 1996 21:32 | 3 |
| Tom:
only one way to heaven...not your road, bud...
|
347.369 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Jun 06 1996 23:35 | 6 |
| .367
That had to be the most blatant conglomeration of hypocrisy ever
uttered out of your lips Tom Ralston. I take it you have no morality
or value system, because that is the only way your paragraph there
ain't the horse calling the kettle black.
|
347.370 | | THEMAX::E_WALKER | | Thu Jun 06 1996 23:49 | 3 |
| Uh... I think you're a bit mixed up there. Isn't it the pot
calling the kettle black? And he didn't actually say anything; he just
typed it. Don't let your temper take control of your noting.
|
347.371 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Fri Jun 07 1996 08:40 | 23 |
| | <<< Note 347.365 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
| Incidently, I am not forcing anything. My expounding of scriptural tenets is
| nothing that can't be countermanded with middle finger extended to the heights
| or simply ignoring me...
Nice try, Jack, but you're wrong again. If you tell someone they aren't
meeting their full potential because their religious beliefs are different than
yours, then you are telling me basically that I am wrong. Once you do that, you
then are trying to force your beliefs onto me. And to use the guilt factor...
well, that's to be expected.
But why would I give you the middle finger? And me, ignore you? HA! I
luv ya man!
| or refuting me with scripture which by the way you haven't done ever since I
| can remember!
I could take things out of any history book I suppose....
Glen
|
347.372 | for once, a clear error | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Jun 07 1996 10:09 | 9 |
|
No, Glen, you are wrong. If you tell me my beliefs are idiotic
you are forcing nothing on anybody.
Force is force. Talk is NEVER force. The difference between
arresting somebody and telling them they are nuts is stark and
clear. You aren't even thinking when you say it isn't.
bb
|
347.373 | | BIGQ::SILVA | | Fri Jun 07 1996 10:35 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 347.372 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
| No, Glen, you are wrong. If you tell me my beliefs are idiotic
| you are forcing nothing on anybody.
I did say trying, didn't I?
Glen
|
347.374 | still not force | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Jun 07 1996 10:43 | 9 |
|
Well, sure, he's "trying" to change your beliefs. Good luck to
him. That's what Soapbox, the First Amendment, and any sort of
debate from Plato on is all about. But I don't think "force" is
a useful choice of words. He is trying, and so are you, to change
a point of view through argument. All a reference to "force" does
is cause confusion. It adds nothing to anything.
bb
|
347.375 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Fri Jun 07 1996 11:27 | 11 |
| .362
Eh?
What does one have to do with the other?
Forcing morals != correction. And if you disagree with Jack on the
fundamental source of that correction, what difference does it make to
you? You do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God and
authoritative, therefore, you and Jack will never see eye to eye. You
use different rulers of morality.
|
347.376 | Pot, pot, pot, pot - now I'll remember | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Jun 07 1996 11:31 | 7 |
| .370
There was no temper in my note, sorry you read it that way. I used
strong words to get a strong point across. However, I knew it wasn't a
horse, but couldn't remember what it was, so figured, oh well. :-)
|
347.377 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Fri Jun 07 1996 11:32 | 3 |
| .376
Now that's a pot of a different colour.
|
347.378 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Fri Jun 07 1996 11:38 | 27 |
| .367
Many moral values are forced upon society. Murder is illegal. Why is
it illegal? Because society considers such a thing to be
wrong/immoral. Theft, rape, etc. are all considered immoral/wrong, and
laws are made against them. Is it immoral to force such values upon
society by making laws agaisnt these acts? It is, according to your
definition of "immoral".
As far as moral traits accepted by religion (and I'll stick with
generic Christianity on this one- though Jedaism and others are likely
to follow suit):
Love God.
Love your neighbor.
Do not steal.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not fornicate.
Do not lie / bear false witness.
Practice charity.
This is not a complete list, of course.
-steve
|
347.379 | looked good in the dark | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Fri Jun 07 1996 11:42 | 3 |
| > Now that's a pot of a different colour.
besides red, gold, green or brown?
|
347.380 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jun 07 1996 18:22 | 9 |
| re: .369
>I take it you have no morality or value system, because that is the only
>way your paragraph there ain't the horse calling the kettle black.
How so luv? Joe and I have had these conversations via e-mail. He felt
very strongly that the political system was there to be used for the
purpose I mentioned. I feel the political system is for the protection
of individual and property rights.
|
347.381 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jun 07 1996 18:39 | 29 |
| Re: .378, Steve:
>Many moral values are forced upon society. Murder is illegal. Why is
>it illegal? Because society considers such a thing to be
>wrong/immoral. Theft, rape, etc. are all considered immoral/wrong, and
>laws are made against them. Is it immoral to force such values upon
>society by making laws agaisnt these acts? It is, according to your
>definition of "immoral".
Murder IS force, Theft IS force, rape IS force. These are objective laws
with no need of written statute. Unwanted force is the only immoral act.
>Love God.
>Love your neighbor.
>Do not steal.
>Do not commit adultery.
>Do not fornicate.
>Do not lie / bear false witness.
>Practice charity.
IMO, only two of these are absolutes. I think you know which two. The
remainder are subjective notions based on unproven, and IMO mystical beliefs.
Question: What if there was a person who desired to die. This person wanted
that to be accomplished by another's hand. What if there was a person who
desired to kill and the two got together and made a mutually agreed upon
contract for the killer to kill the person wanting to die. Should this be
illegal? Is this immoral?
|
347.382 | | USAT02::HALLR | God loves even you! | Sat Jun 08 1996 05:03 | 2 |
| yes
|
347.383 | | ACISS2::LEECH | | Mon Jun 10 1996 09:39 | 42 |
| .381 (Tom)
>Murder IS force, Theft IS force, rape IS force.
This is irrelevant. They are laws- based on morality- that are forced
upon society.
> These are objective laws
>with no need of written statute. Unwanted force is the only immoral act.
They may be objective, but they are also moral laws that restrict
immoral behavior, thus they meet your criteria of moral laws being
forced upon the populace.
> >Love God.
> >Love your neighbor.
> >Do not steal.
> >Do not commit adultery.
> >Do not fornicate.
> >Do not lie / bear false witness.
> >Practice charity.
>IMO, only two of these are absolutes. I think you know which two. The
>remainder are subjective notions based on unproven, and IMO mystical beliefs.
Just two? That's a shame. Every one is proven to make positive
differences in the lives of those who practice them. The benefits of
each are obvious, so perhaps there just may be something to these
mystical beliefs after all?
>Question: What if there was a person who desired to die. This person wanted
>that to be accomplished by another's hand. What if there was a person who
>desired to kill and the two got together and made a mutually agreed upon
>contract for the killer to kill the person wanting to die. Should this be
>illegal? Is this immoral?
Yes. I'll save you the explanation, though, as it has to do with
"mysticism". 8^)
-steve
|
347.384 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:02 | 7 |
| .380
The law reflects a moral code and value system. Even what you have
mentioned is a moral code or value system. Protection of anything
comes from this attitude.
|
347.385 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:05 | 11 |
| .384
Moral code and value system. Right you are. Here it is, in its
entirety:
Your fist ends at my nose.
Robert Heinlein put into the mouth of his character Lazarus Long what I
consider the best one-line definition of sin ever written:
Sin hurts another person. All else is peccadillo.
|
347.386 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:08 | 6 |
| > <<< Note 347.385 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat" >>>
> Your fist ends at my nose.
That seems to be lacking something.
|
347.387 | | BIGQ::SILVA | I'm out, therefore I am | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:11 | 1 |
| Blood?
|
347.388 | mere blather... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:12 | 8 |
|
"Sin hurts another person". Horsepuckey. Everything you do
hurts some other people, helps others. You aren't even thinking.
And "Your fist ends at my nose" sounds garbled. What meaning, if
any, are you trying to convey ?
bb
|
347.389 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:14 | 6 |
| .386
Not if you look at it thoughtfully. It doesn't say your fist ends IN
my nose. Your fist ends at the EXACT angstrom of space in which it
comes into contact with my nose. You can cuddle right up close to me,
in a legal sense, but you have no right whatsoever to push me.
|
347.390 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:17 | 4 |
| > It doesn't say your fist ends IN
> my nose.
Nostril fisting?
|
347.391 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:17 | 12 |
| .388
> Everything you do hurts some other people, helps others.
Like that time I dug a hole in the woods and used it for a latrine and
covered it up when I was done? Whom did that help? Or hurt?
There are things you can do that do not affect other people. There are
things you can do that help other people without hurting anyone. There
are things you can do that hurt other people. If the hurt is not
outweighed, in YOUR PERSONAL VALUE SYSTEM, by a benefit to others, you
have sinned.
|
347.392 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:19 | 6 |
| > <<< Note 347.389 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat" >>>
> Not if you look at it thoughtfully.
I could stare at it pensively all week and it would still
seem to be lacking something, I'm quite sure.
|
347.393 | nonsense | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:27 | 18 |
|
It just isn't so. Consider a parking space. If I take it, a
minute before you, I damage you, because you have to park far away.
But there is no sin. On the other hand, if it says "Reserved for
Dick Binder", I hurt you exactly as much, but there IS sin. If there
is no sign, but you have been waiting for the other person to pull
out, and I sneak in ahead of you, using his pull-out as a shield,
I hurt you in exactly the same way, but the sin is subjectively
debatable. And HOW DO YOU EVEN KNOW that when you buried anything
in the woods who you hurt, if anybody ? You don't. Your definition
does not even include "knowingly" or "intentionally". It's brain
dead. Nobody except a fool would base a moral or legal sysytem on
any such silly definition.
And since a fist cannot fit in a nose, my fist ends at your nose
by defition. Ali's fist ended at Liston's nose, too.
bb
|
347.394 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:35 | 24 |
| .393
> If I take it, a minute before you, I damage you, because you have to
> park far away.
Your picture of damage is rather less severe than mine is. I suppose
you have a liability lawyer in your hip pocket, to make sure you don't
ever frown at anyone for fear of damaging your victim's delicate little
psyche.
> On the other hand, if it says "Reserved..."
...you have actually damaged me, because you have deprived me of
something that is by rights mine.
> If ... I sneak in ahead of you...
...you have won the game, and I may be momentarily pissed, but I am not
damaged.
> And since a fist cannot fit in a nose...
...you understand incredibly little about the malleability of the human
body. Or, more likely, you are being deliberately obtuse.
|
347.395 | extreme example | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:44 | 18 |
|
I picked Ali-Liston for a reason, Dick. When Ali's fist ended
at Liston's nose, there was no sin, unless you consider a prize
fight a sin. I don't.
In fact, if Ali had taken a secret payment NOT to end his fist at
Liston's nose, and took a dive for a bribe, he WOULD have sinned.
And as your previous note shows, your notion of "hurting" someone
is so vague as to be meaningless. You have to walk the same long
way, in the rain, from a distant parking space in all the cases.
In fact, you are damaged just as much each time, exactly. But in
some cases, I have a right to damage you, while in others, I don't.
And in extreme cases, I have no right NOT to damage you. To fail
to damage you would be a sin.
bb
|
347.396 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:46 | 14 |
| .393
One more thing...
> Your definition does not even include "knowingly" or "intentionally".
> Nobody except a fool would base a moral or legal sysytem on any such
> silly definition.
Nobody except a fool or the entire Jewish community. Videte Exodus
22:12, in which restitution is required of a person in whose custody
another's ox is given if the ox is stolen. There is no qualification
about whether the custodian made a fair attempt, or even any attempt at
all, to protect the ox. Or check out Numbers 15:22 et seq., in which
atonements are prescribed for UNINTENTIONAL transgressions.
|
347.397 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Mon Jun 10 1996 14:50 | 13 |
| .395
> I picked Ali-Liston for a reason, Dick.
Okay, fine, if you wish to ignore the obvious aphoristic character of
"Your fist ends at my nose," who am I to attempt to elicit common sense
from you? I suppose "a stitch in time saves nine" applies only to
sewing, in your tiny world.
Unlike the Wicked Witch of the West, I will not melt if exposed to
rain. Your taking a parking space that I wanted does NOT damage me.
It may annoy me, but that is not damage. Only if the space was
rightfully mine am I damaged.
|
347.398 | laughoristic ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Jun 10 1996 15:12 | 12 |
|
Not ignoring (which implies perception). It seems to me Ali's
fist actually did end at Liston's nose. If aphoristic, I'd give
it a 3.7 on a 1-10 scale. Third grade level, mebbe.
So, you're saying, if there's a "reserved for Dick Binder" sign
on the space, but it's completely overgrown and obscured by a bush,
then I've still sinned. Although, unless you take extrtaordinary
measures, I'll never even know I did. Sounds like a barbarism.
Fortunately, that's not the system on which our society is based.
bb
|
347.399 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Jun 10 1996 15:41 | 16 |
| > Nobody except a fool or the entire Jewish community. Videte Exodus
> 22:12, in which restitution is required of a person in whose custody
> another's ox is given if the ox is stolen. There is no qualification
> about whether the custodian made a fair attempt, or even any attempt at
> all, to protect the ox.
I think you've got your cite wrong. Perhaps you mean 22:13. I borrow
something from you, it's damaged, I make restitution. I don't see how
anybody can have any problem with this. The borrower has full benefit,
so he should have full responsibility.
> Or check out Numbers 15:22 et seq., in which
> atonements are prescribed for UNINTENTIONAL transgressions.
ALL sin offerings are for unintentional transgressions. The punishment for
intentional transgressions is typically corporal or capital.
|
347.400 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Mon Jun 10 1996 15:51 | 23 |
| .399
> Perhaps you mean 22:13.
I mean 22:12. Which says, in context:
10 If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or
any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man
seeing it:
11 Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath
not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall
accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.
12 And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the
owner thereof.
- Exodus 22:10-12, KJV
> ALL sin offerings are...
I didn't say "sin offering." I said atonement. To atone is to make
amends. The atonement for goofing is not as severe as the atonement
for bashing your neighbor's head in because he pisses you off, but it
is nonetheless a payment for failing to obey the law.
|
347.401 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Mon Jun 10 1996 16:06 | 11 |
| Interestingly, your Bible has different verse numbering that the Chumash
I have here. According to my Chumash, those are verses 9-11. I'll have
look up commentators on that verse.
> I didn't say "sin offering." I said atonement. To atone is to make
> amends.
That's only part of what atonement is. If I punch you into [sic] the nose
and I pay the doctor bills, that's not atonement. I have to be sorry that
I did it, and I have to try to refrain from doing it again (which might be
difficult in your case.)
|
347.402 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | Crown Him with many crowns | Mon Jun 10 1996 16:09 | 6 |
|
I thought the expression was
"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."
|
347.403 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | Crown Him with many crowns | Mon Jun 10 1996 16:13 | 6 |
|
.401
thanks for the chuckle
|
347.404 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Mon Jun 10 1996 16:14 | 9 |
| .401
Just paying the doctor bill is not making amends in the spiritual
sense. Repentance is, as you say, an integral part of the atonement
process. But my assertion stands that "consciously and intentionally"
is not required for a sin to be a sin; that was Herr Braucher's absurd
point. And the law of this country agrees with me, by stating that
ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it. You need not know
you are committing a crime in order to be convicted of having done so.
|
347.405 | here's a better alternative definition... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Jun 10 1996 16:14 | 21 |
|
If I could help to design, manufacture, sell, and service a
set of Digital Equipment Corporation servers so good and cheap
as to put the server group of Sun out of business, throwing
that group out of work, defaulting on their mortgages, throwing
their spouses and kiddies on the street, I'd throw a party to gloat
at how badly I'd harmed them. (Unfortunately, don't hold your
breath waiting for invitations...). I'd feel proud of such a
wonderful accomplishment, would expect to be rewarded by our
company and our society. That's goodness.
But if I achieved the same result by sabotaging Sub's projects,
and got caught, I'd expected to be fired, jailed, and ashamed.
It is not the result, but the means and the intent which matter.
In its simplest form, "sin" is nothing more than anything you
are ashamed of, but did anyway. (There are a few problems with
this definition, as well, howsomever).
bb
|
347.406 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Mon Jun 10 1996 16:15 | 2 |
|
.402 We must have grown up in the same general vicinity, Karen. ;>
|
347.407 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Mon Jun 10 1996 16:18 | 14 |
| .405
> That's goodness.
Only in a capitalistic society. In certain other societies, you would
be viewed as a greedy son of a female dog and deserving to have your
own life ruined for what you had done, even more especially because you
were glad you'd done it.
Look for a moment at Christianity. A basic tenet of some versions of
the faith is that if you are given the opportunity to accept Jesus as
your Lord and Savior but refuse to do so, you need not be sorry or
ashamed for your refusal - you are still going to burn forever for your
sin of refusing to acknowledge the One True God.
|
347.408 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Mon Jun 10 1996 16:59 | 9 |
|
> ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it. You need not know
I didn't know that either!
|
347.409 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Mon Jun 10 1996 17:07 | 3 |
| .408
God isn't even that mean, huh Jim? :-)
|
347.410 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | A swift kick in the butt - $1 | Mon Jun 10 1996 17:27 | 12 |
|
RE: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"
Well, yes and no. In Braucher's "'Dick Binder parking only'
sign covered by bushes" argument, there was no malice intended
when Braucher parked there, and no way that he could have known
he shouldn't do it.
If Dick Binder were so worried about keeping his parking space,
maybe he should make sure that his sign is clearly visible so
that he can avoid any entrapment charges from Braucher.
|
347.411 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Mon Jun 10 1996 17:49 | 4 |
| If that famous "Dick Binder" parking space is a designated handicap
space, and the paint has worn off and the sign has been stolen, you can
still be ticketed and towed for parking there unless you can prove that
you have the proper aurhorization. Ignorance is no excuse.
|
347.412 | Sickening. | TOOK::NICOLAZZO | A shocking lack of Gov. regulation | Tue Jun 11 1996 09:11 | 12 |
| re: .405
> If I could help to design, manufacture, sell, and service a
> set of Digital Equipment Corporation servers so good and cheap
> as to put the server group of Sun out of business, throwing
> that group out of work, defaulting on their mortgages, throwing
> their spouses and kiddies on the street, I'd throw a party to
> gloat at how badly I'd harmed them.
Yuck.
Robert.
|
347.413 | no harm, no foul ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Jun 11 1996 10:22 | 5 |
|
Let me ask you this, Dick : Do you believe we should repeal
the laws making "attempted murder" a crime ?
bb
|
347.414 | | BIGQ::SILVA | I'm out, therefore I am | Tue Jun 11 1996 10:39 | 10 |
| | <<< Note 347.413 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
| Let me ask you this, Dick : Do you believe we should repeal the laws making
| "attempted murder" a crime ?
I hear that the democrats want to send them to school so they will do a
better job next time. Then hire them as pages for the Clinton administration.
People seem to keep quiet this way.... or well.... lets just say that these
people do better than attempt.....
|
347.415 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Jun 11 1996 10:51 | 2 |
| I hold that there is no situation in the universe, in all of time, which
permits one to morally initiate force against another.
|
347.416 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Jun 11 1996 11:00 | 4 |
|
.415 "morally initiate force"? Is that intentionally abstruse or
am I not getting your meaning due to my apparently diminishing
reading skills? ;>
|
347.417 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Audiophiles do it 'til it hertz! | Tue Jun 11 1996 11:01 | 6 |
|
RE: .411
How is 1 to know that it's a handicap space if there's no indic-
ation of same?
|
347.418 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Tue Jun 11 1996 11:22 | 1 |
| You know, like in spanking.
|
347.419 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Jun 11 1996 11:31 | 6 |
|
> You know, like in spanking.
Are you claiming that spanking is "morally initiated force"?
Or that _some_ spanking may be?
|
347.420 | a caveat | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Tue Jun 11 1996 11:32 | 7 |
| > I hold that there is no situation in the universe, in all of time, which
> permits one to morally initiate force against another.
Leaves some big holes open for a lot of fun things, like revenge, nuking
the guy from orbit, etc...
TTom
|
347.421 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Tue Jun 11 1996 11:42 | 1 |
| Di, yes.
|
347.422 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Jun 11 1996 11:44 | 2 |
|
.421 yeah, i figured you'd say that.
|
347.423 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Tue Jun 11 1996 11:59 | 3 |
| For some, the former may always be true. For others, it might be more
selective depending upon the circumstances. I happen to agree with
Tom on this in general.
|
347.424 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | Crown Him with many crowns | Tue Jun 11 1996 12:02 | 13 |
|
re .406
Well, you know what they say, di ...
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus
;-)
|
347.425 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Jun 11 1996 12:15 | 7 |
|
.423 Yes, for instance, if your child keeps running out into the
street and you don't want one his attributes to be "planar",
the spanking wouldn't be morally initiated, methinks.
Thanks for acknowledging that there may be a distinction.
|
347.426 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Jun 11 1996 14:02 | 12 |
| >"morally initiate force"? Is that intentionally abstruse or
> am I not getting your meaning due to my apparently diminishing
> reading skills? ;>
I don't understand what's not to understand. :)
No person, group of persons or government can morally initiate force,
threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property. Force
may be morally used only in self-defense against those who do initiate
force.
This is IMO the only measure of morality.
|
347.427 | practical application ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Jun 11 1996 14:28 | 5 |
|
So, Tom, does that mean I can, or I can't, have Dick's parking
space ?
bb
|
347.428 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jun 11 1996 18:08 | 6 |
| Tom you don't know what you are saying... honestly. I read this crap
you've written and am perplexed as to how you can be so myopic.
The laws we have today to govern behavior are a moral code. The only
way your statement can be true is if we abolish all laws. Or would
that only be abolishing laws that YOU disagree with. :-)
|
347.429 | just vague, is all... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Jun 12 1996 10:47 | 32 |
|
In a world of scarce parking spaces, some competitors will get
to park, and others will not. In the absence of any moral system,
all strategies are allowed - watch a bird feeder. You'll see many
different tactics, some of which succeed, others of which, fail.
There is no "natural ethics" - collusion, deception, flight,
direct violence, enslavement, clever subversion, teamwork : all occur.
It is up to us what parking strategems we choose to allow, which
we do not. However we do it, some are hurt. What Tom proposes is
a "meta-rule", a rule about making rules, that "violence" is to be
unnaturally suppressed, other strategems not. But this is so vague
as a guideline as to be little help. I cannot tell from Tom's
"meta-rule", what the parking rules ought to be. There is a sign
that says "Visitor" on a space near the door. Can I, an employee,
use this space ? Can Dick, on his own, with no societal permission,
put up a "Reserved for Dick Binder" sign on one prime space ?
If two drivers arrive when only one space is left, what protocol
should our society support for allocating it ? "Force", for a
physicist, is merely a term for expending energy to effect a result.
Is it "force" to gun my engine and cut Tom off from the last space ?
I'm not saying Tom's "non-initiation of force" meta-rule doesn't
make any sense. If people are shooting each other for the spaces,
I suppose all of us drivers would band together and try to suppress
that particular strategem. It's just that I don't see any deep
philosophical divide over "force" or "harm" - cars all use force,
the loser is always harmed. I do support having a comprehensible
parking protocol, so at least everybody knows what is OK.
bb
|
347.430 | wrong topic | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Wed Jun 12 1996 11:05 | 5 |
| > In a world of scarce parking spaces, some competitors will get
> to park, and others will not. In the absence of any moral system,
> all strategies are allowed ...
So Darwin was right...
|
347.431 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Crazy Cooter comin' atcha!! | Wed Jun 12 1996 11:05 | 4 |
|
If people are shooting each other for parking spaces, I suggest
we ban guns.
|
347.432 | ban parking spaces | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Wed Jun 12 1996 11:15 | 0 |
347.433 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Jun 12 1996 11:22 | 3 |
| We must go to the root of the problem. Ban cars. Without cars, there
would be no need for parking spaces hence the elmination of people
shooting each other over them.
|
347.434 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Crazy Cooter comin' atcha!! | Wed Jun 12 1996 11:27 | 5 |
|
Or we could just ban people.
Covers all the bases.
|
347.435 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Wed Jun 12 1996 11:27 | 1 |
| Didn't take too long to get to Darwin this time did it?
|
347.436 | ban work | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Wed Jun 12 1996 11:35 | 7 |
| I think banning people is a little harsh and I don't know how you'd
enforce it...
I think the whole provocation came about due to work. So let's just ban
that.
TTom
|
347.437 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Jun 12 1996 11:59 | 26 |
| >So, Tom, does that mean I can, or I can't, have Dick's parking
>space ?
If it's not marked it's yours.
>The laws we have today to govern behavior are a moral code. The only
>way your statement can be true is if we abolish all laws. Or would
>that only be abolishing laws that YOU disagree with. :-)
This is total BS. These laws are for control of the people under the
assumption that they will commit some subjective "immoral" act, unless
some authority protects them from themselves. Who's moral code are we
using here anyway? The only law required is that which makes illegal,
initiatory force, coersion or fraud. All other laws are pure political
policy. So, I assume that without the written statutes against murder,
rape, robbery, and assult you would personally be a murdering rapist,
or perhaps just an armed robber? I don't think you would and neither
would 99.99% of everyone else. Those that would do these things would
be considered criminals under only one moral law:
No person, group of persons or government may
initiate force, threat of force or fraud against
the person or property of any individual.
|
347.438 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Wed Jun 12 1996 12:19 | 5 |
| Not to mention that declaring the laws to be a moral code leads to such
silliness as loitering or driving with a taillight out being not only
illegal, but immoral.
I really don't think that's what anyone believes...
|
347.439 | round in circles | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Jun 12 1996 12:23 | 18 |
|
But, Tom. How is your definition any less "subjective" than
any other. It simply isn't - there is no basis for it but assertion.
Nor, if I got to make "one moral law" would I choose the one you
suggest.
OF COURSE our moral system is political - what else could it be ?
How do you expect people with greater power to eschew using it ?
By the peruasiveness of your exposition ? No, the only way to
maintain the "moral law" you assert is by policing it. And the
only way to police anything is through political power.
Political power requires a preponderance of power in the society.
So your moral rule, if it is ever instituted, which I doubt, can
only come to prominence through politics, of some sort.
bb
|
347.440 | \ | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 12 1996 12:40 | 8 |
| Could someone put definitions of the following words in here:
Laws -
Moral [as in code] -
Values [as in code] -
|
347.441 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Wed Jun 12 1996 12:42 | 16 |
| > <<< Note 347.439 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
> -< round in circles >-
Indeed.
> OF COURSE our moral system is political - what else could it be ?
> How do you expect people with greater power to eschew using it ?
> By the peruasiveness of your exposition ? No, the only way to
> maintain the "moral law" you assert is by policing it. And the
> only way to police anything is through political power.
So in order to check one person's greater power, you propose to give someone
else (police) even greater power that that? Who checks them?
How about a moral (and legal) system where morality is simple and obvious to
everyone without attending law school for years and years?
|
347.442 | non-parking example | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Jun 12 1996 12:51 | 28 |
|
By the way, Tom - I think when making "meta-rules", rules about
rules, a la Constitution, it pays to distinguish between an
"operational" rule and a "guiding principle". Here's a, imho,
good "operational" rule : "Laws ought to require the support of
the society they govern." Here's a good "guiding principle" :
a law ought to have benefits that exceed it's costs.
Right now, Digital Equipment Corporation cannot ship its equipment
in violation of FCC noise emission restrictions. If we tried to
circumvent the feds (we don't), then they would "initiate force"
against us, to shut us down. Quite right, too. The society as a
whole overwhelmingly supports such FCC power and its enforcement.
And the "right to make electronic noise" which the government takes
from us, costs less than the value of the benefit to society of
knowing that all US electronic equipment meets the rules.
The same could be said of most of the laws you disparage. The
members of the society, or their representatives, imposed them
through majoratarian politics, because they thought they would
lead to the greatest good for the greatest number, although many
of them do indeed require government initiation of force.
Your "moral law" fails on both counts. It is not approved by the
members of the society it is proposed for, and they (correctly)
perceive that its cost exceeds its benefits, for society as a whole.
bb
|
347.443 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:08 | 15 |
| > <<< Note 347.442 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
> "operational" rule and a "guiding principle". Here's a, imho,
> good "operational" rule : "Laws ought to require the support of
> the society they govern." Here's a good "guiding principle" :
> a law ought to have benefits that exceed it's costs.
Hitler's final solution passes both tests, using the twisted logic of that
time and place.
And that's what happens when you have no simple, obvious standard of right
and wrong, i.e. morals. By making "the greater good" your standard, any
attrocity is possible.
IMO, here's a good guiding principle: respect of human life and dignity.
::RALSTON already gave some good operational rules.
|
347.444 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:21 | 1 |
| Can you explain to me how Hitler "passes both tests" ?
|
347.445 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:23 | 9 |
| I will maintain that even NO morality equals a morality. :-)
Laws regarding abortion, murder, stealing, seatbelts, etc., all are
moral codes. Can you really deny it?
|
347.446 | | NUBOAT::HEBERT | Captain Bligh | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:26 | 1 |
| Murder and stealing, yes. But seatbelts? Moral?
|
347.447 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:26 | 1 |
| Yes. Seatbelts have nothing to do with any moral code.
|
347.448 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:27 | 3 |
|
Thou shalt buckle up, lo even though it wrinkleth thy dress.
|
347.449 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:30 | 4 |
| OH really seatbelts aren't moral?
It was implemented under the guise of "saving lives", how much more
moral can you get?
|
347.450 | or another way | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:35 | 2 |
| I thought it was implemented under the guise of "screw states rights",
how much more immoral can you get?
|
347.451 | not impressed | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:39 | 18 |
|
Although I opposed "seatbelt laws", I agree that the argument
for them, and the argument against them, were both arguments
based largely on differing views of morality.
On the Hitler : the same could be said of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, which obviously fails Tim's moral law, but passes both
of mine. Under that Act, the governmentcan initiate force to
compel employers not to discriminate. Tom's moral law might be
viewed by some (although not by me) as mere racism.
Ultimately, there is NO moral system that will stop a whole
society bent on its own descent into depravity. You can only
wait, and it will self-correct, or self-destruct. I can easily
imagine a Hitler-like purveyor of Tom's moral law. No problem -
they started it, he'd claim.
bb
|
347.452 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:43 | 13 |
| Seat belts are not moral. Seat belt useage is a choice. To choose not
to use one is not a moral decision. It might be one of evolutionary
proportions but it is not a moral choice. Not all states have seat
belt laws just as not all states require helmets for motorcycles. Is
it immoral to not wear/use one of these in a state that requires it but
morally okay in a state that doesn't?
Take it a step further and you can paint any activity that could cause
bodily injury or death as being immoral. Think about that the next time
you step off the curb, get on a bicycle, go swimming, or eat a chicken
sandwich.
Brian
|
347.453 | abuse/neglect do count | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin zko1-3/b31 381-1159 | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:50 | 11 |
|
.452
I would beg to differ.
If, for example, a parent were to choose not to secure a small
child (passenger) with a seatbelt, I think there's a very real sense
in which that's a moral failing.
To a large extent, the same logic applies to self.
|
347.454 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:56 | 11 |
| .452
Obviously, it would be of no benefit to banter this about further as
you have dismissed any 'semblance of morality to a seatbelt law.
As far as I know, all states require seatbelts. I don't think its a
state law at all anymore, could be wrong.
Nancy
|
347.455 | | EDITEX::MOORE | GetOuttaMyChair | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:57 | 2 |
|
religious fundamentalists, fanatics, zealots, seatbelt wearers.
|
347.456 | | EVMS::MORONEY | your innocence is no defense | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:57 | 4 |
| re .453:
BIG difference between compelling something for someone who cannot make a
decision for himself and compelling something for someone who can.
|
347.457 | wrong question ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:57 | 10 |
|
"Am I my brother's keeper ?"
- Cain
"WHAT HAST THOU DONE, CAIN ?"
- Daddy-o
bb
|
347.458 | no choice, no morality? | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:58 | 1 |
| So if'n you have no choice in the matter than it ain't morality?
|
347.459 | | EVMS::MORONEY | your innocence is no defense | Wed Jun 12 1996 13:59 | 6 |
| re .454:
> As far as I know, all states require seatbelts.
All but 2. NH and (? Maine Vermont?) NH requires seatbelts for children
under the age of (?), the other probably does as well.
|
347.460 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 12 1996 14:03 | 11 |
| .455
Bawaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, when you put it that way. :-) :-)
I see the disconnect now [pun intended]. Seatbelts are NOT moral in
themselves. It was the reasoning behind the "law" that created the
morality around seatbelts.
|
347.461 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Jun 12 1996 14:03 | 7 |
| It is not a federal law to wear safety belts. Not all states require
them to be worn. Seatbelt laws are about money. They are about
insurance companies trying to reduce their exposure. Legislators have
not taken it upon themselves to take your best interest to heart when
deiciding whether or not to require you to wear them. BTW, I don't
think you ever really articulated why you believe seatbelt laws have a
moral foundation.
|
347.462 | /me rolling eyes | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 12 1996 14:05 | 5 |
| .461
> Seatbelt laws are about money.
Well that has no morality attached to it, now does it...
|
347.463 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Jun 12 1996 14:06 | 2 |
| Okay, you are right. There is morality attached to seatbelt laws.
They are based on greed and therefore immoral.
|
347.464 | Wanna talk about Christianity next since I'm on a roll? | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 12 1996 14:09 | 3 |
| .463
THUD.... And just when I was ready to let you be. :-) :-) :-)
|
347.465 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Wed Jun 12 1996 14:17 | 2 |
| Nancy, I am willing to listen to your reasoning behind the assertion of
morality with regards to seat belt laws.
|
347.466 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Wed Jun 12 1996 14:23 | 15 |
| > Ultimately, there is NO moral system that will stop a whole
> society bent on its own descent into depravity. You can only
> wait, and it will self-correct, or self-destruct. I can easily
> imagine a Hitler-like purveyor of Tom's moral law. No problem -
> they started it, he'd claim.
You folks are incredible. I propose a morality based on human dignity, and
next you claim I could use this to justify genocide. How, pray tell, would
that preserve the life and dignity of the humans being slaughtered? How could
this society not be obviously hypocritical?
Your "greater good" philosphy could easily be so twisted: <hated minority of
the decade> are causing all the trouble, we must exterminate them for the
greater good. All good citizens approve of it. Go ahead, tell me Hitler
didn't do it.
|
347.467 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Jun 12 1996 15:45 | 16 |
| Z You folks are incredible. I propose a morality based on human dignity,
Z and next you claim I could use this to justify genocide
Joseph Goebbels made propoganda films in Germany equating Jews with
rodents. In the earlier history of our countries history, blacks were
considered non persons and therefore treated appropriate to their view
of moral law.
Even today, our own view of dignity brings millions of unborn non
persons to their death. Something that not only is in vogue but is
also sanctioned by our government, compulsory paid by our tax dollar,
and is encouraged in our community.
Moral law must be absolute because as humans, we are fickle.
-Jack
|
347.468 | "incredible" to whom ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Jun 12 1996 16:22 | 24 |
|
re, .466 - So I'm incredible, am I ? I state, as well as I can,
the bourgeois utilatarianism of 19th century English philosophers,
like Bentham and Mill, "the greatest good of the greatest number",
the cost-benefit calculus, etc - exactly the philosophy adopted by
a long line of American theorists and politicians from Jackson to
FDR up to today. And I get told I'm a Nazi. Yeah, right.
Meanwhile, mystical libertarians espouse lofty-sounding self-
righteous "moral principles" that if adopted would end the capacity
of a modern society to regulate itself, in the name of what ? The
freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road ? And as soon as I
point out that making a distinction between government "initiating"
force and "responding" with it might not be a very good deal for a
lot of folks, and is sure liable to abuse by a tiny band of the
powerful, I'm told I'm incredible.
Well, sorry - count the votes. People in the US overwhelmingly vote
to have the government initiate force against many non-conformers.
Quite right, since the government, eager for their votes, is acting
in the majority interest, while the oddballs are acting against it.
Your "moral law" is a dog that won't hunt.
bb
|
347.469 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Jun 12 1996 16:33 | 5 |
| > <<< Note 347.468 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
> -< "incredible" to whom ? >-
to meeme, for one. in a good way though. ;>
|
347.470 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Wed Jun 12 1996 17:27 | 42 |
| > <<< Note 347.468 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
> the bourgeois utilatarianism of 19th century English philosophers,
Just a second... you're arguing Constitutional questions based on 19th
century philosphy?
> Meanwhile, mystical libertarians espouse lofty-sounding self-
> righteous "moral principles" that if adopted would end the capacity
> of a modern society to regulate itself, in the name of what ? The
> freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road ? And as soon as I
Oh, don't be ridiculous. The benefits of simple traffic rules are obvious.
What I'm arguing here is our absolute standard of right and wrong. You say
"greater good". I say that philosphy has and will be the basis of incredible
abuse. I say "human life and dignity" is the only standard that makes sense.
Killing, violence, stealing, fraud for no good reason ("initiation of force")
are detrimental to human life and should be illegal. All other things are
pretty much no-ops.
Obviously, some little rules need to be followed unless we want total chaos.
Our problem of today is when government loses the distinction between "little
rules" and true criminal behaviour. If Johnny 17-year-old drinks a beer on my
private property with my and his parent's permission, are any of us
criminals? Who has been forced to do what against their will? If noone, why
is this a problem? If own a machine gun and only shoot it for the sheer hell
of it, on my private property way out in the woods, am I a criminal then? If
I ride my motorcycle without a helmet on, who am I harming? If I want to put
on a small fireworks display for my 4th of July cookout? If my parent and I
have agreed to not let the other suffer thorugh a horrible terminal illness?
And so on and so on...
> Well, sorry - count the votes. People in the US overwhelmingly vote
> to have the government initiate force against many non-conformers.
Yes, ironic, isn't it? The country founded on the freedom of the individual
is now a country where the government is called upon to "save US from THEM".
Too bad for THEM, even if they're pretty much harming noone.
> Quite right, since the government, eager for their votes, is acting
> in the majority interest, while the oddballs are acting against it.
Also known as mob rule. See above.
|
347.471 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 12 1996 18:07 | 8 |
| >I say that philosphy has and will be the basis of incredible abuse. I
>say "human life and dignity" is the only standard that makes sense.
>Killing, violence, stealing, fraud for no good reason ("initiation of
>force") are detrimental to human life and should be illegal.
Is an unborn baby a human life? What constitutes human life to you?
|
347.472 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Wed Jun 12 1996 18:20 | 11 |
| > <<< Note 347.471 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
> Is an unborn baby a human life?
Since we have no way of determining this non-ambiguously beyond the arbitrary
"after the first trimester", the law should leave it up to each individual to
decide for themselves. Personally, I'd have great difficulty with the thought
of a child of mine being aborted. Does this answer your question?
> What constitutes human life to you?
Apart from the above, the answer to this is fairly obvious.
|
347.473 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Jun 12 1996 19:47 | 9 |
| >Personally, I'd have great difficulty with the thought of a child of
>mine being aborted.
But even so you support abortion as a choice because you have bought
into a politically correct [just another phrase for a moral system]
scientific view.
|
347.474 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Jun 12 1996 21:15 | 24 |
| Since morals and morality require conscious choice man is the only animal who
can be moral or immoral. Man is the only animal who can consciously or
purposely make moral choices, to think or not to think, to be mystical or
nonmystical, to produce or usurp, to benefit or hurt oneself and others. The
meaning of moral IMO is simple and direct. Whatever is consciously done to
help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the productive
actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or prevent
the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the destructive
actions of mystics and dishonest people). Honestly using one's reasoning
nature is always beneficial and moral. Dishonestly using one's reasoning
nature is always harmful and immoral. Volitionally harmful acts always arise
from mysticism, from dishonesty, rationalizations, evasions, and defaults.
Yet, acting on honesty, fully integrated with reality, not reason itself, is
the basic moral act. Example is when a military general choses to use
reasoning for a specific military move, then in an out-of-context sense, he
choses to act morally by protecting himself and his troops (thus filling human
biological need). But in the larger sense of honesty, fully integrated with
reality, his's total actions are grossly immoral in choosing to use aggressive
force in becoming a mass murderer (thus negating human biological needs. The
highly destructive, irratation immorality of offensive military actons far
outweigh any narrow, out-of-context "moral" actions. Genghis Khan, Stalin,
Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol PoL were all enormously evil/immoral due to these
types of actions. All initiatory force is to a lesser extent just as evil
and immoral.
|
347.475 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Wed Jun 12 1996 23:03 | 17 |
| > If I want to put on a small fireworks display for my 4th of July cookout?
While I don't realistically disagree with you on most of what you say, Tom,
the above raises a very interesting dilemma for me.
Keep in mind that I'm a VERY strong proponent of freedom to use class C (or
even B) fireworks free of legal restraint.
However, at the same time, I recognize the value benefit of at least having
a legal restraint in place (hopefully without active enforcement.)
I live in the woods. If a neighbor decides to light off a gross of bottle
rockets in early July when the tundra is crisp, and he happens to establish
a forest fire which licks at my house, I feel a lot more comfortable from
a financial liability standpoint knowing that he wasn't legally sanctioned
in his actions.
|
347.476 | yep | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jun 13 1996 09:35 | 34 |
|
On the 19th century utilitarians vs. the Constitution - yes, the
Constitution is an "Enlightement" document, not based directly on
utilitarianist philosophies. I did not say it was utilitarian in
intent. Note, however, that the 1787 document giving the government
enumerated powers, is NOT libertarian. The Bill of Rights IS more
or less libertarian. The Constitution itself was opposed by the
libertarians of the day, such as Patrick Henry, who were called
anti-federalists. They lost everywhere. People had had almost a
decade of the Confederation, a government that COULD NOT initiate
force. It was a failure in every sense - it went broke, commerce
among the states declined, the economy and currency were disasters,
violence between the citizens reached the level of defiance and
anarchy. Shay's Rebellion was used as an argument AGAINST the
libertarians, with telling effect. And the states were unable to
produce a credible defense to foreign powers. The citizenry
overwhelmingly approved of giving the government teeth - the power
to tax, by force. The power to regulate commerce, by force. The
power to take any property, by force, with just compensation.
You would not have an interstate highway system if the government
could not take land against the owner's will. You would not be free
if you could not be mustered for the common defense. You would have
no law or justice without the government having the power to levy
taxes and collect them by force.
Yes, society has both the right, and the power, to suppress your
fireworks, on your own property. Yes, they have the right to require
you to wear a helmet on your motorcycle. Yes, they have the power
to restrict your use of alcohol. No man is an island. Civilization
requires duties, order, conformity. Rights are precious, but none
are without cost, and they exist only because we are civilized.
bb
|
347.477 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Jun 13 1996 10:29 | 9 |
| Laws are either moral or immoral. That determination can only arrise from
proper integration of the facts of reality. Any law which compels a positive
obligation upon a person is an immoral violation of an individual's right to
his own life (though shalt put thy poor neighbor's kids through school and
finance their lunch programs and their health care; and their familiy leave;
and their food stamps, etc.).
The only objectively moral laws place negative obligations upon individuals
(thou shalt not steal, for example).
|
347.478 | assert...assert...assert | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jun 13 1996 10:36 | 10 |
|
There are NO "objective moral laws", Tom. You made them up
out of thin air.
And if you plan on competing in the "assertion" league against,
say, the Ten Commandments, the Koran, and the Sermon on the Mount,
I suggest you take up playing against Michael Jordan at basketball
instead. Your odds would be better.
bb
|
347.479 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Jun 13 1996 10:43 | 4 |
| >There are NO "objective moral laws", Tom.
So, then all laws are subjective?
|
347.480 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jun 13 1996 10:53 | 8 |
| Z But even so you support abortion as a choice because you have bought
Z into a politically correct [just another phrase for a moral system]
Z scientific view.
Nancy, not to be a troublemaker or anything...but what did you say your
position was on this again???
-Jack
|
347.481 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Jun 13 1996 10:54 | 7 |
| Yes. In your own list of examples, you chose not to list people like
Churchill, Haig, or perhaps Calley. You made a subjective interpretation
of the relative morality of different systems of belief, based on your
own beliefs. Had you been totally objective, you would have
recognised that your own system/society/culture has no unique claime to
right over the wrongs of others.
|
347.482 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Jun 13 1996 11:12 | 19 |
| > <<< Note 347.473 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
> >Personally, I'd have great difficulty with the thought of a child of
> >mine being aborted.
> But even so you support abortion as a choice because you have bought
> into a politically correct [just another phrase for a moral system]
> scientific view.
I don't give a damn whether it's politcally correct or not. It's fair and
just, given the current circumstances. If circumstances change, my opinion
may change, but just because I have an emotional problem with it doesn't give
me the right to force my views on everyone else.
The same principal applies to many, many situations. I don't approve of drugs
and only use alcohol once in a while. Doesn't give me the right to tell
everyone else what they can't do... it's basically none of my business if it
doesn't affect me.
It's as simple as that, really. Doesn't affect you? - mind your own business.
|
347.483 | clarification | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jun 13 1996 11:16 | 42 |
|
re, .479 - the short answer is, of course, yes - "morality" is
not physical, it is a CONCEPT. No matter, no energy, no event.
Just a set of thoughts, a view, a "paradigm" (ouch). How can
any such thing be "objectively derived" ? Only two ways : deduction
and induction. Otherwise, it's just another assertion, which by
definition, is meant a statement NOT objectively derived.
But, as we all seem to agree, morality is not derived from the
observed behavior of other organisms, nor from observed actions
of humans. Moral systems, after all, differ around the world.
Derivation from the observed is called induction. It fails to
derive any uniform moral standards at all.
What about "deduction" ? That is, can we derive a moral system
from logic, starting with what we know about humans ? After all,
we would not say, "Bivalves should be aggressive," since bivalves
are sessile. Can we show that humans, by their nature, are best
suited to living within a moral system of particular construction ?
Humans are gregarious, supposedly intelligent, and they seem to be
engaged in intense manipulation of their environment, towards ever
newer forms, unnatural in character, unprecedented so far as they
know - they are innovators, destroyers, changers, team formers.
Perhaps you can do something with that. But it certainly doesn't
suggest that human groups ought never to impose discipline of group
members - quite the contrary, it suggests that humans come to rely
upon "standards", universal protocols to handle common "moral"
situations. What this means is that in the tradeoff between
"freedom" and "order", there're costs and benefits on both sides - that
as a practical matter, humans need to balance group powers (the
Constitution) against individual rights (the Bill of Rights).
But that's an American view (and my own), and worldwide, is not the
most prevalent one. To me, it seems more an assertion about human
nature, unsupported by knowledge, rather than a deduction from
known facts. Do you at least see what I mean by "objectively derived"
or not ? You really have to start with something we agree on, or
you haven't derived it.
bb
|
347.484 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Jun 13 1996 11:22 | 16 |
| > <<< Note 347.475 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
> I live in the woods. If a neighbor decides to light off a gross of bottle
> rockets in early July when the tundra is crisp, and he happens to establish
> a forest fire which licks at my house, I feel a lot more comfortable from
> a financial liability standpoint knowing that he wasn't legally sanctioned
> in his actions.
Yep, I have no problem with this. However, banning fireworks won't solve
anything. You've seen what happens - people get them anyway, and usually
people who aren't awful caring about how they use them.
Target the inappropriate behaviour, rather than whatever object your neighbor
chose to implement it. I dunno - criminal negligence? Wreckless endangerment?
Non-stupid people are left to enjoy their fireworks in peace, and the idiot
pays.
|
347.485 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jun 13 1996 11:28 | 7 |
| Z it's basically none of my business if it
Z doesn't affect me.
This is a fallacy. Ultimately, it does effect you!
Example: All those aborted children would have paid your social
security when you retire. Alas you will not enjoy that little perk!
|
347.486 | "Yer honor - the town shouldn't have allowed this" | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jun 13 1996 11:32 | 14 |
| > You've seen what happens - people get them anyway, and usually
> people who aren't awful caring about how they use them.
But, if they were legally available - legal to sell, possess and use -
the same idiots would still be getting their hands on them, and the
financial/liability exposure that society (local government, for example)
would have could be outrageous. I'm all for a reduction in frivolous
suits and going after those who are really responsible, but consider
the case where someone's $200K house is destroyed by some unemployed
neighbor with a net value of a dollar-eighty-nine. If his stupidity is
"legally sanctioned" by local laws which permit possession and use of
Class C, guess who the burned-out homeowner is going to sue, and who the
courts are going to find responsible?
|
347.487 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | It's all about soul | Thu Jun 13 1996 11:37 | 9 |
|
re .482
So, if someone shoots his wife, as long as it doesn't affect
you, it's okay ?
Should that then be legal ?
|
347.488 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Jun 13 1996 11:47 | 11 |
| >Do you at least see what I mean by "objectively derived"
>or not ? You really have to start with something we agree on, or
>you haven't derived it.
No I'm not sure what you mean still. But, I have a question. Is there
more than one reality? I think not. Objective thinking is always based
on real provable reality. Unwanted force hurts human beings by
definition. No emotion, no fantasy, no fairy tales required. You seem
to imply, and I may have this wrong, that reality depends on the local.
On this we will never agree.
|
347.489 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Jun 13 1996 11:48 | 34 |
| > <<< Note 347.476 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
> intent. Note, however, that the 1787 document giving the government
> enumerated powers, is NOT libertarian. The Bill of Rights IS more
> or less libertarian. The Constitution itself was opposed by the
Why enumerate powers, then? Because government was intended to be limited to
specific activities, because the framers of that government were afraid of
what would happen given unlimited power. We've long since gone way over those
limits, and they were right.
> produce a credible defense to foreign powers. The citizenry
> overwhelmingly approved of giving the government teeth - the power
> to tax, by force. The power to regulate commerce, by force. The
> power to take any property, by force, with just compensation.
Perhaps the citizenry approved, but the framers did not. Again, why enumerate
if your intent is to simply allow government a free hand? You'll note that
the specific problem areas were explicitly fixed, and adventures outside
those specific powers were strongly discouraged:
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
> Yes, society has both the right, and the power, to suppress your
> fireworks, on your own property. Yes, they have the right to require
> you to wear a helmet on your motorcycle. Yes, they have the power
> to restrict your use of alcohol. No man is an island. Civilization
> requires duties, order, conformity. Rights are precious, but none
> are without cost, and they exist only because we are civilized.
Even if I harm noone with these things? Then I say such a society is immoral,
even evil.
|
347.490 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Jun 13 1996 11:58 | 9 |
| > Yes, society has both the right, and the power, to suppress your
> fireworks, on your own property. Yes, they have the right to require
> you to wear a helmet on your motorcycle. Yes, they have the power
> to restrict your use of alcohol. No man is an island. Civilization
> requires duties, order, conformity. Rights are precious, but none
> are without cost, and they exist only because we are civilized.
Totalitarian governments also require "sheep", who think just like
this.
|
347.491 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Jun 13 1996 12:00 | 11 |
| > <<< Note 347.486 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
> neighbor with a net value of a dollar-eighty-nine. If his stupidity is
> "legally sanctioned" by local laws which permit possession and use of
> Class C, guess who the burned-out homeowner is going to sue, and who the
> courts are going to find responsible?
Well, that's a problem with the courts then, isn't it?
You could climb to the top of Royalston High Falls in Royalston, Mass. and
jump off, killing yourself. Does that mean it's a good thing if your family
sues, and the courts decide that Royalston was negligent? No one in that town
did *anything*, you did.
|
347.492 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Jun 13 1996 12:02 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 347.487 by CNTROL::JENNISON "It's all about soul" >>>
> So, if someone shoots his wife, as long as it doesn't affect
> you, it's okay ?
> Should that then be legal ?
Just dipping into this string? Go back and read what we've all written for
the past couple of days.
|
347.493 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Jun 13 1996 12:05 | 6 |
| .490
Vast amounts of western currency supports certain totalitarian
states like Saudia Arabia. But your perception of reality and morality
choosed to pass over this and focus on the "sheep". Or maybe my
perception of reality is flawed.
|
347.494 | sure, so what ? | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jun 13 1996 12:06 | 22 |
|
"Real provable" means "what we agree on". If we agree on nothing,
we can deduce nothing, so deduction is hopeless before you start.
Induction, your only other non-assertive choice, requires that you
observe the universality of what you claim, and is disproved by
counter-observation. In this case, no morality can be extrapolated
from mere observation, since some humans violate any rule you care
to name. If I cannot get there by induction or deduction, I cannot
derive. I can only assert, a la The Ten Commandments.
Sure, actions hurt people. So what ? You haven't shown that
hurting people is "morally wrong". All you've done is assert it.
When the government collects my taxes, it hurts me. Good - it's
SUPPOSED to hurt me. To show this is immoral, you have to start
with something I agree with you on. Well, I don't agree with your
assertion that it always wrong to initiate force. I think it's
just an underivable assumption by you. It certainly isn't the law
of the United States. Go ahead - start with something we agree on,
and derive your "moral law". Or compete with Moses in the assertion
league.
bb
|
347.495 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jun 13 1996 12:13 | 13 |
| >Well, that's a problem with the courts then, isn't it?
Sure it is.
Now which is easier? Changing the mindset of society with respect to courts,
laws, lawyers, civil suit and responsibility? Or keeping a legal restraint
on Class C (while allowing enforcment to turn a blind eye)?
All I'm saying is that that's why we have some laws which we probably
shouldn't, if it were a perfect world. Which it isn't. And removing all
of the laws simply won't make it so. Changing how people look at things
is a primary requirement. And we both know that the likelihood of that
is nil.
|
347.496 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | It's all about soul | Thu Jun 13 1996 12:18 | 10 |
|
No, I'm not just dipping in. I've been reading along as
much as I can.
I was questioning your reasoning that if something
doesn't harm you, you shouldn't involve yourself in
prohibiting it for someone else.
|
347.497 | | SMURF::MSCANLON | a ferret on the barco-lounger | Thu Jun 13 1996 12:35 | 21 |
| re: .495
On the point of suing: I happened to be home on Tuesday
afternoon suffering with a sinus headache. I was lying on
the couch watching, of all things, "The Partridge Family"
(and thinking to myself, "you loved this show when you were 9.
Think. WHY did you love this brain-dead program?") when I
was struck by the fact that *every* single commerical break
contained at least one person injury law firm commercial.
And they were manipulative commercials designed for the person
whose intelligence falls on the wrong side of average. Things
like "Do you trust a large insurance company to be fair with you?
Wouldn't you do better with a trained lawyer?" and "If you are
injured you have a RIGHT to compensation." and (IMO this was my
favorite) "This lawyer got my friend a large cash settlement!!
Call today!" I don't recall seeing this type of hard sell two
or three years ago. Is this new or do I just not watch much
tv?
Mary-Michael
|
347.498 | | EDITEX::MOORE | GetOuttaMyChair | Thu Jun 13 1996 12:35 | 19 |
|
.476
> You would not have an interstate highway system if the government
> could not take land against the owner's will. You would not be free
> if you could not be mustered for the common defense. You would have
> no law or justice without the government having the power to levy
> taxes and collect them by force.
I suppose highways couldn't be privately owned.
I suppose I wouldn't leap to my own defense of my property and that of
my neighbors and friends.
I suppose justice comes at the gunpoint of taxation.
I also suppose that you are single minded in the area of social
constricts.
|
347.499 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Jun 13 1996 12:48 | 9 |
| > <<< Note 347.495 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
> Now which is easier? Changing the mindset of society with respect to courts,
> laws, lawyers, civil suit and responsibility? Or keeping a legal restraint
> on Class C (while allowing enforcment to turn a blind eye)?
Yah, and that's the hell of it.
It's very easy for a politician to ban this and that to the approval of the
voters, while the real problem continues, and no one has the stones to face
it.
|
347.500 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jun 13 1996 12:49 | 1 |
| Half Millineum snarf!
|
347.501 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jun 13 1996 12:51 | 10 |
| MM:
A few years back, it was unethical for lawyers to advertise on
Television and was poo poo'd in the profession. James Sokolov crossed
the line about ten years ago and said to hell with ethics.
Look in your Yellow Pages. You'll see the vile scum on each page
beginning with "L".
-Jack
|
347.502 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Jun 13 1996 12:53 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 347.496 by CNTROL::JENNISON "It's all about soul" >>>
> No, I'm not just dipping in. I've been reading along as
> much as I can.
Well, then you know that I've been promoting a morality based on human
dignity, in which shooting your wife is immoral, and therefore should be
illegal, no?
|
347.503 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jun 13 1996 12:53 | 9 |
| > I don't recall seeing this type of hard sell two or three years ago.
Years ago, in most locales, professional people (doctors, dentists,
lawyers) were prohibited (or at least strongly discouraged) by their
professional associations from using public advertising.
Of course, that was in the days when their occupations were professions,
rather than businesses.
|
347.504 | yep, I'm more-or-less a "federalist"... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jun 13 1996 13:19 | 34 |
|
re, .498 - you're right. I think a private interstate highway
system never would happen. I think without the feds, the USA
would never have survived WWII. And yes, a system of cops, courts,
jails, etc costs money, and the Confederation that preceded 1787
demonstrated conclusively that without forceful taxation, the
government will get no money, and so there would be no justice.
I did, however, overstate the extent of the disparity between the
main body of the Constitution (certainly NOT libertarian, in
general) and the Bill of Rights (mostly libertarian). For example,
the takings provision, by which the Interstate Highway System was
built, is in the Fifth Amendment.
Recall the preamble : "We, the people of the United States, in order
to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United
States of America."
I believe in this purpose. That the people can impose order on
all of themselves for the general good. In particular, I think
the Federalists were very wise in Article 1, Section 8 : "The
Congress shall have power (1) To lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States;..."
The government intentionally hurts me with a form 1040, backed up
by the IRS. It initiates force, and it does so specifically on the
grounds that the country as a whole, the "general welfare" is
helped by hurting me. Good. It should do this.
bb
|
347.505 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Thu Jun 13 1996 13:37 | 11 |
| .474
> Since morals and morality require conscious choice man is the only
> animal who can be moral or immoral. Man is the only animal who can
> consciously or purposely make moral choices...
Documentation for this profoundly unsupported statement, please?
That Homo sapiens is the only species capable of conscious, self-aware
thought is in fact unprovable and has been clinically shown to be
highly unlikely.
|
347.506 | interesting, hare binder... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jun 13 1996 13:50 | 5 |
|
hmmm, suppose there were a Moses among the cats ? What sort
of commandments would be on the tablets she brought down ?
bb
|
347.507 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Thu Jun 13 1996 14:02 | 11 |
| .506
Capability to do something does not imply accomplishment of that
something. Without wishing to rekindle a discussion that flamed back
and forth in another topic some months ago, I will point out that
various individuals of the Great Ape persuasion have, through long
contact with humans, learned to deal in abstract concepts such as
morality. Somebody had to teach it to them, just as somebody has to
teach morality to human children - but once taught, the apes were able
to manipulate the concept of morality in a conscious and obviously
intelligent fashion.
|
347.508 | Call me Anti-Federalist | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Jun 13 1996 14:17 | 11 |
| > <<< Note 347.504 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
> I believe in this purpose. That the people can impose order on
> all of themselves for the general good. In particular, I think
> the Federalists were very wise in Article 1, Section 8 : "The
> Congress shall have power (1) To lay and collect taxes, duties,
> imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
> defense and general welfare of the United States;..."
So you approve of the usurping of power and ignoring of the 10th amendment
that's occured since all that was written and ratified?
|
347.509 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | It's all about soul | Thu Jun 13 1996 15:01 | 7 |
|
re .502
Ok, but isn't that inconsistent with your position on
abortion ? Is abortion immoral ?
|
347.510 | | ASIC::RANDOLPH | Tom R. N1OOQ | Thu Jun 13 1996 15:26 | 11 |
| > <<< Note 347.509 by CNTROL::JENNISON "It's all about soul" >>>
> Ok, but isn't that inconsistent with your position on
> abortion ? Is abortion immoral ?
The only thing I can say is "I don't know".
Since there's no unambiguous way for me to decide that "this is a human life,
starting now", there's no good way to decide when to start applying morals,
other than some appeal to emotion.
This being the case, I can't reasonably expect others to conform to my views.
|
347.511 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:07 | 11 |
| >Documentation for this profoundly unsupported statement, please?
On further considering this Dick, I think you are correct. I think that the
evolution of consciousness is eternal. It may even be that countless
conscious societies exist throughout the universes with endlessly higher
levels of knowledge with millions or billions of years more advanced
societies than ours. Of course this is conjecture on my part. As far as
our world is concerned there are probably many animals on the
consciousness evolutionary path. But, I think that you would agree that
humans are the furthest advanced, here on planet earth.
|
347.512 | Cartesian duellism | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:14 | 3 |
| Hmmm. Humans are conscious and sometimes choose to murder other
humans. Apes may be conscious but do not murder other apes. Who has
the advanced sense of morals and values again?
|
347.513 | but thanks for playing... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:15 | 5 |
|
Wrong. Murder in chimpanzees is well documented. By Jane
Goodall, of all people.
bb
|
347.514 | crash | EVMS::MORONEY | your innocence is no defense | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:15 | 6 |
| > Hmmm. Humans are conscious and sometimes choose to murder other
> humans. Apes may be conscious but do not murder other apes.
Chimpanzees have been observed killing other chimps, apparently out of revenge.
-Madman
|
347.515 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:20 | 12 |
| .511
> It may even be that countless
> conscious societies exist throughout the universes...
It is in fact highly probable. The more we learn about how our
Universe is made, the more we come to understand that a star without
planets is probably an anomaly. Given the countless numbers of stars,
then, and even weeding out all but the G0 stars, we find a monstrously
high probability that evolution has produced nonterrestrial sentient
species in the past 12 billion years and will continue to do so in the
future.
|
347.516 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:25 | 12 |
| Opinion is Wrong?. Goodall observed that some chimpanzees appeared to
kill others for reasons that she chose to interpret in anthropomorphic
terms such as murder and territorial disputes. Other interpretations
have been offered which are equally plausible, such as the fact that
animals develop behavioural problems as a result of neurological
deficits - in the same way that humans develop some psychoses.
Goodall also observed and labeled behaviours as cannibalism,
infanticide. Many other researchers observe the same phenomena and
choose not to label them in terms of human behaviour.
|
347.517 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:39 | 11 |
|
.514
Most animals kill over territorial disputes. Even the guard bees
at the entrance to your hives will kill their own sisters if they
don't get the right chemical message, and all the drones regardless.
Stags kill in the rut. Older males kill younger males to stop them breeding. Lions kill all
cubs when they take over a pride.
What they don't do is kill for reasons that are not directly related to
the survival of their own genes, which humans do frequently.
|
347.518 | a trait | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:40 | 4 |
| > What they don't do is kill for reasons that are not directly related to
> the survival of their own genes, which humans do frequently.
Yeah, but we got a gene that makes us do that...
|
347.519 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:45 | 2 |
| That must be in the 2% of genes that we don't share with Chimps.
|
347.520 | definitely not a survival attack | EVMS::MORONEY | your innocence is no defense | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:45 | 9 |
| re .517:
I know how most animals kill others of their own kind for genetic or territorial
reasons.
But "by revenge" I meant what was an apparently a planned attack by a tribe
of chimps on another tribe over an incident that took place some time
earlier, not the usual territorial or "dominant male" type attacks.
|
347.521 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Person to person contact laughing. | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:50 | 10 |
| When do humans kill when it is not for the survival of their own
genes?
How can we honestly say that non-survival killing is not as significant
as that of survival? Perhaps it is a behaviour that is also necessary
for the survival of the species. We know that it is not that rare a
behaviour.
Perhaps what seems to be senseless killing actually equates back to the
very basic instincts of survival. Take postal workers for example.
|
347.522 | | EDITEX::MOORE | GetOuttaMyChair | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:53 | 4 |
|
> Take postal workers for example.
Not without a backup.
|
347.523 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:55 | 9 |
| > <<< Note 347.521 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Person to person contact laughing." >>>
> Perhaps it is a behaviour that is also necessary
> for the survival of the species.
I don't know - taking a thirteen year old girl somewhere and
murdering her doesn't seem necessary for ensuring the species
survives.
|
347.524 | | EDITEX::MOORE | GetOuttaMyChair | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:57 | 8 |
|
> I don't know - taking a thirteen year old girl somewhere and
> murdering her doesn't seem necessary for ensuring the species
> survives.
You don't have any teenage kids, do you ?
;^)
|
347.525 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:58 | 21 |
| If you want to stick to anthropomorphism, we call that territorial
defence "war" not murder, and apply different morality.
Territorial disputes are between groups of closely-related individuals
that share more than 50% of their genetic material (usually). They
generally persist for as long as the groups contact each other at their
territorial boundaries. Expanding territory maximises foraging ranges
and increases the chances of survival for a group. During frequent
forays into each other's territory, there is evidence that chimps
can learn and identify the weak spots in the other group. Small wonder
that then may develop a "target" animal and a persistant attack
strategy. On the other side, a persistant response will develop.
It looks like a tit-for-tat or vendetta is happening, but only if you
choose to report in in human terms rather than neutral behavioural
terms.
This is no different from a Cheetah's ability to pick up certain
behaviour in antelope and "learn" successful attack ploys.
|
347.526 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Person to person contact laughing. | Thu Jun 13 1996 17:58 | 2 |
| How about bombing a village full of 13 year old girls? How does this
seem necessary for survival of the species?
|
347.527 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Thu Jun 13 1996 18:08 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 347.526 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Person to person contact laughing." >>>
> How about bombing a village full of 13 year old girls? How does this
> seem necessary for survival of the species?
I give up - how?
|
347.528 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Jun 13 1996 18:14 | 15 |
| I wasn't going to jump back in to this conversation as it appeared to
be going rather circular, however... :-)
I cannot believe that we are honestly equaling human behavior with ape
behavior. Are there similarities between the two, yes. But I wouldn't
hand over my children to a monkey to raise, would you?
There are similarities between a fish and an amoeba, but I don't think
anybody is frying up amoebas for dinner. :-)
All of this posturing regarding monkey and humans is merely a platform
for cerebral minded homosapiens to practice their onomatopoeia ability.
:-) :-) x ?
|
347.529 | | EVMS::MORONEY | your innocence is no defense | Thu Jun 13 1996 18:18 | 16 |
| re .525:
The chimps that attacked the other tribe weren't interested in their territory.
Nor was it a defense against them encroaching on their own territory.
They sought them out and after they had their blood lust left what was left
alone.
re .523:
> I don't know - taking a thirteen year old girl somewhere and
> murdering her doesn't seem necessary for ensuring the species
> survives.
Chimps have been known to do something similar. One female killed the infant
of another 3 separate times. She was specifically after the infant each time.
In human society she'd be considered a serial murderer.
|
347.530 | for da focus | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Thu Jun 13 1996 18:18 | 6 |
| Nancy,
Maybe you can show your focus group this discussion. It's just the kinda
things a good partnership needs, eh?
TTom
|
347.531 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jun 13 1996 18:20 | 1 |
| I think we need to value ape diversity.
|
347.532 | you might not wanna monkey around with Mother Nature | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Thu Jun 13 1996 18:22 | 0 |
347.533 | :-) | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Jun 13 1996 18:29 | 1 |
| or tug on superman's cape...
|
347.534 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jun 13 1996 18:37 | 1 |
| You don't pull..the mask off the ole Lone Ranger and....
|
347.535 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Person to person contact laughing. | Thu Jun 13 1996 18:46 | 15 |
| |<<< Note 347.527 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>
| I give up - how?
This may sound awful, but, they won't be having children. We are
threatening our own existence by the rate at which we are procreating.
So, wether an individual can kill a 13 year old girl or bomb a whole
bunch makes no difference, the instinct to just simply kill for
whatever reason is there and it is this behaviour which will be the
cause of the deaths of countless millions in the not too distant
future. If we all survive we will all die so we can't all survive. I
wonder what the world population would be like if there hadn't been a
WWII.
We live in a world which is, by its very nature, violent.
|
347.536 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Thu Jun 13 1996 19:04 | 3 |
| ZZ We live in a world which is, by its very nature, violent.
Correct. We are a depraved species!
|
347.537 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Thu Jun 13 1996 20:44 | 14 |
| >I know how most animals kill others of their own kind for genetic or
>territorial reasons.
Humans seem to kill for unearned power as well. For example,
Most Germans and many others in the 1930s were duped into admiring
Hitler's Odysseus-like courage as one of the bravest soldiers in
World War I and the strutting "glory" he bestowed on the Third Reich.
Thus, most Germans and many others blinded themselves to the obvious
fact that popular, glory-talking Hitler was nothing more than a
criminal mass murderer for his own parasitical livelihood and glory.
Like most politicians, Hitler increasingly committed destructive
acts so he could increasingly feel big, important, and powerful.
|
347.538 | Cornfoosed. | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Thu Jun 13 1996 22:19 | 15 |
| > a star without
> planets is probably an anomaly. Given the countless numbers of stars,
> then, and even weeding out all but the G0 stars, we find a monstrously
> high probability that evolution has produced nonterrestrial sentient
> species in the past 12 billion years and will continue to do so in the
> future.
Wait a minute!
I buy that entirely. But wasn't it you, yourself, who presented in here the
contradictory premise within the last year or so? That the likelihood
of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe was infinitessimally small?
Or were you just mentioning it as an aside proposed by others?
|
347.539 | | BIGQ::SILVA | I'm out, therefore I am | Fri Jun 14 1996 02:00 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 347.518 by HBAHBA::HAAS "more madness, less horror" >>>
| > What they don't do is kill for reasons that are not directly related to
| > the survival of their own genes, which humans do frequently.
| Yeah, but we got a gene that makes us do that...
Haag never made anyone kill!
|
347.540 | | BIGQ::SILVA | I'm out, therefore I am | Fri Jun 14 1996 02:02 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 347.528 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
| But I wouldn't hand over my children to a monkey to raise, would you?
It worked for Tarzan. :-)
|
347.541 | | BIGQ::SILVA | I'm out, therefore I am | Fri Jun 14 1996 02:04 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 347.531 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
| I think we need to value ape diversity.
But do we stop just at apes? What about Gorillas, Chimpanzies? Spider
Monkeys, etc? Each is unique in their own way. To classify them as all apes, or
to just single out the apes themselves, would be wrong. I expected more out of
you AJ. Much more! :-)
|
347.542 | | THEMAX::E_WALKER | | Fri Jun 14 1996 02:05 | 7 |
| Animals kill all the time for no apparent reason. My cats are
proof of that; they kill mice, birds, and even squirrels just for the
hell of it. They don't eat their victems; just kill them and drag them
into the house to show them off. They are not protecting territory or
assuring the survival of their genes but rather showing off. I have
noticed that they take greater pride in more difficult prey like
hummingbirds than easy pickings like field mice.
|
347.543 | | POLAR::RICHARDSON | Person to person contact laughing. | Fri Jun 14 1996 02:57 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 347.536 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
|
| ZZ We live in a world which is, by its very nature, violent.
|
| Correct. We are a depraved species!
No, we live in a violent ecosystem where life forms live off other
life forms. Never mind the deadly weather and geologic nasties.
|
347.544 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Fri Jun 14 1996 09:46 | 16 |
| .538
The principal characteristic of science is that when new information
appears, science - unlike religion - re-evaluates conclusions it may
have drawn and revises them if they no longer seem valid.
In this case, we have still the evidence that I posted last year of
chaos theory, suggesting that the creation of an Earthlike biospere is
statistically unlikely. (Out of all the planetary systems in
existence, the percentage on which an Earthlike biosphere can exist is
very, very, very small - but obviously not nonzero.) Now, however, the
new evidence suggests that a vastly greater number of planetary systems
probably exist than was believed a year ago to be likely. Hence, if
the nonzero percentage of planets capable of supporting Earthlike life
remains constant, the number thereof must inevitably be seen to be
greater than was earlier believed likely.
|
347.545 | wrong topic | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Fri Jun 14 1996 09:47 | 24 |
|
Um, this topic isn't "zoology 101". All I pointed out was that
the two Toms and I, arguing about other matters, at least agree
that it is useless to try to derive moral systems from nature.
No, organisms do not obey Tom's moral law, about not initiating
force. No, they don't obey the Ten Commandments, either. But
that is not a good argument against all moral systems. Animals
don't build computers, either - so we shouldn't ? Sorry, bad
argument.
Neither Tom nor I was saying that. We both argue for competing
UNNATURAL moral systems, not derived from nature. He tries to
justify the non-initiation of force, and claims he can "objectively
derive" this law. So far, I've seen no such derivation. In my
view, if the benefits of initiating force greatly exceed the costs,
then initiating force is the most moral choice. I do NOT base this
argument on the behavior of animals, but on logic. But I admit that
I can't "objectively derive" my claim either, because my claim
contains the hidden assumption that "the greatest good of the
greatest number" is a worthy goal. I'm sorry, but I have to admit
that this goal is not objectively derivable either.
bb
|
347.546 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jun 14 1996 09:51 | 7 |
| re: .544, Dick
> Now, however, the new evidence suggests that a vastly greater
> number of planetary systems probably exist than was believed
> a year ago to be likely.
Was this Hubbel(sp?)-related evidence, or has something else come to light?
|
347.547 | | CONSLT::MCBRIDE | Idleness, the holiday of fools | Fri Jun 14 1996 09:57 | 5 |
|
>> No, we live in a violent ecosystem where life forms live off other
>> life forms. Never mind the deadly weather and geologic nasties.
The spankings! Don't forget the spankings!
|
347.548 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Fri Jun 14 1996 10:17 | 13 |
| .546
Hubble provided the impetus. I saw an article recently that remarked
to the effect that *everywhere* we turn our telescopes we find that
nascent main-sequence stars possess the accretion disks that are the
precursor to planetary systems. The older the young stars are, the
better formed the planetary systems become. Thus, in contrast to the
previously held opinion that planetary systems are rare, it turns out
that almost every main-sequence star probably has one. This hypothesis
is bolstered by the fact that one of the planets found by Hubble orbits
a neutron star, which is the last phase of a star's life. Any planet
of a neutron star has long since ceased to be habitable - if it ever
was so - but the presence of such planets is strong evidence.
|
347.549 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jun 14 1996 10:22 | 6 |
| > Hubble provided the impetus.
That is indeed good news. It's "discoveries" of this nature which
tend to fully justify the great expense and difficulties that have
characteristically surrounded Hubble (IMO). Makes the whole thing
very worthwhile.
|
347.550 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jun 14 1996 11:28 | 17 |
| My thinking is that the nonforce as objective morality theory only applies
to completely conscious beings. Only beings that are capable of
planning and carrying out their futures come to the objective
conclusion that what is best for themselves and society is to prolong
conscious life as long as possible, maybe even indefinately. Why,
because the good of the species is in knowledge. Since new knowledge is
derived from past knowledge, those that have discovered/created the
past knowledge and have the capability of discovering/integrating/
creating knew knowledge, are of infinite worth to everyone. With this
knowledge, death and destruction becomes illogical for all conscious
beings.
In regards to other conscious being inhabited worlds I think of it this
way. Anything that has even the remotest probability of happening, will
happen an infinite number of times in infinite time. Since the creation
of universes appears to be eternal, one can almost be certain that
other worlds inhabited by conscious beings exist.
|
347.551 | | EVMS::MORONEY | your innocence is no defense | Fri Jun 14 1996 11:40 | 14 |
| re .546:
>> Now, however, the new evidence suggests that a vastly greater
>> number of planetary systems probably exist than was believed
>> a year ago to be likely.
>
>Was this Hubbel(sp?)-related evidence, or has something else come to light?
They've also found a lot of actual planetary systems recently. Must be nearly
a dozen or so. They've recently (within the last few days) announced finding
evidence of 2 Jupiter-sized planets around a star (forget its name) only 8
light years from Earth.
-Madman
|
347.552 | | STOWOA::ROSCH | | Fri Jun 14 1996 12:42 | 6 |
| The reported 'murder' of a chimp by others in the tribe ganging up on
him was later resolved by a Grad student at the U of Arkansas carefully
reviewing the records of the event.
The chimp that was murdered was an Amway chimp. Evidently the chimp
society has evolved in a significant manner which in this instance
surpasses our own.
|
347.553 | MLM did it | HBAHBA::HAAS | more madness, less horror | Fri Jun 14 1996 12:43 | 1 |
| Multi Level Monkey, eh?
|
347.554 | :^) | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Fri Jun 14 1996 12:55 | 4 |
| Re: Ray
<chortle> <snort> <major_grin>
|
347.555 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Jun 14 1996 14:55 | 6 |
| ZZ The chimp that was murdered was an Amway chimp.
The chimp was murdered because of class envy. It had become a
millionaire by the time it reached 30.
|
347.556 | More on Moral Law | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Jun 14 1996 19:29 | 18 |
| A positive obligation is an obligation to do something, as opposed to not
do something. If one accepts the premise that an individual has a right
to his own life (and correspondingly, the derivative rights necessary for
one to sustain the life he has a right to), then only laws carrying
negative obligations are objective and moral.
A law which states that I must wear a helmet, a seatbelt, take my medicine,
etc., is a positive obligation and immoral because it violates an
individual's right to his own life.
A law which states that I must not remove your helmet, unbuckle your seat
belt, or flush your medicine is a negative obligation which is objective
and moral because it upholds an individual's right to his own life, which
right, in itself, implies that an individual's right to do as he wishes
with his life extends to the point where it conflicts with that same
right of every other individual.
|
347.557 | 6 of one, half a dozen of the other... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Mon Jun 17 1996 11:32 | 21 |
|
But whether an obligation is "negative" or "positive" is a
matter of mere language. "If you sell food, then you must list
the ingredients on the package," is positive. "You may not sell
food products without listing the ingredients," is negative.
The same can be done with most rules - "You must not operate a
motorcycle without wearing a helmet." v. "You must wear a helmet
when operating motorcycles." Is requiring a license a negative,
or a positive, regulation ?
No, there is no getting out of the fact that none of our rights
are absolute, as indeed, neither are any of us ourselves. We, and
our rights, are relative in value. If it is necessary to prevent
the spread of an infectious disease which will kill us all, we can
forcibly innoculate everybody, whether they agree to it or not. In
fact, in an extreme case, only killing the disease carrier may be
practical as an alternative to societal extinction. To claim
otherwise is to leave only absurd alternatives, when values conflict.
bb
|
347.558 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Jun 17 1996 12:14 | 29 |
| > If it is necessary to prevent
> the spread of an infectious disease which will kill us all, we can
> forcibly innoculate everybody, whether they agree to it or not. In
> fact, in an extreme case, only killing the disease carrier may be
> practical as an alternative to societal extinction.
Riddle me this, then, Batman - what about when the disease is one that's
not infectious, but hereditary?
Case in point - one of my oldest and best friends is of a family that
carries Huntington's Chorea - very nasty neuro-muscular disease which
generally hits people in their 40's, disables them within ten years
and puts them in the grave within 15 to 20. It's transmitted only
genetically, and seems to be dominant, especially in males.
This guy's father had it, as did his grandfather, great grandfather, etc.
uncles, some aunts - all died of it if they didn't die of something else
(related or otherwise) first. Chances of carrying the gene for transmission
exceed 95% in both sexes, even if the carrier isn't personally affected.
He got married in 1970 and had a couple of daughters. He's been disabled
for the past six years.
Should he have been allowed by society to procreate? Should his daughters?
Personally, I don't think that it (procreation) is a very responsible activity
given the knowledge that you're going to pass along and thereby help perpetuate
such a tragedy. Should society help enforce that? Should folks known to carry
such genes (it's now actually detectable) be sterilized by the state?
|
347.559 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Jun 17 1996 12:33 | 16 |
| Re .557:
> If it is necessary to prevent the spread of an infectious disease
> which will kill us all, we can forcibly innoculate everybody, whether
> they agree to it or not.
Innoculating yourself is sufficient to protect yourself, so it is
certainly not necessary to innoculate everybody, forcibly or otherwise.
So you do not have any right to do it.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
347.560 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Mon Jun 17 1996 12:43 | 1 |
| Just keep your grundle to yourself...that's all!!!
|
347.562 | Depends upon whether 'elimination of the disease' is worthwhile | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Jun 17 1996 13:26 | 11 |
| > so it is
> certainly not necessary to innoculate everybody, forcibly or otherwise.
> So you do not have any right to do it.
If the Salk vaccine hadn't been forcibly administered to just about
everybody under the sun in this country in the 50's and 60's, we'd
likely still have hundreds of thousands of cases of poliomyelitis
each year. Is "protecting yourself" enough, when those who haven't had
the opportunity yet to protect themselves can be infected by someone
else who may have "chosen" not to protect themselves?
|
347.563 | | BOXORN::HAYS | Some things are worth dying for | Mon Jun 17 1996 15:18 | 13 |
| RE: 347.559 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."
> Innoculating yourself is sufficient to protect yourself
In a black and white world, this would be true. In the real world, it's
not. It varies, depending on the disease and the vaccine used and the
time since inoculation.
And what about children too young to inoculate? They can be protected by
inoculation of enough adults.
Phil
|
347.564 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Mon Jun 17 1996 16:19 | 14 |
| Re .563:
> They can be protected by inoculation of enough adults.
Indeed, all you need is "enough". A disease can't spread if it can't
propagate from host to host. So there's no reason to forcibly
inoculate everybody.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
347.565 | | BOXORN::HAYS | Some things are worth dying for | Mon Jun 17 1996 16:59 | 10 |
| RE: 347.564 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."
> Indeed, all you need is "enough". A disease can't spread if it can't
> propagate from host to host. So there's no reason to forcibly inoculate
> everybody.
Unless not "enough" get inoculated.
Phil
|
347.566 | del | ACISS2::LEECH | | Mon Jun 17 1996 18:28 | 4 |
| Do you force everyone to get flu shots next?
What about those of us who have suffered allergic reactions to them in
the past?
|
347.567 | | MOLAR::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dogface) | Mon Jun 17 1996 21:47 | 4 |
| What's the percentage of folks who get flu who actually die or are permanently
disabled from it?
|
347.568 | | BIGQ::SILVA | I'm out, therefore I am | Mon Jun 17 1996 21:49 | 6 |
| | <<< Note 347.566 by ACISS2::LEECH >>>
| What about those of us who have suffered allergic reactions to them in
| the past?
Hey.... one sickness at a time.... :-)
|
347.569 | | BIGQ::SILVA | I'm out, therefore I am | Mon Jun 17 1996 21:49 | 33 |
| ___ ___
/\__\ /| |
/:/ _/_ ___ |:| | ___ ___
/:/ /\ \ /\__\ |:| | /\__\ /| |
/:/ /::\ \ /:/__/ __|:|__| /:/ / |:| |
/:/_/:/\:\__\ /::\ \ /::::\__\_____ /:/__/ |:| |
\:\/:/ /:/ / \/\:\ \__ ~~~~\::::/___/ /::\ \ __|:|__|
\::/ /:/ / ~~\:\/\__\ |:|~~| /:/\:\ \ /::::\ \
\/_/:/ / \::/ / |:| | \/__\:\ \ ~~~~\:\ \
/:/ / /:/ / |:|__| \:\__\ \:\__\
\/__/ \/__/ |/__/ \/__/ \/__/
___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\
\:\ \ ___ \:\ \ /:/ _/_
\:\ \ /\__\ \:\ \ /:/ /\__\
_____\:\ \ /:/__/ _____\:\ \ /:/ /:/ _/_
/::::::::\__\ /::\ \ /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/ /\__\
\:\~~\~~\/__/ \/\:\ \__ \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/ /:/ /
\:\ \ ~~\:\/\__\ \:\ \ \::/_/:/ /
\:\ \ \::/ / \:\ \ \:\/:/ /
\:\__\ /:/ / \:\__\ \::/ /
\/__/ \/__/ \/__/ \/__/
___ ___ ___ ___ ___
/\__\ /\ \ /\ \ /\ \ /\__\
/:/ _/_ \:\ \ /::\ \ /::\ \ /:/ _/_
/:/ /\ \ \:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:/\:\__\ /:/ /\__\
/:/ /::\ \ _____\:\ \ /:/ /::\ \ /:/ /:/ / /:/ /:/ /
/:/_/:/\:\__\ /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/\:\__\ /:/_/:/__/___ /:/_/:/ /
\:\/:/ /:/ / \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/ \/__/ \:\/:::::/ / \:\/:/ /
\::/ /:/ / \:\ \ \::/__/ \::/~~/~~~~ \::/__/
\/_/:/ / \:\ \ \:\ \ \:\~~\ \:\ \
/:/ / \:\__\ \:\__\ \:\__\ \:\__\
\/__/ \/__/ \/__/ \/__/ \/__/
|
347.570 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Jun 18 1996 09:46 | 14 |
| Re .565:
> Unless not "enough" get inoculated.
Then it seems like there's a sizable fraction of the populace who
disagrees with you. So what gives you the right to decide your opinion
is correct and gives you the right to overwhelm the others with force?
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
347.571 | in theory anyway... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Jun 18 1996 10:09 | 21 |
|
Well, edp, the short answer "what gives you the right" is "power".
In a constitutional representative democracy, power comes from
an enumerated list, and goes to the bigger numbers. The power to
"provide for the general welfare" or "regulate interstate commerce",
is power to force innocent people to do what they do not wish to do.
The long answer is, that good policy choice is always a tradeoff.
The technique of cost-benefit analysis is to list choices across
one side of the chart, and list all "relative" costs and benefits
of each, quantify, do a sensitivity analysis, and emerge with a
policy best suited to achieving "the greatest good of the greatest
number".
The exceptions would be, if the proposed policy exceeds the powers
the Constitution enumerates, or treads upon rights of minorities held
to require a supermajority to override. However, in a democracy,
there must be provision for a sufficient supermajority to do anything
it pleases, or the system will lose its legitimacy and collapse.
bb
|
347.572 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Jun 18 1996 12:30 | 18 |
| Re .571:
> However, in a democracy, there must be provision for a sufficient
> supermajority to do anything it pleases, or the system will lose its
> legitimacy and collapse.
No such necessity exists. If a sufficient supermajority pleased to
paint every building purple or to enslave every person in the minority
yet some supernatural force stopped them, the world would not end. The
system would not lose its legitimacy, and the supermajority and the
minority would get along without collapsing.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
347.573 | not what history teaches | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Jun 18 1996 12:36 | 9 |
|
Nonsense. They should, and would, overthrow that system, shoot
those who were running it, and the minority who opposed them for
good measure, then start over.
In fact, it was just this power of the people to overthrow any
entrenched minority which created our country.
bb
|
347.574 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Jun 18 1996 12:57 | 5 |
|
Billbob, I agree with you, but don't forget that there are
supernatural forces involved in Mr. Postpischil's scenario,
so all bets are off. ;>
|
347.575 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Jun 18 1996 14:32 | 31 |
| Re .573:
> They should, . . .
Why? Why should the majority overthrow the government just for the
pleasure of having purple buildings? Why should the majority overthrow
the government just for the power to enslave the minority?
> . . . and would, . . .
How do you overthrow a supernatural force?
> . . . the minority who opposed them for good measure, then start over.
I didn't say the minority opposed them. Unless you are interpreting
disagreement as opposition.
The point is the majority can live perfectly well without having all
their pleasures satisfied. People should distinguish between needs or
rights and pleasures. Government need not satisfy pleasures to be
successful -- it suffices to satisfy needs and rights. If the _rights_
of a majority, or even a minority, are being infringed, then they
should oppose the infringement. But if it is merely their pleasure
that is being thwarted, then they should learn to live with it.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
347.576 | unrealistic | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Tue Jun 18 1996 14:42 | 24 |
|
Looked at Iran lately ? If the radical paint-it-purple cult
converted, say, 95% of the USA, they would elect a paint-it-purple
President and Congress, governors, state legislatures, etc. They
would pass a law dictating that "all inanimate objects shall be
painted purple". No doubt, some of we 5% minority would sue,
claiming our constitutional rights had been violated. Now in the
first place, it isn't so clear that our rights HAVE been violated.
And in the second place, so what if we convinced SCOTUS ? The
purples could just amend the Constitution, and SCOTUS would go
away.
What power do you propose the 5% use to thwart the 95% ? All the
options I can think of are fraught with peril. If you really can't
stand purple, I would suggest running away.
More importantly, what sort of political system that would thwart
such an occurrence could possibly be stable ? Throw out the US
Constitution - try to imagine a system in which the 5% rational
people can thwart the rabid 95% true-believer fanatics. I can't
think of any such system that doesn't have any even worse flaw
than having to paint all your possessions violet.
bb
|
347.577 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Tue Jun 18 1996 15:31 | 43 |
| Re .576:
> What power do you propose the 5% use to thwart the 95% ?
Minorities have defeated majorities before. Sometimes with
persistance, sometimes with force, sometimes with shame, sometimes with
hunger strikes, sometimes with reason. But my argument is not about
how, but about why. There is no justification in any number of people,
majority or otherwise, imposing their pleasures on unwilling people.
> More importantly, what sort of political system that would thwart
> such an occurrence could possibly be stable ?
A system that _represents_ people not by taking elections at every
choice but by selecting a few among them to go and meet and study a
problem and make decisions based upon what they learn. A system in a
country where people have been taught about reason and freedom and
respect these values and believe that their neighbor's freedom is more
important than their own personal pleasure. A system where rules are
made and adhered to for the ages, not for the moment. A system where
some decision makers are independent of the whims of the day, secure in
their posts and answerable to their consciences rather than the current
fashion. A system where there are many opportunities to deny the
imposition of a rule, where a new rule must run a gauntlet of
challenges before becoming law.
> Throw out the US Constitution - try to imagine a system in which the
> 5% rational people can thwart the rabid 95% true-believer fanatics.
You should be ashamed to paint Iran as 95% rabid fanatics. It is not
so. No political system merely hands power over to the majority.
Emotions are hot -- they burn and then fade. Reason is cool. So a
system of law-making that requires time and many levels of procedure
filters some emotions and strengthens reason. Maybe we do not have
enough filters. But we know they exist, and a political system need
not be a mob rule.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
347.578 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Jun 18 1996 15:56 | 5 |
|
Is it my imagination, or is this getting off the point? Certainly
innoculation of people isn't considered a "pleasure". Except for
by a few sickos out there, prolly.
|
347.579 | | SMURF::WALTERS | | Tue Jun 18 1996 15:59 | 1 |
| You and the Doc seem to like needling each other.
|
347.580 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Tue Jun 18 1996 16:12 | 3 |
|
pointlessly though, Colin.
|
347.581 | | BIGQ::SILVA | I'm out, therefore I am | Tue Jun 18 1996 16:38 | 7 |
| | <<< Note 347.578 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>
| Is it my imagination, or is this getting off the point?
Di, we can't have people think they are reading the same notes again if
we stay on the subject. It's gotta make a full circle!
|
347.582 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Tue Jun 18 1996 18:01 | 10 |
| In any civilization, the only legitimate or beneficial function of
government is to protect individual and their property rights. The only
legitimate use of force is self-defense in protecting those rights. By
contrast, criminal-controlled governments, such as we have in the world
today, including the United States, depend on political-agenda laws,
ego "justice", initiatory force, threats, coercion, fake compassion, and
fraud to survive. They survive by draining the producers of value and
violating property rights.
|
347.583 | around and around | GAAS::BRAUCHER | Welcome to Paradise | Wed Jun 19 1996 10:38 | 81 |
|
Lady Di, aka Josephine - actually the rat-hole has tunneled full
circle back to the topic. Recall how the discussion got here - Tom
and I agree that in setting up a society, as our founders did in 1787,
it is useful to have some sort of principles upon which the
definitions of various rights and powers are based. He tried to
make a distinction between "objectively derived" moral principles,
and "revealed" or "mystical" moral principles. I replied this
distinction is imaginary, because no moral principles have ever
been objectively derived - they are all justified by their advocates
by unprovable assertions, not by either logic or observation, and in
every case they are opposed by other people who reject those assertions.
Ethics, as Aristotle (our oldest source on the subject) knew, is HARD.
Tom's assertion is this : "Neither individuals, nor groups, nor
the whole society, should under any circumstances, initiate force
against an individual." Now at first glance, that appears reasonable.
None of us would enjoy living in a society in which force was
initiated against individuals in almost every situation. Yet in
examining first principles, it is essential not only to look at the
easy cases, but also at the most common ones, and at the pathological
cases, to see if the first principle can lead to an absurdity. I
maintain this "first principle", so reasonable-looking, is in fact
both absurd, and in extremis, pathological.
Clearly, Tom's rule WAS NOT the first principle of the founders of
the USA : they gave Congress the power to tax, a power the Continental
Congress did not have. They did this with their eyes wide open.
Make no mistake : Tom's "law" means taxes should be voluntary. There
is no escape from the logic of it. Yet, in fact, voluntary taxes
were tried in the Confederation, and simply weren't paid. Without
the power to tax by force, government cannot provide for the general
welfare, cannot provide for the common defense, and can insure no
justice or security. So in the common case, Tom's law is anarchism.
And in the pathological case, where one individual possesses the
sole antidote to a disease, which he refuses to share, Tom must die
for his principle, along with everybody else in the society except
the possessor of the cure. Which is NOT reasonable. In fact, it
suggests behavior which real humans never could be expected to
follow. Some real humans would overpower the guy and cure themselves,
abandoning Tom's law whether they believed it or not.
As an alternative, I proposed the principle of the utilitarians :
the greatest good of the greatest number. Now, turnabout is fair
play - I have to defend MY principle, which is also a mere assertion,
in pathological cases. edp has suggested just such a pathological
case - suppose that the vast majority are fanatics with an irrational
concept of "good". Doesn't the utilitarian principle mean that I, a
rational member of the non-fanatical minority, must ultimately
aquiesce in the irrational wishes of the fanatic majority ? In the
ultimate Nazi case, must I not volunteer for Auschwitz ? This is
a real dilemma for utilitarians, just as oligarchies/monopolies are
a real problem for "libertarians" who follow Tom's principle.
I'm not sure I can find a way out. Edp has pointed out several
possibilities. I agree with him that the freedom of speech is our
most important freedom. If we are going to be majoritarian, it
certainly helps if the minority gets to argue and whine. Maybe
they can talk the irrational majority out of their insane couse.
I also agree with edp that a certain amount of "inertia" in the
system is useful, to allow fanaticism a chance to fade with time.
Our founders thought this too, hence the laborious amendment process
and the US Senate and Supreme Court, bodies that they hoped would
be able to stand against irrationality at least for a while.
But I disagree with edp about "committees of experts". This idea,
which I've heard from many others in here from Phil & DougO, etc,
is ultimately "Platonic" - the philosopher kings will save us.
They, the few wise people, those who count, should ultimately
have the power to thwart the people. It is a form of "Aristocracy",
and it is certainly not American. I recognize that expertise can
exist. But I cannot stomach the notion that the few can dictate
to the many. Advise yes, but in the ultimate, the "experts" must
capitulate, and the people get their way. I cannot go further,
without abandoning the utilitarian assumption of egalitarianism.
And I refuse to trust the wisdom of any experts, no matter how they
are chosen, as the ultimate power in society.
bb
|
347.584 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Jun 19 1996 11:01 | 19 |
| > <<< Note 347.583 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
> Lady Di, aka Josephine - actually the rat-hole has tunneled full
> circle back to the topic.
Er, just to be clear, my comment had nothing to do with ratholing,
moderatorship, etc. It just seemed to me that the discussion had
gone from forced innoculations to forced purple buildings as though
those two were somehow analogous, when one, imo, falls under the
category of "needs and rights" and the other of "personal pleasures",
the two of which categories were being contrasted.
> But I disagree with edp about "committees of experts". This idea,
> which I've heard from many others in here from Phil & DougO, etc,
> is ultimately "Platonic" - the philosopher kings will save us.
Interesting that you say that, as Mr. Postpischil considers himself
something of a Platonist, or at least has in the past, I do believe.
|
347.585 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Wed Jun 19 1996 11:15 | 17 |
| >Interesting that you say that, as Mr. Postpischil considers himself
>something of a Platonist, or at least has in the past, I do believe.
Some of my thoughts, just to add to a potential rathole. Over two
millennia ago, the Greek politician and philosopher Plato established
the techniques for hoaxing the public, thus, allowing a
parasitical-elite class to rise. A class which presently controls the
United States. Throughout the subsequent centuries, parasitical elites
have used Plato-like hoaxes to drain the prosperity that the productive
class generates for society. Such sacrifice-to-higher-cause hoaxes
remains in effect today. By dissolving the platonistic elite-class
hoaxes, through honesty and rational thinking, the parasitical elites
along with their higher causes, that sacrifice us to them, will be
crushed under their own worthless weight. Then those who produce real
value to society will then gain their earned prosperity stolen from
them for 2300 years.
|
347.586 | | RUSURE::GOODWIN | Wotsa magnesia? Howdya milk it? | Wed Jun 19 1996 11:26 | 1 |
| Good. I want mine in cash so the IRS doesn't get wind of it.
|
347.587 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Jun 19 1996 12:02 | 14 |
| Re .578:
> Certainly innoculation of people isn't considered a "pleasure".
It is if the reason inoculation is mandated is to please people who
fear disease, not because it is medically necessary to prevent an
epidemic.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
347.588 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Jun 19 1996 12:09 | 34 |
| Re .583:
> Clearly, Tom's rule WAS NOT the first principle of the founders of
> the USA : . . .
This argument does not support your contention that the principle is
absurd. Not everything that was not done by the founders of the US is
absurd. They did not invent calculus, but that was not absurd. Just
because the US was not founded on this principle does not mean there's
anything wrong with it.
> Without the power to tax by force, government cannot provide for the
> general welfare, cannot provide for the common defense, and can insure
> no justice or security.
You have assumed without stating it that without tax, government has
no revenue. That assumption is false.
> But I disagree with edp about "committees of experts".
How can you disagree with me on something I did not espouse? I
suggested that some representatives be selected to go and study and
then make a decision. They do not need to be experts, nor do they need
to become experts. It would be nice if some of them did, but it
suffices that they _learn_ about the issue rather than merely emoting.
They can listen to people who are experts and evaluate the costs and
benefits the experts describe.
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
347.589 | | RUSURE::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Jun 19 1996 12:10 | 10 |
| Re .584:
Different meanings of "Platonic".
-- edp
Public key fingerprint: 8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86 32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.
|
347.590 | | BOXORN::HAYS | Some things are worth dying for | Wed Jun 19 1996 12:39 | 10 |
| RE: 347.587 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."
> It is if the reason inoculation is mandated is to please people who fear
> disease, not because it is medically necessary to prevent an epidemic.
Marginal and net gain from vaccination is being confused.
Phil
|
347.591 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Thu Jun 20 1996 14:04 | 16 |
| re .583, thanks for summarizing, I haven't been able to participate and
wasn't sure I was following all of the purposes of this discussion,
though it certainly caught my eye several times the last week or so.
> But I disagree with edp about "committees of experts". This idea,
> which I've heard from many others in here from Phil & DougO, etc,
> is ultimately "Platonic" - the philosopher kings will save us.
That doesn't *look* like one of my ideas, dressed in that clothing,
but if you can show me where you think I've said such, I'll reconsider.
Don't consider myself an elitist; though I certainly distrust the
masses, I distrust the elites, at least those who seek political power,
even more. Though one wonders whether you'd consider a meritocracy as
'elitist'.
DougO
|
347.592 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Aug 30 1996 11:01 | 13 |
347.593 | | GENRAL::RALSTON | Only half of us are above average! | Fri Aug 30 1996 14:18 | 3 |
347.594 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Fri Aug 30 1996 14:33 | 5 |
347.595 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Mar 12 1997 13:09 | 14 |
| CROWD BURNS COUPLE IN DAGESTAN. A crowd in the Dagestani city of
Buinaksk on 4 March burned a couple identified as Mr. and Mrs. Gadzhiev
who were suspected of kidnapping a 12-year-old girl and selling her
organs, ITAR-TASS reported. The girl's body had been found on 2 March,
and although she was violently murdered, there was no sign that organs
had been removed. The Dagestani authorities claim to have evidence
connecting Mr. Gadzhiev to the murder, but not his wife. They are still
investigating the circumstances leading to their death. Many children
are rumored to have disappeared in Dagestan recently, and some suspect
that their organs are being used abroad. Seventh Day Adventist sources
(who identified the couple as Tanya and Hadgimurat Magomedov) in the
U.S. report that the couple were members of the church and had provoked
the ire of the local community, which is predominantly Muslim, by
seeking converts. -- Robert Orttung
|
347.596 | not in my 1974 atlas... | GAAS::BRAUCHER | And nothing else matters | Wed Mar 12 1997 13:11 | 6 |
|
Dagestan ?
Gerald, please give news from actual places.
bb
|
347.597 | Part of Russia; in my National Geographic Atlas | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Wed Mar 12 1997 14:56 | 6 |
| Get a better atlas.
It's on the western shore of the Caspian Sea, north of Azerbaijan and east of
Georgia.
/john
|
347.598 | | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Thu Mar 13 1997 06:18 | 1 |
| yeah, right next to Frostbite Falls. sheesh, don't you know anything?
|