Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    See note 1.  

    Basically, this conference is dedicated to discussing issues and items
    of interest relating to Christianity in general that may or may not
    have reference to the Bible.

    The Christian notes conference has a more narrow focus, in that they
    deal with issues and items of interest to Christians as they relate to
    the Bible only.  The general flavor seems to be from a Fundamentalist
    Christian approach that espouses a literal interpretation of the Bible.

    The Religion notes conference is dedicated to the discussion of all
    religion in general.
    
    Mike

    I've had feedback that there are folks who are willing to
    participate here, who would not in CHRISTIAN.
    
    I prefer to think of this conference as more broadly based than
    CHRISTIAN, but more narrowly based than RELIGION.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Donna,

    Your note certainly is timely. I've followed this conference since its
    gestation in CHRISTIAN and have known the description that Mike gave in
    .1:

>    Basically, this conference is dedicated to discussing issues and items
>    of interest relating to Christianity in general that may or may not
>    have reference to the Bible.

    Perhaps I'm just dense. We've been active for a couple of weeks
    now, but I still don't know what the moderators' definition of
    "Christianity" is. Has that been established yet? Thanks.
    
    	BD�

    Barry,
    
    Speaking as one of the moderators, we intentionally refrained from
    creating a definition of "Christianity", since we felt we could not
    do so adequately without offending someone or having another person 
    feel we were excluding them.  I'm not sure of exact numbers, so perhaps
    you can correct me here, but I believe there are over a 100
    Christian denominations, all slightly differently from one another.
    
    Christianity to me, very broadly speaking, refers to the theology that
    was created around the life and teachings of a person by the name of
    Jesus.
    
    Is this helpful at all?
    
    Karen

>    Perhaps I'm just dense.

I seriously doubt that. :-)

>    We've been active for a couple of weeks
>    now, but I still don't know what the moderators' definition of
>    "Christianity" is. Has that been established yet? Thanks.
    
Speaking for myself, the answer to your question is "no", but then,
I don't feel that it's the realm of the moderators to establish a
definition of Christianity.

I would like to believe CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE would welcome all
who are interested in learning and sharing various Christian perspectives.

Peace,
Richard

    Personally, I would welcome the sharing of hopes and visions
    for the future of this notes file.
    
    I'll even start:  I see this conference as becoming an environment
    for the exchange of viewpoints which are accepted in a spirit of
    respect and mutuality.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    I would also like to see it include prayer and emotional support for
    each other, sharing of experiences, and suggestions (which can include,
    :) but not be limited to, teachings from the Bible) of how to live as
    followers of Christ.  
    
    Nancy

    It probably should be named the psuedo-christian conference. -:)
    
    Jim

    Re .4 (Karen)
    
    Thanks. Your reply was helpful inasmuch as you've confirmed that no
    definition has been established. (I was afraid I'd missed it.) I guess
    I'm still having trouble because I don't see how one can sensibly
    discuss items from a Christian perspective if one doesn't know what
    Christianity is. Thanks again.
    
    	BD�

    Hi Barry,
    
    > I guess I'm still having trouble because I don't see how one can
    > sensibly discuss items from a Christian perspective if one doesn't know
    > what Christianity is.
    
    I know what you mean.  Not having a common agreed upon definition can 
    be a challenge.  How do you think we're doing so far?
    
    Karen           

    RE: .8
    
    > It probably should be named the psuedo-christian conference. -:)
    
    I was hoping to escape that kind of aspersion by coming here to CP!
    
    :^(
    Nancy

    Nancy
    
    me too!
    
    Thanks
    
    Bonnie

    Re: Note 34.10 by CARTUN::BERGGREN
    

�    Hi Barry,
�    
�    > I guess I'm still having trouble because I don't see how one can
�    > sensibly discuss items from a Christian perspective if one doesn't know
�    > what Christianity is.
�    
�    I know what you mean.  Not having a common agreed upon definition can 
�    be a challenge.  How do you think we're doing so far?
    
    Since "I'm still having trouble" I don't think we're doing too well.
    Consider what would happen if I started a conference where "everyone
    who is interested can discuss items of interest to Zandroits". If we
    didn't come to an understanding of what Zandroits are or why one would
    be interested in their beliefs, I'm inclined to think it would be of
    little practical use.
    
    I'm not trying to argue the point. I've realized ever since the note
    was posted in CHRISTIAN that the idea was to be all-inclusive. However,
    I understand Jesus' teachings as not being all-inclusive:
    
    	- no one comes to the Father but through Me
    	- many will say to me `Lord, Lord', but I'll say `depart -
    	  I never knew you'
    	- wide is the gate that leads to destruction, and there are
    	  many who go in by it.... narrow is the gate which leads to life,
    	  and there are few who find it
    
    I certainly wouldn't want anyone to feel excluded from learning about
    Christianity. I guess that's why I'd like to see some stab at defining
    the term so that others can know what it is we're talking about.
    
    	BD�

    Speaking here not as a moderator, but as a participant, I won't say
    that I am totally opposed to the idea of defining Christianity for the
    of this conference, but I am admittedly *very* leery about this.  I
    would hope that any definition would be broad.  And I would oppose
    using any definition of Christianity here for the purposes of enforcing
    any sort of doctrinal test or "standard".  Admittedly, I don't define
    myself as a Christian, so perhaps I should not be involved in this
    discussion.  However, the only use for such a definition that I can
    really see would be to establish when it might be appropriate to refer
    someone to the Religion conference for a particular discussion. 
    Anyway, so far I haven't seen any problem.  Is there a one?

    And Nancy, I think that your suggestions about prayer and emotional
    support are wonderful, and I welcome anyone (including you, Nancy! :-))
    to start the ball rolling.

    -- Mike

    >Speaking here not as a moderator, but as a participant, I won't say
    >that I am totally opposed to the idea of defining Christianity for the
    >of this conference, but I am admittedly *very* leery about this.  I
    >would hope that any definition would be broad.  And I would oppose
    >using any definition of Christianity here for the purposes of enforcing
    >any sort of doctrinal test or "standard".  
    
    Except that I call myself a Christian I am in agreement with what Mike
    says here. My major problem with the other Christian notes file was
    that the definition of what a Christian was was so very narrow and
    to my mind judgemental that I did not feel comfortable there.
    
    and in re the scripture about Jesus being the way....there is another
    way to look at that scripture..
    
    if someone comes to the Father they came to the Father by Jesus's
    intervention, even if they didn't realize that at the time. An
    example of this is found in Lewis's Narnia books in "The Last Battle"
    (tho admittedly in a simple form as it is a children's book).
    
    Bonnie

    Barry,
    
    You may want to consider note 22.  People have been offering there
    thoughts there about what makes a religion and person a Christan.
    For me personally, I feel people in this file have a common basic
    understanding of Christianity;  you and I may disagree with some of the
    particulars, but it seems that what we have is enough to dialogue from,
    as that is what's been happening.  
    
    To me, that is the essence of what I hoped would be able to happen 
    in this file.  Perhaps you have other specific expectations that may 
    or may not be able to be met here.  If so, it may be helpful to share 
    them in the "This Notes File" note, so that others may consider them 
    as well and learn from them.  
    
    God bless,
    
    Karen     

    Please forgive typos in -1.
    
    I'm really a bettr spiller than that.
    
    :-)

>    if someone comes to the Father they came to the Father by Jesus's
>    intervention, even if they didn't realize that at the time. 

EXACTLY my thinking and that of so many of my Christian friends.  
Thank you for stating this, Bonnie.

Dick

Re Note 34.14 (Mike)
    
>    However, the only use for such a definition that I can
>    really see would be to establish when it might be appropriate to refer
>    someone to the Religion conference for a particular discussion. 
>    Anyway, so far I haven't seen any problem.  Is there a one?
    
    No I don't think there is currently a "problem". Perhaps Karen's reply
    gets to the root of my concern...


Re Note 34.16 (Karen)
    
>    Perhaps you have other specific expectations that may 
>    or may not be able to be met here.
    
    I suppose I have been hoping that this conference could serve as a
    type of "outreach" or "evangelizer". By that I mean that it's
    conceivable that at times in the future there may be folks coming
    along who are interested in Christianity and who open this
    conference instead of CHRISTIAN (where I'm certain they would get a
    definition). These hypothetical people won't learn much about
    Christianity except, perhaps, that if you call yourself a Christian
    you automatically become one.
    
    For sake of discussion, assume for a moment that the following are true:
    	- heaven and hell exist (and you'd prefer going to heaven than
    	  hell)
    	- by default a person is doomed to hell
    	- Christianity is a lifestyle/relationship that provides the
    	  escape from hell and achievement of heaven
    
    If we can momentarily assume that those statements are true, this
    conference still hasn't met the need of said peron to know how to
    achieve heaven. On the other hand, if we assume that those statements
    are false then we can't really claim to have a Christian perspective at
    all since a large body of Christians *do* accept the veracity of the
    statements.
    
    I hope no one thinks I'm trying to be argumentative. I just had some
    hopes of what this conference could do, and so far I don't see them being
    realized. Maybe my expectations won't be able to be met here.
    
    	BD�

    Barry, those who accept the premises about heaven and hell that you
    described are free to participate here.  Those who don't accept those
    premises are also free to participate.  If we defined Christianity
    strictly along the terms that you have defined, and thus enforced that
    as a doctrinal "standard", how would this conference then differ from
    the one on GOLF?  An important reason for this notes conference is to
    provide a forum that is open to a variety of Christian perspectives,
    not just the fundamentalist one.  To impose the sort of definition of
    Christianity that you suggest would, as far as I can tell, make this
    conference redundant.  And were such a definition imposed, I certainly
    would not participate here, for the same reasons that I don't
    participate in GOLF::CHRISTIAN.

    -- Mike

    Barry .19,
    
    I hear your concern.  As far as your hope that Christian-Perspective
    would serve as a type of "outreach" or "evangelizer" for the Christian
    beliefs you follow, the Christian conference imo serves that function.
    
    There are many other Christians who do not share your same beliefs.
    
    To say that there may be some folks coming along who are interested in
    Christianity and won't learn much about it by coming into 
    Christian-Perspective "except perhaps that if you call yourself a 
    Christian you automatically become one", is a very presumptuous
    statement on your part and one that I personally disagree with, as I am
    sure many other Christian participants would disagree also.
    
    Really, Barry, which one of us gets to make the call as to who is a
    Christian and who is not?  Which one of us gets to make that judgement?
    
    Imo, it is one that I have no business making, and therefore I am perfectly
    content to leave it in God's hands.  Can you trust in God and Jesus
    enough to let them be the sole judges of who is or is not a Christian? 
    
    Karen

    
    Hi all,
    
    I see many valuable suggestions in Barry's replies (of course,
    you expected that I would, right? :^) ... but really, he does
    seem to have a point.
    
    Let me remind you that there are a number of non-fundamentalist
    Christians who participate in the conference on GOLF quite
    regularly. And that brings a variety of quite different Chrstian
    perspectives into that notesfile.  How come *they* don't feel the 
    way about that notesfile the way some of you say you feel? It's 
    curious, I think, that not everybody shares this view about 
    the conference on GOLF. Which makes me feel that at least a
    part of the answer lies in the participants who hold those
    differing views.
    
    Barry's strong urging for a definition of Christianity that all
    can use as a frame of reference for discussions here ought to
    be heeded by the moderators, if for no other reason than that
    of fairness to *all* the participants. Make it as broad as you feel
    you must, but please, I also urge you, to define it, incorporating
    the Christian perspective that Barry offered in .13.
    
    Mike,
    
    >To impose the sort of definition of
    >Christianity that you suggest would, as far as I can tell, make this
    >conference redundant. 
    
    This illustrates precisely why such a definition is needed.
    
    >And were such a definition imposed, I certainly
    >would not participate here, for the same reasons that I don't
    >participate in GOLF::CHRISTIAN.
     
    If you don't mind my saying so, by your own admission, since
    you are not a Christian, I haven't quite figured out what
    kind of Christian perspective you can offer to participants
    here. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be here, I just find
    it interesting that you should object to defining what the
    core, the essense, of Christianity is. 
    
    If you reject the basics put forth by Barry, to which basics even 
    the majority of mainline denominations would agree, then you're
    in a sense denying that Christianity can be defined. Which
    means you are invalidating the perspective of some of the
    Christians participants here.
    
    You see, when I come in here with my Christian Perspective, I
    don't want to be told that it's invalid. A definition that allows
    room for the basis of my faith will allow me the freedom of expression
    here that you're working so hard to establish.
    
    The above not all necessarily reflective of *my* thoughts and 
    feelings, but something to ponder.
    
    Irena
                
                                                        

    Hi Irena,
    
    > Let me remind you that there are a number of non-fundamentalist
    > Christians who participate in the conference on Golf quite
    > regularly.... How come *they don't feel the way about that notesfile the
    > way some of you say you feel?  It's curious, I think, that not
    > everybody shares this view about the conference on Golf.
    
    I think the reason for this Irena, is that God did not create us as 
    carbon copies of one another.  Looking at creation I see a God who 
    values diversity.
    
    As far as providing a definition for Christianity and Christian I will
    go where most people looking for word definitions go - to Webster's
    Dictionary:
    
    	Christianity n. 1. The religion founded on the teachings of Jesus
    	Christ. 2. Christendom. 3. The quality, state, or fact of being a
    	Christian.
    
    	Christian n. 1. A believer in Christianity.  adj. 1. Of, pertaining
    	to, or professing belief in Christianity. 2. Relating to or derived
    	from Jesus or His teachings. 3. Relating to Christianity or its
    	adherents.
    
    Any more specific definition of Christianity or Christian is strictly a 
    matter of personal interpretation.
    
    Karen
    (co-moderator)  

>    Let me remind you that there are a number of non-fundamentalist
>    Christians who participate in the conference on GOLF quite
>    regularly. And that brings a variety of quite different Chrstian
>    perspectives into that notesfile.  How come *they* don't feel the 
>    way about that notesfile the way some of you say you feel? It's 

	Be aware that when you use phrases like "as you say you feel"
	you are implying that people don't really feel that way but are
	just saying it. At least this is how it comes across to me.


>    curious, I think, that not everybody shares this view about 
>    the conference on GOLF. Which makes me feel that at least a
>    part of the answer lies in the participants who hold those
>    differing views.
 
	BTW, I always concidered myself a fundamentalist and am uncomfortable
	with the other conference. I suspect that that is for different
	reasons then for many others. Why some people are comfortable there
	and others are not is clearly dependent on the people who feel that
	way. The people who are uncomfortable in the other conference 
	are not wrong to feel that way. Any more then people not comfortable
	here are.

>    Barry's strong urging for a definition of Christianity that all
>    can use as a frame of reference for discussions here ought to
>    be heeded by the moderators, if for no other reason than that
>    of fairness to *all* the participants.	 

	I disagree 100%. If carving a definition in stone is going to make
	many or even some uncomfortable here then doing so is not fair to
	*all* the participants. A definition that was going to serve as
	part of the guidelines for this conference, as is done on GOLF,
	serves to make this conference more rigid and unflexable then I,
	speaking for myself, would like. I think that as long as everyone
	is open about themselves and their beliefs that such a definition
	is not needed. In fact it would serve to restrict diversity.

	The conference on GLOF serves a purpose as does this one. But they
	are not indended to be the same or serve complete subsets of the
	other. This is I think the value of these conferences.

>    >To impose the sort of definition of
>    >Christianity that you suggest would, as far as I can tell, make this
>    >conference redundant. 
>    
>    This illustrates precisely why such a definition is needed.
 
	You mean you *want* to make this conference redundant? I think
	this conference is needed and that it must be different from the
	other one.
    
>    If you reject the basics put forth by Barry, to which basics even 
>    the majority of mainline denominations would agree, then you're
>    in a sense denying that Christianity can be defined.

	I'm having trouble with the logic here. You seem to be saying that
	if someone doesn't accept your definition that that is the same as
	saying that it can't be defined. This does not follow. Could you
	explain? Thanks.

> Which
>    means you are invalidating the perspective of some of the
>    Christians participants here.

	What does this mean? How is it different from what you said which
	seems to invalidate the feelings of those who are not comfortable
	with the other conference?

>   You see, when I come in here with my Christian Perspective, I
>    don't want to be told that it's invalid. A definition that allows
>    room for the basis of my faith will allow me the freedom of expression
>    here that you're working so hard to establish.
 
	A definition will by definition invalidate someones perspective.
	I see a call for a definition as an attempt to disrupt this conference
	and cause friction between participants.

			Alfred  

    Well, Mike, you don't speak for this one. :-)
    
      The "standard" that people feel is intolerant of their christianity
    happens to be the Bible which *the* basis for Christianity. If they
    have a problem with that then I have a problem with them. To be blunt,
    I have serious doubts about a "christianity" that is based on something
    other than the Bible (in its entirety). Anything else is building on
    the sand.
    
      Please note this is IMHO (and probably His, too)
    
    Gil

    Irena, several non-fundamentalist Christians have stated that they have
    found the environment in GOLF:CHRISTIAN to be intolerant of their
    Christianity because their own views did not conform to the conference
    "standard".  I am therefore speaking not just for myself, but in this
    instance I believe that I also speak for many Christians.

    Also, I did *not* object to defining what Christianity is for the
    purposes of this conference.  What I objected to was the idea of
    defining this notes conference along the same narrow, fundamentalist
    lines as GOLF::CHRISTIAN.  This would make this conference identical to
    the conference on GOLF, and would thus make this conference redundant. 
    The point of this conference is to provide a broader, more tolerant
    alternative to the other "Christian" conference.  My reasons for
    participating here are that I have an interest in Christianity.  I
    refuse to participate in GOLF::CHRISTIAN because I feel I have little
    in common with the brand of Christianity that is officially defined
    there; but I *do* feel that I have much to learn about and exchange
    with among large numbers of Christians.  I have already learned a great
    deal just in the short time that this conference has been here.  I
    expect that process to continue.

    -- Mike

    Gil, I'm not interested in debating that point with you.  You are
    hosting a notes conference that officially endorses your view.  The
    very reason for the existence of this conference is that many
    Christians object to that view, and are happy to see that this notes
    conference exists.  For those who prefer a primarily fundamentalist
    environment, GOLF::CHRISTIAN serves an admirable purpose.  Therefore,
    it sounds like these two notes conferences serve complementary
    purposes.  There already exists a notes conference that serve the goals
    you endorse.  So what's your complaint?
    
    -- Mike

    Gil
    
    First off there are many of us who call our selves Christians who
    don't interpret the Bible the same way you do. So while we believe
    that Christ is God's son and that he died for our sins and was
    resurected from the dead, we may well differ from you as to excatly
    how a particular piece of scripture should be interpreted. This was
    one trouble I had/have with the other conference. There is a strong
    atmosphere of "this is the only way that you can interpret this
    scripture and if you don't then you aren't a Christian". Further
    there are Christian writings both from the pens of men and women
    and 'channeled' such as a Course in Miracles that add to the
    richness of the understanding of God and Jesus that we learn in
    scripture. Finally, as my husband has mentioned there is the
    Holy Spirit moving in our hearts and souls.
    
    All of these speak to different people, and not to all people.
    
    Bonnie

Thanks Bonnie, your words spoke for me as well.  I'm beginning to feel 
rather uncomfortable with some of the disruptive remarks being made in
this conference - feels very judgemental.  I applaud the moderators for
trying to keep things in balance.

Ro

    In defining what this Notes file is about I would ask that we all
    examine what our expectations are.  Are you wanting to define this file
    in order to fit your expectations?  Would there be any harm in letting
    the file shape itself by the contributions made by it's participants?
    
    The sermon at my church yesterday was about the danger of expectations. 
    One of the points that really hit home for me was "God created us in
    His image and we turned around and returned the favor."
    
    Nanci

    Well, this is about the response that I expected here. I hear lots of
    cries of intolerance from people in this conference about
    GOLF::CHRISTIAN. Well, this place is the other side of the coin. If
    that conference is intolerant of liberal, non-literal, newage, psedo-,
    (and any other adjective you care to place in front of ) Christainity,
    then this conference is intolerant of traditional, conservative,
    literal Christianity. 
    
      Contrary to the nice words of greeting that met some contributors
    here, I don't feel very welcome (except by Karen and we don't even
    agree on much anyway - but you are indeed a loving person, thanks).
    Maybe, I have an attitude problem, maybe I don't belong here. Or maybe
    2 Tim 3:1-5 applies to this conference.
    
      In any event I will simplify things by bowing out now before I break
    my promise to try to behave. See you in GOLF::CHRISTIAN.
    
    Gil 

>   then this conference is intolerant of traditional, conservative,
>    literal Christianity. 
 
	Some people do believe that the other conference is intolerant of 
	traditional, conservative, literal Christianity as well. I do.
	Perception I guess. I've seen no intolerance by liberals here
	though I have by conservatives.

> Or maybe
>    2 Tim 3:1-5 applies to this conference.

	Funny I always thought those verses fit the conference on GOLF.

			Alfred

    I think it's a natural human response to immediately reject those ideas
    that don't agree with ours, and then "dig in" to our own pride and
    righteousness about them.  I really hope that this conference as a
    whole does not reflect an attitude of intolerance to anyone's beliefs
    at either end of the Christian spectrum.
    
    What did Jesus do when he encountered intolerance?  
    
    I don't have an example at the top of my head, but I'd really like to
    hear one right now and contemplate it.
    
    Karen                             

    Hmmm, now we have two conferences that make people feel
    uncomfortable and there both called Christian. Seems like
    a paradox to me.

    I'm not a fundamentalist and yeah, sometimes I felt a little
    unnecessary heat in the Golf::Conference, but I never felt unwelcome.
    There is a difference. 

    Heck, I feel heat in this conference, but I don't feel unwelcome....
    (stop nodding -:).

    Peace
    Jim

    Gil - 
    
    My remarks were not addressed to anyone in particular.  As I recall I
    asked that "_we all_ examine" our expectations.  There was no judgement
    made, just questions asked.  We each have the answer to our personal
    motivations.  Your answers are not mine and mine are not yours.
    
    Nanci   

I agree with the moderators that defining Christianity in any specific
way would be contrary to the purpose of this conference.  This
conference was specifically started for the purpose of allowing those
who wish to discuss Christianity in a context *other* than GOLF::CHRISTIAN
to do so.

The other reason why Christianity can not be defined is because this
conference makes it clear that there is *no* conference standard for
being called a Christian.  There are only individual viewpoints.

The standard of *not having* a fixed standard for all is exactly the
same standard that "liberal" Christianity has.  This conference, by
its desire to not define a standard, has become a "liberal" Christianity
conference.  And I have no problem with that.

It may or may not have been the moderators intention to start a "liberal"
Christianity conference, but it (in my opinion) is about the only option
open other than a "Bible standard (conservative)" Christianity conference.

Does this make sense?  (Again, I'm *not* passing judgments.  I'm just
explaining my view of what is and why it is and why it could be no other
way given the desires of those who started the conference.)

Collis

    
    
    Something is happening here that is troubling.  There is an
    underlying current that, I feel, is trying to sway this conference
    in a direction to make it look other than what it is.  This is my
    opinion only....I feel that there was and is present on the part
    of some participants a desire to see this conference fail.  That
    because the name Christian was used , that a determination was made
    that it would not be worthy of it because it would not follow certain
    preset rules.
    
    This conference is open to all to discuss all aspects of Christianity,
    not just one groups belief of what Christianity is.  If there is
    any trouble here, it is of your making.  I just don't feel that
    many who hold a strict fundamentalists view of Christianity and
    the Bible can freely discuss with those who do not hold those views.
    However, no one is taking that opportunity away from you.  Only
    you can do that.
    
    I just wish I could put into words what I am feeling here as I read
    these replies.  There is something just not right, and I wish I
    could explain it so that people could see.  Perhaps I will ask for
    God's assistance here.
    
    Please don't try to destroy this forum.  Much good can come from
    it, and with your love rather than your anger or fear, we can touch
    hearts.
    
    Carole

re Note 34.23 by SSGBPM::PULKSTENIS:

        Irena,

>                        -< How do I know I belong here? >-

        My sincere belief is that you tell whether you belong here by
        what you see here.  No statement on the part of the
        moderators should substitute for what your own eyes tell you
        about this conference.  If the moderators were to make such a
        definition, we wouldn't do anything to "enforce" it, so the
        definition most likely would be meaningless, even misleading.

        Bob

re Note 34.33 by GOLF::BERNIER:

>     then this conference is intolerant of traditional, conservative,
>     literal Christianity. 
  
        Gil,

        I think that that's an unfair assessment.

        There are a number of more conservative believers who have
        been participating in this conference.  I think that they
        have been tolerated as much as anybody else.

        It is certainly unfair to call us intolerant simply because
        we declined to make an official, moderator-endorsed
        definition of Christianity.  Any participant is free to
        offer their personal, or denominational, definition of
        Christianity;  in fact there already is a topic for just such
        a discussion.

        But we won't select one and make it "official".

        You call that intolerant??????????

        Bob

    	There are entire conferences out there with less activity than this
    one little note (34.xx) has had today. 
    
    Gil,
    	I'm sorry if you feel that we are intolerant of you. The same goes
    for anybody else out there who feels they have been put upon here. I
    came to this conference with the expectation of finding both liberal
    and conservative christians - and a few folks like Mike who reject the
    label but agree with most of the principles - who are willing to share
    a dialogue with each other. I am a liberal. You are a conservative. We
    can expect to disagree. That need not close off any hope of a positive
    dialogue. Just because I will not accept your statements at face value
    does not mean that I reject you.
    
    re: an official conference definition of "Christian".
    	I feel that any attempt at such would have a negative, restrictive,
    divisive and exclusionary effect on the conference. In my intro I
    defined what I meant when I called myself a christian. I ask you to
    respect that definition even if you would challenge me on particulars.
    If you want to tell me what you mean when you call yourself a Christian
    then I will respoct that, even if I challenge the particulars. If one
    of us feels that the other fails miserably to meet a particular
    standard of "christian" then I hope the discussion can be civil. I'm
    CERTAIN that many of the more conservative members here feel that there
    is much to be desired in my self portrayal, yet none has tried to
    exclude me. (thank you all) And I value their input as well. 

    in re .34
    
    Alfred
    
    
    How about 2 Timothy 2:23-26.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .23, Irena,
    
    >Which
    >means you are invalidating the perspective of some of the
    >Christians participants here.
    > 
    >You see, when I come in here with my Christian Perspective, I
    >don't want to be told that it's invalid. 
    
    This is *exactly* what I was expressing in reverse in GOLF::CHRISTIAN
    42, in response to something you entered there!  Here in this
    conference, I hope we can keep the kind of openness that was expressed
    by John Wesley (yes, I'm a Methodist :^) ) when he said something like:
    
    "Is thy heart right with God, as mine is?  Then give me thy hand!"
    
    No doctrinal belief required in *that* statement (even though I *know*
    I'm not quoting it exactly)!
     
    Nancy

	RE: .43

>    How about 2 Timothy 2:23-26.

	Sounds good to me.

			Alfred

Originally, I did not embrace the idea of a separate conference from
GOLF::CHRISTIAN.  Only a handful of people, mostly read-only's, were
supportive of my efforts in GOLF::CHRISTIAN.  Irena was consistently
supportive of me, as well.  Irena is welcome here.

Gil is welcome here.  I regret that Gil finds the lack of rigid definition
as something undesirable.  I credit Gil with setting hidden several notes
in GOLF::CHRISTIAN that were personal attacks against me, including one
that intimated that I was a cur and a swine.

The volume of notes entered here speaks loudly and clearly that this
conference, for whatever reason, is meeting needs unmet by GOLF::CHRISTIAN.

Peace,
Richard

    
    Richard,
    :^) :^) -- many smiles ...
    
    >Irena was consistently supportive of me, as well.  
    >Irena is welcome here
    
    Whew. I'm sure glad I was supportive of you, Richard. Otherwise,
    I might not be welcome here and wouldn't *that* be a drag!
    
    On the serious side, I don't quite understand the point of
    your reply (.46). It sounds like you're trying to justify
    the reason for this conference.
    
    I don't believe justification is required. You guys wanted
    a liberal conference, and that's your option. Don't trying
    to justify it.
    
    Richard, I might just add (in case anyone misinterprets your
    words) that I was supportive of your right to express your
    views in GOLF::CHRISTIAN, as I've try to be supportive of
    all who participate there. That's God's love in me. I figured
    if I could come through New Age/mysticism to Jesus, anybody
    can. :)
    
    [time to duck?] ;^)
    Irena
    

    Hi Irena,
    
    You know, Irena, that could rate you a snowball hit...when the weather
    gets around to it.  (;^)  So you don't have to duck for a while yet.
    
    Speaking for myself, and unedited at that (a feature I really like
    about this conference), when I look at all the religions in the world,
    and the spiritual (oh dear, new age-type) beliefs as well, I truly see
    the same energy - the same glue - holding everything together.  It's
    One God, One World, One Universe, One Digital (;^), and so on.
    
    Over in the other conference, whenever I brought up these possibilities
    and tried to talk about them, I'd either get so deluged with attacks or
    set hiddens that it just wasn't worth the effort.  There was no room at
    the inn for someone with views similar to mine over in GOLF.  
    
    I'm a Unitarian Universalist Christian.  Having participated in UU,
    CHRISTIAN, and DEJAVU (and occasionally RELIGION) for several years now,
    this new conference fills a void.  
    
    Irena and Gil, while I love you dearly, there are aspects of my Christian 
    beliefs that I cannot and probably will not ever be able to talk about 
    with you, primarily because your minds are made up and nothing I do or 
    say/write will ever change them as evident by our going round and round 
    in GOLF::CHRISTIAN for over *three* years now.  It isn't even limited
    to our exchanges, but I also don't feel completely open about
    discussing them in DEJAVU, UU or RELIGION either.
    
    I believe that Christianity is based on *Christ*, not on the Bible.  As
    the last verse at the end of the gospel of John states (paraphrased, of
    course), if all the things Christ taught and lived were written down,
    there would not be enough room on Earth to hold them.  This, to me,
    says that there is far more out there than just what is written in the
    Bible.  But one has to be willing to do some exploring in uncharted
    waters to be able to uncover what some of these things are. 
    
    I see this conference as expanding upon the limits/restrictions placed
    on those who participate in GOLF::.  
    
    May God bless the participants in both conferences.
    
    Cindy

Note 34.47
    
    Irena,
    
    I was not some much justifying the existance of this conference
    as much as I was lamenting the shortcomings of CHRISTIAN.
    
    In your supportiveness of me, you were an exception, my friend.
    
    And, I am certain you would be welcome here whether or not you
    had my endorsement.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    
    P.S.  Though some New Agers are mystics, not all mystics are New Agers.
    Among well-known mystics are Brother Lawrence, Thomas Merton, and
    Daniel Berrigan.  Would you label these gents as New Agers??

    
    Richard,
    
    ...thanks, friend.
    
    
    
    
    Cindy,
    
    Hi there! I wondered when you'd pop up in here. Nice to see
    you. 
    
    As for "things" we can talk about, well, I think I've covered a
    humungous spectrum of topics with many people, mostly off-line.
    I could well be excommunicated from CHRISTIAN if it were known. 
    Shhh. :)
    
    But, it's OK. There are lots of folks there who keep me in prayer. :)
    And, in the process, it'a amazing what God does.
    
    So, talk away. :)
    
    Though, to tell the truth, at this point in my life, while I may 
    wonder about all the other things Jesus said and did (which were 
    not written down)  I have all I can do just to try to get a handle 
    on the things that *are* written down (guess the were considered 
    important enough to record, huh?) and integrating them, and figuring out 
    how God wants me to apply the little that I do know.
    
    Thankfully, there's *always* more to know, always room to grow in
    Him.
    
    Irena
    
               

re Note 34.47 by SSGBPM::PULKSTENIS:

>     I don't believe justification is required. You guys wanted
>     a liberal conference, and that's your option. Don't trying
>     to justify it.
  
        I would hope that we are "liberal" in the old-fashioned sense
        of the word:  "open minded and tolerant, especially free of
        or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values,
        etc."  as opposed to "socially progressive" or "modernists".

        Bob

    I think there's room on this network for more than one conference with
    a perspective called "Christian."  And I don't have any problem with
    the moderators of this conference leaving "Christian" undefined.  This
    opinion has little to do with my theology; in my introduction note I
    identified myself as a born-again, Bible-believing, fundamentalist
    Evangelical, Conservative Baptist.
    
    I would no sooner ask for the file name of this conference to be
    changed than to ask for CHRISTIAN to be renamed just because it was
    meant for a more selective audience.
    
    There is a time for getting together with people who share pretty much
    the same faith as I, and there is a time for getting together with
    people who don't share the same perspectives, and it doesn't bother me
    what flavor of Christian or non-Christian they are.  (This may be
    somewhat liberal for a Conservative Baptist, and I trust Irena isn't
    about to tell our deacons -- she knows me from Grace Baptist.)
    
    --Simon
    

    Thank *you* Simon for offering your thoughts in -1.  
    I was really touched by them, especially your last
    paragraph.
    
    Karen

    Thank you also Simon :-). A few days ago I was talking to Dave
    Dawson on the phone and we got to some places where he and I disagree.
    My analogy to him was that there are vanilla flavored Christians
    and Chocolate flavored and Strawberry flavored but we are all 
    Christians. It is better for us to look at what joins us in
    fellowship than to argue about the merits of our 'flavor'.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Simon,
    
    >(This may be
    >somewhat liberal for a Conservative Baptist, and I trust Irena isn't
    >about to tell our deacons -- she knows me from Grace Baptist.)
     
    :^) Irena hasn't been a Conservative Baptist for years -- and it
    feels great to get out of the denominational straight-jacket.
    
    Besides, Simon - I heard it said that Baptist churches are
    deacon possessed. :)
    
    [Hey, it's in good fun -- and I'm *not* apologizing for it! :) Some of
    my best friends are Baptists.]
    
    Besides, I'm thankful for the teaching I got there during the
    early years. It gave me a firm foundation.
    
    Not to worry, Simon. If you don't tell anybody I'm here, I won't tell
    anybody you're here. :^)
    
    Besides, they wouldn't listen to me. I've gone non-denominational
    and charismatic, and you know where *that's* from. ;^) 
    
    Irena                                                   

    Well it's hard to believe that I got the "no more new notes" message at
    9:23 PM!!  Maybe I'll actually get to bed a decent hour tonight -- for
    a change!
    
    Nancy

    re .55 (Irena):  Hint, I don't usually put smiley faces in my notes; I
    leave it as an exercise for the reader to detect the invisible smileys.
    (However, one of our deacons is liable to read my notes, and he'll have
    to interpret what I mean.)

    As for denominational straitjackets, you can see from my bio that I'm
    not bound by them either.  I'm a voluntary, not hereditary, Baptist. 
    I'm a follower of Christ; being Baptist is incidental.

    I could use some of that charisma, though.

    --Simon

    Many replies back I made an ass of myself, reacting in an angry and
    hurtful manner. I want to apologize now for being rude and accussing.
    
      Please forgive me for that as I bear no malice toward any individual
    here. I do not, and probably will never, like the liberal stance of this
    conference. Still, there is no excuse for mistreating people.
    
      I do not know if I will be participating actively in this conference.
    If so, it will be after much prayer. Like I said in that "other
    conference" my sensibilities are still too easily offended. I will pray
    and enquire of the Most High for His will in the matter.
    
      While I'm there I'll pray that He sets you all straight. :-)
    
    Gil

    re:  .58 Gil
    
    This file is the greater for your return.  
    
    Thank you.
    
    DR

    re .58
    
    Did ye not know?  Ye were forgiven even before ye asked.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 34.58 by GOLF::BERNIER:

>     Many replies back I made an ass of myself, reacting in an angry and
>     hurtful manner. I want to apologize now for being rude and accussing.
  
        Apology certainly accepted.

>       I do not know if I will be participating actively in this conference.
>     If so, it will be after much prayer. Like I said in that "other
>     conference" my sensibilities are still too easily offended. 

        I understand.  While we may earnestly try to be "open to
        all", we would also be fooling ourselves to think that all
        would feel comfortable here.  There is a lot more to comfort
        than simply the absence of hostility.

        Bob

    Gil - 
    
    It's nice to see you're back!  :-)
    
    Nanci

    Hey, Gil, you missed being around when I made an ass of myself. These
    things happen and I sure hope we learn from our mistakes.

    Gil,
    
    Bonjour manna fa abba assa dios noturia duvas... revela!
    
    
    ....Hold on.... translation coming.... 
    
    
    
    Welcome friend.  The Lord loves asses as much as He loves doves!
    Both glorify God.
    
    praying for us all,
    
    Karen

    
    - 1
    
    >The Lord loves asses as much as He loves doves!
    >Both glorify God.
    
    Yeah, and He can prophesy through them as well - so, when Gil
    speaks, listen close. 
    
    :^)
    
    Irena

    Irena,
    	does that apply to me, too ? 8-D

    re -1
    
    Yes, Dave, take heart, even you. :)
    
    i.
    

        This File.
        
        This file  has  much  to offer.  Long ago when I first discovered
        the CHRISTIAN notesfile  I  participated and was received warmly.
        I was very much  involved in a bible study class and I felt I had
        a lot to offer.  I  tried  but  it  didn't seem to develop into a
        growth experience I had hoped it to.    I then became `read only'
        and finally just didn't open that conference at all.
        
        Why am I back now?   Well,  I don't know if I am back completely,
        I'll have to wait and see how  this  conference  develops.  But I
        sense that the potential is there.
        
        BTW,  the branch of Christiandom I participate in is know as  NAC
        (Native American  Church).   This may be abhorrent to some noters
        here, (I know,  it would be to the other conference, that's why I
        never devulged this information  about  my  beliefs  there) but I
        find that all Christians have  the wherewithall to find salvation
        and it isn't always only by  the  book.    There  were  Christian
        before there ever was a Bible.
        
        Still,  I  may remain `read only' in this conference, but,  I  am
        very happy that this more open Christian conference exists.
        
        Hallelu-Yah!
        
        Anthony

    
    
    Good to see you here Anthony!
    
    Carole

    Ditto Anthony,
    
    I'd very much like to hear more about the Native American Church 
    and its beliefs if you'd like to share them.
    
    Thanks and welcome,
    
    Karen  

Is there some reason why the Native American Church would not be received
warmly by Christians?   Perhaps I read something into what you wrote that
you didn't mean.  (Personally, I can only surmise that the Native American
Church is primarily made up of Native Americans.  Other than that, I haven't
a clue.)

Anyway, good to see you here.

By faith in Christ,

Collis

    Welcome Anthony!
    
    It's nice to see you here.  :-)
    
    Nanci

    I don't know if this belongs in the processing topic or what.  These
    are just some observations upon seeing people leave.
    
    In my earlier reply I ventured the opinion that the moderators should
    not define what is "Christian," and by that I meant that we shouldn't
    impose any one definition of "Christian" on the conference.  This is
    not to say that I, for example, have to hold to a broad definition of
    "Christian" in order to participate, or conversely, that by writing
    here, that I hold to a broad definition.
    
    By the same token, I don't have a problem with diverse perspectives,
    both self-avowed Christian (by whatever definition) and non-Christian
    having their place here.  Those who participate here do so by choice.
    If the discussion gets too tough, one could always withdraw from this
    forum.
    
    But when I look at the conference title: "Discussions from a Christian
    Perspective," I stop and ponder a bit.  Either the title has lost much
    of its meaning, or we're stretching "Christian Perspective" way beyond
    normal usage.
    
    Originally I thought this conference is for Christians with a liberal
    (lower case "l") outlook to have discourse among other Christians of
    all "flavors" as well as holding friendly dialogue with those who don't
    claim to be Christian.  In such a framework, it is expected that
    non-Christian views are expressed.  But, is there such a thing as going
    so far out in left field that we've left the field altogether?
    
    Put another way, what's the difference between this conference and
    Religion?
    
    --Simon
    

    I think you have raised some valid points, Simon.  
    
    -- Mike

    
    What is "normal usage" for one Christian may not be so for another.
    
    guy

re Note 34.73 by ABSZK::SZETO:

>     In such a framework, it is expected that
>     non-Christian views are expressed.  But, is there such a thing as going
>     so far out in left field that we've left the field altogether?
>     
>     Put another way, what's the difference between this conference and
>     Religion?
    
        Simon,

        I share your concerns.

        I don't think that this conference must provide a platform
        for discussion on any and all religious topics.  I do
        believe that any and all religious topic may be brought up,
        but I would hope that the participants would have the common
        sense to take discussions that are only remotely "Christian"
        to another forum.

        This conference is different from Religion.  There will be
        many topics that are suitable for extensive discussion in
        Religion that are suitable only for passing reference here.

        (As an example, I can see "Gnosticism" having a topic here,
        since historically it has major relationship to Christianity
        and Christian thought. But I am not at all receptive to
        "Satanism".  Even in the case of "Gnosticism", the
        relationship is historic much more than contemporary, so I
        would not expect a high percentage of Gnostic discussion
        here.)

        I want to share a little background behind the "100 line"
        rule.  It is my observation that single entries of great
        length are not conducive to good discussions.  This is
        especially true when the length topic are simply quotations,
        and not the note author's own words and thoughts.

        But I have another reason for the 100 line rule.  If an
        individual can enter multiple and/or lengthy topics, then
        they can alter the balance of the topics in this conference
        on their own -- even if no or few other participants respond.
        If authors discipline themselves against long or multiple
        sequential entries, then a topic will "thrive" only if other
        participants are agreed that it is a worthy topic of
        discussion.

        I am tempted to suggest the 100 line/no multiple sequential
        entries rule as a hard and fast rule, rather than just a
        guideline.

        Bob

    to Mods:
    
      Now, I'm not trying to be a pain, but it sounds like you need some
    kind of "standard" for this conference. I use it in quotes since I'm
    not sure if this is the right word to use. But it seems important that
    there be some kind of statement made about what is appropriate for
    discussion in this particular conference so that it will indeed be
    different from the CHRISTIAN nad RELIGION notes conferences. If this
    conference is to meet different needs and serve a different purpose
    then the other religiously oriented conferences then perhaps something
    to make its purpose more clear is in order.
    
    
      I don't feel that the above opinion will be met with cheers, however,
    I do feel that there is some merit to placing limits here - if only to
    preserve the identity of the conference.
    
    Gil

re Note 34.77 by GOLF::BERNIER:

>       Now, I'm not trying to be a pain, but it sounds like you need some
>     kind of "standard" for this conference. I use it in quotes since I'm
>     not sure if this is the right word to use. But it seems important that
>     there be some kind of statement made about what is appropriate for
>     discussion in this particular conference so that it will indeed be
>     different from the CHRISTIAN nad RELIGION notes conferences. 

        Gil,

        To be honest, I always felt that we had a standard for the
        conference, but such a standard was explicitly not intended
        nor to be taken as a definition of Christianity.

        My biggest concern with the recent discussions is not with
        the subject matter, per se, but with the use of sarcasm and
        ridicule directed against other participants' beliefs.

        I had always been against moderators taking pro-active action
        to hide possibly "offensive" notes, but I am beginning to
        change my mind.  I realize that it isn't just the person
        being attacked who is hurt by an attack -- we bystanders are
        also sprayed by the bullets.  Such bystanders are not likely
        to raise a formal protest, but they are likely to leave if
        such abuse continues.


>     If this
>     conference is to meet different needs and serve a different purpose
>     then the other religiously oriented conferences then perhaps something
>     to make its purpose more clear is in order.
  
        I agree -- what do you propose?

        Bob

    Gil, I am not necessarily opposed to a standard.  As I mentioned in
    reply 14, "the only use for such a definition that I can really see
    would be to establish when it might be appropriate to refer someone to
    the Religion conference for a particular discussion."

    I am strongly opposed, however, to establishing a standard for the
    purposes of enforcing some narrow definition of doctrinal purity within
    this notes conference.

    -- Mike

    re: .77 & .78
    
    Gil, I agree.  I think that *standards for behavior* must be
    established because we now see (IMO) a clear need for such standards to
    be stated.  As Bob said, that is different from having standards for
    belief.
    
    Bob,
    
    >    I had always been against moderators taking pro-active action
    >    to hide possibly "offensive" notes, but I am beginning to
    >    change my mind.  I realize that it isn't just the person
    >    being attacked who is hurt by an attack -- we bystanders are
    >    also sprayed by the bullets.  Such bystanders are not likely
    >    to raise a formal protest, but they are likely to leave if
    >    such abuse continues.
    
    As a "sprayed bystander" I *have* raised what I believe is a formal
    protest (in addition to several of my notes which I believe constitute
    an "informal" protest)!
    
    I have sent mail to one of the mods requesting action, that action to be 
    determined by the mods.  I have not heard the results, so I presently
    assume that it is still under discussion.  
    
    However, if this is not the case, or if I did not "raise a formal
    protest" in the appropriate manner, please let me know.  Perhaps my
    method, or my communication, or my expectations, or all of the above,
    were not clear. 
    
    Thank you very much,
    Nancy

    Nancy .80,
    
    The moderators are conferring.
    
    Thanks for your patience,
    Karen    

    Hi Tony (34.68),
    
    Good to see you here.  Have read your notes in both the Native American
    and the DEJAVU notes files and have enjoyed them very much.  You have
    a gentle and beautiful way of expressing yourself.
    
    Welcome,
    
    Ro
    

    	There are a great many topics which are not predominantly religious
    in nature which can easily be treated here if we are trying to form a
    consensus on what a Christian Perspective of that topic should be. Like
    war, birth control, aid to the starving in Iraq, space exploration,
    medical procedures, ... and much more. There are also primarily
    religious topics which may not be Christian in nature which can be
    discussed - talking ABOUT Satanism or Wicca or Paganism falls into that
    category while advocating any of them would not seem to. There may have
    to be rules but I'd really like to see them be as loose as possible. I
    also would like to see as little moderator activity as possible but
    recognize that it is occasionaly called for. When it is called for I
    think that a brief note explaining the motive for the intervention is
    very much in order ("someone felt this was a personal attack on them
    and I agreed" "we mods do not feel that **** is a suitable topic, at
    least in the way it was presented" or some such.

    
    re: .83 (Dave Meyer)
    
    That sounds like a good "standard" to me.
    
    guy

    I agree that behavioural standards are in order and once determined
    should be posted in an appropriate spot. I might suggest this becoming
    a "no-flames-allowed" conference. By this I mean that personal attacks,
    and obvious disrespect for person is not to be tolerated.
    
    Well, it's a start, anyeway.
    
    Gil (who can relate to moderator woes and is praying)
    

    Again - I don't know that disrespect can be defined in terms of an
    absolute.  I agree that personal attacks have no place in an amicable
    discussion but what Gil may term "bashing", I may term a challenge to a
    different perspective of thought.  
    
    Because we're talking about subject matter that is very near and dear
    to our hearts, when someone presents a discordant philosophy then
    tempers are likely to flare.  How would you determine what a "flame"
    is?  I think that anger is a valid human emotion and something from
    which we can learn to know ourselves better.  However, I think we can
    feel anger  while retaining our respect for the other person and without 
    resorting to personal attacks.
    
    Nanci

    Nanci,
    
      I believe that you answered your own question.
    
      Bashing = disrespect to a person or beliefs
      Flaming = expression of anger to a person or situation
    
    
      In either case it's the target that causes the problem with either
    form of expression above. I have learned in my short time here that
    even if a totally disagree with some of you (and I do) that there is no
    excuse for causing emotional or spiritual harm to anyone. This is, I
    feel, a good rule (formal or informal) for any situation that should
    arise in any conference.
    
    Gil

    Gil - 
    
    I don't necessarily agree with your definition of bashing or that which
    you would include in the term.  For myself, I have found that some of
    my most profound spiritual insights have come when my beliefs were
    challenged in a manner that I think you would call "bashing".  Maybe
    I'm one of those who needs to have my complacency in my beliefs "knocked 
    upside the head" once in a while to get me to really examine what I 
    believe and why I believe it.  :-)  I may not always enjoy it but 
    afterwards I usually feel like I've come to a greater understanding of
    who I am and what my relationship to God is.
    
    I also think that "flaming" can have a place in this conference if
    those flames are directed at a situation or idea rather than at a
    person.   I do agree with you on one thing - personal attacks have no
    place here.
    
    Nanci

    Nanci
    
    Your comments on 'bashing' are close to the reasons why I wanted
    the negative notes by Mike Morgan to stay in the file. 
    
    Bonnie

    Me too, Bonnie.
    
    :-)
    
    Nanci

    
    The problem is, people have become identified with their ideas - so
    they feel personally attacked when an idea they hold dear is attacked.
    
    Therefore, no attack of an idea can be non-personal.
    
    I've seen the same dynamic at work in this conference on a lower level
    even before Mikie? arrived on the scene.
    
    guy
    

    re. 91
    
    guy, Perhaps we can explore that further in 65.*.
    
    Richard

    re: .91
    
    Guy - 
    
    But isn't that our egos that get defensive when our ideas are attacked? 
    It seems to me that, especially in a file such as this, we should be
    able to rise above the confines of the limited perception fo our egos.
    
    (Richard - feel free to move this if you feel it belongs in 65.*.)
    
    Nanci

    
    re: .93 (Nanci)
    
    I don't think that it is really possible to get away from our egos.
    I think we can have the *perception* that we have gotten away from 
    it during times when that ego is expanding and changing.  That is
    merely because it is foreign enough to appear formless.  
    
    Why does it appear formless?  It's the same problem that a novice
    would have in trying to figure out who was who in a herd of goats.
    Eventually, over time, we learn to distinguish the characteristics
    and subtleties of the individual sheep.
    
    guy

    Guy - 
    
    You're right in that we can never totally get away from our egos, but
    we can choose not to allow it to control our actions and words.
    
    Nanci
    

    
    re: .95 (Nanci)
    
    Yes, we can "do our best" to make good decisions concerning our
    actions - still doesn't really escape the ego....just selects a
    more positive aspect of it - which is what a positive attitude
    and "intending the good" are about.
    
    guy

    	I think that we ought to be able to trust the mods to distinguish
    between an attack on an idea and an attack on a person. Sometimes it
    can be a tight call. When someone says "The idea that you just put
    forth is despicable, I don't see how any Christian could harbor such
    thoughts.", that is an attack on an idea that many people would feel
    was also a personal attack. MikeV or Mikie? could easily shrug it off
    with "So ?  I'm not a Christian. Tell me WHY it's despicable." But not
    many of us here can say that. My opinion is that any person who feels
    that a particular entry is a personal attack on them ought to contact
    one or more mods for a decision on that entry. If the person the entry
    seems to attack is not concerned about it then who's to worry. A whole
    flaming exchange is a different matter, mutual flames ought to be
    delivered off-line via MAIL.

I'm actually rather proud of how this notesfile has matured.  Participants
are careful to start a new string or move the conversation when a topic
starts to veer off course.  There's very little elitism or provincialism
or wielding of fear.  There seems to be a spirit of supportiveness and
encouragement.

Anyone care to share their vision of what they'd like to see this notesfile
become??

Richard

    I am impressed by the number of individuals in this notesfile
    who have seminary training or attended a school of theology:
    (alphabetical order)
    
    Ron Francey
    
    Cal Hoe
    
    Collis Jackson
    
    Nancy Smith
    
    And, there may be others I don't know about.
    
    						Peace,
    						Richard

	The following is cross-posted here with the permission of the
author with the condition that the original header is removed.

Bonnie Reinke & Richard Jones-Christie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE first opened, I started reading it and was
    surprised to find such a diversity of opinion on what being a christian
    really means. It was a rather eye-opening valuing differences exercise.
    Since homosexuals are so often condemned in the name of Jesus, I have
    found it very easy to dismiss christianity as some kind of mental
    aberration and reacted fearfully to those who make of a point of
    identifying themselves as christian. This was not fear of God, mind you,
    just fear of christians. The conference altered my perspective
    considerably, to the point that I found the conversation interesting
    enough to go out and buy a bible so I could follow what they were talking
    about.
    
    I stopped reading the conference though, because the bible-thumping
    noises in the background were just a little too loud. It was sort of
    like trying to read outside while someone is mowing the lawn. At any
    rate, if anyone recognizes like me that experience has made you
    chistianophobic, I can recommend a brief encounter with the conference
    as a possible cure. The homophobic christians would have you believe
    that theirs is the only christian perspective. There appear to be many
    others.

	To me, the distinctive characteristic of the CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE
notesfile is that it is not a requirement to limit authority to the Bible
nor to glorify the Bible, though some may choose to do so.  Reason, experience
and tradition are accepted right alongside the Bible as legitimate and viable
in the expression of Christian religion and life.

Richard

    re: .100
    
    Bonnie and Richard, please convey the following to the anonymous author
    in .100:
    
    Dear Friend,
    
    Those of us who feel that the name "Christian" has been unfairly
    co-opted and defined by some others make every effort to help you 
    and others feel supported here.  I wish we could make it a truly 
    "safe space," but we can't.  Likewise, we cannot silence the 
    "bible-thumping noises" you refer to, nor prohibit "homophobic 
    christians" from contributing here.  We recognize their claim to
    be Christians -- just as we recognize the claim of Christians who
    are gay --  even while we reject their claim to have the sole
    definition of "Christian."
    
    Being inclusive has its problems as well as its advantages.
    
    I truly hope you will join us again from time to time.
    
    
    Peace and love to you, whoever you are,
    Nancy

    Re: the request in .102 has been filled.

The following is a reply to .102 by the author of .100.  The author,
who wishes to remain anonymous, does not wish to carry on a dialogue,
but granted me permission to post this worthwhile response:

Peace,
Richard
=========================================================================
Please convey to the author of C-P 34.102, my thanks for her expression of
concern. Assure her that I, personally, and the gay community at large, are
well acquainted with the problems and advantages of "being inclusive". 

C-P definitely helped me see a more human, spiritually rich, and appealing
side to christianity than I had ever noticed before. I like to think that
because of it I can now respond in kind to any christian who approaches me
with love. I suppose a Christ would not be too displeased with me if I also
managed somehow to respond with love to those who hate me. How difficult a
thing that is! Well, at any rate, I can only strive to let it not be my anger,
hatred, fear or self-righteousness that keeps others apart from me. I forgive
most sincerely those who possess these, my faults. May they find it in their
hearts to forgive me. 

I hope it's clear that I have no particular complaint to address to the
conference. I wish its members nothing but the best of luck in their spiritual
struggles. 

1. No single person here is the teacher (with the rest of us being
   that teacher's students).

2. Most of us are here to learn, but hardly anyone is here to be taught.

3. We are here to share our various perspectives, rather than to impose
   our doctrines, truths and agendas on others.

4. No one needs to feel obligated to enforce orthodoxy, nor guard
   against heresies.

5. Ideally, dialogues and exchanges should take place within a spirit of
   respect and mutuality for the conference readers.  This is an area where
   we all still have much to learn.  And unfortunately, this is also an area
   where a few have just about everything to learn.

   As honorable as the foregoing might be, these concepts are difficult to
   instill and impossible to guarantee.

Peace,
Richard

    
    
    
    I chose not to be a mod of this file when Mike approached me,
    but I enthusiastically supported him, and have continuted to
    support him and the other moderators.
    
    What I hoped for was a place to talk about faith where I could
    be me and not judged..

    I don't like seeing the file drive people away because of 
    judgementalism.

    There are some terribly fragile people out there in re faith...

    and I think it is worthwhile to let *them* have a place to 
    talk for a change....

    We can fight in golf or soapbox...

    or region but I would like this to be a place where questioners
    don't get trashed by the 'self righteous'


    Bonnie

    
RE: 34.106, Bonnie,
    
I agree with your vision and your wish for this notesfile.  Most of us who 
have followed this conference since its inception also share that vision.

I painfully discovered the downside of attempting an "open" conference when 
a temporary noter was "yanking my chain" via his insults to other noters some
months ago!!  (It took me a long time to get in touch with why he enraged me
so, but I did -- but that's another story!)  I found out then that there is no
sure protection against those who behave in ways that we, either individually or
collectively, may find offensive, obnoxious, or even totally unacceptable!  The
guidelines of inclusion include them, too -- even the judgemental and the
self-righteous (along with *all* us sinners)!  It's a hard pill to swallow,
indeed.

Bonnie, I am frustrated by the implication that you might be handling things
differently (i.e., "better") if you had become a moderator of this file.
Perhaps I am misreading you, but if you *do* have suggestions that you think
would further the vision, please share the spcifics with our mods. I am sure
they would be open to your thoughts.

Nancy

    Nancy
    
    I chose not to be a mod because I thought I didn't
    have the patience or the stenght or the tact. Because
    I thought I'd be tempted to delete people who aruged
    against my 'issues' or my friends.
    
    Bonnie

        (This is not in reply to any particular note or topic.)

        The welcome notice for this conference says that "prostitutes
        and tax-collectors are welcome here."  I offer the
        observation that "prostitutes and tax-collectors" are not
        stereotypically gentle seekers but the kind of people who rub
        almost everybody else the wrong way.

        On the other hand, I would like this conference to be a "safe
        haven" for people to talk about Christ and Christianity.

        Perhaps we can't have it both ways.

        Bob

    I heard it said somewhere;

    "If you wish not to offend people, then say nothing, do nothing, and be 
     nothing."

    Peace
    Jim

E Grace,

I'm sorry that you're leaving C-P, but I respect your decision.  I can
understand how you might feel angry about a conference because of notes
written by one or two people; I felt the same way about SOAPBOX a couple of
years ago.

If there is enough demand for it maybe someone could start a new conference
for people who aren't comfortable with the "openness" of CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.
Or the C-P moderators themselves could take more active steps to keep out
negative notes.  Personally I've been an advocate of the "open" approach, but
I'm interested in hearing what other people in the conference think about this.

				-- Bob

    
                  This might be as good a place as any to say this.  If I
    offend somone and apologize, then my responsibility ends.  My loving
    and caring and even friendship *doesn't* end, but my responsibility
    does.  I no longer "own" anything.  I wish that all could *forgive*
    and go on.....but alas...
    
    Dave

Oops, I intended to post .111 as a reply to note 9 (the Processing Topic).

				-- Bob

    It's funny.  The *lack* of openness is my complaint.  Oh, never mind. 
    I choose to stop explaining myself.
    
    
    E Grace

It's interesting that the same issues keep coming up - and will continue
to come up as long as this conference exists.

One of the issues is the complaint that Playtoe is preaching.  I'm not
going to address that.  (And that is NOT the issue here.)

The other issue is accepting the viewpoint of another as valid.  That is
what I wanted to discuss.

One of the defining aspects of a liberal religious view (as I see it) is
an acceptance of many different view points as valid or possibly valid.
This is in opposition to a conservative religious view which explicitly
rejects many different view points as being valid and typically gives
a very narrow, Biblically supported (as I see it) view as valid.

One of the purposes of this conference is to allow for the free expression
of many views (primarily, but not exclusively, "Christian" views where
"Christian" is defined by the author).  This, by definition, puts this
conference firmly in the liberal camp (whether intended or not).

But then, someone comes along (as someone always does!) and espouses
a narrow view as "correct" and other views as "incorrect".  Is this a
valid view for this conference?  Yes and no.  Since it is one of many
views, it is acceptable.  However, since it rejects other views which
are believed to be true (and accepted by some conference members), it 
strains the boundaries of this conference.

Who is the offender and who is the offended when a narrow view meets a
broad view?  The narrow view says, "Your view is wrong because it does
not conform to an external, God-given standard".  The broad view says,
"Your view is wrong because it relies on an unacceptable source" as well
as, "You are not to judge my views as unacceptable or wrong".

Is there a solution?

Collis

    Collis:
            Why do you see this as a problem and what makes you 
          think that a solution is necessary or that one might
          even exist ?
             I ask this because because I really don't understand
          the point you are trying to make.




                                                               Mike

    Re: 34.115
    
    Collis
    
    I do not believe there is a solution. When an individual has the
    "narrow" view... there is NO other way possible. Discussion is
    stopped...preaching begins.  
    
    I find that this forum has been and will continue to help me in 
    my faith....personally,I don't mind both "narrow" and "wide" views.
    You can always hit "next unseen" when the reply gets too much.
    
    The problem,though,is that some noters will not participate when
    these "narrow" views are strongly inserted into the note string.
    This is a major problem! We can not turn people away.
    
    I suggest that the moderators delete notes that are written in the
    "narrow" method. Other conferences delete notes that are against the
    guidelines.
    
    Marc H.

Mike,

This is a problem because offense is taken on both sides.  In fact, I
believe that this is exactly the underlying reason why some people either
leave or never feel accepted.  They are looking for an environment of
acceptance and find that this environment includes some rejection.

Now, don't get me wrong.  There are other issues of how the messages
are stated which also has a strong impact.  But, the message itself
(whether it be the "liberal" message or the "conservative" message!)
is offensive to some.

Collis

Re:  .117

  >We can not turn people away.

  >I suggest that the moderators delete notes that are written in the
  >"narrow" method.

I find it particularly interesting, Marc, that these two sentences should
follow one another in your response.  Do you not see that deleting
or write-locking notes IS turning people away?  Or do you simply see
the message of the "narrow" view as an inappropriate Christian perspective
which should not be allowed to threaten the security sought by some.

Collis

    Re last few.
    
    As is obvious this is a complex, multi-faceted issue.  The moderators
    are in conference on it and are discussing it *in-depth*.
    
    Please feel free to continue the discussion.  It is extremely
    helpful for the moderators to hear people's views on this sensitive 
    issue.
    
    Thanks for your support and peace to you,
    
    Karen                                
    (Co-moderator)

    Re: .119
    
    Your right...It is a problem/contradiction. I think that the "best"
    solution is for the mods. to delete the particular reply that exceeds
    their bounds. Its the only way.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 34.117 by FLOWER::HILDEBRANT:

>     The problem,though,is that some noters will not participate when
>     these "narrow" views are strongly inserted into the note string.
>     This is a major problem! We can not turn people away.
  
        There is a big difference between "turning people away" and
        people choosing, for whatever reasons, themselves to turn
        away.

        I "turn away" from various conferences rather often, but I am
        rarely expelled from conferences!

        You are very right that "We can not turn people away," but it
        will not be possible for us to conduct any conference in such
        a way that nobody ever would choose to leave.

        Bob

	I think what we are seeing here is a microcosm of our society; our
culture on a miniature scale.

	There is a magnificent multiplicity.  There is enormous potential.

	There are "sensitive seekers": their sensibilities as easily
trounced upon as seedlings in a garden.

	There are "seasoned servants": secure, assured, yet not rigid, not
insisting on their own way (See I Cor. 13), nor demanding of others.  These
folks are forever growing and forever questioning.

	There are "domineering dogmatists": patronizing, condescending,
oppressive, "I am right and this is not merely my opinion.  It is God's
opinion.  I am here to save you from your erroneous thinking and ways."

	Of course, there are many other varieties, as well.

	Of the three mentioned, it is my perception that the domineering
dogmatists have the impact of severely suppressing the participation of
others, just like they do in the real world.  And the real world doesn't
know what to do with them, either!

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .123
    
    Richard,
    
    Are those alliterative categories your own?  If so, may I have your
    permission to steal or borrow them?  Great sermon outline!
    
    Nancy

    re: .124 ;-}  I thought of those alliterations on the fly.  And so,
    yes, you may use them.
    
    Richard

.123

Richard,

Not sure where this note should go, so I'll ask it here.

What the the drawbacks of the "seansoned servants" as you described.
Are there any?  (I see only positive and neutral qualities listed.)

What are the positives of the "domineering dogmatists"?  Are there
any?  (I see only negative neutral qualities listed.)

Collis

| There are "sensitive seekers": their sensibilities as easily
| trounced upon as seedlings in a garden.

| There are "seasoned servants": secure, assured, yet not rigid, not
| insisting on their own way (See I Cor. 13), nor demanding of others.  These
| folks are forever growing and forever questioning.

| There are "domineering dogmatists": patronizing, condescending,
| oppressive, "I am right and this is not merely my opinion.  It is God's
| opinion.  I am here to save you from your erroneous thinking and ways."

	Richard! These are GREAT! I really like them! I know a few in each
catagory. It's good to see them spelled out for you.


Glen

Re:  34.123

  >...it is my perception that the domineering dogmatists have the impact of 
  >severely suppressing the participation of others... 

I have given much thought to what you have written, Richard.  

It occurs to me that part of the uncomfortableness that many of the
conservative persuasion have felt in this notesfile (prompting many of them
to leave this notesfile) is due to comments such as you have entered
in .123.  

Collis

    RE: .129, Collis,
    
    Why do you assume that "domineering dogmatists" = conservative
    Christians???  Certainly not *all* conservative Christians are
    domineering and "severely suppress the participation of others."
    On the other hand, it is quite possible for liberal Christians to
    be dogmatic in their beliefs and to come across in a very domineering
    manner. (I have occasionally witnessed that, perhaps in a somewhat
    subtle manner, but an attempt to dominate nevertheless.)
    
    Why do you (defensively, IMO) assume that Richard's category applies
    only to conservatives and to all conservatives?
    
    Nancy

Re:  34.130
    
Nancy,

It was Richard, and not I, who applied the stereotype (implicitly,
not explicitly).  I only questioned it.  (You are quite correct in
implying that someone who is not familiar either with Richard or with
liberal Christian viewpoints would not necessarily see the stereotype.
You are stretching my imagination to believe that those who are
familiar with either would miss it.)

Collis

Collis,

	By many theological standards, I, too, would be considered conservative.

	Might I also be considered inhospitable?  Might I also be considered
unaccomodating?  Perhaps some would have that perception about me.  I don't
know.

	I try to give people the space, the breathing room, to grow
spiritually.  I try to avoid making unqualified statements which carry the
message that if you don't agree with my perspective, you're wrong.

	I think you and I would agree that yours is a more conservative
Christian perspective than mine.  But, Collis, have you ever known anyone
to think you too liberal?  It occurs to me that some might.

	One of the attributes I admire in you, Collis, is the degree of
religious tolerance that you frequently demonstrate within your notes.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  .132

Richard,

Indeed, I am sure you're theological stance is considered conservative
by some just as mine is considered liberal by some.  Neither of which
has much to do with your categories.  :-)

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

Collis

  
     Some people have left this conference because they felt it
  was no longer a "safe space". I would say that this has occurred
  with people that represent both ends of the religious spectrum and
  some in the middle also.
     Personally I find this a tough issue to address as I do not accept
  the idea that there is such a thing as a safe space. Life and notes
  conferences just don't seem to work like that. To participate in a 
  notes conference, in other than a read only mode, is to lay out
  your ideas and beliefs to be read and commented on by others.
  This is an act that represents taking a considerable risk, pure and
  simple, ain't no doubt about it. There are going to be those who are
  going to disagree with you quite strongly and this will happen on
  just about any subject one cares to name. 
     There have been others I feel came here for the purpose of looking
      for a issue to seize upon so that they could make a pronouncement about
  the faults that had found here and slam the door very loudly on their
  way out. I suppose that is such a case this conference has served a 
  useful purpose in that it allowed someone to blow off some steam,
  vent a little anger and go away feeling better. 
     Still others have started to participate here and found that it
  was just not their cup of tea and have gone away. Nothing unusual
  about that as far as I can tell.
      I think things will be OK here as long as we do not establish
  an official doctrine of what ideas are considered acceptable 
  beliefs to be expressed in this conference. Allowing of course for
  corporate rules about what is proper behavior in a notes conference.
       In a funny sort of way I think it is a good sign that there is
  a certain level of discomfort in this conference. It means that it
  has not become a spiritual ghetto and that we are being exposed to
  things that are making us think and question.

     

                                                               Mike

  Re.133
     
     Collis:
             Sometime you'll have to explain how you can tolerate
     a person and not their beliefs. Personally I seem to be 
     incapable of this. One of the reasons I am here is to try
     and better tolerate Christians.
              To a very limited extent I can analyze beliefs as
     an abstract, independent objects. 
              When someone says they accept me, but not my beliefs 
     I have a hard time believing them. They are part and parcel 
     of who I am, separate me from what I believe and what you
     have is just so much meat and bones.
              I can deal with being disliked as a total package, hell,
    that's a piece of cake. I know how to deal with that. The idea seems
    not unlike the objectification of women in pornography and in a small
    way I think I can relate to how woman feel about when I read a 
    remark like the one you made. 
               I am here to tolerate the beliefs that make someone
    the person they are. I cannot, nor will I draw a distinction
    between the two. I really don't understand how you do it.


                                                               Mike  

    Mike,
     Much of what you say is true in 34.134....however....there are some
    people ,like myself,who are very good at engineering ~talk~ via
    formulas,greek symbols,scope pictures,etc.,but do not have a great
    command of writing "out" their thoughts via this note file.
    
    As such,when a skilled writer comes in with "both guns blazing"
    to rip apart your note,some of us just can't jump in and respond
    in-kind. This can cause people to say...I will not comment because
    it will only lead to XXXX 's reply. 
    
    This notes file has to be handled differently since we are limited to
    just ONE form of communication. I know that I would respond much
    differently in person.
    
    Marc H.

  
It seems to me, that those who claim to possess "openess", "broadness", or 
"liberal" thinking are often more narrow thinking than the "narrow" ones.

For this reason, I don't view the issue as broadness or narrowness. I think 
often the "broadness/openess" doctrine is a cover for inability to decide what 
to believe. (Of course being certain of what you believe doesn't insure that you
are right either). 

As to this conference, it is DEC property, there are rules and guidelines, and
all participants are entitled to fair treatment. The NEXT UNSEEN key is an
awesome feature. No one can rattle your cage without your permission...

ace

Re:  accepting the person, rejecting the belief

God accepts me but rejects my sin.  I do it the same way He does.  :-)

Collis

    Re: .136

    Marc,
    
    You've raised an interesting point.  How many might there be who
    choose not to participate because they do not feel articulate enough
    nor assertive enough to be able to clearly state, and expand upon,
    their beliefs?
    
    Richard

	Collis,

	I guess the logical questions to you would be:

	What is it that keeps you noting in C-P?

	What is it that inhibits you from expressing your own Christian
	perspective as freely as you might in C-P?

	Peace,
	Richard

Re:  34.140

  >I guess the logical questions to you would be:

I'm not sure why these are the logical questions which flow out of a
discussion of the stereotypes you gave, but I'll answer them

  >What is it that keeps you noting in C-P?

I've come to the conclusion that what keeps me noting is an ability
to not be offended very easily.  I say that in some seriousness because
of the large number of like-minded people who have been offended enough
to stop noting.  Now if you asked why I started noting...

  >What is it that inhibits you from expressing your own Christian
  >perspective as freely as you might in C-P?

Respect for others who are offended just by me expressing well-known
and well respected Bible interpretations.  When I do this too often
or too harshly (i.e. insist that the Bible has relevance in a particular
area), others perceive me as totally inflexible and are turned off.  The
validity of the interpretation itself is often lost.

As you may or may not have noticed, the discussions which I used to
engage in here in C-P no longer go on.  Personally, I think that these
types of discussions are a very good forum for trying to determine not
only what we should believe but why we should believe it.  Many people
believe many things with very little thought out reason behind it - and
would never believe it had they been exposed to the belief in a
different way.  I think that this is a lousy way to determine truth and
instead prefer to discuss the issues of why a belief is true or not true.

Very few, however, have the same goal and the willingness to truly
persue the truth while trying to overlook the problems of communication
that this forum and language in general present.  Most prefer instead to
deal with semantics and nit-picking and avoid the truly substantive
issues that may force one to reconsider one's position and actually
change.  As one who has resisted change (for the most part unsuccessfully)
much of my life, I can sympathize - but I can not condone.

Collis

    RE: .141 Collis
    
>types of discussions are a very good forum for trying to determine not
>only what we should believe but why we should believe it.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Collis, what makes you think we 'should' believe in anything?  I very
much disagree with this approach.  No one can dictate to another person
what they 'should' believe.

>...Many people
>believe many things with very little thought out reason behind it - and
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    This may be true of some people, but you have no way of knowing just
    how much thought and study people have put into their beliefs.
    
>would never believe it had they been exposed to the belief in a
>different way.  
    
    Sometimes I have insights into things that, to me, are very profound,
    and they put a lot of traditional thought and theology into totally
    different perspectives.  I long sometimes to share these things with
    people who hold these traditional views, but I know that they will
    not be touched by it.  So, this happens within all belief systems.
    It is not a one way street.
    
    >I think that this is a lousy way to determine truth and
>instead prefer to discuss the issues of why a belief is true or not true.
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think this is why we run into some trouble here.  No one can tell 
another person that their belief is not true.  It's too personal a
thing!

>Very few, however, have the same goal and the willingness to truly
>persue the truth while trying to overlook the problems of communication
>that this forum and language in general present.  Most prefer instead to
>deal with semantics and nit-picking and avoid the truly substantive
>issues that may force one to reconsider one's position and actually
>change.  As one who has resisted change (for the most part unsuccessfully)
>much of my life, I can sympathize - but I can not condone.

Collis, there is a lot that I could share with you - things that to me
are truth, but you would not be open to them or allow them to change you.
That's ok with me.  That's you and how you have chosen to grow and learn.
Doesn't mean that we can't appreciate the beauty of each other's growing
process.  The above says to me that because others do not change based on
your sharing your truth, then you cannot condone this.  Who are you to 
condone anything?  It's stuff like that that can get under people's skin...
know what I mean?

Carole

Re:  34.142
    
  >Collis, what makes you think we 'should' believe in anything?  I very
  >much disagree with this approach.  No one can dictate to another person
  >what they 'should' believe.

You totally misunderstood what I was saying, Carole.  I was not arguing
that someone should dictate to someone else what they should believe.
I was instead saying that discussing what a person believes is very
helpful in determining (for that individual) why he or she should
believe something.  Is that clearer?

  >This may be true of some people, but you have no way of knowing just
  >how much thought and study people have put into their beliefs.

I have my interactions with people for the last 34 years and this
is my conclusion, as poor as it may be.

  >I think this is why we run into some trouble here.  No one can tell 
  >another person that their belief is not true.  It's too personal a
  >thing!

Oh, people can be told that their belief is not true.  You are right
in saying that this may not lead very far due to defensiveness.

But I'm going beyond that.  I like to talk "why".  Conclusions by themselves
don't usually lead to much growth, rather it is understanding the reasons
why a belief is held that is much more likely to result in an changed
(and improved!) belief.  This is what I am advocating.

  >The above says to me that because others do not change based on
  >your sharing your truth, then you cannot condone this.  

Again, you missed what I was trying to say.  What I hear you saying is
"Because he doesn't agree with me, he doesn't condone what I believe."
That thought never even entered my mind.  What I was saying is that
people resist changing their beliefs - and they also resist the questioning
that might lead to changing their beliefs.  (Not all people and not all
the time, but most of the people most of the time.)  What I do not condone
is resisting the questioning, the "why", the reasoning, that should
undergird beliefs wherever possible.  Hope this explains it so that
you hear what I am saying.

Collis

    re: .141, Collis,
    
>As you may or may not have noticed, the discussions which I used to
>engage in here in C-P no longer go on.  Personally, I think that these
>types of discussions are a very good forum for trying to determine not
>only what we should believe but why we should believe it.
    
    I can only guess some that you may be referring to.  Are you implying
    that various discussions ceased because people were afraid of
    confronting your views?  I know that I have stopped participating in
    some discussions either when they became circuitous or repetitious, or
    when it became clear that we disagreed so totally on our *basis* for
    authority (usually), that we would never agree on the topic itself!
    
>Very few, however, have the same goal and the willingness to truly
>persue the truth while trying to overlook the problems of communication
>that this forum and language in general present.  Most prefer instead to
>deal with semantics and nit-picking and avoid the truly substantive
>issues that may force one to reconsider one's position and actually
>change. 
    
    Again, if you are trying (in any particular discussion) to get me to 
    agree that the Bible teaches such-and-such and that *therefore*
    such-and-such is true, we will never agree because we do not share the
    same underlying assumptions.  I see more discussions stop because of that
    than because of "semantics and nit-picking."
    
    Incidentally, when I stop participating in a discussion at some point
    for this reason, it does not mean personal dislike or that the
    discussion itself was not interesting and valuable.
    
    Nancy

    
  RE: .143 Collis
        
  
>I was instead saying that discussing what a person believes is very
>helpful in determining (for that individual) why he or she should
>believe something.  Is that clearer?

    Yes, thanks.
    
 > >This may be true of some people, but you have no way of knowing just
 > >how much thought and study people have put into their beliefs.

>I have my interactions with people for the last 34 years and this
is my conclusion, as poor as it may be.

    ok, as long as you don't make that assumption of everyone who
    shares their beliefs with you.  It doesn't make for a good start.
    

  >Oh, people can be told that their belief is not true.  You are right
  >in saying that this may not lead very far due to defensiveness.

    Well, yes, people usually say anything they want whether it is
    respectful or not.  It just doesn't make for a good dialogue.
    
>But I'm going beyond that.  I like to talk "why".  Conclusions by themselves
>don't usually lead to much growth, rather it is understanding the reasons
>why a belief is held that is much more likely to result in an changed
>(and improved!) belief.  This is what I am advocating.

    And what I get from this is that  you want to have people change
    their beliefs and 'improve' them, most likely by adopting your's,
    did I get that right?  Or are you just as willing to change your
    beliefs and improve them?
    
  >>The above says to me that because others do not change based on
  >>your sharing your truth, then you cannot condone this.  

>Again, you missed what I was trying to say.  What I hear you saying is
>"Because he doesn't agree with me, he doesn't condone what I believe."
>That thought never even entered my mind.  What I was saying is that
>people resist changing their beliefs - and they also resist the questioning
>that might lead to changing their beliefs.  (Not all people and not all
>the time, but most of the people most of the time.)  What I do not condone
>is resisting the questioning, the "why", the reasoning, that should
>undergird beliefs wherever possible.  Hope this explains it so that
>you hear what I am saying.

    
    Again Collis, are you open to changing your beliefs right now?  I guess
    I haven't seen you be as open to changing as you would like to see
    others be.  Maybe I missed something, and if so, I apologize.
    
    Carole

Re:  .145

Why yes, Carole, I *do* practice what I preach.

I search for the reasons for and against what I believe and I change my 
beliefs (although sometimes reluctantly) when the reasons support a different
belief.  As I've mentioned a few times in this file, my beliefs now
are really *totally* different than they were 15 years ago.

What I hear you saying is not that you disagree with what I am proposing,
but rather that you disagree with my beliefs.  But what I am proposing
is independent of any particular set of beliefs.

What I am open to, Carole, is listening and discussing the various reasons
why to believe something.  Changing a belief while holding to reasons
which don't support that belief is foolishness, in my opinion.

Collis

Nancy,

I agree with much of what you say.  Our basic belief structures are
far enough apart that they need to be reconciled in many instances before
we can talk reasons on many issues.

Collis

    
    RE: .146
    
    Yes, I do disagree with your beliefs.  But that was not what I
    was saying either.  Oh well.....these retrograde Mercury periods
    really do havoc to communications. ;^)
    
    Carole

Richard, today, responded in CHRISTIAN that C-P is alive and well.

C-P may be alive, but it is certainly not well.  The latest topic on
fornication makes that abundantly clear.  :-(

Collis

    RE: .149  Collis,
    
                      For a notes file who's main goal is to allow
    *everyone* the opportunity to express their beliefs, then I would say
    that, indeed, we are "well".  Where better to witness?
    
    
    Dave

Re:  .150

Dave,

I do not view this notesfile primarily from an earthly perspective where
the goal is to provide everyone an opportunity to express their beliefs.
Many notesfiles do that (e.g. Soapbox).

Any notesfile which claims in some sense to be Christian should, in my
opinion, attempt to glorify God.  To do less than this is to our
shame (as we are accountable for our witness to others).  It reflects on
us and it reflects on God.  Do you think God is being glorified?

Collis

    Well, Collis, I'm sure that if you try a little harder you can set this
    notes file straight in no time.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .151  Collis,
    
                        If you will read 1.* again, you will find that
    *ALL* belief structures are welcome here and that is the premice under
    which I have to moderate.   My personal belief is that I am not going
    to "beat non-christians" over the head with my bible.  I don't believe
    that that "glorifies" God.  I would rather, and I believe God has
    commanded, that I *LEAD* people to the cross.  Too many people think
    that Christians don't have a sense of humor and I took that note as a 
    tongue-in-cheek kind of note.
    
                          As we have discussed in other topics, even the
    word "christian" is misused and misunderstood by many people.  Some,
    who think that Christ was just a prophet, claim to be christians.  If
    we can get out of this semantics game, more could be accomplished for
    Christ.   IMHO.....of course.
    
    
    Dave

    RE:  anyone....
    
                      NOTE:  If the other moderators wish to delete this
    note, please go-ahead.
    
    
                   I do *NOT* believe that "Bible thumpin", "chicken
    walkin", "head smacken", " arm raising" preachers glorify God.  Those
    people believe that if only they can *YELL* loud enough, people will
    flock to their churches.  That, to me, is not what Christianity is all
    about.  To those people.....*TRY* to "love" people to christ instead of
    trying to scare them out of hell.  The very love that Christ showed, is
    what I am supposed to emulate.  I feel like Christ when people accused
    him of associating with "publicans".  
    
    
    Dave

    Dave
    
    I agree with you
    
    Bonnie

Dave,

The question was simply put.  Do you think God is being glorified by
the fornication note?  How about a simple answer.

Collis

    RE: .156   Collis,
    
                        An answer?  IMHO..NO...it does not glorify God.
    But before you go off and start speaking to the subject, let me 
    explain my view.  This conference is *NOT* a church and if you 
    look at the Greek word for Church you will find that it is *NOT*
    a building or structure of any kind.  It is a gathering of Christians.
    Christian-Perspective, according to its charter, is for *ALL* beliefs
    to have the opportunity to be stated, and hence could not be considered
    a Church.  Glorifying God is *NOT* the charter of this file.  For
    Christians, it is an opportunity to put into practice what the Bible
    says and not just a place to "speak" words.  Showing love and patience
    is what I believe what God wants me to do.  I wish you had read a book
    called "Evangilism Explosion".  It states there *very pointedly* that 
    when in a witnessing situation, *DON"T* start spouting Bible verses but
    *SHOW* the love that God has given you.  In other words "walk the walk
    and not just talk the talk".
    
    
    Dave

re Note 34.156 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> The question was simply put.  Do you think God is being glorified by
> the fornication note?  How about a simple answer.

        Collis,

        I cannot "prove" scripturally that God could be glorified by
        even the "fornication" note, but I do offer the following
        observation based on John chapter 9.

        In John chapter 9, verses 2 and 3, Jesus discusses with his
        disciples the case of the man born blind.  The disciples are
        sure that such a problem was a direct result of sin.  Jesus,
        however, tells them that this is so "that the works of God
        should be made manifest in him."

        I am not going to claim, because I can't prove it, that the
        fornication note exists "that the works of God should be made
        manifest."  However, I do think that John chapter 9 shows
        that God permits, and possibly even causes, things to happen
        which look shameful in the eyes of man but which lead to God
        being glorified.

        I am quite willing to see what good God brings out of this. 
        When I first saw the fornication note, I too was quite
        dismayed.  Yet I've seen several testimonies of solid,
        healthy, loving relationships, most sealed in formal
        marriage, in that note.  Like Jesus' disciples, I too could
        see no good purpose at first, and like Jesus' disciples, my
        eyes too are being opened to yet another manifestation of the
        glory of God.

        Bob

Re:  34.157

  >This conference is *NOT* a church and if you look at the Greek word for 
  >Church you will find that it is *NOT* a building or structure of any kind.

I recognize that this conference is not a church.  That is not the point.

I know my Greek and know the a Church is not a building or structure.
That, too, is not the point.

  >Glorifying God is *NOT* the charter of this file.

Glorifying God is the charter of every human being, particularly
Christians.  [From the chatechism:  the purpose of man is to glorify God 
and to enjoy him forever.]

  >I wish you had read a book called "Evangelism Explosion".  

I have not only read the book, but I have studied the book and its
principles and have gone out witnessing to people based on its principles.
This notesfile, although certainly an opportunity for witnessing, is much
more than that.

  >It states there *very pointedly* that when in a witnessing situation, 
  >*DON"T* start spouting Bible verses but *SHOW* the love that God has 
  >given you.

Dave,
You keep talking about spouting Bible verses.  I haven't been spouting
Bible verses.  Why do you keep bringing this up?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think a line has been crossed in this notesfile with this note.  The
contempt of God is now out in the open.  Who cares what God or his
prophets say?  Who cares that the witness of the Judeo-Christian principles
through thousands of years consistently recognizes that fornication is
a sin?  Some not only admit to fornication but say that they are proud
of it and encourage others to be proud of it as well.

And now I find that even Christians are saying that this is acceptable
behavior!

Perhaps (and I say only perhaps) it is acceptable from a moderator's
point of view, but it is certainly unacceptable from a Christian's point
of view.  And the only discussion is to silence the one voice that
finds this contemptible.

Again I say, this is (supposedly) a Christian Perspective notesfile.
If the purpose of this notesfile is NOT a Christian purpose, then don't
advertise it as a Christian notesfile.  And if the purpose of this
notesfile DOES have a Christian purpose, then recognize the legitimacy
of the complaints about such a note.

Really, I think this notesfile has gone off the deep end.

Collis

Re:  34.158

Bob,

Thank you for your input.

In response, I refer you to Romans 3.

  But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more
  clearly, what shall we say?  That God is unjust in bringing has wrath
  on us?  (I am using a human argument.)  Certainly not!  If that were
  so, how could God judge the world?  Someone might argue,  "If my
  falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory,
  why am I still condemned as a sinner?"  Why not say - as we are being
  slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say - "Let
  us do evil that good my result"?  Their condemnation is deserved.

Yes, some good may come out of this note.  But that is not the intent 
of the notes or the noters (as far as I can tell).

Collis

re Note 34.160 by XLIB::JACKSON:

>                       -< Their condemnation is deserved >-

        Perhaps, but I don't think that that invalidates my position
        -- it may even be the way in which God is glorified.

>   why am I still condemned as a sinner?"  Why not say - as we are being
>   slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say - "Let
>   us do evil that good my result"?  Their condemnation is deserved.
> 
> Yes, some good may come out of this note.  But that is not the intent 
> of the notes or the noters (as far as I can tell).
  
        First off, the existence of this note itself is not
        fornication, and I really don't believe that it is even
        encouraging or fostering acts of fornication.  I do not
        believe that it is a case of our saying "Let us do evil that
        good my result".  It is a case of "Let us report the good
        that appears to have followed allegedly evil acts."  This
        would certainly be in accord with the Scripture you quote. 

        And it is certainly an appropriate response to the line of
        argument, which you yourself have raised, that one reason
        that traditional sexual immorality is condemned is because it
        leads to evil results.  Cannot the opposite point be claimed
        and defended, i.e., that the allegedly immoral acts have been
        followed by good results?  I believe that it is my
        responsibility as a moderator to allow that.

        Granted, the intent of some of the noters may not be "so that
        God may be glorified", but it is my intent as one of the
        moderators in allowing it to continue.

        Bob

    RE:.157   Collis,
    
                       
    >I recognize that this conference in not a church.  That is not the point.
    
    
          But it *IS* the point, Collis.  You are asking the noters of this
    file to conform to your belief structure.  You want us all to believe
    what and how you believe.  Much of your beliefs are mine also but I
    don't think I can witness unless the people are willing to listen.  By
    being patient and loving I feel I can provide a better witness and all
    I am asking of you is to allow others to have their own beliefs.  I
    know of at least two people that have left this conference because of
    "hard line" noters who insisted they were right without allowing anyone
    else to have opinions.  I can't reach those people and "love" them to
    Christ because they aren't here anymore to listen.  
    
           There is *NO* way I am going to tell someone that their
    lifestyle is wrong.  I can't do that.  I am *NOT* God.  If I can get
    them to the cross then the Holy Spirit and Jesus can change their
    lives...I can't.  I can only point the way and share with them how *MY*
    life was changed.
    
    
    Dave
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Dave - 
    
    Thank you for your presence in this string.  I've been trying to sort
    out what I perceive the difference between your notes and Collis'. 
    This is only my opinion and perception and I could be totally out of
    line, Collis.  I acknowledge that, nevertheless I feel moved to state
    my perception anyway.  
    
    What I see is that Dave states, "This is the truth as I see it.  Your
    perception of the truth may or may not be the same."  Collis seems to
    state "This is my perception of the truth and it is the only truth.  
    If you don't perceive things the same way I do then you're wrong and
    should change your perception."
    
    Since there is a mixture of Christians and non-Christians in this file
    and since, regardless of each ones' belief system, none of us would be
    here unless we were interested in learning about different Christian
    perspectives I don't think there is a need for censuring anyone's point
    of view.  What I perceive as a Christian perspective may not be what
    someone else perceives as a Christian perspective.  Is that a reason
    for my perspective to be invalidated?  Since we do not restrict this
    file to any particular belief system or dogma I think the answer to
    that has to be no.
    
    Nanci  

    Collis, after all this time I would have thought that you understood
    that there are many diverse points of view within this notes
    conference.  When you ask the question, "Who cares what God or his
    prophets say?" you betray your apparent inability to step outside of
    your own perspective and at least acknowledge that others have a
    different understanding of God's will than you do. 

    You're right that I don't consider "fornication" (as you define it) a
    sin.  And it just so happens that I believe that God values Eros and
    does not necessarily condemn homosexuality or heterosexual sex outside
    of marriage.  But rather than acknowledge that others who believe in
    God have honestly come to a different conclusion about sexuality than
    you have, you accuse those who disagree with you of "contempt of God". 
    It is as if you assume that all you have to do is chide those who
    disagree with you, and point out how they allegedly contradict God, and
    the rest of us are somehow supposed to feel guilty or ashamed about our
    views.  The problem is that it doesn't work that way.  Not every
    Christian shares your views on sexuality, and by condescendingly
    treating others as children who need guidance or correction in the ways
    of theology is insulting in the way it refuses to recognize even the
    existence of differences of opinion.

    We are all adults here.  I formulated my theological and moral views
    after a considerable amount of thought, and I am not ashamed of what I
    believe.  I can't believe that after all this time you don't understand
    the simple fact that there are participants in this notes file who
    don't agree with your premises concerning what constitutes God's will,
    or how God's will is determined.  It isn't like this hasn't be stated
    and restated over and over again.  And yet you react with utter
    disbelief to a note that proudly proclaims a set of beliefs that you
    don't share.  You are nonplussed that anyone could possible not be
    ashamed of disagreeing with your beliefs about God's will.  Apparently
    you assume that those who disagree with you are *supposed* to be
    ashamed of their views, and somehow secretly "recognize" that you are
    really right.

    Well, that isn't the case at all.  The chiding of others for not
    conforming to certain views, and the condescending assumption that the
    rest of us really know deep down that you are right, does not make room
    for dialogue, and is not what this notes conference is all about. 
    There is no theological doctrine imposed on the participants here. 
    Others can and do formulate honest and sincere opinions that are
    different from your own, while still worshiping God--whether or not
    you accept this.

    -- Mike

Re:  34.161

  >...I really don't believe that it is even encouraging or fostering 
  >acts of fornication.  

Fornicators, and proud of it!  does not even "encourage or foster acts
of fornication".  Perhaps I need to take a course in English.

If others have taken the opportunity to acknowledge this sin, that
is not the responsibility of the basenoter.

Collis

Re:  34.162
    
Dave,

  >But it *IS* the point, Collis.  You are asking the noters of this
  >file to conform to your belief structure.

What I ask is not total conformance to my belief structure.  Again,
Dave, you are making this out as if it is an issue that is being raised
with me.  What do you think Jeremiah or Ezekial or Isaiah or Daniel
or Moses or Joshua or Paul - or Jesus - would have said?  "That's
fine, that's one way of looking at it.  Why don't you try and it and
see what happens."

We *HAVE* their reactions.  We *KNOW* what they said.  We're not dealing
with one person's opinion who claims to be a Christian.  We're dealing
with an oft repeated teaching by numerous prophets of God that has been
reaffirmed time after time after time by the Jews and by the Church.
And your response is that I'm trying to get other noters to conform
to MY belief structure?  Give me a break.

  >By being patient and loving I feel I can provide a better witness and all
  >I am asking of you is to allow others to have their own beliefs.  

And am I not entitled to my beliefs?  Why does everyone jump on me when
I express what I sincerely believe.  Yes, I know why.  It is because what
I believe steps on other peoples toes.  Well, so be it.  Jesus did not
come for the purpose of accepting what everyone did.  He made it QUITE
clear that some actions are right and that other actions are wrong.
And you claim that it is inappropriate for me to restate this message?

  >I know of at least two people that have left this conference because of
  >"hard line" noters who insisted they were right without allowing anyone
  >else to have opinions.  I can't reach those people and "love" them to
  >Christ because they aren't here anymore to listen.

That's a worthy goal, Dave, but your theology is somewhat misguided.
You don't bring people to Christ by accepting without comment whatever
they say or do.  You bring them to Christ by showing them who Christ
is and letting them know Christ's standards.

Now I agree with you that discernment of when to lovingly look the
other way and when to confront is needed.  However, the members of this
conference clearly go overboard in NEVER wishing to confront or to be
confronted.  We're not talking about discipline here (this is not a
church as you yourself pointed out).  We are talking about being a witness
for the message of Christ WHICH INCLUDES the teachings of Christ and
the prophets.

  >There is *NO* way I am going to tell someone that their lifestyle is wrong.  
  >I can't do that.

It's obvious that you won't.  What this means is either that you don't
truly believe what you say you believe or that you never think it's
appropriate to say what you believe.  In either case, I hope you'll
reconsider your position in the light of the Word of God where individuals
ARE called by God "to tell someone that their lifestyle is wrong".  Who
knows, God may ever be calling YOU to do this.

Collis    

Re:  34.163
    
  >...I don't think there is a need for censuring anyone's point
  >of view.

Why is there such strong pressure, then, to censure my "point of view"?

There is, you know.  Many of you have said that it is inappropriate for
me to say the things that I am saying.  Despite the fact that you are all
well aware that the majority of Christians agree with what I say.

Collis

    Re.163

     Collis:

              As long as you present you point of view as the definitive
          God ordained position on certain subjects you are going to find
          some disagreement find that some will censure your opinions as
          you have censured theirs. 
              Maybe I am a bit more thick skinned ( and headed ?) than 
         other people, but why does it matter if others censure one's
         point of view. It certainly doesn't cause me to lose any sleep
         at night.
              I have said it before and I'll say it again, if a person
         can't take having their beliefs and ideas disagreed with and
         often systematically pulled apart then then then should refrain
         from publicly stating them in a notes conference where diversity
         of opinion and free exchange of ideas is encouraged.

                                                               Mike 

    RE: .166    Collis,
    
                         Why are there *SO* many denominations?  Could it
    be that different scholors interpret the Bible differently?  Is there
    any room in your belief system for being wrong about a certain subject?
    All we are asking is that you state your beliefs as just that...your
    beliefs.  No one here is trying to silence you, we are only asking you
    to consider others feelings and that their beliefs might be as firm and 
    strong as yours.  The word "I" means that I own that statement, the
    word "you" attaches it to all others.  
    
    
    And Now....I'm going on a looong weekend.  YEA!
    Dave  

    RE: .166   Collis,
    
    
    
    >Am I not entitled to my beliefs?  
    
           Of course you are entitled...everyone in this conference is.
    
    >Why does everyone jump on me when I express what I sincerely believe.
    
           Now THAT is the question.  Could it be that its not "what" you 
           say, but "how" you say it?
    
    >That's a worthy goal, Dave, but you theology is somewhat misguided."
    
           Could be Collis.  I don't pretend to have all answers.  I have
           been a seeker of truth all my life and I believe that I found it
           in Jesus Christ and.....I am still decerning his will for me. 
           The day I stop seeking truth, then Christ might as well take me
           home because I can't be used by him anymore.  But I will say
           this to you Collis...I *DO* not listen to man's decernment...
           only God's.
    
    >It's obvious that you won't.  What this means is either that you don't
    >truely believe what you say you believe or that you never think it's
    >appropriate to say what you believe.  
    
    
           Collis, this statement made me very angry.  I'm calm now but it
           is *EXACTLY* the point "most" of us are trying to make to you.
           Who are you Collis, to tell me what I believe and don't believe?
           This statement is not decernment...its a judgement.
    
    
    Dave

On the drive to Rochester this weekend, I reflected on the last few
days of notes.

It occurs to me that (most) all beliefs in this notesfile are welcome
except one.  That belief is that God has clearly revealed some truth
to us.

It is fine for someone to say, "I believe X" or "I believe Y".  But to
claim that God has clearly revealed truth in some way that transcends
mere belief appears to be the unpardonable sin.  Why?  Because some
may take offense since this "truth" differs from their "belief".

Two questions.

  1)  Has God revealed some truth to us that we can know?

  2)  Should we ever proclaim that truth at the risk of being offensive?
      If so, when?  If not, why not?

1)  Has God revealed some truth to us that we can know?

Has God revealed some truth to us.  Well, I guess we should ask if God
desires us to know "truth".  Certainly he could attempt to conceal "truth"
if he thought it was best.  But, no, the Bible in various places tells us
that God, indeed, does want us to know the truth and that truth has
been given to us (John 21:24, for example)  God's actions would seem to
be rather ridiculous if, instead of revealing truth, He was actually
trying to avoid truth.  In fact, this would make our God out to be a
lying and deceptive God, not at all the God that is portrayed in the
Scriptures (or by the actions of his prophets and his Son).  I John
is quite clear that there is no darkness in God at all.

So the conclusion must be (if we are to believe anything about this
God), that God has indeed revealed some truth to us.

2)  Should we ever proclaim that truth at the risk of being offensive?
    If so, when?  If not, why not?

Does Jesus, for example, even proclaim truth at the risk of being
offensive?  I think we are all well aware that Jesus was *incredibly*
offensive at times.  Calling people a "brood of vipers" was not exactly
a way to endear himself to them.  So clearly, if we are to follow in the
steps of Jesus, then being offensive is not by itself an impediment to
proclaiming the truth.

The much tougher question is, "When is it acceptable to proclaim the
truth at the risk of being offensive?"

I don't have a good answer to this question.  However, as noters of this
conference, perhaps you do.  It seems to me that the answer of many noters
is "It is never right to be (intentionally) offensive in this notes 
conference."  If you do indeed believe this, the matter is up for
discussion and please support why you think this is true.  (Not necessarily
why you think it is acceptable to be offensive in other settings, but
rather why it is not acceptable to be offensive here.)

Which leads to the question, "Why is Mike's topic well accepted despite
the fact that it is offensive to me (and to God)?"  And the second question,
"Why is my dispute of this topic not well accepted?"  Clearly, it is
because of first premise 1, that I believe that there is some truth that
God has made known to us which includes the knowledge that fornication
as defined by the Bible is a sin.  There has not been *any* claim that
I am aware of that the Bible portrays fornication as anything but a sin.
(Bonnie has made an [incorrect] claim that the 1st century Jewish culture
accepted fornication between those who are to get married, but this is
not truly a Biblical claim one way or the other.)

And so I find myself accused of being intolerant of what the Bible
clearly defines as sin (again, despite the absence of any evidence to
the contrary).  

Is God intolerent of sin?  If God was not intolerant of sin, Jesus
would not have had to die on a cross.

Collis

Re: .171 Collis

>It occurs to me that (most) all beliefs in this notesfile are welcome
>except one.  That belief is that God has clearly revealed some truth
>to us.

There are other beliefs that aren't welcome, Collis.  Look at the reception
that Mike Morgan received here, for example.

The belief that seems to be most unwelcome here is "I am right and you are
wrong".

>Which leads to the question, "Why is Mike's topic well accepted despite
>the fact that it is offensive to me (and to God)?"

But Mike's topic *isn't* well accepted.  Several people, including you, have
objected to it.  The moderators have decided to let those notes stand as
written, just as we have let your notes stand as written.

				-- Bob

    Collis, the lack of a theologically imposed standard in this notes file
    has been repeatedly explained throughout the history of this notes
    file.

    You claim that my note is offensive to God.  That is your opinion,
    which you are entitled to, although I happen to think that you are
    wrong, and that in fact your views on sexuality (not to mention several
    other issues) are offensive to God.  So what we have here
    is a difference of opinion on what constitutes God's will, and what is
    offensive to God.  How do we resolve this?

    Well, for you, it appears, this conference should, as a matter of
    policy, resolve it only in favor of your offended sensibilities.  That
    is despite the fact that this notes file takes no position on
    theological issues such as this one.  You repeatedly seem to ignore
    this fact; in reply .171, you present a long argument on why you feel
    that God's truth is revealed without error in the Bible.  That is all
    well and good; it is an interesting subject, and has been discussed in
    other topics in this file, although it isn't germane to this discussion
    about how this notes file should be moderated.  For purposes of what
    this notes file allows, I don't care if you get your views on sexual
    morality from your interpretation of the Bible, or from telepathic
    communication with little green fungi from Neptune.  In plain English,
    this notes file does not impose a biblical standard.  How can it be any
    clearer?

    You have reasons for believing what you do about sexual morality.  But
    since others disagree on this point, this notes file is not going to
    impose *your* views on the entire conference simply because you happen
    to think you are right and the rest of us wrong.  For you to present
    your reasons for your views (whether it be your interpretation of the
    Bible, or the text of your telepathic communications with Neptune, or
    whatever), as if that in and of itself was sufficient justification for
    defining only those views as acceptable for this file, is to
    misunderstand the purpose of this conference.  There exists another
    conference that operates exactly according to the standard that you
    endorse.  If we were to emulate that policy, the two conferences would
    be indistinguishable from one another, and that is not our goal.
    
    There are other views, besides your own, on questions of theology and
    morality.  All the arguments in the world that you care to present
    about the Bible will not change this fact.  

    -- Mike

Re:  34.173

  >Well, for you, it appears, this conference should, as a matter of
  >policy, resolve it only in favor of your offended sensibilities.

That's not what I have said, Mike.  Perhaps a review of what I said is
in order.  These are the first two notes that I wrote on this topic:

.149>C-P may be alive, but it is certainly not well.  The latest topic on
.149>fornication makes that abundantly clear.  :-(

.151>I do not view this notesfile primarily from an earthly perspective where
.151>the goal is to provide everyone an opportunity to express their beliefs.
.151>Many notesfiles do that (e.g. Soapbox).

.151>Any notesfile which claims in some sense to be Christian should, in my
.151>opinion, attempt to glorify God.  To do less than this is to our
.151>shame (as we are accountable for our witness to others).  It reflects on
.151>us and it reflects on God.  Do you think God is being glorified?

Notice that there is no mention of conference policy whatsoever nor have
I been lobbying to change conference policy.

Do you think that what I said was so inappropriate so as to not appear
in this notesfile?  If so (which is what you are continually implying),
then say so plainly.  If not, then don't complain when I write a note
objecting to what you boast of.

  >...in reply .171, you present a long argument on why you feel that God's 
  >truth is revealed without error in the Bible.

I hardly mention that at all in that note.  What I do, in fact, is cut
to the heart of the matter in terms of addressing an issue of sin.  I
had thought you would be more willing to discuss and less willing to
condemn...

  >In plain English, this notes file does not impose a biblical standard.

I'm well aware of that.  But the issue doesn't stop there, it only
starts there.  Because I am not accountable to this notesfile, I am
accountable to God and His standards.

Personally, I think it is *highly* relevant where I get my source of
standards for sexual behavior or whatever.  God makes it clear as well
that it is quite relevant.  You are perfectly free to ignore this (as
you do) and to deny this (as you also do).  Likewise, I am free to
subscribe to this (as I do) and to affirm this (as I also do).  You wouldn't
want me to deny God's clear statement of sin just because you disagree
with it, would you?

Collis

Re:  .172

  >The belief that seems to be most unwelcome here is, "I am right and
  >you are wrong".

Indeed, Bob, this is the exact same belief in a different form as
"Has God spoken clearly to us on some issues?"  If He has, then indeed
we can proclaim what has been said as truth.  If He has not, then indeed
the God who is proclaimed throughout the Bible is not the God of the
Universe (because that God has indeed clearly revealed some truth to us).

So the question remains.  Is it acceptable in this notesfile to believe
that God has indeed clearly revealed some of His Will to us?  The answer
I continue to get is "no".  (Or a qualified "yes" at best where we are
told that we are not allowed to rely on such a standard when noting is
this notesfile because some might be offended.)

Well, discussion is welcome.  :-)

Collis

| 1)  Has God revealed some truth to us that we can know?

	Good questions Collis. I believe that there are several truth's that
God has relayed to us. 

	1.) God LOVES us. He proved this by having His only son die for us
	    on the cross. He continues to love us with all the faults that 
	    we have, for all the things we do wrong, mistakes, whatever, He
	    still loves US!

	2.) Point two is a variation of point one. I think we can all agree 
	    that the same love God has for us, we should have for others, 
	    regardless of who the person is. Yeah, it's tough, mainly because
	    there is human emotions involved. 

	There are probably more, but LOVE always comes to mind first. 

| 2)  Should we ever proclaim that truth at the risk of being offensive?

	Yes, sometime the truth does hurt. Truth, meaning what you believe to
be the truth.

| If so, when?  

	Whenever you feel that someone will be hurt by doing what they're
doing. Also, you must show your proof to make them understand. You must also
accept that what you may feel is the truth may not be (and visa versa). In time
it will come to light as to who spoke the actual truth (not meaning one lied,
just what they believed to be true was wrong).

| 1)  Has God revealed some truth to us that we can know?

| Has God revealed some truth to us.  Well, I guess we should ask if God
| desires us to know "truth".  Certainly he could attempt to conceal "truth"
| if he thought it was best.  But, no, the Bible in various places tells us
| that God, indeed, does want us to know the truth and that truth has
| been given to us (John 21:24, for example)  God's actions would seem to
| be rather ridiculous if, instead of revealing truth, He was actually
| trying to avoid truth.  In fact, this would make our God out to be a
| lying and deceptive God, not at all the God that is portrayed in the
| Scriptures (or by the actions of his prophets and his Son).  I John
| is quite clear that there is no darkness in God at all.

	I agree Collis. There is no DARKNESS in GOD. When man has free will,
there is always the chance for darkness. Just look at the history of the world
and you'll see that. :-) So when man who has this free will writes a book that
I'm sure was inspired by God, you might be able to see where some will have a
hard time believing all of it had no human feelings involved, as again, history 
shows us how the Bible can be wrongfully used against people to hurt them 
instead of helping them. All because it was wrongly interpretated. If the Bible 
was 100% God's word, wouldn't He have made it so no one could misinterpret it? 



Glen

re Note 34.175 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> So the question remains.  Is it acceptable in this notesfile to believe
> that God has indeed clearly revealed some of His Will to us?  The answer
> I continue to get is "no".  (Or a qualified "yes" at best where we are
> told that we are not allowed to rely on such a standard when noting is
> this notesfile because some might be offended.)

        Collis,

        I am a bit puzzled that you feel that your beliefs seem to be
        unequally treated in this conference in comparison to
        non-evangelical beliefs.

        I agree that when you state the things you hold to be true,
        others often (usually!?) object.  But you often object to the
        positions that others hold to be true (or, at least, hold to
        be acceptable).  I see fairness in this.  It may be true that
        there are fewer actively writing participants on the
        evangelical side than on non-evangelical sides, and so it may
        be that there are more writing and objecting to what you
        write than are objecting to what the others write.  But that
        would appear to be merely an accident of the numbers, and no
        inherent unfairness.  (Suggestion:  get some evangelical
        friends to join you here.)

        Do you disagree?  You don't actually believe that your
        definition of Christianity and Christian principle must
        always prevail in any discussion in this conference as a
        matter of conference policy?

        On the other hand, you are strongly encouraged, I would even
        say "welcomed", to express what you believe to be divinely
        inspired and true.  However, those who disagree with you on
        those matters are equally welcome to disagree.  And they are
        equally welcome to express what they believe to be true. 
        Period.

        Bob

Re:  34.178

  >I am a bit puzzled that you feel that your beliefs seem to be unequally 
  >treated in this conference in comparison to non-evangelical beliefs.

Actually, Bob, I don't think this is true.  But what I hear are
suggestions that they be treated unequally because they purport to
be true according to the Bible.

Collis

    *Warning*
                      A statement of Personal Belief.
    
             Jesus Christ *IS* my Lord and Savior.  I have accepted him
    into my life to guide, protect and purify my life.  The Holy Spirit
    lives within me.  God, without needing to, has proved himself to me
    time and time again.  God has also "called" me to preach and proclaim
    his word to a "dry and thirsty" world.  I do that!  God also holds me
    responsible for "how" I preach that word.  If what I say is without
    love and does not honor God thru that love, then what I say is in vain.
    Jesus has "saved" me.  Some here and thruout this world of ours, need
    to have "that" love within their lives.  They need Jesus...IMHO.
    
             The question here seems to be "how do I do that without
    offending someone?".  This notes file has a policy statement in 1.*.
    That statement says that *ALL* are welcome to express their views and
    discuss among the other noters their beliefs.  That is the premis under
    which I note here and moderate here.  When I witness here, I do it offline,
    one on one.  In that way I can address one issue at a time while still
    being true to the stated purpose of this file.  
    
    
    
    Dave

Re:  34.163

Nanci,
    
  >Collis seems to state "This is my perception of the truth and it is the 
  >only truth.  If you don't perceive things the same way I do then you're 
  >wrong and should change your perception."

Actually, Nanci, what I say is that this is the truth that God has
clearly proclaimed to us through his prophets and his Son.

There is a standard and the standard is not me or my perception, but
God's revelation.  So the issue, again, is not an issue simply of my
perception of truth.  (Although many in this file would like to make this
into a simple discussion of one "belief" as opposed to another "belief",
the issue cuts much deeper than that.)
    
  >Since there is a mixture of Christians and non-Christians in this file
  >and since, regardless of each ones' belief system, none of us would be
  >here unless we were interested in learning about different Christian
  >perspectives I don't think there is a need for censuring anyone's point
  >of view.

By censuring do you mean not allowing someone to express what they
think?  If so, then I (perhaps) agree with you.  Or do you mean that
a view should be free of condemnation?

Regardless of what any particular person in this conference thinks
(or believes), the Bible indicates that some beliefs and actions are
worthy of condemnation.  One of these is fornication.  Despite the
controversy in here, this is not a controversial subject.  It is a
well-accepted and well-known Judeo-Christian principle.  But just to
even suggest that being proud of fornication is not glorifying to God
(which is *all* I did in my first two notes) brings instant criticism
of what I should say.  You tell me.  Is this criticism appropriate?

Collis

Re:  34.170
    
     >>It's obvious that you won't.  What this means is either that you don't
     >>truly believe what you say you believe or that you never think it's
     >>appropriate to say what you believe.  
    
  >Collis, this statement made me very angry.  I'm calm now but it
  >is *EXACTLY* the point "most" of us are trying to make to you.
  >Who are you Collis, to tell me what I believe and don't believe?
  >This statement is not discernment...its a judgment.

I am sorry, Dave.  I was not attempting in the slightest to tell you
what you do or don't believe.  The statement I made was too strong and
somewhat inaccurate.  What I was trying to say was that, assuming you
do believe what you say you believe, you believe it is never appropriate 
for you to take a stand on what you believe in this notes conference,
regardless of the truth of the matter.

Again, I strongly disagree with this.  Again, I think discernment is needed.
To *NEVER* be able to talk as if God has revealed some truth to us is
inappropriate, in my opinion.  Particularly when there is not a person
in this conference who has yet claimed that God has not revealed any
truth to us.  Who knows, we may actually all agree that God has indeed
revealed some truth to us.  Are we then to continually deny this because
it is possible that some may be offended?  You judge for yourself what
is right.  Again, I think the Bible offers a practical model for what
I should do.

Collis

Re:  34.172

    >>It occurs to me that (most) all beliefs in this notesfile are welcome
    >>except one.  That belief is that God has clearly revealed some truth
    >>to us.

  >There are other beliefs that aren't welcome, Collis.  Look at the reception
  >that Mike Morgan received here, for example.

What you say has some truth, Bob.  I am aware that there are a few
other beliefs that are not welcome.  This belief has certainly struck
about as strong a negative chord as any of the others.

Collis

Collis - 

The point is that your *belief* in the inerrancy of the Bible is still a 
belief, not a fact.  By judging others' choices of topics in this file 
against the standards of your *belief* you imply a dogmatic standard for 
the file which most of the participants do not adhere to.  

Others are willing to allow you your beliefs.  No one has asked that you be 
silenced and no one has stated that your belief is untrue *for you*.  Why 
is it so difficult for you to do the same?   

Nanci

Re:  34.184

  >The point is that your *belief* in the inerrancy of the Bible is still a 
  >belief, not a fact.  By judging others' choices of topics in this file 
  >against the standards of your *belief* you imply a dogmatic standard for 
  >the file which most of the participants do not adhere to.  

Again, the claim that truth is impossible to know (at least impossible
for me to know  :-) ).  This certainly is a basic presupposition of many 
who write in this file.  And if it is my *belief* that this is wrong?  What
then?

Please note, Nanci, that my assertions are not dependent solely in the
inerrancy of the Bible nor has that been a critical part of my
assertions.  (In fact, many who do not share in the belief of the
inerrancy of the Bible believe they "know" the truth that fornication
is sinful.)  So let's not get bogged down in that "minor" issue here.

  >Others are willing to allow you your beliefs.  No one has asked that you be 
  >silenced and no one has stated that your belief is untrue *for you*.  Why 
  >is it so difficult for you to do the same?   

Are they truly willing to allow me to have my "beliefs"?  Is that what this
response has been all about?  That I can have my "beliefs"?  Once again,
the "belief" that God has revealed some truth that can be known is
NOT accepted in this notesfile because there is a strong desire (almost
a purpose, if you will) in this notesfile to NOT hold anything or anyone
up to any standard whether it be my standard, your standard or God's
standard.  And to give credence to a "belief" that there truly is some
God revealed truth is *extremely* threatening to those whose "truth"
differs (or may differ) from a truth from God.

Collis

    RE: .184 Obviously something is not a fact just because someone
    believes it to be one. On the other hand the Bible being without
    error is a fact even if some people do not believe it. There are
    all sorts of facts hat people choose not to believe.

    			Alfred

Re: .185 Collis

>Again, the claim that truth is impossible to know (at least impossible
>for me to know  :-) ).  This certainly is a basic presupposition of many 
>who write in this file.  And if it is my *belief* that this is wrong?  What
>then?

Obviously, you think that you are right (that truth is possible to know, and
that you know the truth).  Other people disagree with you, for a variety
of reasons.  Some might feel that truth is impossible to know, or that
truth is possible to know but no one knows it.  Some people may even think
that you might know the truth but object to your method of presenting it.

What is it that you are objecting to, Collis: that people don't accept your
claim that you know the truth, or that people don't accept your claim that
it's possible to know the truth, or what?

>Are they truly willing to allow me to have my "beliefs"?  Is that what this
>response has been all about?  That I can have my "beliefs"?

Just because you can have your beliefs doesn't mean that they can't have
theirs.

> there is a strong desire (almost
>a purpose, if you will) in this notesfile to NOT hold anything or anyone
>up to any standard whether it be my standard, your standard or God's
>standard.

You got it.  This conference doesn't impose a standard other than the rules
of decorum.  This doesn't mean that you can't try to impose your own standard
on other people, at least in your own mind.  Just don't be surprised when those
people try to impose their standard on you.

				-- Bob

Re:  34.188

  >What is it that you are objecting to, Collis: that people don't accept your
  >claim that you know the truth, or that people don't accept your claim that
  >it's possible to know the truth, or what?

Again, Bob, what is under discussion is not simply me or my beliefs
(despite the repeated attempts to make this the issue), the global
issue has to do with whether or not there is a God who has revealed
truth to us that we can know.  The discussion on this fundamental
issue continues to be minimal.  Again, I believe this is because it
is a very threatening subject.

  >Just because you can have your beliefs doesn't mean that they can't have
  >theirs.

I understand that they can have their beliefs.  What I object to is
their claim that I am not free to have and share my beliefs (because
my beliefs accept a God-shown truth which means that there is a
standard of right and wrong).

    >>there is a strong desire (almost a purpose, if you will) in this 
    >>notesfile to NOT hold anything or anyone up to any standard whether it 
    >>be my standard, your standard or God's standard.

  >You got it.  This conference doesn't impose a standard other than the rules
  >of decorum.  

Thank you, Bob for acknowledging this.  I think this is real progress.
We have agreement now between two participants that this notesfile
refuses to acknowledge any kind of standard of God as appropriate for
this notesfile.  Given this, I think (again) that the notesfile is
misnamed as a "Christian" perspective notesfile.

Any comments from other participants?

Collis

    Collis, that isn't exactly a revelation.  This notes conference has
    never made any secret of the fact that it defined no specific
    theological standard, other than that spelled out in note 8.7, which is
    deliberately phrased to be as broad as possible.

    You are entitled to believe that "there is a God who has revealed truth
    to us that we can know", but this conference takes no theological stand
    on this, or many other points.  If you want this conference to take
    this stand officially in some way, you are likely to be disappointed. 
    As Bob wrote in 8.7, we "interpret this definition in an inclusive
    way".  If you disagree with our definition of Christianity, that is
    your right, but we have been using this definition all along.

    -- Mike

Re: .188 Collis

>Again, Bob, what is under discussion is not simply me or my beliefs
>(despite the repeated attempts to make this the issue), the global
>issue has to do with whether or not there is a God who has revealed
>truth to us that we can know.  The discussion on this fundamental
>issue continues to be minimal.  Again, I believe this is because it
>is a very threatening subject.

It's an interesting subject for discussion.  You can probably guess my
personal opinion about it.

>I understand that they can have their beliefs.  What I object to is
>their claim that I am not free to have and share my beliefs (because
>my beliefs accept a God-shown truth which means that there is a
>standard of right and wrong).

Have "they" claimed that you are not free to have and share your beliefs?
If so, where have they said this?  Just because someone disagrees with you
doesn't mean they're saying that you aren't free to share your beliefs.

>  >You got it.  This conference doesn't impose a standard other than the rules
>  >of decorum.  
>
>Thank you, Bob for acknowledging this.  I think this is real progress.
>We have agreement now between two participants that this notesfile
>refuses to acknowledge any kind of standard of God as appropriate for
>this notesfile.  Given this, I think (again) that the notesfile is
>misnamed as a "Christian" perspective notesfile.

I agree that the conference is somewhat misnamed.  Since two of the moderators
are not Christians the conference obviously isn't limited to a purely Christian
perspective.  It is, however, dedicated to discussion *about* Christianity from
a variety of perspectives.  Maybe CHRISTIANITY_IN_PERSPECTIVE? :-)

(No, I'm not seriously suggesting that the conference should be renamed.  The
character of the conference should be pretty clear to anyone who follows it.)

    				-- Bob

re Note 34.189 by XLIB::JACKSON:

>     >>there is a strong desire (almost a purpose, if you will) in this 
>     >>notesfile to NOT hold anything or anyone up to any standard whether it 
>     >>be my standard, your standard or God's standard.
> 
>   >You got it.  This conference doesn't impose a standard other than the rules
>   >of decorum.  
> 
> Thank you, Bob for acknowledging this.  I think this is real progress.
> We have agreement now between two participants that this notesfile
> refuses to acknowledge any kind of standard of God as appropriate for
> this notesfile.  Given this, I think (again) that the notesfile is
> misnamed as a "Christian" perspective notesfile.
  
        Why is this real progress?  This is stated in Topic 1!

        Also, the claim that "the notesfile is misnamed as a
        'Christian' perspective notesfile" was also brought up very
        early.  I believe that such a claim begs one of the very
        central questions, i.e., "what is 'Christian'", to be
        discussed.

        There is no doubt in my mind that the central theme in this
        conference is Christianity -- as people in general, and the
        participants in particular, would define it.  It also meets
        the basic dictionary definition of "of, pertaining to, or
        derived from Jesus Christ or his teachings."

        It may not meet the definition of "Christian" developed from
        particular theological perspectives.  But I don't think that
        the fact that we fail to meet every last definition of
        "Christian" precludes us from using that term in our
        conference name.

        As a matter of fact, Collis, it is doubtful that your beliefs
        would meet the definition of Christian held by the majority
        of those who considered themselves "Christian" in the
        majority of the last 2000 years.  We will give you the
        benefit of some leeway -- would you be so kind to do the
        same?

        Yet Another Bob

Re:  34.192

Yet another Bob,  :-)

  >Why is this real progress?  This is stated in Topic 1!

  >But I don't think that the fact that we fail to meet every last definition 
  >of "Christian" precludes us from using that term in our conference name.

Ah, but this is *quite* different from what I said.

What I said is that this conference has a priori accepted as a foundational
starting block that there is NO standard of Christianity that is or will
be accepted in this notesfile.  Note that this implies that the existence
of God, the work and purpose of His Son and all else having to do with
historic Christianity is a priori not accepted as true in this notesfile
but rather is just a subject to discuss.

Let's make this clear.  We wouldn't want people to join in (as some have)
thinking that they are participating in a Christian notesfile.  No
indeed.  Let's make it clear that they are participating in a notesfile
about Christianity which accepts nothing about Christ.

Collis

re Note 34.193 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Note that this implies that the existence
> of God, the work and purpose of His Son and all else having to do with
> historic Christianity is a priori not accepted as true in this notesfile
> but rather is just a subject to discuss.

        ABSOLUTELY true!

        Unlike some other conferences that purport to be about
        Christianity, yet allow little fundamental discussion about
        Christ (preaching, yes;  discussion, no), this conference is
        the place to discuss the fundamentals.

        If you want a conference where you can be comfortably free of
        challenging statements and discussion about the nature of
        Christ, you must look elsewhere.

        In my personal life, I accept Christ.  In my discussions
        about His work, I will accept open dialogue with anybody,
        whether they accept his work or not.  I don't make them
        enter a portal which says "Christ accepted here" before I
        will engage them.  There are many who have been through that
        portal before who would not walk through it.

        Bob

    Re.192

        Collis:

               Such chutzpah !  So how is it you get to decide
           that this conference accepts nothing about Christ.
               Ya know Collis, I can't help but feeling that
           you are out to have it your way no matter what. Even if
           it is done by having your opinions on Christianity 
           formally stated as not being a conference standard.
                Give it a rest will ya ? I for one am growing
           weary of your insistence that you get to define what
           constitutes correct beliefs. Oh, I forgot it isn't your
           opinions, but God's.
                 If this file accepts nothing of Christianity then
           why are their so many Christians here, including you,
           sharing, discussing, questioning and evaluating their 
           faiths ? Hmmmm....?

                                                               Mike
                  
       

	I could be (and probably am) wrong about this, but this is what I
summize:


COLLIS:


	He believes what the Bible says is 100% true, without any fault. Thus,
when relaying any information to this conference, it is done so by following
the Bible. He has stuck with what he feels to be the truth. The opinions aren't
so much his, but they stem from Him. He (Collis) wishes to be able to say His 
word without the hassle of others telling him he can't proclaim what he (Collis)
feels is the truth. It seems he doesn't mind a debate, but just not people
telling him to not write this or that.

OTHERS:

	Most believe that there are many truths to the Bible. Most seem to not
find the Bible without flaw, as it was written by humans, or some may have
other reasons (studies, reports that have been filed, etc). In this light, most
people can, have and will continue to question Collis about what he writes.
Collis will continue to stay just the way he is, as he does believe it to be
the truth.

	Who's right? Who's wrong? It is just *my* opinion that if you believe
something with your whole heart, you are never wrong in God's eyes. What you
may believe in could be wrong, but if you don't know any better, you can't be
held at fault in God's eyes. If you know what you are doing is wrong, and you
continue to do it, then you will probably have to face God's wrath. This goes
for all things, beliefs, actions, you name it. I don't think Collis should have
to stop preaching what he believes in, as for all we know he could be right.
As of now I do question some of the stuff he says (or professes from the Bible)
as I don't believe the Bible is 100% accurate. For *me*, I do believe the Bible
is God inspired, but I don't believe it is without flaw. That is my opinion,
and maybe someday I will find out different, or visa versa. Again, this is only
*my* opinion that I have summized from reading this topic.


Glen

Re:  34.196

  >Ya know Collis, I can't help but feeling that you are out to have it your 
  >way no matter what. 

I guess your opinion of me is that I'm being childish.

  >Even if it is done by having your opinions on Christianity formally 
  >stated as not being a conference standard.

Actually, Mike, I'm not trying to limit it to my opinion in the least.
There is in fact no standard (whether it is my opinion or your opinion).

Once we get to this point, we can start to see the ramifications, which
I think are quite important and worth discussing.  These include (as
I see it), that there is no expectation whatsoever that anyone should
glorify God in this conference (at least from a conference perspective).
Why?  Because who God is is totally up for question, much less what
brings glory to Him.  There are a number of other ramifications, but I
think you get the point.  Given this knowledge, I will not make such
brash assumptions as I did a few days ago that any given individual
should ever consider (or reconsider) their actions because it may not
be glorifying to God.  I will know better.

I also think that such a clear statement will properly position this
conference with respect to Christian beliefs.  Since the conference
takes no position whatsoever on what is true (and, in fact, rejects
any attempt to determine what is true), it will be clearer (as it is
becoming clearer to me) that this conference takes no position on the
existence of God.  Further, it appears that this conference takes
the stand that if God *has* revealed some truth to us, it is inappropriate
to expect others to acknowledge that truth in any way, shape or form.
I think inquiring minds would like to know this up front.  I think at
least that I would.

[As I was re-reading this, I looked closely at the statement that the
conference "rejects any attempt to determine what is true".  I thought
this was a little strong but, upon reflection, think that it is indeed
accurate.  Of course, individuals in the conference attempt to determine
what is true (and share what they believe).  But the conference as a
conference truly does go out of its way to reject any attempt to
determine what is true.  Trut is definately left in the mind of the
beholder.]

Of course, if I am wrong about any of this, please correct me now.  As
best I can, I am trying to determine exactly what this notesfile is about.
Will you help?

Collis

Re: .198 Collis

>Once we get to this point, we can start to see the ramifications, which
>I think are quite important and worth discussing.  These include (as
>I see it), that there is no expectation whatsoever that anyone should
>glorify God in this conference (at least from a conference perspective).

I agree.  However, you can expect that *some* (most?) participants in the
conference will attempt to glorify God with their replies, because most people
who follow the conference are Christians.  Thus it's not entirely out of
place for you to ask whether or not a particular topic glorifies God --
appealing to the religious beliefs of the author of the note rather than
appealing to the moderators to enforce a standard.

>Given this knowledge, I will not make such
>brash assumptions as I did a few days ago that any given individual
>should ever consider (or reconsider) their actions because it may not
>be glorifying to God.  I will know better.

Some individuals might reconsider their actions.  Then again, they might think
that they *are* glorifying God with their actions, even if you don't agree.

>Since the conference
>takes no position whatsoever on what is true

Right.

> (and, in fact, rejects any attempt to determine what is true),

I don't think we reject this as a matter of conference policy.  Individuals
in the conference do object when people make dogmatic claims that their
beliefs are the only true ones.

> it will be clearer (as it is
>becoming clearer to me) that this conference takes no position on the
>existence of God.

Right.

>  Further, it appears that this conference takes
>the stand that if God *has* revealed some truth to us, it is inappropriate
>to expect others to acknowledge that truth in any way, shape or form.

Come on, Collis.  Other people have shared their beliefs in God.

>But the conference as a
>conference truly does go out of its way to reject any attempt to
>determine what is true.

When you say "as a conference" are you talking about moderator actions or
the actions of individual noters (recognizing that moderators can also
speak as individual noters)?

>As
>best I can, I am trying to determine exactly what this notesfile is about.
>Will you help?

I think it means different things to different people.  For me it's an open
forum for people to share their beliefs and opinions about Christianity with
minimal interference from the moderators.  Other people would like it to be
a more sheltered environment where they aren't subjected to strongly stated
beliefs/opinions.  This has been the subject of ongoing discussions among the
moderators.

				-- Bob

    RE: .182   Collis,
    
    >I am sorry, Dave
    
             Well, I haven't been exactly friendly either but thank you.  
    Can we discuss this without the acrimony that has been typical of late?
    Of my part, I will try.
    
    >                        What I was trying to say was that, assuming you
    >do believe what you say you believe, you believe it is never appropriate 
    >for you to take a stand on what you believe in this notes conference,
    >regardless of the truth of the matter.
    
    
           Well, Collis, I believe I have taken a stand on the members of
    this conference trying to "establish" their kind of truth on someone else. 
     This conference is a place to discuss and not one to allow some to
    dictate the direction of this file.  I believe in that stand, it is the
    precept of my being a moderator.
    
    
           But, I am being somewhat narrow in view and scope of your
    question.  You want my Christian stand on this file...right?  I have
    stated my beliefs.....*AND* it seemed to offend no one.  You might say
    that its because I wasn't forceful enough and yet if you look a few
    notes back, you will see a statement of my belief in as clear a
    language as I can possibly use.  I would think that there is no one
    in this file, with the possible exception of you, that can interpret
    that note as anything other than a Christian belief. 
    
    
    Dave 

    Re.198

      Collis:

              As much as I'd like to help I can't. You must determine
           for yourself why you participate in this conference and 
           what benefits, if any, you derive from it and if you think
           your participation and contributions are worthwhile and if
           wish to continue.
              Many of the things that are a cause of such concern to
          you and that you take umbrage to seem perfectly reasonable
          to me. 
              I know what attracts me to this conference and why I
          participate. What this conference is about for me may or
          may not be the same for you.
              I would hope that you would wish to continue to contribute
          to this conference. I would hope that it is not conditional 
          up the promulgation of conference policy statements that are
          exclusionary in nature.
              Your are asking me to help you solve what you see as a
          problem when I don't really see the existence of a problem.



                                                               Mike      

Re:  34.199

     >> (and, in fact, rejects any attempt to determine what is true),

  >I don't think we reject this as a matter of conference policy.  Individuals
  >in the conference do object when people make dogmatic claims that their
  >beliefs are the only true ones.

I think you and I have reached agreement on all but this one point, Bob.
Since I consider it an important point, I'll pursue it.

As I see it, determining what is true necessitates the establishing
of a standard (call it "truth" or whatever).  Since this conference is
totally opposed to establishing any conference standard in regards to
"truth", then I think it is not only fair, but important to be up front
that this conference openly opposes the establishment of any conference
standard on truth.

Now I'm not saying that there aren't certain advantages to this.  There
are.  It means that all are welcome to share opinions and beliefs.  It
is easier to be what I'll call "loving" when everything is acceptable
and nothing is unacceptable.  In addition, there need no be disagreements
about what is true and what is not true from a conference perspective
because it is clear that no truth will ever be acknowledged from a
conference perspective.  (Although it is equally clear from an individual
perspective that a great deal of activity is spent on exactly this
issue.)

This conference, by purpose and intent is grounded on the principle
(perhaps just for the sake of this conference) that one belief is as
acceptable as another.  (Editorial:  Truth can be said to be the first
casualty of this conference.  Although individuals can certainly strive for
truth, the conference is committed to rejecting whatever truth may be found
so that all beliefs may be freely shared and accepted by those who so
choose.) 

I think that given these clear(er) guidelines, I would not have raised
the objections that I did in the way that I did.  I would not have
expected what I did expect.

    >>But the conference as a conference truly does go out of its 
    >>way to reject any attempt to determine what is true.

  >When you say "as a conference" are you talking about moderator actions or
  >the actions of individual noters (recognizing that moderators can also
  >speak as individual noters)?

I mean the establishment of any guidelines.  This is a conference where
the guidelines are that there are no guidelines.  This conference has 
taken the position that the conference will never acknowledge any truth 
that has been revealed by God (if any has indeed been revealed by God).

Collis

Re:  34.199

Bob,

     >>Further, it appears that this conference takes the stand that if 
     >>God *has* revealed some truth to us, it is inappropriate to expect 
     >>others to acknowledge that truth in any way, shape or form.

  >Come on, Collis.  Other people have shared their beliefs in God.

It's not inappropriate to ask for that acknowledgment.  It's inappropriate
to expect any such acknowledgement (because one opinion is as good as
another by the standards of this conference).

Collis

Re:  34.200
    
  >Well, Collis, I believe I have taken a stand on the members of this 
  >conference trying to "establish" their kind of truth on someone else.

You have indeed taken the stand that there are to be no guidelines
whatsoever in terms of belief in this conference.  As part of that,
you have deemed that expressions of shame...

.149>C-P may be alive, but it is certainly not well.  The latest topic on
.149>fornication makes that abundantly clear.  :-(

.151>Any notesfile which claims in some sense to be Christian should, in my
.151>opinion, attempt to glorify God.  To do less than this is to our
.151>shame (as we are accountable for our witness to others).  It reflects on
.151>us and it reflects on God.  Do you think God is being glorified?

...about what another noter said are inappropriate because they attempt
to "'establish' their kind of truth on someone else."

Collis

Re: .202  Collis

>     >> (and, in fact, rejects any attempt to determine what is true),
>
>  >I don't think we reject this as a matter of conference policy.  Individuals
>  >in the conference do object when people make dogmatic claims that their
>  >beliefs are the only true ones.

.
.
.

>As I see it, determining what is true necessitates the establishing
>of a standard (call it "truth" or whatever).  Since this conference is
>totally opposed to establishing any conference standard in regards to
>"truth", then I think it is not only fair, but important to be up front
>that this conference openly opposes the establishment of any conference
>standard on truth.

Collis, there is a very big difference between saying that the confernce
"openly opposes the establishment of any *conference* standard on truth" (my
emphasis) and saying that it "rejects any attempt to determine what is true".
Yes, we oppose the establishment of any conference standard on truth.  We,
the moderators, can't even agree among ourselves about what is true, so how
can we presume to tell everyone else what is true?  We do *not*, though,
reject the attempts of individuals within the conference to determine what
is true.  If you think there is a standard for truth you are free to tell
us what that standard is (as if you haven't done that already :-) ), and we
are free to disagree with you (as if we haven't done that already :-) ).

Truth would be the casualty if we tried to impose a standard that *we*
thought was true, just as it would be the casualty if *your* truth became
the standard.  A conference standard for truth stifles debate and closes
minds.

>Truth can be said to be the first
>casualty of this conference.  Although individuals can certainly strive for
>truth, the conference is committed to rejecting whatever truth may be found
>so that all beliefs may be freely shared and accepted by those who so
>choose.) 

I don't agree.  The conference doesn't reject "truth".  It refuses to take
a position on it one way or the other.  It's not the job of the moderators
to determine what is and what is not true.  It's the job of the moderators
to enforce the rules.

>This is a conference where
>the guidelines are that there are no guidelines.  This conference has 
>taken the position that the conference will never acknowledge any truth 
>that has been revealed by God (if any has indeed been revealed by God).

Right.

				-- Bob

re Note 34.198 by XLIB::JACKSON:

        re your statement:  "Since the conference takes no position
        whatsoever on what is true (and, in fact, rejects any attempt
        to determine what is true)":

        You keep on asserting that an inanimate thing, "this
        conference", should take a position, is capable of rejecting
        something, or might "attempt to determine what is true."  I
        see no such possibility that this conference, OR ANY
        CONFERENCE, could in fact do such things (although
        participants of some conferences could claim that
        "conferences do such things").

        "This conference" is a meeting place, plain and simple, for
        discussions having some connection to the historical,
        literary, and/or religious figure known as Jesus Christ or
        his followers.

        That's it.

        Bob

re Note 34.199 by DECWIN::MESSENGER:

> I agree.  However, you can expect that *some* (most?) participants in the
> conference will attempt to glorify God with their replies, because most people
> who follow the conference are Christians.  Thus it's not entirely out of
> place for you to ask whether or not a particular topic glorifies God --
> appealing to the religious beliefs of the author of the note rather than
> appealing to the moderators to enforce a standard.

        An important point, Bob, and well-stated.

        Bob

Note 34.204

>.149>C-P may be alive, but it is certainly not well.  The latest topic on
>.149>fornication makes that abundantly clear.  :-(

Perhaps I should have instead used the phrase, "...alive and kicking!"
8-}

Richard

    Collis
    
    are you intentionally not answering Glenn's notes to you?
    
    Bonnie

Bonnie,

What "answer" did Glen's notes require?  In checking back over the
last 60 notes in this string, there are 2 from Glen (.197 and .177),
neither of which asks a question of me.

You are right in that I chose not to comment on them.

Collis

    Well, you commented on all the other notes in the string, it just
    struck me as odd that you skipped his.
    
    Bonnie

| What "answer" did Glen's notes require?  In checking back over the
| last 60 notes in this string, there are 2 from Glen (.197 and .177),
| neither of which asks a question of me.

	Collis, are you then saying you agree with what I had said in BOTH
notes (.177, .197)?


Glen

Glen,

No, I am neither saying that I agree with nor disagree with what you
said in those two notes.  I will say now that I agree with some of
what you said.  :-)

Collis

| -< Now, now, don't jump to conclusions >-

	Who, me? ;-)

| No, I am neither saying that I agree with nor disagree with what you
| said in those two notes.  I will say now that I agree with some of
| what you said.  :-)

	Oh, maybe that's what Bonnie must have picked up on then. Mainly because
you were vocal with all of the other notes on agree vs. disagree (or both) and 
when it came to my notes there was nothing mentioned. (in other topics as well)


Glen

I hope you don't feel left out, Glen.

Collis

| I hope you don't feel left out, Glen.

	Curious....... that's all. BTW, what parts do you agree with and what
parts do you disagree with in my 2 notes?


Glen

Tony,

This conference does not claim to be a Christian conference.  In fact,
it strongly discourages any expectation of "Christian" standards by
one conference member of another.  

The goal of this conference is that all (whether Christian or not) may
freely discuss Christianity (which is, by conference rule, undefined
except that it has something to do with Jesus Christ) and that all are
expected to be tolerant of another's belief of what Christianity is.

Personally, I think this conference not only misses the boat with these
expectations, but isn't even in the right body of water.

Collis

    yes, Collis, but it meets or trys to meet the particular needs that
    those who founded it wanted to address. They specifically did not
    want the sort of file you describe or they'd have been happy
    in the file on golf::.
    
    Bonnie

    Collis, since this conference is, in your view, so totally wrong in its
    purpose, why do you continue to participate here?
    
    -- Mike

    Collis,
    
                  There *IS* a file for Christians to go to and support
    each other.  There is even another to discuss all religions.  This one
    is for *all* people to participate and discuss.  It, IMHO, *HAS* a
    place in the scheme of things....even if you don't.  
    
                  And I would echo Mike's question as to why so much energy
    is being expended by you to note here?  
    
    
    Dave

Note 34.217

>This conference does not claim to be a Christian conference.

Is this a misunderstanding or is it a case of bearing false witness?

Richard

RE: .221 It may be a misunderstanding. Or it may be a difference in word
	usage. For example may people call the US a Christian country. I
	would never do so as it doesn't fit my idea of what a Christian
	country would be.

			Alfred

    .222  This is the CHRISTIAN-perspective notesfile.  True, it is
    not the BIBLE-perspective notesfile.
    
    Nor is this the CHURCH-perspective notesfile.
    
    Nor is this the CONSERVATIVE_CHRISTIAN-perspective notesfile.
    
    I regret that this may fall outside the comfort zones of some who
    call themselves Christian.
    
    Richard
    
    PS I do not consider the US a Christian country either.

Richard,

Please give the reasons you have for wanting to describe this as a
Christian conference since you seem to believe it is.

Collis

As for a reason for being here,

Maybe it's so that when others are misled about what this conference is
about, I can help explain it.  :-)  :-)

Perhaps it's so that I can shine my light wherever I am.

Certainly there is a need in this conference for a thoughtful, reasoned
defense of the (historical) Christian faith and Biblical inerrency.

Or, of course, I desire to be "converted".  :-)

Collis

    Actually Collis, I've always thought you were a 'missionary'.
    
    Bonnie

I guess we're all to be missionaries for God - even if it's just in
our own neighborhood.

Collis

    I find ALL members of this file to have worthwhile comments. Some of
    the comments I can't agree with...but...this discussion is very
    worthwhile to me.
    
    Collis...continue to note.
    
    Marc H.

Note 34.224

>Please give the reasons you have for wanting to describe this as a
>Christian conference since you seem to believe it is.

Collis,

	I do not believe I bear the burden of proving that this conference
is genuinely Christian.  At the same time, you have raised an interesting
challenge (as you so frequently do).  So, allow me to answer your request
in this way:

	I believe the preponderance of readers and contributors within this
file desire to live spiritually richer, fuller lives.  I believe God in Christ
to be the Initiator of that desire.

	I believe the preponderance of readers and contributors within
this file desire a deeper, more intimate relationship with the Ineffable
and Most Holy, that is, the One you call God.  Again, I believe God in Christ
to be the Initiator of that desire.

	I believe the preponderance of readers and contributors within this
file desire to live their lives in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Again, I believe God in Christ to be the Initiator of that desire.

	I believe the preponderance of readers and contributors within this
file look to Christ *and* look to Christianity for answers to their deepest
questions.  I believe Christian-Perspective meets a need for ministry that
GOLF::CHRISTIAN utterly fails or doesn't recognize at all.  Christian-
Perspective offers a forum which I believe the likes of Dick Martel might
have even found hospitable.

	I believe a sizeable portion of the readers and contributors within
this file have possibly found traditional forms and teachings of Christianity
empty, superficial, oppressive, constricting, naive, ludicrous, guilt-inducing,
sin-obsessed, Scripture-worshiping, Pharisaic, impotent, hypocritical and
irrelevant; all in all, less than quenching; all in all, less than desirable.

	I believe a sizeable portion of the readers and contributors within
this file are finding hope where hope was nearly extinguished, finding faith
where there seemed to be little worth having faith in, and finding love where
there seemed to be only pain and anguish.

	Now, I don't expect you or anyone else to find the foregoing
sufficiently narrow or Biblical enough to qualify this conference as even
minimally Christian.  But, it is to me.  And you did ask for my reasons.

Peace,
Richard

    PS I do *not* consider the presence of non-Christians within this file
    a detraction.  To the contrary, we are richer for them.
    
    Love,
    Richard

    
    Gee, I would hate to be thought of as a detraction! ;^)
    
    Carole

Richard,

I agree with all that you said, but it does not make this a Christian
notesfile, in my opinion.

I believe (along with others) that this is not a Christian notesfile
because of the standards of the notesfile, not because of the individual
beliefs, searchings or sharings of the participants.

I don't think any notesfile or organization can be called Christian
where the opinions of any given individual are equally authoritative
with God.

Collis

    
    
    Collis,
    
    What I get from your sharing is that you want to make sure that
    people opening this file and reading it for the first time do not 
    do so with the impression that this is a Christian notesfile, because 
    you do not feel that it is.  You do not want them to be misled by the
    file name.  You want to save them from being misled (in your mind)
    and getting the wrong impression of Christianity.
    
    Have I picked up your wavelength on this Collis?  Please correct me
    if I am wrong.
    
    Carole  

    RE: "Is this file a Christian File?"
    
    
                       I think that it would be better to allow God to
    determine that question.  I "think" it is.  Collis seems to think it
    isn't.....so what?  It is *STILL* a file where we can discuss issues
    concerening Christianity.  Each person is responsible for determining 
    what their level of Christian belief is....and I believe they are 
    responsible to God for that determination.  This argument about what
    "is" and "isn't" Christian is becomming silly and counterproductive.
    
                        I would think that we christians should have enough 
    good manners to allow each person their own belief structure without 
    telling them that this "is" or "is not" what they believe.  If I
    disagree, then I need to *SAY* "this is what I believe.....".  I would
    like to remind everyone that God has given us "free will" and I believe
    that we should honor that.
    
    
    Dave

re Note 34.232 by XLIB::JACKSON:

        Collis,

        We moderators felt unable and unworthy to authoritatively and
        inerrantly discern what "the opinions of God" were!

        Therefore we weren't going to make "the opinions of God" a
        standard for our moderation of this conference, since they
        would simply be "our opinions of the opinions of God."

        Apparently, you think there are moderators of another
        conference who are able to authoritatively discern the
        opinions of God with respect to notes moderation.

        As Lee Iacoca might have said, "if you can find a better* set
        of moderators, go join their conference."

        Bob
        -------
        * In this context, an apparently better set of moderators
        would be ones who can always completely and correctly discern
        the "opinions of God."  If you believe that reading and
        quoting a particular text enables one to do this, I have this
        bridge I'd like to sell you....

RE: .232

	Dave! Very well said. Each person believes at their own levels. Are any
of them wrong? I would hope not. If everyone remembers that LOVE is what we
should be striving for then I would have to think that God would be very happy
with us. After all, with LOVE, we could win so many battles as with LOVE, the
amount of battles would just disapear to nothing. Then all that's left is just
one thing..... LOVE. Apply LOVE to everything you do, say, anything and watch
what the results will be compared to those same results if LOVE wasn't
included.

RE: .232

| I believe (along with others) that this is not a Christian notesfile
| because of the standards of the notesfile, not because of the individual
| beliefs, searchings or sharings of the participants.

| I don't think any notesfile or organization can be called Christian
| where the opinions of any given individual are equally authoritative
| with God.

	Collis, what would be your ideal setting of a notesfile that was truly
Christian?


Glen

Re:  34.235

Bob,

  >We moderators felt unable and unworthy to authoritatively and
  >inerrantly discern what "the opinions of God" were!

Yes, I understand that.  One end of the spectrum is that *everything*
is known about what is true and right and what is false and wrong.  The 
other end of the spectrum is either that *nothing* is known or that
nothing can be definatively known (and therefore there is no standard
used).  

From my perspective, this is where C-P and Christian fit on a scale:

"nothing"   <....................................................> "everything"
            0                          50                      100

            |                                  |
           C-P                             Christian

Rejecting one and going to one end of the scale is certainly an option and
what has been done.  But I'm not trying to persuade C-P to change.  (I
argued for that 3 weeks ago and was turned down by popular opinion.)  It
just seems to me that C-P should be up front about where it stands in terms
that everyone can easily understand.  Carole and Bob and Bob (and some
others) understand where C-P is, many others have not. Because many have
not, problems have been created (unintentionally). 

But, it is your notesfile.  If it serves your purpose better to be
more obscure, then that is your option.  (As far as I can tell, there
is not serious disagreement about where the notesfile stands.  The
question of whether this notesfile is a Christian one is a side issue
and has nothing to do with where the notesfile stands.)

Collis

Dave,

A notesfile that explictly claims it will not take a position on the
existence of God (much less the work of Christ) can not be considered
a Christian notesfile, in my opinion.  (I would never consider a
person who did not take a position on the existence of God a Christian,
but then maybe I have too strict a definition of Christian.  :-)  )

Collis

Carole,

No, the question that I am addressing is not whether or not this is
a Christian notesfile (which is a side issue, in my mind).

The question I am addressing is, what authority from God is recognized
by this notesfile.  The answer, of course, is none.  This is what I
was mistaken about a few weeks ago and it continues to be something
that others are mistaken about (e.g. new noter Tony).  Just state up
front what this notesfile believes on this issue.

If you want to include a caveat noting that individual contributors
recognize authority from God (but perhaps you don't want to include
personal opinions :-) ), that's certainly a reasonable statement to
include.

Is this clearer?

    
    I am coming to the conclusion here that a 'notesfile' cannot be
    considered 'anything' per se.  It is really an inanimate object.
    The people who participate here come together to talk and share
    about those things that are 'Christian'.  It doesn't need a
    standard.  The only conference that I know of that uses a
    'standard' is GOLF::CHRISTIAN (and that is based on my limited
    involvement with notes conferences).  So it is people that make
    up a notesfile and make it what it is.
    
    So, I don't think you can say a notesfile is Christian or it isn't.
    You can say that certain subjects are discussed in a notesfile and
    here are 'our' groundrules for that discussion.  This conference
    is made up of all different perspectives coming together to discuss
    Christianity, specifically and in general.  There *are* Christians
    here....and Buddhists and agnostics and atheists and on and on.
    
    A notesfile itself isn't anything.
    
    Carole
    
    

    
    Collis,
    
    Our notes .239 and .240 were entered at the same time.
    
    As I said, a 'notesfile' doesn't claim anything.  The people who
    contribute do.  Some who participate here do recognize God's
    authority.  There are a few who do not.  This file is here so
    that a variety of perspectives can come together to talk about
    Christianity.  Period.  It wasn't created to claim God's authority,
    or the Bible's, etc.  People themselves do that for themselves.
    
    This seems so clear to me.
    
    Carole

Carole,

It is the standards of the notesfile that I am trying to clarify.
I'll try to refrain from simply saying "notesfile".  I expect you'll
agree that notesfiles may have standards.  I hope you agree that
these standards make it a breech at etiquette (at best) to be
judgmental (e.g. to say that something is an affront to God) about
the beliefs or actions of another.  What God thinks about something
(if indeed there is a God and if indeed He does think about it)
is irrelevant.  We are to be accepting of the beliefs and actions
of others regardless of our own beliefs of how these offend God.

For example, a prophet of God (as represented in the Bible, if indeed 
any prophets of God really exist) would never be allowed to preach in here
because he would preach based on the authority of God and might (would!)
condemn some beliefs and actions.

Collis

    
    Collis, you keep wanting to talk about standards and I coming
    from the place of saying that we don't need standards.  The
    only conference that I know of that claims a standard is
    GOLF::CHRISTIAN (please correct me if I am wrong on that).
    
    Carole

    
>For example, a prophet of God (as represented in the Bible, if indeed 
>any prophets of God really exist) would never be allowed to preach in here
>because he would preach based on the authority of God and might (would!)
>condemn some beliefs and actions.

    Collis, this is a notesfile set up to discuss Christianity from
    different perspectives.  It is not a pulpit to preach from, at least
    from my perspective.  Preaching is not discussing.  However, if the
    majority of the people here felt ok with that, than I might share
    my opinion on it and then next unseen the note.  The only time I
    would raise an issue to the moderators is if I was personally
    attacked or intentionally insulted.
    
    Carole

    Exactly, Carole.  The issue isn't the violation of "standards", since
    this notes file officially imposes no theological "standard" on its
    participants, unlike GOLF::CHRISTIAN.  The lack of a theological
    standard here has been clear from the very beginning, and was hashed
    and rehashed in this very topic, as well as elsewhere, during the first
    few months of C-P.

    To me, in lieu of moderator intervention, a so-called "standard" is
    nothing more than the de facto response of the participants as a
    whole.  The individuals of this notes file may, in general, take
    exception to certain behaviors by other noters that they find
    offensive, but that certainly does not constitute a formal "standard". 
    In fact, it represents the very absence of a formal standard, since
    this response is simply the sum result of the voluntary contributions
    of the community members, rather than something imposed by moderator
    fiat.  Any attempt by the moderators at putting this de factor
    community response into an officially formulated "standard" (as Collis
    is suggesting) would, I believe, run counter to the very purpose of
    this notes file, and would violate what we have set out to do.  We
    officially tolerate all opinions, including intolerant or narrow-minded
    ones; such is the price of allowing ideas to be freely expressed,
    but that doesn't preclude the community participants from being
    offended by what others say--that is also *their* right.

    We are certainly open to suggestions from the community about the
    moderation of this notes file; that is why we have a processing topic,
    for one thing.  Many valuing differences notes files explicitly
    prohibit that sort of public discussion of moderator policy.  It was in
    response to this discussion that we defined "Christian" for the
    purposes of this notes file, in note 8.7, and intentionally left the
    definition as broad and inclusive as possible.  So it is certainly
    possible for C-P to supplement its self-definition, but my own feeling
    is that the need isn't there.  Of course, that's just my opinion.

    -- Mike

RE: .245


	Mike, I couldn't have said it any better! :-)


Glen

    Why, thank you, Glen.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    
    Well, I've gone back and checked over the 'conference' notes and
    didn't find a reference to standards.  Guidelines yes...but not
    standards.  Did I miss something?
    
    Carole

Note 34.237

>But, it is your notesfile.

Collis,

	As an employee of Digital Equipment Corporation, it's your notesfile,
too.

	By your chronic criticism, though, it seems to me that you would be
pleased to either have C-P either adopt an identical posture concerning the
Bible as GOLF::CHRISTIAN or have C-P disassembled altogether.  It seems to me
that in either instance you believe you would be doing God (and truth) a big
favor.

	To me and many others (as if that added weight), a particular posture
concerning the Bible does not a Christian (or Christian conference) make.

Peace,
Richard

Uh, Dave... he might have got that idea from my saying many times in the
past that I'm an agnostic.

				-- Bob

    RE: .251  Bob,
    
                      Ok, Bob....I'll delete .250.  But my understanding 
    of an agnostic is a person who does not deny the existence of God.
    
    
    Sorry,
    Dave

I'll put it this way: I don't believe that God exists, and I don't believe
that God doesn't exist.  I just don't know.  I do think that the simplest
explanation for the current state of the universe is that God doesn't exist,
though, so I have considerable sympathy for the atheistic position.

				-- Bob

    Collis,
    
    some of us, (like me) believe that there are things which are 
    an affront to God/Goddess.
    
     most of us would be more than glad to welcome a phrophit but
    we'd argue with her or him and not accept without questions
    their claim to be speaking for Goddess/God.
    
    A lot of what you are seeing in people's reactions to you, as you
    well know, is that people, many of them strong Christians,
    don't believe as you do, and don't accept your beliefs as true.
    
    This doesn't make them right and you wrong or vice versa, just that
    in studing the evidence people hae come to different conclusions.
    
    Bonnie

Note 34.242

>For example, a prophet of God (as represented in the Bible, if indeed 
>any prophets of God really exist) would never be allowed to preach in here
>because he would preach based on the authority of God and might (would!)
>condemn some beliefs and actions.

Collis,

	On the contrary, Note 219 was set up specifically for preaching.
I think the microphone is left on in the pulpit, if you'd like to try it out.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  .255

Oh, thanks Richard.  I had not noticed that topic recently and did not
realize the function that it serves.  I think that it is great to have
such a topic here.

But, at the moment, I'm not preaching anything by the authority of God.
Perhaps later.  :-)

Collis

Re:  34.249

  >By your chronic criticism, though, it seems to me that you would be
  >pleased to either have C-P either adopt an identical posture concerning 
  >the Bible as GOLF::CHRISTIAN or have C-P disassembled altogether.

Despite the fact that I have explicitly told you that this is not the
case?  

Collis

Re:  in general

Sounds like the conference has spoken.

It sounds like, at all costs, this conference does not want to admit to
having any theological standards (or guidelines, if you prefer).  I do not 
accept that this is true, but I do accept that it will not be admitted.

Collis

    The reason it won't be "admitted" is that we don't agree that it is
    true.
    
    -- Mike

    what Mike said...

If sounds like at all costs this conference wants to believe that is
does not have any theological standards (or guidelines, if you prefer).
I do not accept that this is true, but I do accept that this is what
is believed.

Collis

    "This conference" (whatever that means, since this conference is not a
    monolith, but rather consists of many diverse individuals) does not
    "want to believe" *anything* "at all costs", Collis.  Rather, many
    people have  come to a different conclusion about the subject than you
    have.  It is as simple as that.

    -- Mike

Mike,

I knew you'd have some comment.  :-)

	What have the last bunch of replies been about? I read them and I read
	them but I just don't understand what the conversation is about.

			Alfred

    
    RE: .264
    
    Alfred, I think they are about Collis trying to have the last word!
    
    
    
    ;^) Gently teasing you Collis.
    
    Carole

 Collis:


         Reading your replies here reminds me of a customer I've been
        dealing with the last few days. They aren't sure what it is
        they want, but they expect me to ship it to them right away.
         You are asking for clarifications and explanations of things
        from others that can only be explained and understood by you.
         Once before I told you that ultimately you must decide what it
        is that you feel that you receive and give to and from this
        conference. 
         Do not expect others to do your thinking, defining and explaining
        for you and I would ask that you refrain from complaining that
        other participants in this conference are not handling what is
        your responsibility.
         You want standards ? Fine. Formulate them for yourself, apply them
        to yourself and if you so desire you can enlighten the rest of us
        as to what standards you will be operating by.
         You want the authority of God acknowledged in this conference ?
        Fair enough. You are free to write anything you wish about God's
        authority in your life for all to read in this conference.
         You don't think this is a Christian conference. You are certainly
        free to think that and to express that opinion and others are just
        as free to disagree with you.
         You know Collis, I really think the problem is you are uncomfortable
        with the idea of freedom of thought and opinion. You seem to want to
        be spoon fed what you think is the truth and in turn spoon feed it
        to others. 
          
                                                          
                                                            Mike
        
                 

Thanks for the advice, Mike.

Collis,


	You feel that this conference has standards. You also believe that even
though we won't admit to this conference having any such standards yoiu
continue to say we do. Just what are these so called standards that you feel
this conference has?


Glen

Glen,

How many ways can I say this.  I have defined these standards 5 different
ways in 15 different notes in the past week or two.  Will writing
the same words again really help?  Just re-read the previous notes.

Collis

Note 9.132

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

Collis,

Perhaps my suspicions are colored by residual perceptions concerning
your goal.  At any rate, I wrote and entered 34.249 before reading 9.132.

Richard

Note 34.159

The purpose of this notesfile falls under the category of employee opinion
and interest.

It would be classified under Digital's Policies and Procedures concerning
communications through network conferences:

(Portions of Section 6.54)

"Our peer-to-peer, open computing environment reflects our corporate
culture.  We sell this concept to customers, and business and society
are clearly moving towards this way of operating.  We believe that
what we sell to our customers will get better if we use it ourselves.

..........Conferences created to communicate matters of opinion and
common interests may not be used for solicitations of any kind, and
must be open to all employees.

In addition, these conferences may not be used to promote behavior
which is contrary to the Company's values or policy (i.e., they may
not promote discrimination, disrespect for the individual, violence,
etc.).  It is the responsibility of employees who utilize such notes
files to do so in a manner consistent with both the letter and spirit
of this policy and the Company's values.  The Company reserves the
right to terminate any notesfile it believes is inappropriate or in
violation of this policy."

If you perceive these guidelines congruent with Christian principles
or purposes, so much this better.

Peace,
Richard

    thankyou Richard
    
    BJ

	RE: .271 I'm missing the point again. Why the need to enter the section
	of policy? I don't believe anyone has suggested that C-P is outside
	of company policy.

			Alfred

Re: 34.273

Alfred,

Sorry for the confusion.  It is unintentional, I assure you.

Note 34.271 was intended to address Note 34.159; specifically, with
regard to the purpose of this notesfile.
              -------
Note 34.159 says:

>If the purpose of this notesfile is NOT a Christian purpose, then don't
>advertise it as a Christian notesfile.              -------

Note 34.271 responds:

>The purpose of this notesfile falls under the category of employee opinion
     -------
>and interest.

(Portions of Section 6.54 quoted verbatim)

>If you perceive these guidelines congruent with Christian principles
>or purposes, so much the better.
    --------
Peace,
Richard

Thanks, Richard, for explaining that.  I was a little confused as well
as to why that was posted where it was.

I see you chose to define "purpose" in a very strict way.  In any
case, I still stand behind what I said in .159.  If the purpose of this
file is not a Christian purpose, then don't advertise it as a Christian
notesfile.  

Despite the exact same guidelines applying to all notesfile in Digital, 
Golf:: explicitly has a Christian purpose.  This notesfile, I think,
could choose to have one as well.  From what I'm hearing, it chooses
not to.

Collis

re Note 34.275 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> If the purpose of this
> file is not a Christian purpose, then don't advertise it as a Christian
> notesfile.  
  
        We do not "advertise" it as having an explicitly Christian
        "purpose".  We do advertise it as a conference to discuss
        Christian topics.

        Collis, can you quote some "advertising" to the contrary?

        Bob

Bob,

No, this notesfile is not advertised as having a Christian purpose.

Some individuals do advertise it as a Christian notesfile (in the sense
that they speak of it as a Christian notesfile).  I'm not sure that
I can say any "advertising" for this notesfile goes on, other than
the introduction note and other notes within the notesfile here.  It
is primarily to these notes that I refer.

Collis

| Some individuals do advertise it as a Christian notesfile (in the sense
| that they speak of it as a Christian notesfile).  I'm not sure that
| I can say any "advertising" for this notesfile goes on, other than
| the introduction note and other notes within the notesfile here.  It
| is primarily to these notes that I refer.

	I can see in the introductory note as to where Collis believes this
notesfile is advertised as a Christian notesfile. In note 1.0-.2 and note 2.0,
there does seem, to me anyway that one could believe parts of said notes 
actually advertising this as a Christian notesfile. When I first read it I
didn't see it, then I tried looking at it from another way. That's where I saw
that maybe, anyway, someone could view the file in this light. 

	One thing that I have noticed is that since this subject has been 
brought up, the only people who have been responding are the people who say 
this conference doesn't advertise itself as a Christian conference, and Collis 
who feels it does (and with good reason). I'm sure there are more who feel as 
Collis does. Are you out there? :-)  But if someone were to just pop in and 
read this conference discussion, I would think they would come to the conclusion
that this file DOESN'T advertise itself as a Christian notesfile, but as a 
versitile conference (ie it is open to anyone, any religion, various levels of
faith and beliefs in the Bible) discussing Christian related topics.



Glen

Glen,

I think several different opinions have been expressed, e.g.:

	Collis: the conference claims to be Christian and isn't.

	Richard: the conference is Christian.

	Bob Fleischer: the conference doesn't claim to be Christian.

Of course it isn't "all or nothing" as to whether or not the conference is
Christian, or claims to be.  Most, but not all, of the people in the conference
are Christians, and are sharing their Christian faith.  On the other hand, the
conference is open to all, not just Christians.  So is the conference Christian
or not?  Is it even an important question?

As I've said elsewhere, the conference title "Christian Perspective" might
make one think that this a conference for Christians rather than a conference
about Christianity.  But even the conference title is the perspective of
just one person (the conference host).

				-- Bob

Note 34.278

>	One thing that I have noticed is that since this subject has been 
>brought up, the only people who have been responding are the people who say 
>this conference doesn't advertise itself as a Christian conference, and Collis 
>who feels it does (and with good reason). I'm sure there are more who feel as 
>Collis does. Are you out there? :-)

Glen,

	Here's what I see.  Collis says C-P is not a Christian conference.
I say C-P is a Christian conference:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Note 34.229
                            -< C-P *is* Christian >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>	Now, I don't expect you or anyone else to find the foregoing
>sufficiently narrow or Biblical enough to qualify this conference as even
>minimally Christian.  But, it is to me.  And you did ask for my reasons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Dave Dawson indicates that we should allow Divine Authority to
determine whether or not C-P is a Christian conference.  Others seem to be
saying that it basically depends on your point of view; that C-P could
conceivably be considered Christian and could also conceivably be considered
not Christian.

	Perhaps we should examine why some are compelled to express such a
degree of vehemence over this question, while others apparently are not.

	Neither Collis nor I *own* the criteria for determining what is and
what is not Christian.  Yet each of us speaks as though each of us does.  Could
it be that we are each attempting to protect our own paradigms from coming
unhinged?

Peace,
Richard

PS Bob Messenger,
    Interesting that your note (34.279) starts out so similar to mine.

| Here's what I see.  Collis says C-P is not a Christian conference.

	Richard, I agree with you, Collis does say this isn't a Christian
notesfile. But, he was saying it advertises itself as one and I can see his
point.

Glen

| Collis: the conference claims to be Christian and isn't.

| Richard: the conference is Christian.

| Bob Fleischer: the conference doesn't claim to be Christian.

| Of course it isn't "all or nothing" as to whether or not the conference is
| Christian, or claims to be.  Most, but not all, of the people in the conference
| are Christians, and are sharing their Christian faith.  On the other hand, the
| conference is open to all, not just Christians.  So is the conference 
| Christian or not?  Is it even an important question?

	Bob, do you mean is the fact that both files are open to Christian/non
Christian isn't really important or are you talking about is it really
important that we are discussing this file as being Christian or not, or is it
something else? (I'm a little slower than usual totay my friend :)

Glen

I'm asking whether it's important to know if this is a Christian conference.
In fact, I'm not even sure if I know what "a Christian conference" means.  Does
it mean a conference where only Christian points of view are welcome, or a
conference where most poeple are Christian, or a conference where Christianity
is discussed, or what?

Since you seem to think C-P advertises itself as a Christian conference, Glen
maybe you could explain what you think a Christian conference is.

				-- Bob

| I'm asking whether it's important to know if this is a Christian conference.
| In fact, I'm not even sure if I know what "a Christian conference" means.  Does
| it mean a conference where only Christian points of view are welcome, or a
| conference where most poeple are Christian, or a conference where Christianity
| is discussed, or what?

	Good questions Bob!

| Since you seem to think C-P advertises itself as a Christian conference, Glen
| maybe you could explain what you think a Christian conference is.

	Actually, it took me a couple of times of reading the notes Collis was
reffering to, to see if what Collis was talking about [ie this conference
advertises itself as a Christian conference] could actually be gotten from said
notes. I saw where one could take it that way.

	My belief (I thought I had stated it in a note somewhere) is that this
is a conference that talks about Christian subjects, but from a wider spectrum
and with a diversified audience (Christian, non, various levels of faith,
various levels as to how much of the Bible is true/written by man with their
own views). I don't really feel that anyone says this is a Christian notesfile.
When I first started reading this file, which Richard had told me about, I got
the impression that this was a notesfile for the GOLF::CHRISTIAN misfits
(nobody wants a Charlie in the box!). It was like we didn't fit in there
completely and we moved to a place where we could say our views and get various
answers back. A place where you can feel comfortable. Now in here I don't feel
like a misfit! :-)



Glen

One of the major benefits of having this notesfile has actually
happened, in my opinion.

Golf::Christian seems to me to be a much less confrontational
notesfile.

re: Note 34.285 by Collis 

Sorry, Collis.  I've been pretty busy lately...

.-) .-) .-)

Peace,

Jim

Note 34.284

>When I first started reading this file, which Richard had told me about, I got
>the impression that this was a notesfile for the GOLF::CHRISTIAN misfits.

This is not an entirely inaccurate perception, imo.  You will note that
CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE extends a welcome to even prostitutes and tax collectors.

>Now in here I don't feel like a misfit! :-)

Neither do I consider you as a misfit, Glen!

Peace,
Richard

| One of the major benefits of having this notesfile has actually
| happened, in my opinion.

| Golf::Christian seems to me to be a much less confrontational
| notesfile.


	That's because they had write locked note 27. There seemed to be one
issue (note 27) that they didn't want to deal with.


Glen

    
    And it also seems to me that GOLF::CHRISTIAN is not really
    discussing anything.  No deep explorations.  No thought
    provoking topics.  And of course this is just from my
    perspective.
    
    Carole

    in re .285
    
    and less plagued with folks who come into the file to 'pick fights'?
    hugs Collis
    
    
    BJ

re Note 34.278 by JURAN::SILVA:

> I would think they would come to the conclusion
> that this file DOESN'T advertise itself as a Christian notesfile, but as a 
> versitile conference (ie it is open to anyone, any religion, various levels of
> faith and beliefs in the Bible) discussing Christian related topics.
  
        But Glen (and Collis), this is an example of the wondrous
        ambiguity of real human language!

        Yes, we don't claim a "Christian purpose" for this
        conference.  But yes, we do claim (note 1.0, first paragraph)
        that the purpose of this conference is to discus Christian
        topics.  So is it a Christian conference?  Of course -- and
        of course not!  I claim -- and it was a strong motivator in
        founding this conference -- that the best discussion of
        Christian topics is that which is freest of preconceived
        (including traditional) notions and assumptions.

        The purpose is discussion of Christian topics.  If this is
        not a "Christian purpose" (whatever that means), then so be
        it.   The ambiguity remains.

        Bob

	Bob, should we go for a maybe? ;-)

	Of course, no one who reads or participates in CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE
is discouraged from reading and participating in GOLF::CHRISTIAN.

	CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE does fill a void.  CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE
provides a kind of extended hospitality.

	Personally, I am pleased that so many who participate in CHRISTIAN-
PERSPECTIVE usually have more questions than than they have answers.  To
me it is a sign of new growth, of living tissue.

	Traditional and non-traditional perspectives create a rich and
occasionally unsettling diversity.  C-P presents a challenge to all of us
to broaden our horizons and to see from another's point of view (though
we need not necessarily embrace that view).

Peace,
Richard

Do I detect Satanic forces stirring up dissension and disharmony here in C-P?



Nah, I gotta call from him.  He's too busy in other notefiles.
8+}

Richard

    
    
    From Pauls perspective, he stated, "Do not be unequally yoked with non
    believers, for what fellowship has light with darkness..."
    
    What did you expect.  From what I understand, the note was started by
    a non Christian.  Dissention isn't necessarily bad, as long as both
    parties are teachable and both learn truth at the end.  Otherwise, what 
    is the concrete purpose of the note.  You can learn other peoples 
    background but many are still going to die in sin, so what concrete
    value is it unless somebody hears, that they may believe!
    
    The Christian note is made up of wretched sinners...the C P note is
    made up of sinners.  Neither is necessarily better.  EXCEPT, are the
    contributors willing to throw away false doctrine and LEARN the
    Christian Perspective, or do they want to continue living unredeemed.
    Thats my only question as to why this note had to be made.
    
    IF Satan is thwarted and people are learning, dissention can hold merit
    in that in can challenge the individual and help he/she to examine
    their heart.
    
    "Study to show thyself approved..."
    
    Jack

    Re.295

        Jack:

              You gotta problem with non-Christians ? Hmmm....?
              "Darkness" ? Gimme a break will ya ?



                                                               Mike         

    .295
    
    I appreciate your thoughtful comments.  At the same time, I feel I
    must confess that .294 was written with more levity than you perhaps
    perceived.
    
    .296
    
    Non-Christians are welcome to participate in C-P.  But then, we welcome
    protitutes and tax collectors, too!  So it is likely you'll not fellowship
    here with the blemishless or the elite.
    
    Richard

    RE: .295  Jack,
    
                         "Seek and ye shall find"
    
                   This passage is an important one to me.  When I found
    Jesus, I had been searching a long time for truth and the person who
    shared Christ with me told me one thing.  *NEVER* stop seeking God and
    God's wisdom.  In other words never stop being a seeker of truth even
    if you have to study and look at things that are not Christian.  Honest
    Christians seek God everywhere.  IMHO, of course.   Understanding your
    own beliefs and searching them out for your self *I* think is the most
    honest way.  My Pastor told me once that honest Christians are not
    scared of any other "dogma" and are willing to "look" at all beliefs, 
    searching for a closer relationship with God.  Too many Christians do
    not understand where there beliefs come from.  They don't read the
    Bible, consider preaching, or spend much time in prayer and meditation.
    
    
                     I have not believed in "being slain in the spirit" and
    yet I ask God for them if they are real.  I try to honestly consider
    others beliefs before I "body slam" them with Christ. :-)
    
    
    Dave  

re Note 34.295 by CIMNET::MARTIN:

> From what I understand, the note was started by a non Christian.  

        What note are you referring to?

        Bob

    Hi All:
    
    Gosh, didn't mean to make a ruckuss!  Maybe I was misinformed.  I was
    reading a note in Christian.  I can't remember the exact note but it
    was called something like, "A new conference" or something like that.
    Basically, the premise was, I'm mad, and I'm not going to put up with
    it anymore!  That was the message I got anyway.  Am I wrong or was the
    conference "Christian Perspective" decided on by that note in
    Christian?  And wasn't the person that started that note a non
    believer?  That's all I'm asking.  As far as the verses I brought up
    about being unequally yoked, not to cut down non believers at all.  I
    guess the only questions in my mind are:
    
    1. Whats the difference between this conference and the religion
    conference?
    
    2. If in fact the person that wanted to organize CP as a new and
    improved conference, why would he want to call it CP ?
    
    By the way, if this conference is for prostitutes and sinners, then I
    am chief so I guess I would fit in here pretty well.  I do however want
    to change this and need your help.  I would assume since this is called
    C-P, that your knowledge and the Bible can help me.
    
    Warmest Rgds.,
    
    Jack

        re Note 34.300 by CIMNET::MARTIN:

>     reading a note in Christian.  I can't remember the exact note but it
>     was called something like, "A new conference" or something like that.
>     Basically, the premise was, I'm mad, and I'm not going to put up with
>     it anymore!  That was the message I got anyway.  Am I wrong or was the
>     conference "Christian Perspective" decided on by that note in
>     Christian?  And wasn't the person that started that note a non
>     believer?  That's all I'm asking.  

        As far as the physical conference Christian-Perspective, I
        started it.  Several things prompted me to finally take an
        action I had contemplated for several years.  One was the
        fact that I finally had a workstation under my own system
        management and with sufficient disk space.  Another was one
        of those recurring heated exchanges in the Christian
        conference over who was and was not following the guidelines
        of that conference, and what those guidelines actually meant
        in practice.  Some of the co-moderators in this conference
        were a part of some of those discussions and had likewise
        suggested a new conference (but did not start one, presumably
        because they did not have the appropriate access to computer
        resources).

        I have a firm conviction that, for a certain class of
        personalities, we can have a better environment for
        discussing Christ and all things related to Christ without
        the guidelines of the other conference which specifically
        restrict the scope of such discussion.

        In other words, I am not claiming that the other conference
        is a "bad" conference, but that it is not right "for all" but
        only right "for some."  I believe that experience has shown
        this to be correct, and that this conference is right "for
        some" as well.

        If you want to know whether I am a Christian, yes, I am.  You
        can read of my background in the introductory topic here and
        in the Christian conference.


> As far as the verses I brought up
>     about being unequally yoked, not to cut down non believers at all.  I
>     guess the only questions in my mind are:
  
        I don't consider myself "yoked" with the participants of this
        conference.  But, in reality, I am yoked with them whether or
        not I participate in this, or any other, conference:  all
        participants must be Digital employees or contractors.  If
        you don't like that, you must resign or accept it.

          
>     1. Whats the difference between this conference and the religion
>     conference?
  
        I have only looked at Religion occasionally, but I note that
        it has many topics that have no connection with Christ, the
        Hebrew or Christian Scriptures, or Christ's followers and
        admirers through history.  This conference has few if any
        such notes (for example, we don't have  "Chit Chat" or "Good
        Morning" topic. :-).

          
>     2. If in fact the person that wanted to organize CP as a new and
>     improved conference, why would he want to call it CP ?
  
        I picked the name, too.  I wanted a name that included
        "Christ", and one that distinguished it from the other
        conference without implying a value judgment. 
        "Christian-Perspective" seemed appropriate for other reasons,
        as well.

        Bob

    Thanks for the reply Bob.  Unfortunately, these notes files can't
    depict the participants true personalities or characters at times.  I
    am glad to hear you started the conference and for Godly reasons. 
    Forgive my forthrightness as this whole thing is new to me.  Perhaps
    this conference will plant seeds in peoples lives.
    
    Take Care,
    
    Jack

    Jack:
           I am sorry if my reply seemed a bit sarcastic. I am glad
        you are here and I hope to see contributions from you in
        the different topics in this conference.
           

                                                              Mike

    Dear Mike:
    
    Thanks and I do hope to make contributions as lead by the Holy Spirit. 
    It would appear that when you have many individuals giving imput into
    something as important as this topic, there will always be adversity. 
    I think the important thing to remember, especially myself, is that the
    mishaps of the other notesfile may have occurred, yet there are always
    new individuals, like myself, discovering this notesfile.  Some may
    have even just recently accepted Christ as their savior.  I think what
    I will do from now on is pray before making any entry and ask God's
    wisdom as to whether it is important and also as to whether or not it
    will cause strife amongst my brothers and sisters.  After all, the NT
    is pretty straight forward regarding the causing of your brother to
    stumble.  Not only that, many who are non believers would just love to
    see a fight as it discredits the gospel in the eyes of other
    individuals.  It is important to remember that the face of both
    Christian and CP do change as new people discover it.  Therefore, we
    must stimulate one another unto love and good deeds.
    
    One point about my other entries.  My only point regarding adversity as
    good was that it causes me to be challenged and to learn. Didn't Paul
    himself say that trials produce perseverance?  I don't necessarily
    enjoy fighting over who is right and who is wrong; but I do like to be
    challenged.  It entices me to higher learning and believe me, I need as
    much as I can get.  
    
    Peace in Christ,
    
    Jack

Note 34.302

>     Perhaps
>     this conference will plant seeds in peoples lives.

It has!  And in ways I never imagined!

Richard

    Hi, Jack!
    
    I used to be concerned because the CHRISTIAN conference defines
    the term "Christian" in ways that exclude me.  That bothered me
    a lot because I feared that non-Christians exploring there would
    accept that exclusive definition and believe that the beliefs held
    by most in that conference are, in fact, what all "Christians" believe.
    
    Having this conference, which also bears the name "Christian" in its
    title, provides another place for such seekers to explore what
    Christian folks and their (our) beliefs are all about.  It provides
    balance.  As such, I am grateful that it was named
    CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.
    
    Just one person's explanation,
    Nancy

    Dear Nancy,
    
    I can understand that concern.  I would be interested to know what
    specifically was said in the Christian file that excluded you.  I have
    been reading a few notes in there for a month or so and I have
    definitely noticed that there are wolves in the fold.  I guess the two
    questions I would ask you are; What did the wolves say that excluded
    you, and what is your definition of a Christian (In one sentence).
    I would appreciate your feedback.
    
    God Bless,
    
    Jack

    Jack
    
    I'm not Nancy, but I also felt unwelcome/excluded in the Christian
    file.
    
    Some of the areas I had trouble with were a degree of Bible literalism
    that interpreted the Bible in ways that I did not believe were correct,
    attitudes about gays and lesbians, and remarks that led me to believe
    that given my main stream Episcopalian background that there were
    people who did not accept me as a Christian.
    
    Bonnie
    

    Dear Bonnie:
    
    I certainly understand that there are so many individuals in the world
    with so many different perspectives and outlooks on a variety of
    topics, gays and lesbian lifestyles being one of them.  Just as
    somebody who tries to have a Christian Perspective, it would APPEAR to
    me that the difference between some of the people in Christian and
    Jesus is that people in Christian see things and react without
    wisdom.  Would that be a fair synopsis?  We need however to remember
    that Jesus sees things pretty much as black and white, just as some of
    the members of Christian; however, Jesus loved the sinner
    unconditionally but hated the sin.  When dealing with human beings, it
    sometimes becomes evident that the person hates the sin and the sinner!
    
    Nancy, I don't know what your standing is on that particular issue.  We
    could probably go back and forth, back and forth.  I guess my bottom
    line questions would be this.
    1. Is that type of lifestyle condoned by God in the Bible?
    2. If so, please show me.  I really want to learn and get the proper
       C.P.
    3. If you really search and in fact find that it is not condoned, is it
       sin?  If so, How should we react to it.
    
    I'm not trying to get into the subject of gay lifestyles.  I am using
    this as an example of anything of question, whether it be Gay rights,
    Capital punishment, Idol worship, Anything.
    Did the people in the other note back up there points of view with
    scripture?  I guess that would be my bottom line.  As far as the way
    they react, they probably need to grow up (spiritually).
    
    Godspeed,
    
    Jack

Note 34.309

>    I'm not trying to get into the subject of gay lifestyles.

Jack,

	You have an odd way of not trying, m' friend. 8-}

	Allow me to suggest making future such comments in Note 91,
where they can be addressed.

Peace,
Richard

    Yes Richard...I understand there are other notes to address this.  If
    you read the last note I wrote carefully, I was hoping to convey that
    anything that may be considered controversial should be verified as
    good or bad by the word of God and not by mere opinion alone.  Didn't
    I make that clear?  
    
    I would love every note written to be in pure harmony with everybody's
    ideologies.  Unfortunately Richard, it never works that way.  I wasn't
    addressing gay lifestyles, I was addressing the why's of Bonnies
    feelings towards the Christian note, that's all.  In fact, not once did
    I mention how I felt about it!
    
    Warmly in Christ,
    
    Jack

    I got tired of wading through a lot of breezy, chatty type stuff that
    should have been sent as mail in the other notes file.
    	Most of you I will only know through you ideas, so lets get on with
    it! :^)
    
         john

    John,
    
    I wasn't sure what you were trying to convey in the message.  Are you
    saying your here because the other notes are breezy and chatty, or were
    you saying that the dialogue in this note is chatty and should be
    directed to other notes?  From the title, "I like it here", I have to
    assume you do like it here.  I think its funny that this note started
    with a simple question, yet has over 300 replies.  I guess it goes to
    show that people do like to chit chat, which can have its merits!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

    For me, this is a notesfile that presents a welcome space. I don't feel
    condemned, excluded or put upon by noters, something I've felt in the
    CHRISTIAN notesfile.
    
    There's a tendancy here to task questions that would never be discussed
    or would be censored elsewhere. I like it here, although I write less
    because my perspective on life is n longer christian.
    
    Pete.

This string I consider the "paraconference" string.  In other words, it's
where we talk about the conference in general, but not about specific notes
or moderation policy.  The Processing Topic (Note 9, I think) is set up
more for that.

This string hasn't officially addressed the basenote for quite some time.
It just gets revisited every so often.

Richard

    Jack,
    
    I hate to put you off, Jack, but I'm not willing to criticize the
    CHRISTIAN notesfile in detail in this conference.  We kind of did some
    of that kind of thing -- back and forth, both conferences -- when C-P
    began, and it was not helpful to either conference and certainly did
    not say much for *anyone's* Christian discipleship!
    
>>    2. If so, please show me.  I really want to learn and get the proper
>>       C.P.
    
    The point of *this* conference is that there *is not* "THE proper"
    Christian perspective.  The other conference rather closely defines
    what "Christian" is and, in doing so, excludes people who differ.
    
    Here the emphasis is on sharing perspectives from Christians who may
    strongly differ with each other and also sharing perspectives about
    Jesus and about Christianity from those who say they are not Christian.
    
>>    Did the people in the other note back up there points of view with
>>    scripture?
    
    Scripture is not the abritrator of all differences in this conference.
    In the other conference, it is.
    
    Sorry for being brief.  Please don't interpret my brevity as being
    unfriendly!
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    Dear Nancy:
    
    That's fine, you don't have to explain the particulars.  I appreciate
    your feedback on what exactly C-P is and what they are trying to 
    accomplish.  I am always interested in hearing other perspectives and
    am happy to accept differences, whether I agree with them or not.
    
    I guess the only two things I am staunchly dogmatic about, which in
    fact are the crux of Christianity no matter what denomination you may
    be from, is that The Bible is the final authority and that Jesus is the
    way, the truth, and the life.  I'm sure all the other intricit details
    that people squabble over will be revealed to us in the end.  If I find
    out there was something I was wrong in, I will hopefully be able to
    approach people in heaven and gladly admit I was wrong in what I said.
    It won't really matter at that point now will it.
    
    Take Care,
    
    Jack

Note 34.317

>    fact are the crux of Christianity no matter what denomination you may
>    be from, is that The Bible is the final authority and that Jesus is the
>    way, the truth, and the life.

Well...Hmmm....You may encounter some disagreement here, Jack.

You see, the Bible as final authority is primarily a Protestant notion.  And
even among Protestants there's some variation.  For example, United Methodists,
while recognizing the primacy of Scripture, also lend weight to reason,
experience, and tradition.

There's at least one noter I've observed who has stated that he believes that
Jesus of Nazareth was not the one and only "way, truth, and life."

I hope this knowledge doesn't inhibit you or frighten you off.

Peace,
Richard

    Frighten me off...not on your life!!!  Actually, I am aware that many
    churches put an equal authority on tradition.  I can understand why 
    they would as I was brought up in a family that belonged to that type
    of church.  Of course everybody has the God given freedom to accept or
    reject the claims of Christ, otherwise, we would be nothing but robots
    and I don't feel that it the way God wants it.
    
    I know its a perspective, I value their difference to believe it, no
    problem.  I guess the thing that peaks my curiosity is where the source
    of that belief comes from.  An idea has to have an origin.  A belief 
    that contradicts not only Christs claims, but the Old Testament as
    well, came from...(where)?  
    
    Perspectives from individuals with a strong belief in this appreciated.
    If not appropriate for this string, please direct me to correct note.
    But do you see my point?
    
    In Christ,
    
    Jack
    

    For my view-in-a-nutshell of the authority of the Bible, see 91.644 AND
    91.645, which don't happen to be in a string directly relating to the
    Bible.  
    
    (Gasp! - don't tell - some mod will move 'em!)
    
    Nancy
    
    

    Hi All,
    
    A new note on traditions started up in the last few days, Note 318.  I
    unknowingly stumbled on it.  What a shock!
    
    Take care

re Note 34.322 by KEYWST::MARTIN:

>    A new note on traditions started up in the last few days, Note 318.  I
>     unknowingly stumbled on it.  What a shock!
  
        Why is it a shock? YOU raised the issue!

        Bob

    34.322
    
    Would you like to be able to see all notes as they are entered?
    
    What you can do is 'set seen'. This marks all the notes a
    conference as having been read. (You may still go back and
    read them ofcourse). Then after you leave the file and people
    add new notes, the new material will be the only notes that
    are 'unread'. You can move through these by hitting return
    to move through each individual note, b to move backwards
    in a particular string, or by hitting the comma key on the
    key pad which will mark the particular string you are reading
    as having been read and take you to the next unseen note.
    
    This is how the moderators are able to keep up with all the
    new material added to a file. Doing a directory for new notes
    is very slow and inefficient.
    
    Bonnie

    in re .323
    
    Bob, as I said in my previous reply, I strongly suspect that he's
    one of the many noters who hasn't learned the convenience of 'set
    seen'.
    
    Bonnie

re Note 34.325 by WMOIS::REINKE_B:

        Bonnie,

        Thanks for reminding me.

        I forget that Notes isn't 100% "user-friendly" and
        intuitively obvious.  

        Bob

    Thanks for the tip on that Bonnie.  I am one of the poor unknowledgable
    notes users out here.
    
    Jack

    Now that the one-year anniversary of C-P has come and gone, I wanted to
    take this opportunity to thank our esteemed conference host, Bob
    Fleischer, for starting this file.  It has certainly spoken to an
    important need in my own life, and I believe it filled a gap that had
    not been addressed prior to that time.  For one year now, we have been
    blessed with a notes conference on Christianity that has been open to
    all employees, regardless of denominational affiliation or theology. 
    Many Christians have, as a result, found a home here.  May C-P continue
    to prosper.

    -- Mike

        Aw, shucks!

    
                 Thank you Mike for making a statement that we can all
    share in.  I,too, want to thank Bob for his work and "steady hand on the
    tiller" of CP. 
    
    
    Dave  

    Sure has worked well for me!!!!
    
    Thanks....
    
    Marc H.

Note 381.0

>    This notes conference has often
>    dealt with difficult questions and, I believe, has helped to shape the
>    views of noters and perhaps has helped to evangelize many in new and
>    fruitful ways.

Gosh, Ron.  Thanks!  :-)

Peace,
Richard

Note 373.18

>        This is not the most likely conference in which to get a
>        strongly-held, supported, "definitive" answer to your
>        questions.  For many questions there isn't one.

and
Note 381.0

>    I have hesitated presenting my formal ordination paper to this group of 
>    noters due to.....my perceived reluctance of
>    noters to cut up someone's Faith, testimony.

I concur with both of these statements.  This notes conference is less
authoritarian and rigid, theologically speaking, than that which some might
find familiar and/or comfortable.  At the same time, it is this very quality
that I find most refreshing about this notes conference.

Peace,
Richard

Note 421.199

>The Bible is constantly misinterpreted.  In my opinion, this conference
>is a prime example of that!  Actions which are anti-Biblical are commonly
>justified from the Bible.  Literalists have no corner on that market.

Collis,

	Is there nothing we in "this conference" do right?  There is surely
something worthwhile which keeps you frequenting the C-P notesfile.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  34.334

  >Is there nothing we in "this conference" do right?

Why certainly, Richard.  You welcome my contributions.  :-)

That was a joke, only a joke.

Seriously, I find many of the people here to be very caring and
certainly interested in spiritual growth.  Personally, I'm enjoying
the discussions that I'm involved in much more now that personal
and personality issues have taken a back seat to the subject matter
(which was typically not happening 6 months ago).

  >There is surely something worthwhile which keeps you frequenting 
  >the C-P notesfile.

I remain optimistic that logic will lead us closer to the truth.
I want to examine everything logically.  Since most people view
inerrancy and conservatives as rather illogical (perhaps they believe
that of me as well!), I desire to show the logical side as well.

In addition, I'm happy to provide some balance to the discussions.
This notesfile which purports to welcome all Christian perspectives
would be seriously amiss, in my opinion, if there was not at least
one voice from a conservative Christian view.

There was a time in my life when it was important to argue to try
and win the argument.  Perhaps you see that in my notes.  But it is
not really what drives me anymore.  In life outside of notesfiles
I am never in arguments, per se, although once in a while I'll get
into a discussion in which I disagree.  (That's really true.)
My objective is, very much, to reach an understand both of the
facts (and fiction) and pursue the logic so that we can ultimately
arrive at (a best guess of) truth.

Of course, I also reap the benefits of getting to know some people
and sharing in their insights, etc.  As I grow in my walk with God,
I expect my focus will change to glorifying God.  But that's not
really why I participate now.

Collis

Note 34.335

>This notesfile which purports to welcome all Christian perspectives
>would be seriously amiss, in my opinion, if there was not at least
>one voice from a conservative Christian view.

I agree, Collis.  And I regret that I sometimes lose sight of this.

Hope you'll seriously consider attending the upcoming C-P dinner.

Peace,
Richard

Note 91.2565 Jill,

>            Don't worry about it Glen.  You're politically correct
>            from what I can see.  I on the other hand....well....
>            that's another story.   This file talks of Christians
>            ramming their morality down the throats of others, I
>            believe it's very much the other way around.  Rights
>            of Christians are being denied and trampled all over
>            the place.

Would you care to back this up with some sort of evidence?  Or is this
simply an expression of your malcontentment with this file?

Richard

re Note 34.337 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> Note 91.2565 Jill,
> 
> >            Don't worry about it Glen.  You're politically correct
> >            from what I can see.  I on the other hand....well....
> >            that's another story.   This file talks of Christians
> >            ramming their morality down the throats of others, I
> >            believe it's very much the other way around.  Rights
> >            of Christians are being denied and trampled all over
> >            the place.
> 
> Would you care to back this up with some sort of evidence?  Or is this
> simply an expression of your malcontentment with this file?
  
        Richard,

        This was my first reaction, too.  Upon further reading it
        would seem that Jill is railing against conditions in the
        U.S. in general and not (just) in this notes conference.

        Fortunately, we moderators don't have quite that much scope!

        Bob

    
    Well, I don't think I need to back it up that Glen's views fall in line
    with what is currently seen as politically correct, the file is full of
    evidence.  I believe that liberalism is seen today as politically
    correct.  
    
    I'm not showing my malcontent for this file...I'm expressing my
    dissatisfaction with the direction this nation is going.  I did not say
    my rights were denied here, but go to any school and see how devoid of
    anything to do with Christianity that they are.  What is the harm of
    letting kids debate evolution versus creation? Or any other debatable
    subject for that fact.  Why was the word Christmas not even allowed to
    be used in my neice's school?  Why is there talk of taking Bibles out
    of the school libraries because the kids might read it.  I could go on,
    but I won't.
    
    As for myself.  I feel immediately and negatively labeled as a bigot
    because I hold fast to the Word of God.  This is especially true here
    at DEC and anyone who read the Amendment #2 note in the COLORADO
    notesfile will understand that fully.  I was read only in there for
    good reason, I didn't want to be put on the chopping block.  It was
    brutal in there and anyone who supported A2 got slaughtered 
    regardless of how thoughtout and non-hateful their reasons for
    supporting the amendment.  
    
    And what about the blackmail that is happening in this country?  Look
    at Celestial Seasons Teas being blackmailed by some gays.  Is this
    acceptable?  Isn't this ramming their morals down someone else throats?
    This is not a single instant either....it's happening all over.
    
    I'm just very dismayed with this country right now.  Last night I
    was talking with my sister and mom and it was the first time I ever
    thought that it was possible that I'd ever leave this country 
    permanently.  That's sad to me.  Now...I'm not packing my bags so
    don't cheer yet, but just the fact that we were disheartened enough
    to bring it up was upsetting to me.
    
    Jill

    .339
    
    Thanks for the clarification, Jill.
    
    You have been allowed to speak your mind in this file without
    censorship.  True, not everyone agrees with everything you say.
    Some may take serious exception to what you say.  Some may
    challenge you on what you say.  But no one has prohibited you
    from saying it.
    
    About the U.S., I'm not always in agreement with its policies, either.
    
    Personally, whenever someone resorts to pinging me with the "politically
    correct" label, I figure I must be doing something right.  The label
    seems to serve as a substitute for saying something of substance.
    
    Richard

re Note 34.339 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     Well, I don't think I need to back it up that Glen's views fall in line
>     with what is currently seen as politically correct, the file is full of
>     evidence.  I believe that liberalism is seen today as politically
>     correct.  
  
        How can you say that after 12 years of conservative
        domination of government?  If there is anything that is
        "politically correct" in most parts of this country I would
        suspect that it's conservative, not liberal.  I think that
        the conservatives lost because their shells were empty, not
        because of some fundamental liberalism in this country.


>     I'm just very dismayed with this country right now.  Last night I
>     was talking with my sister and mom and it was the first time I ever
>     thought that it was possible that I'd ever leave this country 
>     permanently.  

        I'd be quite interested in knowing where you might think it
        is better?

        Bob

    
    I don't believe I ever said or implied that I was prohibited in this
    file from saying what I believe.  Nor was it my intention.
    
    I also don't think what I said was without substance.  The point 
    being that there is becoming a new morality of being politically 
    correct.  A new morality that people want to override with morality 
    given to us in God's Word.   We are asked to believe politically correct
    statement not because they are true, but because they are popular.
    I think that's alot of substance and an important point to make
    here.
    
    Maybe it's not that liberalism is most dominant, but more vocal
    as of late.  The media sold the public a bill of goods and now is
    screaming that it's not true.  Clinton said he wasn't a liberal.
    Week One, Two, and Three would show us otherwise.  The squeaky wheel 
    gets the grease.
    
    I don't know where?  It's wasn't a "planning session."  Some island
    probably that doesn't have the time, desire, or aggression to
    legislate all life.  My sister did bring up the point that she could
    see this country polarized with God-fearing Bible-believing Christians
    living in one part of the country.  This was my sister who has nothing
    to do with church.  Who has rejected much of what she was brought up
    in.  I thought that was interesting.
    
    Jill

Note 91.2565 Jill,

>            This file talks of Christians
>            ramming their morality down the throats of others, I
>            believe it's very much the other way around.  Rights
>            of Christians are being denied and trampled all over
>            the place.

It was these two sentences which seemed to imply that your rights were
being "denied or trampled all over the place" within this file.  I now
understand that that wasn't what you intended to communicate.

Thank you.

Richard

    
    Richard,
    
    My complete apologies....I could have worded my reply better.
    Thanks for understanding.
    
    Jill

re Note 34.342 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     I also don't think what I said was without substance.  The point 
>     being that there is becoming a new morality of being politically 
>     correct.  A new morality that people want to override with morality 
>     given to us in God's Word.   We are asked to believe politically correct
>     statement not because they are true, but because they are popular.
  
        It may be hard for you to realize it, but popular opinion
        overriding Biblical morality cuts both ways, and is often
        quite "conservative" in its result.  The conservative
        ideology that places business freedom and low taxes above
        such things as family leave for emergencies, universally
        available healthcare, and regulation of hazardous products
        and practices is at best amoral, and many Christians believe
        it is CONTRARY to the implications of many Biblical
        teachings.

        But low taxes and business freedom are popular in this
        country;  even so-called ministers of the Gospel promote them
        above clear Biblical teachings of responsibility of those
        with wealth and power.


        If you truly believe that "conservative" generally means
        "inspired or based upon Biblical morality" and that "liberal"
        means "disregarding of denying Biblical morality" you have
        indeed been sold a bill of goods.  Neither is true.  (And, I
        might add, the opposite isn't true, either -- the liberal
        position isn't across the board morally superior, either).

        Bob

    Once upon a time, "Conservative" used to mean keeping the government's
    nose out of people's most private business -- it meant this because it
    was in line with keeping government small and it woulds have protected 
    the rights of *everybody* -- the religious and the non-religious alike.
    
    I can only hope that the future of conservatism in America means people
    like Bill Weld and Senator Rudham and not the like of Patrick Buchanan
    and Pat Robertson.  They have every right to believe what they believe,
    but I think they overstep every reasonable boundary by thinking that
    the government must be used to compel those beliefs upon others.
    
    I find it almost funny that today "conservative" means less government
    when it comes to economics and more government when it comes our
    private affairs and "liberal" stands for the more government on the
    economic front and less government for our private lives.
    
    I'd prefer to live in an America where a person is allowed to be who
    he or she is in peace.
    
    Daniel

> "liberal" stands for the more government on the
>    economic front and less government for our private lives.
 
	I can think of only one issue, abortion, where "liberal" stands for
	less government for our private lives. There are few other issues
	where "conservative" stands for more government for our private lives.

			Alfred 

    RE: .339
    
    I too share many of your feelings, Jill. My biggest gripe is with the
    Colleges that foster the current politically correct speech and other
    nonsense. 
    
    I wouldn't use the label of Politically Correct, though, in this file
    with respect to the members.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .346
    
    I agree! That's my definition of conservative.
    
    Marc H.

"Politically Correct" came about as those of the liberal
persuasion, tired of being beaten down by those of the
conservative persuasion, declared the conservatives to
be narrow-minded bigots and the liberals to be open-minded
respectors of all (valueing differences, for etc.)

However, as those of this mindset gained power (as they
did on college and university campuses), their power was
used to push their agenda (of open-mindedness :-) ).  For
example, it was not "politically correct" for a girl from
the South to display the confederate flag at a Boston
school.  The open-minded liberals denounced her and her
activity noting that this action was an insult, particularly
to the black students on campus.  It was incidents such as
these they showed the hypocrisy of their self-declared
open-mindedness which, in fact, was only open to their own
particular point of view.  The conservative bigots continued
to be conservative bigots.

This is not to say that I agree with the student who displayed
the flag; I don't, I think she used poor judgment (although she
did have the constitutional right to display the flag).  However,
this and several other incidents became the defining moment of
PC.  It was not really openmindedness; it was simply a way of
pushing a liberal agenda under the guise of openmindedness.  PC
went from being "respected" to being a term of derision.  As
well it should be, in my opinion.

PC doesn't really fit in with the conservative viewpoint, unless
you want to redefine PC even further.  It was created, promoted
and accepted by those of liberal persuasion.  It does not simply
mean something that is accepted by those in power; it means
something that liberals have defined as "right" because of their
"openmindedness" and others are expected to toe the line.  At
least, that's what it typically means to a conservative.

Collis

    RE: .350
    
    Nice.....by the way, college professors are now refusing to even
    "talk" about some subjects in their classes,i.e. US slavery before
    the civil war. 
    
    When ideas and thoughts fall under the "PC" police corps, we *all*
    suffer.
    
    Marc H.

	Collis, do you recall the reasons why she wanted to display the flag?




Glen

    I have pretty much dropped out of this notes file lately, but I have to
    comment on this "PC" topic because it is a major hot button with me.

    The use of the word "PC" to discredit any opinion is a convenient
    debating tactic.  Just as someone in the fifties could dismiss a point
    of view by calling it "Communist", someone in the nineties can dismiss
    a position by calling it "PC".  PC-baiting is the red-baiting of the
    nineties; it is both offensive and insulting, and I for one am tired of
    seeing that label used every time someone gets into a notes file
    discussion. 

    We keep hearing about how political correctness is a process of
    censorship (such as on on college campuses), but if you notice how and
    when the term is used in this and other notes files, it isn't referring
    at all to censorship.  The vast majority of time that it is used (as it
    was used perjoratively in this notes files), it is simply a way of
    characterizing an opposing opinion in a negative way.  Censorship
    doesn't even enter into to matter.  What inspires the PC label (when
    used in this way) is the *content* of opposing opinions.  If someone
    has an opinion you don't like, one that raises moral issues in a way
    you disagree with, accuse them of being PC.  How convenient.  In fact,
    the use of this label as a way of discrediting people with opposing
    opinions and settling arguments is precisely an expression of the very
    censorship that supposedly inspired this label in the first place.  How
    ironic.  But since the use of this label in most forms of debate is not
    an attack on censorship, but on an opinion that one disagrees with, it
    makes sense.  So let's drop the pretense that the use of the PC label
    in this notes file has anything to do with college campus censorship. 
    We are talking about two completely different uses of the label, in two
    different contexts. 

    When a writer in Forbes magazine described a recent book by a feminist
    as "a triumph of political correctness over literary merit and common
    sense", was she claiming that the author was engaging in censorship? 
    Of course not; the author was guuilty of being "politically correct"
    because her views were seen to be wrong.  
    
    So here's a suggestion.  Why don't we drop the use of the PC label as a
    way of characterizing other people's opinions, since it is offensive
    and insulting?  Thank you very much.

    -- Mike

    By the way, the way the Harvard story actually happened:
    
    The young lady from the South flew a Confederate flag from her
    dormitory window -- the flag was positioned in plain view of the yard,
    and *outside* the window.  A young black lady of the same class was
    offended by the display of the flag, claimed it was an emblem of the
    slavery period.  The woman who owned the flag disagreed, but said, in
    the papers, that she saw the Confederate flag as a symbol of the fight
    for "Southern independence and liberty."
    
    The offended student, after failing to convince the flag owner to at
    least place the flag out of view of the yard, contacted the
    administration who told her that there was nothing they could do about
    it.  Her next step was to spray paint a Swastika (sp?) on a sheet and
    hang the banner from her window.  You can imagine the uproar *that*
    caused.  Harvard officials told her to remove the banner and she
    reminded them that it was a flag representing a political and social
    idea just like the Confederate flag and she wouldn't remove it.
    
    Oops, said the school official, This is sticky.
    
    After much wrangling and some public apologies, both parties removed
    the flags from plain view.
    
    The incoming class of the following year, noticed a residence policy
    change that stipulated that no banners or flags could be flown from
    dormitory windows.  Considering that the students are renters, the
    university was well within its rights to make that part of the renting
    agreement.
    
    Arguments about the politics of the decision can continue ad nauseum.
    
    Daniel

Mike,

<<    So here's a suggestion.  Why don't we drop the use of the PC label as a
<<    way of characterizing other people's opinions, since it is offensive
<<    and insulting?  Thank you very much.

I agree.  I've found that label personally offensive and insulting 
when I write something from my heart and it is viewed that way.  
Thanks.

Ro

	Mike, as usual, nicely put. You DO have a way with words. One thing I
have noticed about someone using a pc label defense is that they never seem to
answer the questions asked, they just say your pc. 




Glen

I see what your saying, Mike, but I don't view PC as
primarily censorship of opposing views.  I see it more as
a judgment of opposing views.

What is so ironic is that those who attempted to "respect
all" founded a philosophy which is filled with judgment
for those who disagree with them.

Collis

Hi Glen,

  >they never seem to answer the questions asked

:-)

    I can't speak for anyone who might claim to believe in  respecting
    *all* views.  I certainly don't respect *all* views--Nazism, for example,
    is not a viewpoint that I respect.  But then Nazism is a philosophy
    grounded in intolerance and hate.  So is it a contradiction to be
    strongly opposed to intolerance?  I don't believe it is. 

    In any case, from what I have seen, the "PC" label is more directed at
    the content of a person's opinion than any alleged judgmentalism. When
    someone says, "I guess that means I'm not PC", or "You're just being
    PC", they are taking a given opinion and assigning it a label of "PC"
    or "not PC" to it.  It is the opinion itself that garners the label. 
    Of course, it has the further implication that the person with the "PC"
    label is simply being a conformist and is not thinking for themselves,
    which is another reason why this label is so offensive.

    -- Mike

    RE: .353
    
    Good advice, Mike. Might I also suggest the labels....fundamentalist
    and religous right? 
    
    No side has a monopoly on labels.
    
    Marc H.

	Why don't we just remove all labels? There's an interesting thought...

Perhaps I've grown insensitive.  I've been labelled a "bleeding-heart," a
"left-winger," a "do-gooder," a "crusader," and a number of others which
might be in poor taste to mention here.

"Politically Correct" is a curiously mocking assignment.  It's almost like
the sign that hung on the cross with Christ:  "Jesus of Nazareth, King of
the Jews"

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .362
    
    No its not.  If anything, Jesus would be Politically Incorrect today.
    
    Marc H.

Actually, the right has its own political correctness.  It's labelling anyone
who disagrees with it as 'politically correct'.  :-)

/Mike

re Note 34.363 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     RE: .362
>     
>     No its not.  If anything, Jesus would be Politically Incorrect today.

        I'm quite sure that the conservative religious establishment
        of Jesus' day thought him to be the enemy of the true and
        long-established values of the nation.

        Since conservatives today brand anything they don't like with
        the term "liberal" (or with its equivalent euphemism,
        "politically correct"), I suspect that the conservatives of
        Jesus' day would have called him a "liberal" or equivalent
        term.

        Bob
        ---------------

        P.S.  Come to think of it, the reason conservatives don't
        like "political correctness" applied to their ideologues
        seems to be that for them "PC" is a convenient synonym for
        "liberal", now that "pinko" and "commie" are out of fashion!

    RE: .365
    
    Unwarrented attack on conservatives, Bob. Sounds like another round
    of labels coming up.
    
    I've been called a "bleeding heart liberal"....knee jerk liberal,
    right wing conservative, peace nik (Vietnam protest days), left wing
    commie....you name it. And you know what? Your *All* wrong!
    
    I would prefer to be known as a Christian.
    
    Marc H.

>"Politically Correct" is a curious, mocking assignment.  It's almost like
>the sign that hung on the cross with Christ:  "Jesus of Nazareth, King of
>the Jews"

The sign posted on the cross was supposed to indicate the crime for which
the crucified was being punished.  Perhaps there's some element of truth
in identifying someone as "politically correct."  Some would say there was
an element of truth in identifying Jesus as "King of the Jews."  In both
instances, however, the title is one of mockery.

Peace,
Richard

>JUPITR::HILDEBRANT "I'm the NRA"                     12 lines  11-FEB-1993 15:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   > I've been called a "bleeding heart liberal"....knee jerk liberal,
   > right wing conservative, peace nik (Vietnam protest days), left wing
   > commie....you name it. And you know what? Your *All* wrong!
    
   > I would prefer to be known as a Christian.
    
   > Marc H.

I'd prefer to be known as Nanci.  :-)

    "Her name was McGill, and she called herself Lil, but everyone knew her
    as Nanci."
    
    I don't know why that popped into my head just now.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

	To me labelling is name calling, that is not to say I am against
	labelling. People close to us like terms of endearment such as
	"precious" or the like, which to me is a form of labelling and kind
	of indicates the sort of name this person is known by you.
	
	I think the golden rule should apply when labelling others, do we
	really like to be ridiculed by others for we all make mistakes.
	Also the saying "stick and stones will break my bones but words
	will never hurt me", what rubbish! the scars from emotional abuse
	can last a lot longer than that of physical abuse and can cause
	infinitely more damage. So one needs to be careful when labelling
	others, especially those close to us, are we building up or tearing
	down?

	Our actions lead us to being labelled, as a generation we might
	be labelled as the "nuclear age" or to later generations as the
	"violent age". Also our actions as individuals, will make others
	apply labels to us. As imperfect humans these are often are
	negative labels, for the sinful tendency is to look for the bad 
	in someone rather than the good. Fortunately, not so with God
	who will overlook and forgive the faults of those who have repented
	of their previous course in life and have now dedicated their lives
	to doing God's will: 

	Isaiah 55:7 NWT "Let the wicked man leave his way, and the harmful man
	his thoughts; and let him return to Jehovah, who will have mercy
	upon him, and to our God, for he will forgive in a large way."

	1 John 5:3 NWT "For this is what the love of God means, that we observe
	his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome."


	Showing genuine love to Jehovah, by observing his commands, letting him
	know how one feels about him in prayer and praising Jehovah through
	talking to others is an indication of what name Jehovah God has 
	with oneself. As the Psalmist said "Let the sayings of mouth and
	the meditation of my heart Become pleasureable before you, O Jehovah
	my Rock and my Redeemer." Psalm 19:14 NWT. Do we hold God's name 
	in high esteem? 

	A question that not many ask today, is "what sort of name do I have
	with Jehovah?" for they are more likely to want to please those
	around them than please God. However, at the end of the system
	of things some will be labelled "goats" and others "sheep", no
	doubt many of you know the illustration found in Matthew 25:31-46.
	Fortunately, it is Jesus and his angels who will do the labelling
	and not imperfect humans.

	

	Phil. 
	 

re Note 34.371 by YERKLE::YERKESS:

        Thanks, Phil, for a truly inspirational response in a topic
        that generally gives much more heat than light.

        Bob

	One thing I have always wondered about is why it is so important to be
known as a Christian. Everything like that is on human terms. God knows who you
are. On earth let's get rid of the labels.



Glen

    RE: .373
    
    I'm not trying to impress *you* or anyone else. To be known as a 
    Christian is my life goal, that I hope to obtain. Having humans
    tell me that I am behaving that way...simply helps.
    
    Do you have a need to jump all over everything here..Glenn?
    
    Marc H.

    re: a few back, Mike V.
    
    ;-)  
    
    Nanci

| <<< Note 34.374 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT "I'm the NRA" >>>




| I'm not trying to impress *you* or anyone else. To be known as a
| Christian is my life goal, that I hope to obtain. 

	Marc, if that's what you want, I hope you reach your goal. But to have
humans know you as a Christian isn't really going to get your foot into heaven.
So the label is really worthless except in human terms. Human terms aren't
important to God.

| Having humans tell me that I am behaving that way...simply helps.

	Again, only in human terms. But I am curious, who does it help? 

| Do you have a need to jump all over everything here..Glenn?

	Nope. There are many topics that I just read. 



Glen

    RE: .376
    
    Not worth explaining if your not listening.
    
    Marc H.

>                        -< Why try to impress humans?  >-

>	One thing I have always wondered about is why it is so important to be
>known as a Christian. Everything like that is on human terms. God knows who you
>are. On earth let's get rid of the labels.

Glen,

	I think mebbe Marc thought you were implying that perhaps he (and
possibly others) sought some measure of prestige or status from being
identified as a Christian.

	I don't think that's what you intended to communicate.  That's
just how it came across (to me).

Richard

    Correct Richard...
    
    Marc H.

>	One thing I have always wondered about is why it is so important to be
>known as a Christian. 

    As a Christian I believe I have something important to share. I want 
    people to see Christ in me, to want what I have, and to give me a
    chance to share it. I believe that if I am living the Christian life
    that people will see good (and God) in me. I want to let God shine 
    through me. I want this good to be identified as a characteristic of
    a Christian so that people will associate good with Christ.

    It's very simple. I want to be identified with something good so that
    my live will be a conduit to others to come to know Christ. Not for
    my glory but so that others will come to know a relationship with
    Jesus.

    I think this is similar to why some gay people want to be identified as
    gay. So that others will see that gay people are regular people with
    good qualities. I want people to be known as a Christian so that people
    will not just have the stereotype attitude that some who call
    themselves by that name generate and the media seems to embellish.

    			Alfred

    Well said, Alfred (.380)!

    Matthew 5:14  Ye are the light of the world. A �city� that is set on an
    �hill� cannot be hid.
    
    Richard
    

    
    		I really have no problem being known as a Christian. 
    Labels are used in every facet of our society so if you want to get rid
    of them...it may take a lifes work.  Of course some might not use
    "Christian" in very flattering terms about me...:-}
    
    
    Dave

    RE :.380
    
    You captured my thoughts exactly.
     Thanks.....
    
    Marc H.

| <<< Note 34.380 by CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist" >>>



| As a Christian I believe I have something important to share. I want
| people to see Christ in me, to want what I have, and to give me a
| chance to share it. I believe that if I am living the Christian life
| that people will see good (and God) in me. I want to let God shine
| through me. I want this good to be identified as a characteristic of
| a Christian so that people will associate good with Christ.

	Alfred, thank you very much for answering it. By the way, from what you
wrote I DO see why you don't mind being labeled a Christian.

| I think this is similar to why some gay people want to be identified as
| gay. So that others will see that gay people are regular people with
| good qualities. 

	Actually, I wish I didn't have the label gay. The only label that I
really want is the one I received when I was born. (no, not trouble, but Glen)
I serious believe that labels such as Christian, gay, whatever, are useless.
When you say the words, "people are regular people with good qualities", who
needs anything more? :-) I know, it's a pipe dream.....

| I want people to be known as a Christian so that people
| will not just have the stereotype attitude that some who call
| themselves by that name generate and the media seems to embellish.

	I guess that's another reason (for me) to eliminate the labeling
system. Then a whole group won't look bad because of a few bad eggs. Just those
people will.



Glen

    
    Gee, who knew using popular phraselogy of the day would cause such a
    stir!  I feel like the idea of being "politically correct" has been
    highly publicized in society and especially here at DEC!  Yet when I
    use the term, it's offensive.  I find a problem with the notesfile is
    that you can't really determine intent or emotion from a note.  Mocking
    is an expression of contempt.  I do not feel contempt for people in
    here, so it feel my use of this term has been wrongly interpretted. I
    may not agree with you, but that doesn't mean that me disagreeing is
    having contempt for you.  Please accept my apologies to anyone who
    might have been offended by the use of the term.  I also ask that we
    all try not to make judgment of the feelings behind the words because
    unless I state that "I'm _____."   You have no clue as to my emotions.
    
    Does anybody know who coined the phrase "politically correct?"  Now
    that might be interesting.
    
    I'm pretty good about trying to answer all questions.  You may not
    like my answers, but I always try to give you my honest opinion.
    
    Amen Alfred (.380).  As a Christian, our identity is in Christ. Being
    called a Christian to me is the highest compliment I can receive. It
    means others see Christ in me...which is my goal...to give up what Jill
    wants for what God wants, just as Christ did.  Do you think Christ
    wanted to hang on the cross?  No, but He gave up what He wanted and
    submitted to what God the Father wanted.
    
    I don't see labeling itself as the problem.  I see the emotions that we
    sometimes tie to relationships as the real problem.  Labels in and of
    themselves are not necessarily bad.  Labels like all other words need
    to be used with caution.
    
    Jill

| <<< Note 34.385 by CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers" >>>



| I also ask that we all try not to make judgment of the feelings behind the 
| words because unless I state that "I'm _____."   You have no clue as to my 
| emotions.

	Jill, the people in here who disagreed with you merely told you what
their emotions were to the words you wrote. Yes, as you have stated in notes it
can be hard to understand one's intent. But looking at the key phrases (in a
couple of notes back) can you see where one might get the impression that you
were in a sense writing us off? 

| Does anybody know who coined the phrase "politically correct?"  Now
| that might be interesting.

	Probably a whole new 1000 entry heated topic! :-) Friday at lunch this
woman I know was talking about the PC label. She didn't know what the letters
stood for, so she started applying names to them. One of them was....






                            PREVIOUSLY CHRISTIAN! :-)







Glen

    
    Glen,
    
    Who is the "us" you are talking about that I'm writing of?
    
    Jill

| <<< Note 34.387 by CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers" >>>



| Who is the "us" you are talking about that I'm writing of?

	Hmmm.... sorry for the confusion. I was referring to those who were
questioning the words you wrote. You gave an explaination in topic 91 (it's so
hard to tell which topic is which anymore) of what you had meant.



Glen

    Glen,
    
    If I wrote anyone off, I wouldn't be here.  In another string on Paul,
    people are questioning why Paul's letters are in the Bible.  I believe
    it's because God wanted to show that if he could change Paul, He could
    change anyone.  Think of Paul's heart before his conversion.  The Bible
    says that when Paul watched the stoning of Stephen he had the feeling a
    father has as he watches his child sleep.   That's a horrifying picture
    of who Paul was...which is precisely why I believe God used him.  Paul
    called himself the worst of sinner, but God changed Paul.  God can
    change anyone.  Paul is the biblical proof.
    
    I'll admit I'm completely frustrated in here with many of the
    participants, as I'm sure they are with me.   But I am prayfully
    searching for why I kept feeling pulled back here.  There is an
    audience here that I believe God wants me to speak to, I'm not sure who
    it is.  I don't believe it's everybody, but there is somebody.   Maybe
    even a read-only person.  I don't know.  I'm praying that God will 
    reveal this to me.  Like in the story of Zaccheus....The crowd was not
    the field of harvest, but the field of harvest was within the crowd.
    
    Jill

Jill,

<<    I'll admit I'm completely frustrated in here with many of the
<<    participants, as I'm sure they are with me.   But I am prayfully
<<    searching for why I kept feeling pulled back here.  There is an
<<    audience here that I believe God wants me to speak to, I'm not sure who

Perhaps God is pulling you back here for another reason.  Perhaps not 
to *teach*, but to learn...

FWIW,

Ro

    Ro, 
    
    I have learned on many occasions.  The call was specific to having a
    voice that was rooted in His word.   So that's why I said *teach*,
    although I think it's impossible not to learn while you teach.
    So it could have a dual purpose.
    
    Jill

Jill,

I also believe we are all teachers/students to each other.

I try to approach life from a perspective that people are mirrors.  If 
I see something *out there* that upsets me, I take that as a clue
to look *within* to see what part of myself is being reflected.  Is 
there something about me that I'm repressing thus my subconscious is 
causing me to encounter it out there.  Kind of a Jungian way of inner 
work, but to me it is in part what Jesus meant when he said to pluck
the mote from one's own eye, before trying to remove it from one's
brother. It helps me to remove the fear that is blocking me from
seeing the Christ in each person. 

I'm not suggesting you should try that approach, only sharing one of 
the methods of working with the Holy Spirit that has been beneficial 
for me.

Ro

    
    Didn't we used to have a movie topic in here?
    
    Anyway, The Crying Game is coming out this weekend.  It's very
    good.  I saw it last fall at the Telluride Film Festival.  It's
    kind of a "love" story (loosely defined) entangled in the midst
    of IRA terrorism.  The story is very good yet extremely liberal,
    so I think you guys will like it.  ;^)   The acting is superb
    and the story has some surprises.  The film is just coming up
    in broad distribution this weekend, but it already has 5 
    nominations for the Academy Award.  So even if you absolutely,
    completely disagree with me in here, I think you'll enjoy this 
    movie!  
    
    Jill

    The movie topic is Note 15.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Thanks Richard.  I missed that.  Although this movie doesn't really
    fit that category.  It has nothing to do with Christianity.  I just
    think it was an excellent piece of work.  It actually deals with
    some controversial issues that we deal with in here alot, but not
    from a conservative viewpoint.  But despite, I thought it was an
    excellent film.  
    
    Do you think I liked this film?  I only said it was excellent
    about 3-5 times so far.
    
    Jill

    Unfortunately, I found out about the big surprise and I still haven't
    seen the movie, but I have been told that I should see it anyway.  It
    has been showing at "art houses" for some time, but they are now
    putting it into general release.
    
    -- Mike

    
    Well...I don't think that will completely ruin the movie for you
    because it is so good.  But what a drag that someone told ya...
    it's kinda like when my brother told me that Darth Varder was
    Luke's dad...it just wasn't as exciting then.  
    
    Jill

    You know what really gets sand in my shorts?  It's when overbearing
    noters use a "debating" style that, rather than asking for someone's
    opinion, offers them two alternatives and then asks someone which
    they believe.  An example would be:

    	"So do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant, literal Word
    	of God, or just a curious book of meaningless stories?"

    I might just as well ask "So did you stop beating your wife when she
    screamed or when the cops came?".  Or "Do you believe your children
    are perfect or the spawn of Satan?"  This form of questioning isn't
    used to understand an alternative viewpoint; it's used to discredit
    the alternate viewpoint. To that end I find this style of noting
    disingenuous.  

    As a side note, I believe there are other conferences that enforce
    and encourage a homogeneous, mutually admiring, amen section format. 
    It is my hope that C-P participants are not bullied into this same
    format. 


    Just my opinion...

    		Eric

    RE: .398
    
    Good opinion! I tried to state a similar idea in the "Image of God"
    string. 
    
    Marc H.

    re: .398
    
    I try not to be itimidated by such notes.  Asking a question and
    suggesting answers is just a communication style to eliminate ambiguity
    and ask "what do you really mean by that?" Please, don't read another
    agenda into it.

    RE: .400
    
    But Patrick...that's at the heart of the matter!
    
    Marc H.

    Marc,
    
    re: .401.  I addressed more than one topic in .400.  What in .400 is at
    the heart of the matter?
    
    Pat

    Pat,
     What I meant was that you stated that you don't want people to
    read into your questions an "agenda".....while people *have* been.
    That is the heart of the matter....the technique used to invoke
    discussion has caused folks to see an agenda, where *you* don't .
    It sounds like a simple failure to communicate that has been
    complicating discussion.
    
    Marc H.

    Conversely, other people's notes have been declared to be indicative of
    "agendas" for use of language as well.
    
    This has not been a one-way phenomenon.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

    RE: .404
    
    Absolutly correct.
    
    Marc H.

    Eric,
    
    As a person who is often the target of the these meaningless questions
    (i.e. Do you accept the bible as the innerant
    word of God or as a meaningless myth) I fully agree with you.
    
    I am convinced that there are certain people in this file who participate
    only to make sure that the rest of us cannot have meaningful dialogue. 
    Somehow I think they believe they are doing God's will by preventing
    others from communicating.
    
    My own approach is to get better at using the next unseen.  I refuse to
    try to have conversations with persons who are only attacking me or
    trying to make real dialogue impossible.  
    
    I know that if these individuals were really interested in only Bible based
    dialogue they would not be looking here.  I chose to dialogue based on
    what I believe.  I have no need to defend what I believe from those
    with a narrower view of truth.  I find dialogue with anyone regarding
    their spiritual believes to be exciting and beneficial as long as there is
    no assumption that their truth is the only truth.
    
    Patricia

>    I am convinced that there are certain people in this file who participate
>    only to make sure that the rest of us cannot have meaningful dialogue. 
>    Somehow I think they believe they are doing God's will by preventing
>    others from communicating.
 
	In my best Mike Valenza voice, care to name names?

> I find dialogue with anyone regarding
>    their spiritual believes to be exciting and beneficial as long as there is
>    no assumption that their truth is the only truth.

	Rules out any meaningful discussion with me and anyone who believes in
	the Bible I know. Should we leave now? There is sure no way I'll deny
	the truth that Jesus is the only way to God.

		Alfred

    > I find dialogue with anyone regarding their spiritual beliefs to be 
    > exciting and beneficial as long as there is no assumption that their
    > truth is the only truth.
    
    
    * Rules out any meaningful discussion with me and anyone who
    * believes in the Bible I know. Should we leave now? There is sure no way
    * I'll deny the truth that Jesus is the only way to God.
                
    
    Al,
    
    I respect the fact that you have pinpointed the heart of the matter.  
    As you are aware, I do not believe that Jesus is the only way to God.
    I also understand that this conference was specifically established for
    people with a diversity of views.  I therefore expect that neither I
    nor anyone else would be beat up for my views.   I would not expect to
    go into the Golf Christian conference because that conference was set
    up for those who wanted to discuss Christianity from a strictly
    biblical perspective.    If I went into that conference with my views
    people could say that I went in there only to fight- To disrupt the
    free exchange of ideas that the participants desire.  My expectation is
    that people participate here either because the feel enriched by the
    diversity of views expressed, or because they want to fight and disrupt
    the free exchange of ideas.
    
    I believe that Patrick, Jill, Jack, and John participate here to
    fight and disrupt the free flow of ideas.  I say this because their
    notes indicate that they feel they can learn nothing spiritually from
    dialoguing with me. Their notes indicate that they don't feel they can
    learn anything from any of us who do not view the bible as the innerant
    word of God. Then why do they answer my notes and dialogue with
    me if not just to disrupt the free exchange of ideas.
    
    Al, I don't include you in the same catagory.  I have learned some
    things from your notes particularly in your describing what it is like
    to be the son and Nephew of ministers.  I also feel that although you
    don't agree with my views you don't try to interfere with my expressing
    them.  I would like to understand though why you prefer to dialogue
    here if you are not enriched by the diversity here.  I'm not asking
    that sarcastically either.  I would like to better understand why
    people participate in this community of noters.  In the next note I
    will try to do the same.  Answer  honestly why I participate here.
    
    Patricia
    
    
                      

    I deny that I participate in this file to make sure that others cannot
    have meaningful dialog.

    I deny that I prevent others from communicating.  How can I, anyway?

    I deny that I attack others.  I disagree with their beliefs; I do not
    believe what they believe.  I've been the object of ridicule here but
    not so often that it makes communication impossible for me.

    I deny that I make "real dialogue" impossible.

    I have a need to define and defend what I believe.
    
    I don't claim to have a "broader" or "narrower" view of truth.  I claim
    that what I believe to be true is what a billion others claim to be
    true and what has been taught as truth for 20 centuries by Jesus, the
    Apostles, and their successors.  I have an open mind to hear the
    beliefs of others as well.

    If the charter of this conference was modified to specifically exclude
    people who believe the Bible to the word of God and inerrant on matters
    of faith and morals, I'd leave.

    I participate in this notes file because after more than 20 years away
    from my childhood Christian church I do feel called back to look at the
    best that came from my Religious Education.  I found the UU church
    about 6 years ago and I really love that church.  It is where I feel
    emotionally and spiritually at home.  For the last two years our
    Interim Minister was a UU Christian.  It intrigued me how someone could
    be a UU and a Christian. I had left Christianity because there were
    doctrines that I could not and never will accept.  Most of you seem to 
    consider those doctrines the heart of Christianity.  Some of you do not.
    
    In the past three years I have read many books by Christian Theologians
    that I have found an enourmous closeness with.  All of them are liberal
    Christians except perhaps Paul Tillich who is perhaps more mainline,
    but I am inspired by his  writing. So I am intrigued by the question,
    Who decides what it means to be a Christian?  I think I will ultimately
    come to the same conclusion that I hear Mike Valenza express in here. 
    Defining myself as a Christian is not the relevant question.  The
    relevent question for me is how does my sense of spirituality impact
    the way I live.  Perhaps I can even ask, how does my sense of
    spirituality impact the way I note in here.  I personally would like to
    see much more discussion in here about what it means to be a Christian
    and discussion that is not either or.  I.e. either you believe in the
    bible or you don't.  I agree with Dave Dawson in that regard.  What
    does being Christian mean to your lifes.  
    
    Well I am a bit long winded and it is time to go
    
    
    Patricia

    Patricia,
    
    Thanks for your input.
    
    > this conference was specifically established for people with
    > a diversity of views.
    
    I'd say the two of us are as diverse as it gets.
    
    What have I learned from dialoguing here?
    
            Well, I've learned that there are almost as many flavors
            of religion as there are people.  I have learned from
            many here.  Some opinions I respect, others I don't.
            Not that people have no right to them, but there are
            some opinions that I don't personally find value in.
            I'm sure the same is true for you.  Sometimes (sometimes
            often) our opinions contend strongly with one another,
            but I don't see that it disrupts the free exchange of ideas.
            It just highlights the diversity of those ideas shared.
    
    Jill

re Note 34.408 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     I believe that Patrick, Jill, Jack, and John participate here to
>     fight and disrupt the free flow of ideas.  

        While I respect your opinion on this, Patricia, I do not
        share this belief.

        Bob

    Wow, my name has been taken in vain twice in the last dozen replies or
    so, and I wasn't even in this discussion.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    re Past several..

    For what it's worth (admittedly not much) I do find benefit in the
    replies from Patricia's gang of four (.408).  While I've been up
    front about not appreciating certain noting styles.  I'm not always
    proud of my noting style, for that matter.   Replies offering view
    points different than mine give me something to chew on; a chance to
    re-examine my beliefs from a new direction (Specifically, Al, and
    Marc have helped me here).  However it just isn't enough to say that
    I didn't INTEND to be intimidating or overbearing therefor I'm not. 
    It's this lack of self reflection that I find curious and insightful.

    I wasn't suggesting that conservative noters go elsewhere.  I was
    suggesting that without a more sensitive and less charged noting
    style C-P could become redundant, given the GOLF::CHRISTIAN
    conference.  

    Just my opinion...

    		Eric

    Patrick,
    
    This probably gets filed under the "for what it is worth" column. 
    Please take or leave what you will from this, but I want you to know
    this is not meant as an attack on you.
    
    I find myself agreeing somewhat with Patricia's comments -- I find it
    very, very difficult to discuss anything with you.  I know you say you
    that you don't come in here to attack people, and if that is what you
    believe, then I have no right to deny it.  However, whether you mean it
    or not, you very often come across to me as attacking and denying the
    legitimacy not only of anther's perspective but almost of their right
    to even *have* another perspective.
    
    The best personal example I can think of was the string on
    "Pre-Christian Religions" last December (554.* I think).  I was very,
    very clear that I was approaching the material from a historical and
    archeological point of view and even apologized if it tread on the toes
    of anyone with an inerrant perspective of the Bible.  Your response was
    to comment that it was "Easy to see the agenda here."  And then
    commented that my use of the terms B.C.E was "pseudo-scholarly."  I
    explained why I used that term both as a Jew and because it was value
    neutral in regards to theology.  You didn't answer, and, frankly, i
    thought you owed me an apology for being so dismissive of what I had
    said when I had been careful to explain my approach before hand.
    
    To me, that, and other examples over the months, indicates that you
    just are not all that willing to engage in discussion if it means
    listening to a viewpoint other than the inerrantist view.  That is
    certainly your perogative, but it is, in my opinion, rude to jump into
    a string, make dismissive comments and then not engage in any
    discussion.  That's not dialogue.
    
    I hope she won't mind my using her as an example, but it is also very
    much UNLIKE how I have seen Jill's participation in this conference. 
    Jill and I disagree enormously, but I *have* witnessed her as willing
    to participate in actual discussion about her perspective.  She doesn't
    apologize for it, not should she.  But she also engages in dialogue,
    answers most questions asked of her and asks questions back. While we
    may disagree, I respect her willingness to exchange ideas.
    
    In all honesty, Pat, I have not seen you as willing to do the same.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

    I sincerly hope that ALL of us can continue to learn and grow
    in this file.
    
    It sounds to me that a small change in the wording of our replies
    will help out.
    
    Marc H.

>    Al,

    I go by "Alfred." That's what my friends and family call me. For
    personal reasons not easily explained being called "Al" is a little
    painful for me. I know you don't mean anything by calling me "Al" but
    I shudder inside when I'm addressed that way.

>    I also understand that this conference was specifically established for
>    people with a diversity of views.  I therefore expect that neither I
>    nor anyone else would be beat up for my views.   

    Being "beat up" in Notes is often a state of mind as much as a reality.
    I know I've felt pretty beat up on in this conference myself. But then
    a lifetime of being a Christian in a non Christian world has left me 
    expecting to be beaten up for my views everywhere. Perhaps I'm getting
    more used to it in me middle age.

>My expectation is
>    that people participate here either because the feel enriched by the
>    diversity of views expressed, or because they want to fight and disrupt
>    the free exchange of ideas.

    There is a third reason. To share the good news of Jesus Christ. Oh,
    I'm enriched by the diversity of views and I've learned a lot here. But
    that wouldn't be enough to keep me here in light of the rather constant
    beating my views take. And frankly if I were into fighting and
    disruption of the free exchange of ideas I could have a lot more fun in
    SOAPBOX, WOMANNOTES, and a number of other conferences.

>Then why do they answer my notes and dialogue with
>    me if not just to disrupt the free exchange of ideas.

    This is much like the sort of question Eric rails against in 34.398 
    and you concurred with in .406. You assume that the only two options are
    "to learn" or "to disrupt." You forget "to share knowledge/opinions and help
    others learn." I feel an obligation to Note here. At times I wish I
    didn't. I believe that there are open and inquiring minds here. It is
    my duty to share what I know about Jesus and what it means to me. There 
    is learning here as well. I've learned a lot from a number of people.
    I've learned quite a bit from John and Pat for example. I've learned
    about other beliefs as well. 

    			Alfred

    			Alfred

    
    		A gentle reminder:  *ALL* people are welcome here in this
    file for the purpose of defining their "brand" of Christianity.  While
    openess is the lofty goal of this conference, there does come a time 
    when "staminia" seems to be the end result.   I hear what Patricia is
    saying and to a certain extent I agree, but how do we prevent one side
    or the other from dominating a topic?  We can't and still keep the
    openess we so treasure.
    
    
    Dave

I don't know whether I should be encouraged or
disappointed that I didn't make Pat's list.

:-) :-) :-) :-)

    So to the question as to why we participate here, here are some of the
    possible answers.
    
          To search for answers.
    
          To learn about others beliefs.
    
          To define and defend one's beliefs.
    
          To have dialogue which is more inclusive than Golf::Christian.
    
          To listen, learn, and grow.
    
          To share knowledge and opinions to help others grow.
    
          To preach the good news.
    
    
    Now how do we do all this in an environment that is respectful to all?
    
    
    Alfred, my apologies for not using your name correctly.
    
    Mike, My apologies also if I used your name in vain.
    
    Bob, I value your opinion and value knowing you disagree with me.
    
    
    Patricia

    For what it is worth, this notesfile manages to handle differences of
    opinions a heck of a lot more respectfully than just about any other
    notesfile I've read or written in....
    
    It's why I decided to write here.
    
    Daniel

         <<< Note 34.410 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "waiting for the snow" >>>


	Patricia, thanks for taking the time to explain your reasons. Along
with your other note I agree that this is how it seems. But as Daniel has said,
this conference is much better at discussing differences than most. I think
everyone in here learns from time to time that we need to look at what we are
saying. It's so easy to get wrapped up in our own viewpoint that we sometimes
forget to look, really look at what the other person is saying. I know I am
doing this constantly. Mike seems to be able to write rather well so he must be
looking at what others are saying all the time! :-)



Glen

    > Now how do we do all this in an environment that is respectful to
    all?
    
    It's a learning process.  Since I don't know anybody here personally, I
    can't always guess what might be offensive.  Some things that I accept
    as simple fact have offended people to no end.  I'm trying to take that
    into consideration before noting again.  Sometimes I'm successful with
    that, sometimes I'm not.  But we're all human and sometimes prone to
    repeat our mistakes before the lesson sinks in.  I'm trying.  I'm
    trying to remember the philosophy I just learned this weekend:
    
         As much as it depends on me...be at peace with everyone.
    
    I'm trying not to say anything in here that would "pick a fight." But
    if my beliefs or something I quote out of the Bible causes conflict, I
    can't help that much.  I'll try to be understanding of other views, but
    it's a fine line because I won't deny my own beliefs.  As I'm sure none
    of you would and none of you would want anyone else to.
    
    Jill

    
>         As much as it depends on me...be at peace with everyone.
 
    
    Words of wisdom -- thanks, Jill.
    
    
    Daniel

    Patricia, I was kidding about the use of my name.  I didn't mind at
    all.  :-)

Note 531.58

>Indeed, I believe this is a common fault in the human race and one
>of the main reasons there is so much disagreement in this file.

I must disagree based upon the quibbling I've witnessed in other files
where orthodoxy is more or less enforced.

Richard

Re:  .426

I think that's a good point.  However, I do see surprising
turn-arounds when one is willing to submit to authority
external to oneself.  In fact, as you are probably aware,
an example of this just occurred in another file where
orthodoxy is more or less enforced.  :-)

Collis

Note 34.427

>I think that's a good point.  However, I do see surprising
>turn-arounds when one is willing to submit to authority
>external to oneself.

I've witnessed turn-arounds (changes of heart) here, too.

>  In fact, as you are probably aware,

No, I'm not.  Haven't been visiting since last week.  But, you can be certain
the petty quibbling will emerge somewhere else.  Demanding allegiance to
any creed has never provided us with any great resolution, historically
speaking.

Richard

Indeed, demanding allegiance to essential items of of belief
(e.g. Jesus is God) does lead to problems.  But Jesus demands 
our allegiance anyway.

Collis

    .429  What it leads to is Inquisitions.
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .430

Despite the Inquisition, I still give Jesus and the
essential items of beliefs my allegiance.  

You are quite right in pointing out that there are
problems of allegiance.

You are wrong in neglecting the consequences of
non-allegiance.

Collis

    Structuring a theological argument along the lines of "Jesus
    demands..." leads to the absurd counter-arguments like .430.

    The love of God for all of us is unconditional.  What is conditional is
    the choice the each of makes by free will to love God back. If you want
    to call one form of that love "allegiance" then that's your spin.

    As for the Inquisition, the criticism of it, like the McCarthyites, was
    to become obsessed with the sinners, without doing much about the sin.

    .432
    
    >leads to the absurd counter-arguments like .430.
    
    I'm really not used to such compliments coming from you, dear Patrick.
    You'll turn my head!
    
    Richard
    

626.10

>Unfortunately, the response in this notesfile is often to
>refuse to discuss specifics which, I am convinced, would lead
>to greater agreement.

Egad, it's another one of those "this notesfile" remarks.

Tell me, Collis, is there a notesfile where your methodology is wholly
embraced?

Richard

                                             \ /
>Tell me, Collis, is there a notesfile where y/ur methodology is wholly
>embraced?                                   / \                 ------
                                             any

    Now, Jerry, *proper* proofreading technique has the carroted word
    *above* the line...oh, oops... ;-)

	This notesfile.  THIS notesfile!

	THIS notesfile is not just for Christians.  THIS notesfile is not
just for straight people.  THIS notesfile is not just for Heaven's elite.
THIS notesfile is not just for churchgoers.  THIS notesfile is not just for
students of the Bible.  THIS notesfile is not just for the repetition of
dogma and religion by rote.  THIS notesfile is not a mission field.

	Unfortunately, neither is this notesfile a sanctuary.  There is no
protection from bumps and bruises.  May God forgive the pain we inflict on
one another, even when done by accident and *especially* when we think it's
for the other person's own good.

Peace,
Richard

    >THIS notesfile is not a mission field.
    
    	Wrong. :-) Unless you are saying that everyone here is a Christian.
    Are you?
    
    			Alfred

    Hi Alfred,

    {It's late at night, she's sitting in her cluttered home office,
    faintly smiling and humming "Ode to Joy"}

    I think that Richard's statement that "this notesfile is not a mission
    field" contains the idea that we respect each other's beliefs.

    And if you wish to perceive it as a mission field, of course I respect
    your belief.  It is my belief that you are perfect and exactly where
    you need to be at this time.

    {She sips her iced tea, and thoughtfully gazes at the screen}

    I think we all become missionaries sometimes.  

    Peace,

    Ruth

Note 22.314

>    Well, you can call yourself anything you want, but if you call yourself
>    CHRISTian, then you are saying you are a follower, believer in CHRIST.

I am a Christian.  I am a fairly integral part of "this conference" <intoned
with spite and a corresponding degree of disparagement>.

I am a follower of Christ.  Many who profess to be the "genuine article,"
the *real* Christians, however, do not agree with my assertion.  Some offer
me insults.  A few, not many, offer me encouragement.

In this conference we have atheists and agnostics.  I doubt that either
category classifies themselves as Christian (Do you, Bob Messenger or
Steve Bittrolf?).  We also have people who appreciate and even follow the
teachings of Jesus as a great moral and spiritual teacher.  Some of these
might ascribe to the name Christian.  Some might not.  We also have
Bibliolators (though no one will admit to being one).  We have Biblical
Inerrantists.  We have those who take the Bible seriously, though not
literally or wholly inerrant.  These all tend to call themselves Christian,
no matter whether they are sheep or goats.

Personally, I resent Pat Robertson, Oliver North, Jerry Falwell, Randall
Terry, and Kevin Tebedo calling themselves Christians, because when I tell
people that I'm a Christian, they think I must be like them.

So we all have our resentments.  Now, we can dwell on this.  We can whine
about this.  We can complain bitterly and chronically about this.  We can
rag on this conference which doesn't stand in constant vigil against
heretical ideas, ferreting out and culling the unorthodox.  We can dis
and trash the mere existence of a conference to operate with so few
restrictions of thought.

Or we can move on.  We have a choice.

Shalom,
Richard

    Lets move on.
    
    Marc H.

    .440
    
    Move on it will whether I agree or disagree...that's the one thing
    about conferences such as this.. topics come and topics go.  However,
    as long as I'm reading this and see someone using the term Christian
    when they don't believe in the deity of Christ, I will call them on
    it.  You can find another term for your beliefs, don't pervert the one
    that applies to Christ.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    RE: .442
    
    What part in .440 , to you, perverts the meaning of the word Christain?
    Thats quite a claim.
    
    Marc H.

    >see someone using the term Christian
    >    when they don't believe in the deity of Christ,
    
    This is my guideline...has nothing to do with .440.
    
    Nancy
    

    Maybe I should tell  my friends who call themselves Unitarian
    Christians that you think they are perverting the term Christian.
    
    Perhaps you should read William Channings classic work on Unitarianian
    Christianity to understand why the Unitarian Christians do not believe
    that there is any evidence in the Bible to support the Divinity of
    Christ.
    
    Are there other Christian groups that do not believe in the Divinity of
    Christ?
    
    Patricia

    
    Well...not *all* Unitarian Christians don't believe there is no
    evidence in the Bible to support....
    
    Cindy

    .445
    
    Yes, please go ahead tell your church what I said.  
    
    And quite frankly if they deny the deity of Christ they are Unitarians,
    not CHRISTians and are perverting the term.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

HILARY OF POITIERS, BISHOP AND THEOLOGIAN (13 JAN 367)

Hilary of Poitiers (315-367) lived during the great controversy
between Athanasius, who taught that the Son is fully God, equally
with the Father, and Arius, who denied this.

Hilary is sometimes called "the Athanasius of the West." He was
bishop of Poitiers, and when he refused to sign a condemnation of
Athanasius, the Arian emperor Constantius (one of the sons of
Constantine) banished him to Phrygia in 357. His exile lasted three
years, during which time he wrote several essays, including ON THE
TRINITY. Finally the Emperor was forced to send him back to Gaul
because he was causing such difficulties for the Arians in the East.
In 364, he journeyed to Milan, where he engaged in public debate
with the Arian bishop Auxentius, and persuaded him of the error of
his ways.

PRAYER

   Eternal Father, whose servant Hilary steadfastly confessed thy
   Son Jesus Christ to be true God and true man: We beseech thee
   to keep us firmly grounded in this faith; that we may rejoice
   to behold his face in heaven who humbled himself to bear our
   form upon earth, even the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
   who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God,
   now and for ever.