Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    My husband and I often discuss this in terms of "entertainers" whose
    comedy or lyrics, etc., seem to espouse violence to women; the KKK and
    American Nazis' right to demonstrate, etc.
    
    Another experience:  As a member of a social ethics committee trying to
    word a proposal on marriage and family, I worked for several months
    toward reaching consensus that would include the majority liberal views
    without offending a minority conservative view.  We on the liberal side
    "gave" a great deal, we felt.  In the end, however, the minority person
    (after having "accepted" the rewording along with the rest of us)
    presented a minority resolution!  I felt we had wasted many hours of
    work and "watered down" what our proposal would otherwise have been.
    
    *That* experience really made me wonder how to tell when to work toward
    inclusiveness, consensus, and reconciliation, and when to "stand firm"
    for the most open view possible, even if it means "silencing" or
    "drowning out" the restrictive or closed conservative position!!
    
    Nancy

    
    
    >*That* experience really made me wonder how to tell when to work toward
    >inclusiveness, consensus, and reconciliation, and when to "stand
    >firm" for the most open view possible, even if it means "silencing" or
    >"drowning out" the restrictive or closed conservative position!!
    
    With only a few changes of certain key words, this is my sentiment
    exactly. I usually have to play it by ear.
    
    Jamey
    

    
    
    re .0
    
    >How open can/should this conference be toward people who refuse to be
    >open to others?
    
    You miss by position completely. But then this will just lead to love
    the sinner hate the sin. But I love *Paul*, that ought to speak for
    something  ;)  ]B^)
    
    Jamey
    

    
    I recommend that this conference be totally tolerant of the intolerant!
    
    And I also recommend that this conference should understand that being
    open to others means allowing others to speak their mind without fear
    of censorship or condemnation and listening with an effort toward
    understanding.
    
    Being open should not be defined as adopting another's beliefs or
    opinions (which I fear is often the way it is meant).
    
    jeff

    Jamey Jamey Jamey,
    
    Thought you would sneak 92.3 right by me, eh? ;)  Glad to see you "love"
    me, assuming your not referring to Saint Paul.  (I can see where you
    might get us confused.)  Actually, given what you said about men loving 
    other men in topic 91, I'm surprised you are even capable of loving 
    other males.  ;)  Don't love men too much Jamey...you know what the
    scriptures say about that! ;) ;)  Wow, now there's a good topic for
    discussion.... assuming no sexual relations are involved, how much love
    shared between two men, or between two women, is "too much"?  And what
    specific expressions of love would be considered "OK" by Christianity
    and which ones wouldn't?   In most other cultures, including the one Jesus
    lived in, love between males is/was pretty expressive.  Am I grossing you
    and Collis out Jamey?  ;)
    
    Hugs and kisses,   (Oh yuk!)                         
    Paul    

	RE: .4  Jeff
        
    >And I also recommend that this conference should understand that being
    >open to others means allowing others to speak their mind without fear
    >of censorship or condemnation and listening with an effort toward
    >understanding.
    
    >Being open should not be defined as adopting another's beliefs or
    >opinions (which I fear is often the way it is meant).
    
    How I would love to see you enter this in GOLF::CHRISTIAN!
    
    Carole

    re  .6  Carole,
    
    Praise the lord!
    
    Paul

I would strongly encourage anyone who wishes to malign or identify as
"evil" or express pity for benign persons and/or groups of human beings
(including gays, lesbians and bisexuals) to do so elsewhere.  Other
conferences which may be more receptive have already been mentioned.

Have you read our banner here?  We even welcome tax collectors!

Peace,
Richard

    
    re .8
    
    Do you consider such people evil, or just unwelcome?
    
    Jamey

>    Do you consider such people evil, or just unwelcome?
    
Jamey,

	I'm not certain to whom you are referring.

	All Digital employees are welcome here.  Malevolence and prejudices,
however, are not.  I refer you to note 8.*.

Peace,
Richard

    
                      Without respect of persons...
    
    I feel that the conferences should give the benefit of the doubt,
    regarding who is offending who, to the conference title.  If we are in
    Christian-Perspectives, a conference that is meant to discuss Christian
    views, it is not valid for those who aren't Christians to raise
    disputes or claim offences, if indeed the opinions are based upon
    Christian teachings.
    
    For instance, and I mean no offence, Homosexuals, or Jews, or other
    groups that do not have Christianity as a "primary" concern, should not
    be allowed to cause note deletions or reprimands.  If some Christians
    believe Homosexuality is a sin, or others believe *&^3 killed Jesus,
    the right to discuss those matters should be allowed to be fully
    explored here in Christian-Perspectives, from the context of the
    Christian doctrine.
    
    If one wants to debate the validity of a Christian perspective, and
    they belong to another group, say Homosexual or Jew, then they must
    enter into the Homosexual or Jewish conference to discuss it.  They can
    also invite a person over to that conference to continue discussion.
    
    We cannot allow the Christian conference to be filled with alien
    perspectives.  I mean it should not be allowed that this conference be
    turned into a Homosexual or Jewish forum.
    
    I believe as Christians we are obligated to work out our faith through
    the teachings of the scriptures and not through the criticisms of those
    outside the Christian church.
    
    When we realize the sanctity of "conferencing", which should not be
    construed with "open debates", but is more "closed debates" (i.e.
    Closed to the Christian perspective, or to the Homosexual perspective,
    or to the Jewish perspective), then we will truly be in observance of
    our constitutional rights to freedom and religion and free speech.  
    
    We all have those rights, and NO ONE has the right to deny us them, SO
    WHAT SOME ARE OFFENDED.  What should they do, they need to "catch up
    with THEIR crowd, and don't try to destroy the other.  The difference,
    in terms legalities, is between "building up" and "tearing down".  The
    constitution supports the building up of faith, but not the tearing
    down of faith.  It prohibits attacks by one faith against another, for
    whatever reasons.  
    
    I believe, and I am black, that freedom of speech and religion means
    the existence of any kind of religion and speech.  The KKK has a right
    to exist and to "preach" whatever they want, but the do not have a
    right to "act" contrary to anothers personal rights, by attacking the
    blacks or whoever they oppose.
    
    You see, one thing I find good about Christianity is that it
    facilitates the perfect assimilation/association of us within any
    social order.  Our Christian standards, the 10 Commandments, make us
    acceptable and law abiding in any society; that is not corrupt, and
    then we wouldn't be there anyway.  Also, Christianity is 360 degrees,
    whereas other groups' don't necessarily address every facet of life, as
    the Christian does.  There are no "missing links" in Christianity, but
    something is "missing" from the homosexual ideology, something missing
    from the Jewish ideology, something missing from the KKK ideology,
    something missing from the atheist ideology.  There are no unanswered
    questions for the Christian, all is resolved in Christ.  Those who have
    not Christ, are missing something.  Answers, Answers, Answers, is that
    something they're missing.
    
    Anyway, freedom of religion and speech is when one can fully express
    themselves, in the context of their faith, and though the doctrine may
    offend another, we tolerate each others existence, and do not seek to
    destroy each other.  It is imperative for us to be able to distinguish
    the line of demarcation between expressing ones faith and seeking to
    destroy anothers faith...one is allowable the other is not!

>    The KKK has a right
>    to exist and to "preach" whatever they want, but the do not have a
>    right to "act" contrary to anothers personal rights, by attacking the
>    blacks or whoever they oppose.

FWIW, the KKK considers itself to be a Christian organization.

The KKK would doubtlessly find itself at odds with Digital values and policies.

Verbal attacks will be dealt with in accordance with Digital values and
policies, and not the KKK's values and policies.

Nuff said?
Richard

    re: .11, Playtoe,  I cannot let your language and your assumptions
    rest.  (In fact, I fully expected your note to be set hidden, but
    perhaps that was the result of my *own* sinful intolerance! :-{  )
    
    >For instance, and I mean no offence, Homosexuals, or Jews, or other
    >groups that do not have Christianity as a "primary" concern, should not
    >be allowed to cause note deletions or reprimands.  If some Christians
    >believe Homosexuality is a sin, or others believe *&^3 killed Jesus,
    >the right to discuss those matters should be allowed to be fully
    >explored here in Christian-Perspectives, from the context of the
    >Christian doctrine.
    
    Playtoe, there is no *one* "Christian doctrine." Those of us who
    welcome Gay and Lesbian Christians as our brothers and sisters are also
    free to dispute your belief and to fully discuss *our* Christian
    perspective here.  It is our Christian perspective that these brothers
    and sisters should be treated with love, kindness and respect and not
    maligned. 
    
    >If one wants to debate the validity of a Christian perspective, and
    >they belong to another group, say Homosexual ...
    >We cannot allow the Christian conference to be filled with alien
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
    	Are you confusing this conference with GOLF::CHRISTIAN?
    >perspectives.
    
    
    Christian and Homosexual groups are not mutually exclusive!!
    Homosexuality is not a religion and does not have an "alien
    perspective."  You make me think of little green men, with 
    antennae, who are not human... 
    
    Nancy

    thank you Nancy
    
    you expressed my thoughts (once again) more clearly than I could.
    
    hugs
    
    Bonnie

    Richard,
    	you don't play fair. You NOTE on first shift. And take many of the
    good lines. Now it's just repetition to point out that many Klansmen
    wear a large cross (applique) on their chest which proclaims the wearer
    to be a Christian. Saw a bunch on the news just the other day, thought
    it seemed a little contradictory. Makes me wonder how many guys used to
    run around calling themselves Jesus Christ if the bed-sheet crowd
    worships a guy with that name.
    
    Play Toe,
    	for some of us, the BLACK perspective is totally alien. And you can
    bet that New England and California are mutually alien. It seems your
    biases, your prejudices, are showing. But I won't tell your mom. ;-)

Re: .11  Playtoe

>    I feel that the conferences should give the benefit of the doubt,
>    regarding who is offending who, to the conference title.  If we are in
>    Christian-Perspectives, a conference that is meant to discuss Christian
>    views, it is not valid for those who aren't Christians to raise
>    disputes or claim offences, if indeed the opinions are based upon
>    Christian teachings.
    
Regardless of the conference title, this conference has to exist within the
framework of corporate policy.  It's difficult to decide sometimes whether
a note is offensive enough that it has to be deleted.  My own bias is in
favor of free speech; I would prefer that everyone, regardless of their
point of view, would be allowed to speak their mind.  However, because
of corporate policy we have had to institute some rules to prevent employees
from being harassed or defamed.

>    For instance, and I mean no offence, Homosexuals, or Jews, or other
>    groups that do not have Christianity as a "primary" concern, should not
>    be allowed to cause note deletions or reprimands.

CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE is open to all employees, regardless of their religious
beliefs.  I myself am an agnostic, for example.  Any employee who feels that
they have been harassed or defamed is entitled to take action, as given in
the rules in note 8.

By the way, there are many gays who are Christians.

>    If one wants to debate the validity of a Christian perspective, and
>    they belong to another group, say Homosexual or Jew, then they must
>    enter into the Homosexual or Jewish conference to discuss it.  They can
>    also invite a person over to that conference to continue discussion.
    
That is not the purpose for which we started this conference.  We started C-P
as an open forum, as a place where the moderators would not try to impose
their beliefs on the conference.  It's true that we have put a limit on the
subject matter that can be discussed.  C-P is for discussion of Christianity,
defined as a Christian religion based on the teachings of Jesus.  However,
there no restriction on point of view: you can speak either in favor of
a Christian perspective or against it.

>    When we realize the sanctity of "conferencing", which should not be
>    construed with "open debates", but is more "closed debates" (i.e.
>    Closed to the Christian perspective, or to the Homosexual perspective,
>    or to the Jewish perspective), then we will truly be in observance of
>    our constitutional rights to freedom and religion and free speech.  
    
Sounds rather Orwellian.  Only in a closed debate can we truly have free
speech?

>    We all have those rights, and NO ONE has the right to deny us them, SO
>    WHAT SOME ARE OFFENDED.

You do not have a right to free speech in this conference.  Digital Equipment
Corporation is a private corporation, and can impose whatever limits on
free speech that it chooses.  In general our policy as moderators has been
to allow as much free speech as is consistent with corporate policy.

				-- Bob (co-moderator)

    .11  Play toe
    
    Your comments here really REALLY make me uncomfortable.  I am not and
    never have been for censorship, and I'll defend your right to speak
    your mind here.  But your attempts to bend over backwards, trying to
    define what is the "Christian" thing and what isn't, strike me as
    rather pathetic.  Whether you realize it or not, your comments are 
    divisive -- your prejudices against different groups of people come
    through loud and clear -- and your comments in and of themselves are
    pretty "alien" to Christian love, forgiveness, and mercy, IMHO.  Who
    put you in charge of determining who is a "real Christian" and who is
    not?  I know gay people who live their lives as Christian.  Some of the
    people here, in C-P, whose Christianity you questioned, are decent
    people who also live their lives as Christian.  
    
    You are quick to draw lines between your idea of true Christianity and
    everyone else on the face of the earth who, in your eyes, contradicts
    your notion of true Christianity.  Given your black heritage, I would
    think you, more than a lot of people, would understand what it means to
    erect walls between and among your brothers and sisters.  Organized
    Christianity has a dismal track record, regarding treatment of blacks
    as less-than-Christian, less-than-human.  You know that.  Yet your
    words appear to perpetuate this arrogant, divisive, exclusive,
    demeaning attitude, which has driven much of Christianity over the past
    two millennia.  Take a lesson from history, and the terrible
    persecution/oppression of black people throughout history --
    perpetrated in the name of God and Jesus Christ.   Love and treat your 
    neighbor as you would want to be loved and treated.  Respect your 
    neighbor's human dignity, as you would want to be respected.
    
    For all the talk of Christian-this and Christian-that and "sin" and so
    forth found here and in topic 91, no one seems to be emphasizing what
    Jesus emphasized to the hilt -- love.
    
    Paul 

    Re: 12
    
    I have NO argument with that, "verbal attacks" are not allowable.  Only
    things that build and sustain KKK are allowed, which things may very
    well be offensive to others, but as long as they don't "attack" the
    others it's fine.  I mean KKK can say, "I am pro-white", but he can't
    say "I'm anti-black/etc.".  Any actions taken to tear down another
    group is not allowed.
    
    Being "pro-white" doesn't "have" to mean "anti-black/etc.", they just 
    don't have to do anything "for" blacks/etc.  But "anti-black" implies 
    "doing something against" blacks...
    
    I say that that same difference is present in "Jews killed Jesus" (a
    pro-Jesus statement), and "I hate the Jews (for killing Jesus)" (an
    anti-Jewish statement).  A Christian must "know the truth and dwell
    therein", but "vengence is of the Lord"...we acknowledge the truth, but
    we don't take steps or actions against our enemies, instead we "love
    them and feed them, and turn cheeks to them".

    Playtoe
    
    The main problem with 'the Jews killed Jesus' is that it is
    an incorrect statement.
    
    The Romans killed Jesus, and Jesus chose to die. Had he not
    died for our sins, He could not be resurected and we would
    not have Christianity.
    
    Just because a few people in a mob shouted something at the
    Roman officials, this does not make their entire religious
    group collectively guilty of what the mob is reported to have
    urged.
    
    Perhaps the descendants of the mob, but that could include you
    and me.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: 13
    
    I said, and I still stand by it, groups that do not have Christianity
    as a "primary" concern, are subject to bring ideas that are "alien" to
    the Christian Faith.  I'm not going to debate with a pro-homosexual
    about "doctrinal" misinterpretations on my part, until we first find
    the support in scripture for me to entertain the thought.  
    
    As a Christian I "let every man be a liar and God be true" and as clear
    as scripture reads on the issue of such kinds of sex intercourse, I
    don't believe there is any evidence for me to consider otherwise.
    
    So, invariably, Homosexuals will be entertaining thoughts alien to the
    Christian faith, perhaps, in accord with society, but society doesn't
    dictate how we interpret, what we accept and believe as Christians.
    
    There is no "one" Christian doctrine, I beg your pardon.  You are
    confusing men's interpretations with the one Bible...Is Christ divided?
    
    There is one spirit, one church...in reality.  But it's because of
    "Pagan" mixes that we find all the divisions in the church.  And here
    we find a "new" sect splitting from the whole...Love covers a whole lot
    of sin, but we must "repent and change our ways", you can't come to God
    and still keep your old ways too!  A sacrifice must be made, a
    sacrifice of self, because the blood of goats and doves won't get it
    anymore.  
    
    I'm a very conservative Christian, apparently.  I don't like these "new
    translations", they take the "intensity" of God's message away, and I
    don't believe they really catch the meaning of how "ANGRY and TERRIBLE"
    God is with the wicked.  You can change the meaning all you want, but
    God don't change...so that tells me I better get to HIM and not try to
    bend HIM to get to me.

Note 92.20

>    I'm not going to debate with a pro-homosexual
>    about "doctrinal" misinterpretations on my part, until we first find
>    the support in scripture for me to entertain the thought.  
 
Scriptural support is not required in this conference.  There is another
conference where it is, if you are interested in pursuing this issue
in conformance to your requirements as stated above.

Richard Jones-Christie
Co-Mod

    re: 15
    
>    Play Toe,
>    	for some of us, the BLACK perspective is totally alien. And you can
>    bet that New England and California are mutually alien. It seems your
>    biases, your prejudices, are showing. But I won't tell your mom. ;-)
    
    Oh no you haven't!  The Black perspective is still a "primarily"
    Christian perspective and concern.  Black perspective believes the
    tenents and principles advanced in the Bible are true, we don't change
    a thing, we merely apply it to ourselves "as" black people.  On the
    other hand, if Homosexuals applied the Bible "unchanged" to
    themselves...well I hope you see the difference!
    
    Tell Mom if you want, she's hip to yo jive, man, moma's cool and quite
    wise!

    re: 16
    
>However, because
>of corporate policy we have had to institute some rules to prevent employees
>from being harassed or defamed.
    
    I say that the company has done "all it should do" when it puts
    disclaimers on the conference, and tells those opposed to the whole
    topic that they might find offensive statements within.  The company's
    policy of vulgarity and slander and direct statements of attacking
    others can be and must be addressed, but you must keep in mind the
    other's "right to freedom of religion and speech"...it isn't first come
    first serve type thing, it is "every man is created equal" type thing,
    that is the premise upon which arbitration is based, "without respect
    of persons."
    
     

    Playtoe,
    
    The moderators of the conference are responsible to corporate,
    and that responsibility cannot be met by 'disclaimers'. Further
    the moderators of any conference can chose to enact additional
    rules as to how their conference is run and what sort of notes
    can be entered, as long as those rules don't contravene the P&P.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: 17
    
    I'll just say this, the Bible (and therefore "Christians" should) teach
    "separate, but equal", I believe in separate but equal too.  But the
    problem that your fears manifest from is from the recent application of
    that principle, as brought about in America, tainted by a "respect FOR
    persons".  In other words, on the basis of Racism and discrimination.
    
    You fear the history of the application of "double standards", which is
    giving special concern to certain people...the American Way!  You'd
    hate to be the one on the losing side!  But, being black and on the
    losing side has not blinded me to the fact that "separate but equal" is
    Christian and right...applied without 'double-standards' of course  

    Re: 24
    
    And Bonnie, that's REALLY where the problem comes in!  Corporate policy
    is allright, but when it comes to the mod's personal preference, that
    automatically presents prejudices and biases...not unless the mod's are
    gods!  I still say that priority should be given to the "conference
    topic" regarding who's offended who.  And not be a matter of respecting
    persons, because they're your friend, been here a long time and you
    don't want to hurt their feelings (pooh pooh).
    
    But, if that's they way we are going to play it, I think that should be
    announced as well, so again, a noter will have be fully aware of the
    situation when they begin, can be referred to some pre-establish rules,
    that he may have missed (i.e. did not read 1.0).
    

    Playtoe,
    
    Any person or group of people who start a conference have/has a/the 
    right to run it by their 'prejudices and biases' assuming those are
    in line with the corporate P&P and those 'prejudices and biases'
    are clearly outlined as conference policy.
    
    It is the responsibility of the individual noter to read the
    notes relating to conference policy in any file that they join.
    They should understand that notes that do not abide by this
    policy can and will be set hidden and deleted.
    
    If a person objects to the particular orientation of the moderators
    who founded, and /or run a file, then that person has the option of
    ceasing to read the file, working with the moderators to see if 
    they are ammenable to a different set of rules or orientation, or
    starting their own file with their own rules.
    
    Individuals are quite free to start up a notes conference on a topic
    that interests them, and are under no obligation to change the 
    focus of the conference to suit others. Others can either read, not
    read, or start their own conference, as I said. The consciencious
    moderator who is trying to 'serve' a community will listen to
    and incorporate reasonable, and helpful community suggestions.
    However, if the moderator of 'stamps' gets mail/notes from one
    persistant noter or a group of noters that wishes the conference
    focus to change to include comic books, the moderator is within
    his/her rights to politely refuse.
    
    Bonnie
    

Re: .18  Playtoe

>    I say that that same difference is present in "Jews killed Jesus" (a
>    pro-Jesus statement), and "I hate the Jews (for killing Jesus)" (an
>    anti-Jewish statement).  A Christian must "know the truth and dwell
>    therein", but "vengence is of the Lord"...we acknowledge the truth, but
>    we don't take steps or actions against our enemies, instead we "love
>    them and feed them, and turn cheeks to them".

In my judgment your note comes close to being deletable.  I hate to draw
you out about about this because of the high probability that any reply you
make *will* be deletable, but I simply can't leave your remarks in the
conference without responding to them.

In the first place, the statement that "Jews killed Jesus" is debatable;
certainly according to New Testament *some* Jews called for Jesus's death
and accepted blame for it, but it is a far cry from saying "some Jews killed
Jesus" to saying "all Jews killed Jesus".

In the second place, why should the fact that some Jews 2,000 years ago may
or may not have killed Jesus have anything to do with the way you feel about
Jews *today*?  This is the worst kind of prejudice, to hate an entire group
of people instead of treating people in that group as individuals.

It's true that in .18 you didn't say that you hated the Jews for killing
Jesus.  However, you did say that Christians love your enemies and turn
cheeks to them, thus implying that Jews are your enemies.

Please do not respond to this note by defaming Jews.  The moderators will
delete any note which attacks or defames the Jewish people.

Re: .26  Playtoe

>    And not be a matter of respecting
>    persons, because they're your friend, been here a long time and you
>    don't want to hurt their feelings (pooh pooh).

So you think we've been playing favorites?  Prove it.

We have given the conference rules in notes 1 and 8, and we are doing
our best to enforce those rules consistently.

				-- Bob (co-moderator)

    
    Re. The topic in general
            
     
    
         Try to be nice to intolerant people it both confounds and 
     infuriates them. (To paraphrase Mark Twain)
         You cannot fight hate with hate. It doesn't work you just
     create still more hate. There are certainly honest disagreements
     between people and they occasionally become heated. That people
     hold beliefs dearly and passionately is not not in itself a bad
     thing. A good argument can be a lot of fun provided it doesn't
     cross that hard to define point where it goes beyond what is
     "acceptable".
         For the most part the moderators have done a good job of
     not "butting in" and have shown admirable restraint. 
         
                                                       Mike 

    Re: 20
    
    You missed my point, sir.  I said "I'm not" going debate whether I've
    misinterpreted scripture regarding homosexuality, until "I'm" first
    convinced that homosexuality is Christian behavior.  In other words,
    show me in the bible where someone is doing it and God commends,
    blesses, exalts them for it, and then I'll consider my interpretation
    of scriptures that I feel are against it.  But if everyone that's doing
    it is considered sinners, then I really don't think it's reasonable on
    my part to interpret scripture in contradiction to what's apparent.
    
    

    Re: 27
    
    Bonnie, if what you say it true, and I believe it is, then MY input
    still stands.  You're basically saying that what I've said is already
    the case...you should understand my input well.
    
    Why do we go through these kinds of changes, is it because I'm BLACK?

    RE: 28
    
>In the first place, the statement that "Jews killed Jesus" is debatable;
>certainly according to New Testament *some* Jews called for Jesus's death
>and accepted blame for it, but it is a far cry from saying "some Jews killed
>Jesus" to saying "all Jews killed Jesus".

    Yes, it can be debated.  Also, depending on who is your friends, people
    interpret things either for or against you!  Who said that one means
    "all" as opposed to "some" as opposed to "them, 2000 years ago"? 
    Depends on who is your friends or enemies!
    
>In the second place, why should the fact that some Jews 2,000 years ago may
>or may not have killed Jesus have anything to do with the way you feel about
>Jews *today*?  This is the worst kind of prejudice, to hate an entire group
>of people instead of treating people in that group as individuals.
    
    Same thing, who says that I have any particular feelings about Jews
    today?  Nobody asked me how I feel about Jews today!  The statement,
    mentioned before, is speaking of an event that happened 2000 years ago,
    it's kind of paranoid to think this has a reflection on today, IMO.  
    
    If I say, "Whites enslaved blacks", does that mean "all whites enslaved
    all blacks",  "some whites enslaved some blacks" or "them whites
    enslaved them blacks"?  And does this statement imply that "black hate
    whites" today?  Would it be paranoid for whites to fear blacks for
    speaking of slavery days?  It's history, it's fact!  Can't do a thing
    about that!
    
    
    You know Bob, that's exactly my question.

    Re: 28
    
>So you think we've been playing favorites?  Prove it.

    No, but there have been instances of this kind of behavior, but to say
    you've "playing favorites" is kind of extreme.  "Prove it", Yea right! 
    What do you want me to prove, that so-and-so and so-and-so, use to date
    each other, or graduated the same college, or their parents are best
    friends?  I don't care if you play favorites, as long as you obey YOUR
    conference rules.  If you put it in your rules, that from time to time
    you might play favorites, that is better than lieing about it, don't
    you think?  And since, as Bonnie has pointed out, moderators have that
    right, to manage conferences as they deem fit, you have no excuse for
    not warning noters about it...at least you'd sanction it.  
    
    I hate finding this out down the line, that so and so are best of
    friends, who is the moderator of the conference.  Hey if I knew that
    beforehand we could have saved a whole lot of arguments and insults!
    
>We have given the conference rules in notes 1 and 8, and we are doing
>our best to enforce those rules consistently.
    

Re: .35  Playtoe

Whether or not we *could* apply the rules unfairly, I don't think that we
*have* done this.  We've been applying the rules as fairly as we can.

One thing to realize is that each moderator has his or her own style.  When
I see an inappropriate note my usual response is to reply to it in the
conference, whereas other moderators are more likely to hide or delete notes.
The rules give the moderators the flexibility we need to respond to problems
in the way that seems most appropriate.  So far I think this has worked out,
and we've been pretty good about responding to inappropriate notes in a
consistent way, regardless of whether we agree with the person who wrote the
offending note or not.

				-- Bob

    My entry 92.30 was set hidden because a line in it might be understood
    as a personal attack. An error in wording which could have resulted in
    unwarranted contention. The note was titled -< doomed ? >-
    
    PLAYTOE,
    	if you think that being friends with the moderators buys you any
    privs in this conference, it's time to re-think. I have broken bread
    with one, worked with another and noted with a third. My history with
    each goes back a couple of years and is amicable. One of my entries was
    the first to be set hidden in this conference (and lightning has struck
    twice). So much for playing favorites.
    	Regarding the "right to freedom of religion and speech", you must
    remember the context of those rights. No GOVERNMENT in this nation may
    abridge any person's right to freedom of religion or speech, but DEC is
    not a government. DEC *IS* the OWNER of the bulletin board upon which
    you wish to post your messages and DEC can be held liable for the
    messages that you post. Your rights to post messages on PRIVATE
    PROPERTY are limited to those rights granted to you by that property's
    owner.
    	re .22
    	"Oh no you haven't !" HUH? Oh no I haven't *what* ?  Perhaps you
    had something further to say ?
    	"The Black perspective is still "primarily" Christian perspective
    and concern." My first reaction is "So what ?" and my second is "Oh,
    really?" The Black perspective is "alien" to 80%+ of all Americans
    because the Black EXPERIENCE is different from the White experience.
    Even if you factor through religious, financial and geographic
    variables, they are different. Not irreconcilable or incompatable, just
    different. So what if a Black has a Christian perspective. And Oh,
    really, the Black perspective is primarily Christian? You couldn't
    figure that based on my years as a resident of Roxbury. I know that
    many Blacks are essentially obsessed by their religion, be it Christian
    or Muslim. I also know that many couldn't care less and a significant
    minority wouldn't be caught dead in a place of worship. Just like
    Whites, except that the percentage of those who are fervent seems to be
    larger among the Blacks.
    	I don't think you want to talk to my mom, though you might agree
    with her that I'm an unredeemable sinner and a bad influence on the
    world in general. Many of your comments here seem to convey extreme
    biases, prejudice and bigotry. No jive, not wise. I would think that
    such bigotry would be truely abhorant to anyone who has suffered from a
    similar bigotry. Perhaps you are pulling our collective leg, perhaps
    your statements do not reveal your thoughts accurately, perhaps the
    full import of your thoughts had not yet dawned on you, perhaps I'm
    reading more into them than is fitting. However, if my reading is
    correct, please be advised that those who forget history are doomed to
    repeat it. (paraphrased, source Anony Mous)
    	Addendum: Christ was tried according to the Law, found guilty
    according to the Law, and put to death according to the Law, for the
    crime of heresy. According to the Law he was guilty of that crime and
    he made no defense. He was sentenced by the Jews and the sentence was
    executed by the Romans according to the laws of the time and place. He
    was not "killed by the Jews" or by the Romans, he was punished by his
    own government and religious leaders - yes, Christ was a Jew - for a
    crime he commited.

    re .37
    
    FWIW, almost every law in place was broken in the arrest, trial, and
    death of Jesus. Broken by the ones who were to uphold the law and were
    basing their righteousness upon that law. I believe the list of broken
    laws by the Sanhedrin was posted in the archived version of Christian.
    I will hunt it down if you are interested.
    
    Jamey

    .34  Playtoe,
    
           "Nobody asked me how I feel about Jews today!"
    
    How do you feel about Jews today?
    
    Paul

    re .38
    
    Jamey,
    	if that list is fewer than 100 lines and if the author does not
    object then I would not mind reading it. Perhaps you could start a new
    string for it, with or without my original comment. I do not feel that
    this is a major concern but it is of historical interest and might be a
    real bear for literalists to deal with.
    
    	DaveM

I posted this as a reply to Dave's reply .30, which was later set hidden.
I've edited it to remove my direct quote of the attack I was objecting to.

Re: .30

Uh, Dave, you're getting close to being intolerant yourself.  Your note crosses
the line between criticizing a person's ideas and attacking their character.

Yes, it's difficult to decide when it's appropriate to be intolerant of
intolerance.  My feeling is that your (or my) intolerance should be
proportionate to the intolerance shown by the other person.  Yes, we shouldn't
be silent when we see intolerance, but we also shouldn't become over-zealous
lest we become what we despise.

				-- Bob

    Dave, 
    
    Here is the list (I corrected one confusing misspelling). 
    
    Jamey
    
    
             <<< ATLANA::DUB0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN_V4.NOTE;1 >>>
         -< Christian conference v4 - Read-only - for reference only >-
================================================================================
Note 983.4      US News and World Report: The Last Days of Jesus         4 of 11
SA1794::GUSICJ "Referees whistle while they work.."  61 lines   1-MAY-1990 20:17
                           -< Laws of the Sanhedrin >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


         		LAWS OF THE SANHEDRIN REGARDING TRIALS

    
	1. There was to be no arrest by religious authorities that was effected
	   by a bribe.  Exodus 23:8

	2. There were to be no steps of criminal proceedings after sunset.

	3. Judges and Sanhedrin members were not allowed to participate in the
	   arrest.

	4. There were to be no trials before the morning sacrifice.

	5. There were to be no secret trials, only public.

	6. Sanhedrin trials could only be conducted in the hall of judgment
	   of the Temple compound.

	7. The procedure was to be first the defense and then the accusation.

	8. All may argue in favor of acquittal, but all may not argue in favor
	   of conviction.

	9. There were to be two to three witnesses and their testimony had to
	   agree in every detail.  Deut. 19:15

       10. There was to be no allowance for the accused to testify against
	   himself.

       11. The High Priest was forbidden to rent his garments.  Lev. 21:10

       12. Charges could not originate with the judges, they could only
	   investigate charges brought to them.

       13. The accusation of blasphemy was only valid if the name of God itself
	   was pronounced.

       14. A person could not be condemned on the basis of his own words alone.

       15. The verdict could not be announced at night, only in the daytime.

       16. In cases of capital punishment, the trial and guilty verdict could
	   not occur at the same time but must be separated by at least 24 hrs.

       17. Voting for the death penalty had to be done by individual count
           beginning with the youngest so the young would not be influenced by
	   the elders.

       18. A unanimous decision for guilt shows innocence since it is impossible
	   for 23-71 men to agree without plotting.

       19. The sentence could onlyu be pronounced three days after the guilty
	   verdict.

       20. Judges were to be humane and kind.

       21. A person condemned to death was not to be scourged or beaten 
	   beforehand.

    
  
    

    Could it be said that Jesus tolerated the intolerable, but
    that Jesus did not tolerate the intolerant?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Note 92.42

	3. Judges and Sanhedrin members were not allowed to participate in the
	   arrest.

Who or what circumstances disallowed their participation?  I don't recall.

       16. In cases of capital punishment, the trial and guilty verdict could
	   not occur at the same time but must be separated by at least 24 hrs.

Is this Jewish or Roman law, or both?

       18. A unanimous decision for guilt shows innocence since it is impossible
	   for 23-71 men to agree without plotting.

This does not sound like a law, but rather, an arguement.

       20. Judges were to be humane and kind.

They're supposed to be today, too!  It's good in theory, anyway. ;-)

       21. A person condemned to death was not to be scourged or beaten 
	   beforehand.

Perhaps in Jewish law.  However, I believe Jesus was scourged while under
Roman authority.

Peace,
Richard

    
    
    The 'laws' posted were all Sanhedrin law, built upon Mosaic law and
    those laws they felt important to govern themselves.
    
    Note that under Roman law, no charge was ever brought against him. It
    was basically a lynching by the Jews, using the Roman government
    because they no longer had the authority of capital punishment.
    
    Jamey

    I'll be frank. The debate over who killed Jesus strikes me as
    of about the same importance as the old question of how many
    angels can dance on the head of a pin. The idea of placing
    "blame" for the deed even sillier. I don't care who did it
    but I'm glad they did! Why? Because without Jesus' death there
    would have been no resurrection. Without it happening the way
    it did the prophecies would not have been fulfilled. It's a nit.

    		Alfred

Note 92.45
    
    >Note that under Roman law, no charge was ever brought against him. It
    >was basically a lynching by the Jews, using the Roman government
    >because they no longer had the authority of capital punishment.
    
    So, the Romans were innocent pawns; dupes for the Jews; the oppressors
    oppressed by their oppressees.  Is that what you're saying?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Thank you Alfred for saying that. I said it earlier  but
    I think you made the point better. Blaming anyone for
    the death of Jesus is contrary to the whole Christian
    message. Had He not died He could not have taken our sins
    upon him and He could not have been resurected and granted
    us eternal life.
    
    The one thing that sets Jesus apart from all the other
    leaders and preachers of the time (and they were legion - it
    was a time of great spiritual foment!) was just the fact
    of His death and resurection.
    
    Only a prophet,preacher,leader who was able to do that could
    truely show Himself to be the Son of God.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie, Alfred (.48 & .46)
    
    I agree with you.  I recently read the following by Albert Nolan that
    expresses a similar viewpoint:
    
    	Jesus seems to have been faced with the alternatives of remaining
    	in hiding to avoid death or coming out of hiding to face death...
    	If he came out of hiding in otder to preach he would sooner or
    	later be caught and silenced -- unless his death itself could
    	become a way of awakening faith in the kingdom.... Jesus died so
    	that the kingdom might come.
    
    Who's to say the Romans and Pharisees didn't play out their respective
    parts *perfectly*, (if nevertheless unwittingly) in full accordance 
    with God's own Divine Plan...?
    
    Karen

    .49  nice entry sister Karen  ;)  You know I played out my part
    perfectly, since you know I was a high Roman official (in Rome) in a
    former life!  ;)  ;) 
    
    Paul
    

    Paul -
    
    Sister Karen's seen it all.  ;-)
    
    Nanci

    re .41
    
    Bob,
    	I agree that what you say applied to my .30 but I'm not sure it
    also applies to my rewrite. If you think it does, please tell me,
    either here or privately. It was not my intent to cross that line in
    either version and am willing to attempt yet another revision if you
    think I should. It was, and is, my intent to let "Playtoe" know how he
    is being percieved - at least by me - due to the content of several of
    his notes. I do not believe that this is an accurate perception, I HOPE
    it is not an accurate perception, and I felt that he should be shown
    the picture he is projecting. He has, in later notes, moderated his
    comments - and did so even before seeing my entry. I never even asked
    that he do this, I only suggested that he review his actual
    feelings/thoughts and compare them to what he was telling us. Or, at
    least, that was my intent. But in a much more verbose style.
    	Get back to me if you feel I need to do another rewrite, please. 

    re:.42  errors at Christ's trial
    
    Jamey,
    	it looks to me like there's a bit of redundancy in this list as
    well as some seeming contradictions and some irrelevancies. 
    
    #5 suggests that the trial was held in secret, contrary to the law.
    This is my understanding also.
    #s 7,8,9,10,11,12,14,17,18 and 20 suggest procedural errors which would
    only be known to someone who attended the trial. Given that 17 and 18
    alude to a unanimous verdict - I thought it was only nearly so - it
    would seem that there were no sources of information other than those
    who condemned him.
    
    Was the trial not secret ?  Was all the information regarding it
    supposition ?  Was all the information regarding it second-sourced ?  I
    do NOT recall attribution, did I miss something ?
    
    #s 1, 3 and 21 are red herrings. The initial arrest was essentially a
    Roman affair, although the Sanhedrin were believed to have instigated
    it - again, second hand information without attribution - and did
    indeed participate in it. My understanding is that his arrest was
    expected to lead to a death at Roman hands, which did not occur. After
    the Romans scourged him, no Sanhedrin involvement, he was turned back
    over to the Jews to be dealt with according to their laws.
    
    12 and 14 imply that the judges originated with the judges and that he
    was condemned on the basis of his words alone. This is either second-
    hand knowledge or supposition if the trial was indeed secret. I would
    point out that there were thousands of people who could have accused
    him and many of those would have been happy to. I would also point out
    that it was his words which were on trial, his words which challenged
    the religion of the land and which claimed Godhood for his person. He
    could ONLY be condemned on the basis of his own words.
    
    8 and 18 imply that the vote was unanimous, second etc, and perhaps
    not relevent. Their inclusion in the list implies that a unanimous
    verdict was unacceptable under Sanhedrin law, an implication that I
    question and would like documentation for.
    
    I am quite willing to grant that there were irregularities. I
    understand that the trial was closed and held in secret, both in
    contravention of established procedure if not the law. It is my
    understanding that it was held at night and in a place other than that
    set aside for such trials, again in contravention etc. It is my
    understanding that the process was pushed through with unseemly haste,
    again in etc. THREE valid points out of 21, sounds rather like a wash
    to me.
    This rather shoddy work was supposedly taken from US News and World
    Report ?  Pardon my cynicism.
    OK, you didn't write it,you only posted it. And at my request. I oughta
    be nice. Thank you for the posting, it gave me something solid to
    comment on.
    
    re .45
    
    Jamey again,
    	Roman law did not require that a Roman officer in a subject state
    needed to follow any procedure when dealing with the local rabble. They
    had tremendous autonomy amounting to carte blanche in such trivial
    affairs. The Sanhedrin expected the Romans to kill this rabble rouser
    because it had happened before and with even less provocation. Charges
    equal paperwork and he just wasn't worth the aggravation. The
    Sanhedrin, NOT "the Jews", had a trial, perhaps blemished by
    irregularities, which reached a logical verdict, according to what we
    know of Christ's teachings and actions, and turned him over to the
    Romans for the requisit punishment. The result being that his followers
    are today legion and his co-religionists (the Jews) are today a minor
    sect not much more than they were two millienia ago.
    	I object to your term "lynched" and to your attribution of this to
    "the Jews". Such comments are hardly supported by the most liberal
    (conservative?) examination of the evidence and are certainly both
    libelous and slanderous. Considering the obviously favorable result of
    the incident I would think that you would be much more charitable about
    the whole thing. 

Re:  92.53
    
  >#5 suggests that the trial was held in secret, contrary to the law.
  >This is my understanding also.

Agreement on 5!  Actually, this rule was broken if the trial was
"not public".

  >Was the trial not secret ?  Was all the information regarding it
  >supposition ?  Was all the information regarding it second-sourced ?  I
  >do NOT recall attribution, did I miss something ?

You assume that the events of a non-public event (such as a trial) would
never become known.  Let me just say one word.  Watergate.
    
  >#s 1, 3 and 21 are red herrings. 

1. There was to be no arrest by religious authorities that was effected
   by a bribe.  Exodus 23:8

Your definition of red herring must be different than mine.  A bribe
was made by religious authorities solely for the purpose of effecting
an arrest.  And you are saying that this is not relevant?  

The question is for each point, "Did the Sanhedrin follow the rules
established for their conduct?"

The answer at each point is "no".

A red herring?  This directly relates to the question!

3. Judges and Sanhedrin members were not allowed to participate in the
   arrest.

Those arresting Jesus were sent by the chief priests and others, thereby
involving them in the arrest.  A red herring?

21. A person condemned to death was not to be scourged or beaten 
    beforehand.

Jesus was condemned to death and *then* scourged.  A red herring?

  >12 and 14 imply that the judges originated with the judges and that he
  >was condemned on the basis of his words alone. 

12. Charges could not originate with the judges, they could only
    investigate charges brought to them.

14. A person could not be condemned on the basis of his own words alone.

  "The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false
   evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death.  But
   they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward."

  "Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."  "Yes, it is as you
   say", Jesus replied.

I think these quotes speak rather clearly about the appropriateness of
both 12 and 14 in this list.

  >He could ONLY be condemned on the basis of his own words.

I believe the intended meaning here is that he could not be condemned on
the basis of his words spoken at the trial.  At least, that's the
meaning I've always assumed.  The Old Testament provides an account of
how a man was falsely accused of blasphemy and then stoned (which Jezebel
arranged to have happen).  I believe that the (false) witness of the
two men of what he was supposed to have said was all that was needed
(and that it followed that procedural point of the law).
    
  >I am quite willing to grant that there were irregularities. 

The evidence for the "irregularities" which you question is rather
meager.  On many of the points, the Bible flat out contradicts your
suppositions.  Or are you simply saying that the Bible is not an
accurate record?

  >THREE valid points out of 21, sounds rather like a wash to me.

I guess I fail to follow you, Dave.  What are you using for evidence?
I hear questions, but no facts.  The facts that support the 21 points
are well documented.  Would you like quotes for each point?

  >This rather shoddy work was supposedly taken from US News and World
  >Report ?  

I really must protest, Dave.  You have not presented evidence that
a single point was wrong (yet having denied 18 of them) and you call
this work shoddy?  Give me a break.  (Really, I can hardly believe
it.)

  >perhaps blemished by irregularities, 

Even questioning the last 3 now?

  >which reached a logical verdict, 

Glad you agree that Christ claims to be God.

  >Considering the obviously favorable result of the incident I would think 
  >that you would be much more charitable about the whole thing. 

The ends justify the means?  No, Paul, that's not a Christian principle.

Collis

Re: .52  Dave

My comments applied to your original note, not to the re-write.  Sorry if
that wasn't clear.  I re-posted my note because I thought it might help to
define the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable notes.

				-- Bob

Some say that Jesus's death was predestined, as if preplanned. I
believe that God had placed His Christ as a living sacrifice for
all of us; it could have been at a altar, in the hands of the
Romans or in the hands of the Jews.

Also notice that even the Jews carried out the "trial"; it was
Roman authority that carried out the death sentence. Bottom line;
curifixation on the cross is a VERY slow, painful death. The
victim literally strangled to death from his ow body weight. It's
a very cruel way to kill ANYONE.

Sorry for the rathole. My new testament professor did a side
reasearch about the pain suffered by our Lord when He died.

calvin

    
    re .53
    
    Dave, 
    
    Collis did a nice job of supporting some of this. I hadn't really
    intended to open a debate, just supply some information that I recalled
    in the back of the gray cells. There are others who could supply much
    more information and thought on the matter if you want to open a
    separate topic.
    
    Re 'The Jews'. Make no mistake, I am not trying to muck up any
    anti-semitism. Perhaps I should have use the term Jewish leadership. 
    
    
    Jamey

re Note 92.4 by PDMONT::BENSON:

>     I recommend that this conference be totally tolerant of the intolerant!
    
        jeff,

        I would like that to be the case here, but there is a
        problem.

        There really is no such thing as "this conference". 
        Ultimately, in reality as well as in DEC policy, the
        participants are individuals.

        So the above statement becomes "all individuals in this
        conference be totally tolerant of the intolerant".

        It is unreasonable to expect all individuals to be tolerant
        of intolerance at all times, especially but not limited to
        those situations in which the intolerance appears to be
        directed towards them.

        Therefore I think that your recommendation, while a nice
        expression of what an ideal world might be like, is not
        realizable in this world.

        Nevertheless, do you have any suggestions for how we might
        approach tolerance of the intolerant?  An alternative I might
        propose -- as unrealizable as your approach perhaps -- is
        that we all agree not to be intolerant.

        Bob

re Note 92.20 by SWAM3::DOTHARD_ST:

>     I said, and I still stand by it, groups that do not have Christianity
>     as a "primary" concern, are subject to bring ideas that are "alien" to
>     the Christian Faith.  

        But ALL of us are members of "groups that do not have
        Christianity as a 'primary' concern" -- Digital Equipment
        Corporation, for one!  There are also Boy Scouts, and the
        Sierra Club, and Daughters of the American Revolution, and --
        the list would go on and on.

        I could accept your claim, but I would then add that your
        point is moot -- by your proposed standard, NOBODY could
        participate in this conference!

        Bob

re  Note 92.28 by DECWIN::MESSENGER:

> In the first place, the statement that "Jews killed Jesus" is debatable;

        But, please let's not debate this!

        (Not just directed towards Bob Messenger:)

        Some subjects are historically EXTREMELY hurtful;  this is
        one of them.

        The participants have written just enough to express where
        they might be coming from -- that is enough for this issue.

        I wish this were a perfect world where we could discuss
        ANYTHING, but it isn't, really;  and you certainly have the
        right to gather and discuss this issue outside of Digital's
        auspices.

        Bob

re Note 92.37 by DELNI::MEYER:

>     	Regarding the "right to freedom of religion and speech", you must
>     remember the context of those rights. No GOVERNMENT in this nation may
>     abridge any person's right to freedom of religion or speech, but DEC is
>     not a government. DEC *IS* the OWNER of the bulletin board upon which
>     you wish to post your messages and DEC can be held liable for the
>     messages that you post. Your rights to post messages on PRIVATE
>     PROPERTY are limited to those rights granted to you by that property's
>     owner.
  

        I took a personnel-sponsored course this morning, and the
        consultant said:

        	"Freedom of speech is not a work-place right."

        Bob

    Collis,
    	sometimes you really get under my skin. Your entry .54 which
    replied to my .53 was/is one such instance. My most printable response
    is that you could at least take care to call me by MY name, not my
    younger brother Paul's.
    	You seem to assume at one point that there was some sort of inquest
    into the irregularities of the trial. ("Watergate") Have you the merest
    shred of an implication that such was the case ?  No ?  Thought not.
    The trial WAS secret - an irregularity - and none of the information
    suggested by those dozen items could have been KNOWN by those who
    reported them to us. Even if they WERE reported to the public, it was
    as second-hand knowledge or hearsay and should not be accepted as fact.
    	Red herring, red herring, three day old red herring. THE  CONTESTED 
    ARREST  WAS  NOT  FOR  THE  CRIME  FOR  WHICH  HE  WAS  EVENTUALLY 
    CONDEMNED.  Please read that again.  THAT is why those points are not
    valid. He was arrested as a troublemaker with the expectation that the
    Romans would take care of the problem. Once handed over to the Romans,
    all procedural sins are forgiven.
    	The priests did not need false evidence, they had valid reports of
    Christ's teachings and those teachings were deemed by most of the
    existing authorities and scholars to be herecy. Again, you cannot
    truely know what took place in a secret trial, you only know what some
    questionable source wants you to know.
    	There are only three uncontestable points here out of twenty one
    offered. These three points ONLY point to irregularities in the
    procedure. MOST IMPORTANT :  Not one of the 21 original points suggests
    that Christ was innocent, only that the proceedure leading to his
    condemnation was flawed.
    	For the record: no, I do not concede that the Bible is an accurate
    record - not in all things. I will say no more on this to avoid censure
    of my entire entry.
    	I never said the end justified the means. Those are your words.
    Charity, though, is SUPPOSED to be a Christian principle.

    Jamey,
    	OK, thanks for clearing that up. I was rather hoping that the
    anti-Semitic import of your comment was unintended, simply a poor
    choice of wording.

Hi, all.

Well, my shot at the topic under discussion, how tolerant should I be of 
intolerance?  (Speaking of intolerant ideas, attitudes, et cetera.  As has 
been pointed out, there is a difference between being intolerant, and taking 
action based on bigoted attitudes.  (At which point, I tend to be a 
non-passive pacifist.))

I ask myself "can I detect intolerance?"  "Am I tolerant or intolerant?"  
I'd like to think that I am a tolerant person who can detect intolerance when 
I see it, but of course I'm biased that way. .-)

So my first response is to pray and ask God for guidance in a particular 
situation.  What I am usually called to do is to simply share my viewpoint, 
and trust that if a person sees something they like, want, or need in my 
perspective, they can make the choice to pursue that.

Sometimes I am called to do nothing, trusting that what I may perceive as 
intolerance will be manifest to others and stand or fall as it will.  This 
seems akin to "shaking the dust off one's sandals..." and seems to be my call 
after a history of repeated intolerances.  I feel that even then, before 
events have come to that point, I have perhaps planted a seed, but I may be 
unable to stay and tend the plant.

I also pray for others, not that they come to share my particular point of 
view, but that they may come to know the Truth that God has in store for them.
(Which may be far different from, but not incompatible with the glimpse of 
Truth I know.)  I pray for myself in this way, also. 

Ultimately, God is the merciful judge of all, and I try to be aware of that in 
all that I do, taking responsibility for all that I do.

And next, to answer the question, "Who Killed Christ?", the best answer I've 
found is...



				*I* did.

Peace,

Jim

Re:  92.62

  >sometimes you really get under my skin. 

I know what that's like.  :-)

  >My most printable response is that you could at least take care to call me 
  >by MY name, not my younger brother Paul's.

My sincere apologies for that mistake, Dave.

  >THE  CONTESTED ARREST  WAS  NOT  FOR  THE  CRIME  FOR  WHICH  HE  
  >WAS  EVENTUALLY CONDEMNED.  ... THAT is why those points are not valid. 

Condemned by the Sanhedrin or condemned by Pilate?  Both condemned him
to death by their respective laws, but only Pilate had the authority
to enfore it.

Since the arrest *was* for the crime for which he was condemned by
the Sanhedrin, these points are all perfectly valid.  Besides which,
the topic under discussion is not dependent on Jesus' death, but
rather on the (mis)conduct of the Sanhedrin.

  >Once handed over to the Romans, all procedural sins are forgiven.

Saying that Pilate crucified Jesus is as accurate as saying that all
Jews crucified Jesus.  Both have a little bit of truth.  Both are way 
off the mark.  

  >The priests did not need false evidence...

They sure wasted a lot of effort trying to get it.

  >Again, you cannot truely know what took place in a secret trial, you only 
  >know what some questionable source wants you to know.

The Bible says otherwise.  Guess who I believe.  :-)

  >There are only three uncontestable points here out of twenty one
  >offered. 

I see we haven't made much progress, have we.  You choose to base your
beliefs on - on what?  I don't know.  It's at times like this that I
say you base your beliefs on what you want to believe.  Because I can
see *no other basis* for your beliefs.  You discount the only evidence
we have and offer no other.  Do you see this?

  >Not one of the 21 original points suggests that Christ was innocent, 
  >only that the proceedure leading to his condemnation was flawed.

The rules of the Sanhedrin were not designed so that only innocent
people would be brought before them.  They were designed so that what
would be done was fair.

  >I never said the end justified the means. Those are your words.

Yes, they were.  I have reread your statement and see that this meaning
may not have been the intended one at all.  Sorry I put words in your
mouth.

  >Charity, though, is SUPPOSED to be a Christian principle.

You are right, Dave.  I should write in a kinder, gentler way.  I'm
sorry.  Will you forgive me?

Collis

    Collis,
    	given that you accept everything in the Bible as factual beyond
    question and that I do not, there is no basis for any agreement between us
    on this issue. We can resolve nothing by continueing this and I suggest
    we close it with that understanding. Can we at least agree on that ?

Re:  .66

I was hoping that you would have some evidence (other than the reasoning
already provided) to back up your points.  If you do, then we can by all
means discuss it.  If not, you are right in saying that there is little
to be gained by discussing this.

Collis

Lots of folks claim they do not believe in Digital's Valuing Difference
policies, because it fails to value the difference of their dislikes,
disgust, contempt, prejudices, or even outright hated.

I believe some of this can be diffused and dispelled through education.
Fear, hatred, and ignorance coexist extremely well together, even if
intangibly covert.

Other times, education will not cure such maladies.  Sometimes assertive
direct action is required.  Unfortunately, sometimes this doesn't work either.

How long after Jesus disrupted the desecration at the Temple do you suppose
the merchants and moneychangers went back into business?  My guess is within
minutes after Jesus and company departed the vicinity.

Peace,
Richard

	There have been accusations in the CHRISTIAN notesfile recently claiming
that CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE is, in its own way, just as narrow and intolerant of
dissenting viewpoints as CHRISTIAN has been criticized for on occassion.

	For a moment, let's consider that accusation to be a true.  What can
be done to make this conference a more hospitable environment for those whose
viewpoints may not be analogous to our own?  How can we be more sensitive and
supportive of our contributing noters?

Peace,
Richard

    Your last two notes are troublesome to me, Richard.  I don't know how
    to answer them and an uncomfortable with the way you raise them.  What
    do you expect from those of us who are comfortable here?  
    
    I could only respond by comparing and contrasting this notesfile with
    GOLF::CHRISTIAN and I think that some time back we decided that doing
    *that* was displaying narrow, intolerant, self-righteous attitudes.
    I don't currently feel under attack by CHRISTIAN, so I feel no need to
    defend this file (which I could and would do, if necessary).  (And I
    think that maybe your posting of .70 comes close to letting someone else 
    do this kind of attack for us, so it makes me a bit uncomfortable!)
    
    As for making this conference "more hospitable" it seems to me that we
    present ourselves as Christian people who are human, who sin, and who
    do *not* have "all the answers!"  When we speak out strongly and are
    challenged as being intolerant, then let us examine ourselves, ask 
    forgiveness of the one we have hurt, and try to reconcile.  Thinking
    that there is something we can do to ensure that such intolerance never
    appears is trying to set ourselves above being human.
    
    At the same time, we have to admit that while the *conference* is not
    based on any absolute standard of authoritarian answers, there are
    individuals who note here whose Christian perspective *is* an
    authoritarian one.  I am not aware that we have kept such people from
    noting, nor have you mods write-locked their note strings.
    
    I guess I'm saying that we can determine/find narrowness and
    intolerance only in (1) the conference guidelines, which are about as
    open as possible, or in (2) specific instances.  Otherwise, I can't
    deal with it so abstractly.
    
    Nancy

    Well, I can speak as someone who has come to find this a *very*
    intolerant space.  I wasn't going to respond; I've been reading only
    sporadically since I "left" the file.  I will say (and I know I will
    get flamed for it) that I have found this space to be full of hate
    lately.  No, not everyone, but enough to make me feel as I felt when I
    was a Cathollc.  I feel intolerance and contempt for those of us who
    not only do not not not not believe in the inerrancy of the bible, but
    are not even biblical scholars.  
    
    Yes, I know there are warm, caring, loving people here.  Unfortunately,
    for *me*, they are not enough.  I will be deleting the conference from
    my notebook now.  (Yes, I know.  Since I am leaving soon, it is largely
    a symbolic gesture.)
    
    
    E Grace

    re: .72, E Grace,
    
    Yours are words we need to hear -- and need to understand.
    
    > I will say (and I know I will
    > get flamed for it) that I have found this space to be full of hate
    > lately.
    
    I would not flame you for this, nor would I look kindly on any who
    did.  Unfortunately, however, part of tolerance lies in the title
    of this string -- tolerating even the intolerant!  But no arguments or
    flames, here, E Grace!  Your feelings and experiences are important and
    if they are experiences of being on the receiving end of hate, then I
    am one who takes that seriously and who cares.
    
    > I feel intolerance and contempt for those of us who
    > not only do not not not not believe in the inerrancy of the bible, but
    > are not even biblical scholars.  
    
    Any suggestions on what the mods or members can do about this?  *I*
    feel such freedom here, compared with CHRISTIAN, where I felt that *my*
    witness was at best merely tolerated and at worst patronized or flamed!!
    Here I feel that my experiences, expressions of faith, and witness to
    others are received with appreciation and respect by those who are
    dear to me.
    
    I personally treat many of those "biblical inerrancy" notes as just so
    much "background noise" -- BUT I am constantly tried (probably "tired,"
    too, but here I really mean *tried* as in "on trial") in (1) how to
    continue to love and respect those noters as people and (2) how to
    "protect" those like you who are hurt by that!!  
    
    I can work on (1) but I haven't a clue as to how to accomplish (2)!
    Can you help?  How could we structure or run the conference
    differently?
    
    > Yes, I know there are warm, caring, loving people here.  Unfortunately,
    > for *me*, they are not enough.
    
    If this were a church, a "covenant community," rather than a Digital
    conference, we *could* restrict (or eliminate) expressions of
    intolerance and contempt.  I, for one, will miss your Quaker
    perspective.
    
    Peace,
    Nancy
    
    PS - Where are you going?
    

    
     It is inevitable that whenever the free exchange of ideas
   is encouraged there will at times be disagreements. This is
   not exactly a new problem. It is one that people have been struggling
   with for quite awhile and I suspect will continue to struggle with
   as long as people are allowed to freely express themselves. In the
   long run it is a problem that I prefer to the alternative of 
   censorship.
     To be sensitive and supporting is certainly to be desired. What is
   often very difficult is to understand that this will require that
   others are allowed to express opinions that you may strongly disagree
   with. To be sensitive and supporting does not require that you agree
   with or even like someone. It does require that you allow them the
   same freedom of expression that you would desire for yourself. It requires
   that you treat them with the courtesy and respect that you would have shown
   to yourself. Does "Do unto others..." ring a bell ?
     To be sure we all fall short of behaving towards others as we would
   have them treat us. I am pretty sure we are aware of when we do this and
   it is relatively easy to apologize for occasional lapse.  Of course it
   is better not to lapse in the first place. However when deeply and 
   dearly held beliefs are presenting or defended passions are apt to flare.
     Of all the lessons I learned from my parents there is one that has
   seldom failed me and that is that it is not necessary to argue with
   everyone you disagree with. There isn't enough time in life to do that
   and it is doubtful that you could accomplish much by it.
     Personally, I sometimes think that it is insecurity causes to try and 
   insist that everyone agree with our opinions. Perhaps you are absolutely
   correct, perhaps what you have to say is indisputably true, there are
   going to be those who will not see things your way and there is nothing
   you can do to change that. 
      I tend to think that one of the best ways to be sensitive and supporting
   is to keep one's mouth shut. You do not have to agree with or approve of 
   what another is saying. Allowing another to say their piece is important
   even if you do not agree with what they are espousing.
      It is important to remember that disagreement does not constitute
   intolerance. Unfortunately, the idea that it is has become rather widespread
   and we would do well to remind ourselves that intolerance occurs when
   the expression of dissenting ideas is either not allowed by censorship or
   when the consequences of disagreement are so severe that a rational person
   would not wish to deal with them; not simply when we disagree with someone.  
       It is well and good to choose to remain silent, but and altogether
   different matter to have to remain silent. To encourage a diversity of
   opinions is to play with fire. 
       If we wish to be more supportive and caring we need to think a little
   more before we respond, to allow others to say things we may not like 
   without taking them to task for it and keep in the back of our mind that
   the road to intolerance, like the one to hell, is paved with good
   intentions. Maybe the price to be payed for freedom to express ideas
   and beliefs openly is that we are exposed to ones that make us a bit
   uncomfortable at times. It is alright to be uncomfortable with another's
   beliefs. It nothing else it means you are listening and trying to 
   understand. 
       If this were to become a place were we all agreed and we were all
   comfortable and happy with everything that each us was saying it would
   be a disaster. Because when that happened we would no longer be learning
   from each other and expanding our horizons beyond our own conceptions
   of how thing are or should be. 
        It is those that I have the greatest difference of opinions with
   that I frequently learn the most from because they cause me to 
   examine and rethink who I am and what I believe. If through our own 
   intolerance we drive away or silence those we disagree with or are
   uncomfortable with we will have lost not only the opportunity to 
   understand others, but ourselves as well.  We will have become the
   victims of our own intolerance.

                               
                                                            Mike 
         
         
 

    Intolerance in Notes conferences is a particular interest of mine
    so I feel obliged to enter my opinion. I think that often the
    perception of intolerance of a conference is based on a failure
    to separate the participants of a conference from the management
    of the conference.
    	
    The exclusion of people who are intolerant of others is neither
    possible nor, in my opinion, completely desirable. It is certainly
    intolerant but that's a circular argument that I am not interested
    in. So all conferences will have intolerant people. Does that make
    the conference intolerant? I think not. Rather what makes a conference
    intolerant is actions taken my moderators to exclude other opinions
    or voices. A note that is criticized, even heavily and/or even by the
    moderators, is *not* an example of an intolerant conference. Rather it
    *may* be an example of intolerant people. For it to show intolerance
    by the *conference* the note would have to be hidden or deleted with
    an admonition not to do it again. That has not happened here very
    often.

    Certainly it does happen in other conferences more then here. What is
    this claim of intolerance on the part of the conference based on? One
    persons disagreement with an other. Or several peoples? I can't see
    that as grounds for calling the conference intolerant. The discussion
    continues, the notes remain. Disagreement is not intolerance.

    			Alfred

        In I Corinthians, 8:7-13, Paul gives some advice about how
        the tolerant should act towards the intolerant:

>  8:7  Howbeit [there is] not in every man that knowledge: for
> some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat [it] as a
> thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is
> defiled.
>  8:8  But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we
> eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the
> worse.
>  8:9  But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours
> become a stumbling block to them that are weak.
>  8:10  For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat
> in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is
> weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to
> idols;
>  8:11  And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish,
> for whom Christ died?
>  8:12  But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their
> weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
>  8:13  Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat
> no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to
> offend.

        Paul's personal conclusion, if applied generally, is
        astounding:  the intolerant may be "weak", but Paul chooses
        to adopt the strictures of the weak so as not to offend!

        Or is this verse just applicable to meat sacrificed to idols?

        Bob

    	I suspect the question here might be "who is being intolerant?". I
    can point to instances in the recent past where normally tolerant
    people have responded with intolerance. I don't know if I fit in the
    former category but I know I fit in the latter. Some of those normally
    tolerant people espouse inerrency, others oppose it. Sometimes two
    square off. I don't think this makes the conference intolerent. There
    are many people in this conference and they have a great many opinions
    between them. There is value in this diversity and the price we pay for
    that value is occasional unresolvable disputes. 
    	A conference with occasionally intolerant individuals differs from
    an intolerent conference in the way MOST participants respond to a
    divergent opinion MOST of the time. Most of the time, most of us will
    discuss our differences in a civil, scholarly manner.
    	E Grace, we'll miss your sprinkling of sunbeams.

    RE: .76
    
    Bob,
    
>  8:8  But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we
> eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the
> worse.
    
    Paul "chooses to adopt the stricutres of the weak so as not to offend" 
    in a matter that is of no consequence, not in a matter of faith
    (biblical inerrancy vs. scholarship, experience, etc., along with
    scripture) nor in a matter of how we treat each other (intolerance
    vs. acceptance).
    
    Nancy

"I think of the theologian who does not wait for God, because he possesses Him,
 enclosed within a doctrine.  I think of the Biblical student who does not wait 
 for God, because he possesses Him, enclosed in a book. I think of the churchman
 who does not wait for God, because he possesses Him, enclosed in an
 institution. I think of the believer who does not wait for God, because he
 possesses Him, enclosed within his own experience....

"I am convinced that much of the rebellion against Chirstianity is due to the
 overt or veiled claim of the Christians to possess God, and therefore, also, to
 the loss of this element of waiting, so decisive for the prophets and the
 apostles....They did not possess God; they waited for Him.  For how can God be
 possessed?  Is God a thing that can be grasped and known among other things?
 Is God less than a human person?  We always have to wait for a human being.
 Even in the most intimate communion among human beings, there is an element of
 *not* having and *not* knowing, and of waiting....
    
    				-- Paul Tillich

Note 92.71
>    (And I
>    think that maybe your posting of .70 comes close to letting someone else 
>    do this kind of attack for us, so it makes me a bit uncomfortable!)

Hmmmm.  I wrestled quite a while with whether I should or shouldn't post
that note.  I wasn't sure why I felt that way at the time.  Now I know why!
8-}

I have therefore decided to delete 92.70, as being unworthy of this conference.

Thanks, Nancy!

Richard

    Nancy
    
    that was *beautiful*
    
    thankyou
    
    Bonnie

    by the way, I was talking to Don about this note tonite and
    he read me this quote that he felt was his response...
    
    "for oer five years this man has been chasing around Europe
    like a madman in search of something he could set on fire. 
    Unfortunately he again and again finds hirelings who open the
    gates of their country to this international incendiary."
    
    He asked both our son Peter and me to guess who said that in the 1930s
    and about whom. We both guessed wrong.
    
    any takers?
    
    Bonnie
    

    RE: .82 D L Moody?

    Re:  .82
    
    Hitler said that about Churchill.
    
    DR

    aw, Don I thought you wanted to give folks a chance to guess a bit! 
    
    ;-)
    
    BJ

re Note 92.78 by FAVAX::NSMITH:

>                               -< Big difference >-
> 
>     RE: .76
>     
>     Bob,
>     
> >  8:8  But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we
> > eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the
> > worse.
>     
>     Paul "chooses to adopt the stricutres of the weak so as not to offend" 
>     in a matter that is of no consequence, not in a matter of faith
>     (biblical inerrancy vs. scholarship, experience, etc., along with
>     scripture) nor in a matter of how we treat each other (intolerance
>     vs. acceptance).

        Ultimately, what distinguishes the weaker from the stronger is
        not the positions one takes on the issues, but rather the
        issues one takes to be important.
  
        To the weaker one, who won't eat meat sacrificed to idols,
        this IS a matter of great consequence -- they are afraid that
        their eating equates to idolatry, certainly a great sin!

        What if the weak ones are those who claim the nature of
        Scripture to be a matter of great consequence?  Perhaps it is
        only the wiser and more mature who realize that the precise
        nature of Scripture is not one of the issues of great
        consequence!

        Just as the weaker brother in I Corinthians is distracted
        from matters of real consequence by his attention to matters
        of little consequence, perhaps those whose attention is
        always distracted to debating the nature of Scripture are
        likewise missing out on matters of real consequence, such as
        our common life together with the living Jesus!

        Bob

    re: .86
    
    >    Just as the weaker brother in I Corinthians is distracted
    >    from matters of real consequence by his attention to matters
    >    of little consequence, perhaps those whose attention is
    >    always distracted to debating the nature of Scripture are
    >    likewise missing out on matters of real consequence, such as
    >    our common life together with the living Jesus!
    
    I definitely agree -- but I thought you were saying that we, like Paul
    in the meat-eating case, should behave like the weaker brother so as
    not to offend him, i.e., join him in debating Scripture (or in
    accepting it literally)... Guess I really don't understand what you're
    getting at... :(
    
    Totally confused,
    Nancy

re Note 92.87 by FAVAX::NSMITH:

>     I definitely agree -- but I thought you were saying that we, like Paul
>     in the meat-eating case, should behave like the weaker brother so as
>     not to offend him, i.e., join him in debating Scripture (or in
>     accepting it literally)... Guess I really don't understand what you're
>     getting at... :(
  
        Nancy,

        I'm not trying to be didactic, but rather give others food
        for thought.  The genesis of many religious quarrels is when
        I, rather than sharing my perceptions of what God is saying
        to me, instead tell you what God is saying to you.

        In the case of the weaker brother who is stuck on a debate of
        the nature of Scripture, we have several possible
        alternatives.  One, as you suggest, is joining in debating
        the nature of Scripture, or perhaps accepting it literally. 
        In the example given in I Corinthians, I don't think Paul was
        saying that he has adopted the doctrine of the weaker
        brother;  rather, he is just acting in a way not to raise the
        issue, presumably so that more important aspects of living in
        Christ can emerge.

        Another alternative is to simply be silent, and not allow
        ourselves to be drawn into fruitless argument.  This does not
        mean that we take the opposite position in the argument, or
        that we start a different argument about why the weaker
        brother is in error!  Just be patient, be understanding, be
        tolerant -- even of the intolerant.

        Bob

        P.S. This passage from I Corinthians 8 is troubling, for one
        can easily imagine more complicated scenarios in which it is
        hard to apply Paul's teaching.  For example, suppose a
        second brother comes by, equally weak in some ways, but
        having the "correct" theology about food sacrificed to idols. 
        He might be offended by Paul's apparent agreement with the
        first weaker brother!  It is easy to imagine circumstances
        where even the great Paul would find that whatever he did,
        somebody would be offended.  What do you do in a case like
        that?

    re: .88, Bob,
    
    Thanks for the clarification!  
    
    Sometimes I "debate" because I think we are really having an open
    discussion.  
    
    Sometimes I debate so that hearers (or in this case, readers) will 
    understand that there *is* more than one valid Christian perspective.  
    
    And sometimes (believe it or not :} ) I choose to keep quiet, *especially*
    when it doesn't matter a bit (IMO) who is right! 
    
>        P.S. This passage from I Corinthians 8 is troubling, for one
>        can easily imagine more complicated scenarios in which it is
>        hard to apply Paul's teaching.  For example, suppose a
>        second brother comes by, equally weak in some ways, but
>        having the "correct" theology about food sacrificed to idols. 
>        He might be offended by Paul's apparent agreement with the
>        first weaker brother!  It is easy to imagine circumstances
>        where even the great Paul would find that whatever he did,
>        somebody would be offended.  What do you do in a case like
>        that?
    
    To me, Paul's advice here refers only to *refraining from exercising a
    freedom* that one might otherwise exercise.  The nature of freedom is
    that you are free to choose to forgo it!  Consequently, I think your
    scenario is highly unlikely.  The best analogy I can think of for
    modern-day life is the matter of drinking in the presence of an
    alcoholic.
    
    Nancy

God:

Take fire and burn away our guilt and our lying hypocrisies.

Take water and wash away our brothers' [and sisters'] blood which we have
caused to be shed.

Take hot sunlight and dry the tears of those we have hurt, and heal their
wounded souls, minds, and bodies.

Take love and root it in our hearts, so that brotherhood may grow, transforming
the dry desert of our prejudices and hatreds.

Take our imperfect prayers and purify them, so that we mean what we pray and
are prepared to give ourselves to you along with our words, through Jesus
Christ, who did not disdain to take our humanness upon him and live among us,
sharing our life, our joys, and our pains.

Amen.

 --Malcolm Boyd

Bob,

You bring up an excellent point.

Of course, there is a slight part of the analogy I disagree with :-) (meat
being sacrifed to idols (unimportant) = Bible is true (also unimportant),
but it's certainly worth considering.  Thanks.

Collis

Just a question that has been set off by some recent discussions.

How tolerant are we as a notesfile to those who differ in their beliefs.

For example, how tolerant are those who hold to a strict and narrow
view to those who hold an all is acceptable view and vice versa?
How tolerant should we be?  And, most importantly, what is tolerance?
Is the departure of E Grace due to intolerance on the part of another
noter (who wrote something offensive in her view) or a part of intolerance
of her (who would not accept another person's opinion which she strongly
disagreed with and so left).

I suspect most people think of themselves as tolerant and others as
intolerant (when there is intolerance).

Collis

    Collis,
    
    	I posted my (partial) reply in 34.105.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Lemme examine this valuing diversity business for a moment.  This is
the first such note I recall ever posting on the topic.

Diversity does not mean disparity.  Diversity means the playing field
has been made level.  Disparity means there can be no level playing
field.

I favor Digital's philosophy of understanding the dynamics of diversity.
Yet, at the same time, I'm pretty sure I would have a great deal of
difficulty appreciating or valuing the difference a vocal avowed Nazi or
Klansman, should one ever participate in this conference (which is the
only one I'm involved with anymore).

To which the Nazi or Klansman might respond, "What about valuing *my*
difference?!"

Guess that makes me a hypocrite, eh?

Shalom,
Richard
    

| <<< Note 92.94 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>



| To which the Nazi or Klansman might respond, "What about valuing *my*
| difference?!"

| Guess that makes me a hypocrite, eh?

	Depends Richard. If the person abides by the strict portion of being a
klansman/nazi, and doesn't go around hating others because they are different,
then yes. But if a group promotes hate, how does one value that?


Glen

1174.4
    
>    That's a cute way of stating you don't really value diversity, you
>    don't really have the integrity to continue dialog and apparently you 
>    lack the longsuffering to deal with alternative ways of thinking.
    
Jack,

	It really has little to do with valuing diversity.

	I've been on a merry-go-round with you several times myself.  How many
tokens do you have to drop at the carousel before you realize that you're not
going to be getting anywhere?

	Sometimes it's just plain wise to know your limits.

Richard

ZZ    It really has little to do with valuing diversity.
    
    I stated this because I started a discussion on the attribute of hate
    within the Godhead.  I innocently brought it up as a possibility and
    was told that my doctrine was perverted.  Therefore, I do see it as a 
    diversity of beliefs, and a lack of respect for that diversity in a
    Christian Perspective conference.  I thought the valuing of ideas was
    one of the tenets of this conference?!
    
ZZ    I've been on a merry-go-round with you several times myself. How many
ZZ    tokens do you have to drop at the carousel before you realize that
ZZ    you're not going to be getting anywhere?
    
    Richard, love is patient and one of the fruits of the Spirit is
    longsuffering.  I believe as scripture states that God's word will not
    return void, without accomplishing that which God pleases, and without
    prospering unto which God hath sent it.  
     
ZZ     Sometimes it's just plain wise to know your limits.
    
    Richard, witnessing is only one reason I am here.  The other reason is
    that while I respect individuals here for stating what they believe, I
    also believe in the right to dissent, and in the interest of providing
    balance from false doctrines and the like, feel it is necessary to
    participate here.  Quite frankly, I find your putting this in this
    string to be somewhat of a surprise, considering I tend to be a little
    more diplomatic than others from the past.  I therefore have to assume
    that what is being tolerated is the message on not so much myself.  Is
    that a reasonable assumption?
    
    -Jack

Note 92.97

>    I stated this because I started a discussion on the attribute of hate
>    within the Godhead.  I innocently brought it up as a possibility and
>    was told that my doctrine was perverted.  Therefore, I do see it as a 
>    diversity of beliefs, and a lack of respect for that diversity in a
>    Christian Perspective conference.  I thought the valuing of ideas was
>    one of the tenets of this conference?!

Well, it depends on the ideas.  I would like to think Hitler's ideas, while
allowed to be expressed if in compliance with corporate guidelines, would
meet with resistance here.  I take it your "lack of respect" remark is not
a criticism about being censored.

>    Richard, love is patient and one of the fruits of the Spirit is
>    longsuffering.  I believe as scripture states that God's word will not
>    return void, without accomplishing that which God pleases, and without
>    prospering unto which God hath sent it.

Yes, love is patient and perhaps you should receive an award for your
longsuffering.  Please understand just because some of us don't care to
engage you at every turn, it doesn't mean we don't love you.

>    Richard, witnessing is only one reason I am here.  The other reason is
>    that while I respect individuals here for stating what they believe, I
>    also believe in the right to dissent, and in the interest of providing
>    balance from false doctrines and the like, feel it is necessary to
>    participate here.

Well, thank you very much.

I do think your participation here is important and provides a point of view
that might otherwise be missing.

>    Quite frankly, I find your putting this in this
>    string to be somewhat of a surprise, considering I tend to be a little
>    more diplomatic than others from the past.  I therefore have to assume
>    that what is being tolerated is the message on not so much myself.  Is
>    that a reasonable assumption?
    
I tried to find a Valuing Diversity note, read .0, and decided rather than
starting a new topic, to use it.  Perhaps a poor choice on my part.

Richard

    No, it's fine to keep it here.  I have no problem with it.  And I thank
    you that there is a possibility the balance I offer may not have been
    here.  I think it is important for people to make informed decisions
    even if the message I give is coccamaimied!!
    
ZZ      I take it your "lack of respect" remark is not
ZZ      a criticism about being censored.
    
    Actually, it was only to make the point that no matter how hard we try,
    there are always going to be times when we have a strong opinions about
    others POV no matter how hard we try to be respectful the truth of
    one's feelings comes out.   I personally welcomed her opinion and fail
    to see why I have been thrust into the depths of perdition, i.e. what
    is it that has now moved me into the silent treatment mode??!
    
    -Jack

    Richard...see how disciplined I am!!!??? :-)

    .100
    
    Verily.  I suspect you practice more self-restraint than we realize.
    
    God's peace,
    Richard