Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Well, it depends on the law.

In some ways I'd like to see certain "Christian" sects outlawed.
But there is a constitution that laws have to adhere to and for
the greater good it is better to tollerate some of these fringe
groups than to compromise the separation of Church and State.

Tom

PS:  There are some activities in which these groups engage that
     I am morally opposed to.

    .0  I certainly try to keep my actions consistent with my convictions.
    I'm not always as successful as I'd like to be.
    
    About others acting on their convictions, it could be said that even
    Hitler acted on his convictions.  Some still believe he was right, too!
    
    It could be said the Judas Iscariot acted upon his convictions.  Peter
    could be dinged for the wavering strength of his convictions.
    
    Certainly Jesus acted upon his convictions.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    
    Recently soeone told me that they respect my right to believe the way
    that I do as long as I do not try to enforce my belief visa via the
    passage of a law. Odd I thought to myself. Of what good is a moral
    conviction if it is not acted upon. If I vote yes to prohibit men
    and woman from having sex outside of marriage am I  oppressing them?
    
    
    David

    .3  What if the law proposed was that sexual intercourse was only
    legal between a man and woman who were married to each other, and
    that the frequency of sexual intercourse was entirely up to the
    man?  Did you know that laws such as this were (and perhaps still
    are in some places) on the books?
    
    What if the law proposed was that sexual intercourse was only
    legal between a man and woman who were married to each other,
    but certain sexual acts between the consenting couple were still
    quite illegal: fellatio, cunnilingus, etc.?  Did you know that laws
    such as this were (and perhaps still are in some places) on the books?
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    Richard,
    
     What you and others constantly do is throw the baby out with the bath
    water. Of course I would not want laws like that, but if I had a chose
    of that versus a world filled with legitamized(sp) reprobates, well
    the choice is easy. 
    
    David

    David,
    
    	I do not care to get into an exchange of cliches with you (or
    anyone for that matter).
    
    	I do not believe I would throw out "the baby with the bathwater."
    You believe I would.
    
    	We'd best leave it at that.
    
    Richard
    

    One of the godless errors of these [and probably every time] is that 
    the majority rules and that men and women can decide all by themselves
    what is just and unjust apart from God's intentions.
    
    Secondly, Christians are FAR too active in trying to legislate God's
    laws rather than to call down God's kingdom through a tremendous
    living themselves of the gospel. Laws are only necessary where there
    is injustice and injustice only exists where people are in rebellion
    against the perfect good and justice of God.
    
    Christians have forgot prayer and have abandoned it for do-it-yourself
    programs of social justice. I understand the sense of need that makes
    Christians feel forced to step in and try to combat the flood of sin
    and injustice through laws and demonstrations, but they will not be
    effective until far more prayers, sacrifice, and willingness to 
    'pray for our enemies' occurs. Satans tatics are being used in many 
    cases and this will never bear good fruit.
    
    None of this means I'm soft on the abominations of these days; I just
    think a great deal of Christians are using the wrong tactics.
    
    Peace,
    
    Mary

    
    Good topic, David.
    
    May as well admit that I was the person who said it.  (;^)
    
    More later...deadline calls.
    
    Cindy

                                          
    Overall, my feeling is that laws in society should be of the kind that
    prevent people from harming or killing each other.  
    
    There are always going to be controversial areas, and the biggest one
    of all is abortion.  I'm not going to address this, because it is done
    in other topics already, and will continue to be for a long time to
    come.  Let's not get into that one here.
    
    However, then there are the 'gray' areas such as homosexuality,
    adultery, sex outside of marriage, etc. where, while on the one hand is 
    considered a sin by those who strictly follow Biblical teachings, well, 
    not all follow Biblical teachings, so to impose one's belief onto others 
    via societal law is something I don't believe is fair.
    
    Cindy

    
    
    
    > may as well admit that I was the person who said it
    
    
      I wasn't gonna out yah :-)
    
    David

A friend of mine and I talked about legislating morality and I responded
that it as really all we do.  But getting down to the nuts and bolts, I
asked what he'd like to see for human rights.

He said something to the effect that my right to swing my arm ends at his
nose.  In other words, do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone
else.

I asked if it was okay to swing my arms several inches in front of his face,
in his home, while he was in his bed, with his wife, trying to sleep?
I haven't come in contact with his nose, and I'm causing him no [physical] 
harm.

Obviously, he does consider some space around him to be his and rightfully
his and not mine.  We own property, and can reasonbly expect that sitting
in our chair watching TV with popcorn without being bothered or interrupted
by "an outsider."

So society begins to define what is right and wrong behavior, outlawing
the waving of my hands in front of my friend's face in his home without
his permission, even though I'm doing him no harm.  But there is some
greater good on which society has placed a value (privacy) than on my 
expressive gesticulations where I choose to make them, and so it enacts
a law to govern this greater good from intrusion of the defined bad 
(invasion of privacy).

In my next note, I want to demonstrat that things done in private can
also be harmful for society...

Mark Metcalfe

    
    Hi Mark - didn't know you noted here.  Hm....we can probably continue 
    the absolute/relative discussion here, since I know the moderators 
    wouldn't mind.  (;^) 
    
    >He said something to the effect that my right to swing my arm ends at
    >his nose.  In other words, do whatever you want as long as it doesn't 
    >harm anyone else.
    
    Thank you!   Nancy, this is exactly the point I have been trying
    (albeit probably unsuccessfully) to make.  I'm sure that Mark will come
    up with some good examples to illustrate the drawbacks, however in this
    end, this is basically how I feel regarding laws in society and
    legislating morality.
    
    Cindy

Nothing exists in a vacuum... nothing.

But let's assume we could create a universe of just our homes.  If
we choose to do anything, we consume resources in that universe.
Matter is tranferred to energy, and quite possibly the reverse.

Understanding that our homes do not exist in isolation, every glass
of water we drink is a glass of water another person cannot drink.
It affects society to have a glass of water in the provacy of your home.

Ah, but it is not a great effect, especially if the water table is
high, and there is plenty of *other* water to be had.  But consider
drought conditions and you decide to open a swimming pool in your
basement.  Clearly, this is a greater impact to society.  Both
event involve the use of water, and *both* impact society, but in
greater and lesser degrees.

Since both of these incidences use water, society must determine 
at what degree the use of water becomes a detriment to society, even 
if you are using the water in the privacy of your own home.  Everything
you do has impact on society, great or small.

Because everything has impact, determining when something becomes
a detriment is the key question facing the people within the
society.

We can talk about water without getting hot under the collar (pun intended).
But talk about sex, and we're a bit more emotional.  I daresay we'd be
emotional if/when water is a scarce resource.  Sex, like water, is good
and healthy under some circumstances; good as defined by some.
And like water, it's use or misuse can also be bad, as defined by some.

Society has the power to define good and bad for its constituents,
and the power to enforce that definition when made aware of those
who run counter to the definition.  As a people, we define that
privacy in one's own home is a good thing, but even it has its 
limits, especially in times of drought, or shooting your oozie submachine
gun within the confines of your own home.

So we also define, through legislation, what is "moral" for everyone,
even though "we can't please everybody."  Legislating in its democratic 
ideal is defining what the greater good is, attempting to encompass as many
people as possible.  People don't have the right to rob banks, even at night
when no one is around to get hurt (physically).  People don't have the
right to the pursuit of happiness at the expense of someone else, which
leaves out those people whose happiness is derived from others' expense;
not every one will be included in the law.

The fact is, we legislate [im]morality, usually defining what is a no-no
and setting fines and punishments for infractions.

Mark

Even if we acknowledge that everything we do, including breathing a breath
that someone else cannot breath, has impact (great or small) on everything 
else, we're left with the question: how is [insert activity] harmful or
beneficial to society.

Clearly, having your glass of water today, has so little impact upon me
as to be virtually NO impact to me.  I can get as much water as I want.

In 1973, gas rationing was employed as a tool to ensure that people
got a fair share of gasoline during the OPEC strangulation, which
was largely our own fault for being so energy-consuming as to have
such a dependence to give an embargo effect on us.

Certain things, even when done in private, are deemed anti-social
and destructive to the fabric of society.  What is done in private is 
part of one's being and essense.  You are what you eat, and also what
you do, think, take, etc.  And what you are is communicated outside
of the privacy of your home.  You go out into society and interact.
Many of these interactions that are distinctly you have little impact
on others such that their rights are not considered abridged, nor
their values, for that matter.  Eating with a fork in your right hand
may have little value to most (virtually everyone); no value abridgment.
However, we can easily think of other values that can cause conflict and
reactions deemed (defined by some) detrimental to the fabric of a "good"
society.

Some of these values can be challenged and redefined.  Women's voting rights,
and human dignity for people of color are prime examples of redefining.
The question then arises, what should be redefined? - for most consider
that voting rights for women and human dignity for people of color are
good things.

Should pedophilia be legalized?  Some would say yes, and I even heard of
a recent college institution (I think - have to check my mail) where
people are not to be discriminated against based on their propensity
or desire for minors (I should find the exact wording).  To further cloud
this particular issue, I have also seen some TV programs where the 
police circulate the picture of a known pedophile before any crime is
committed.  And the lawyers are considering the ethics of this from
both sides.

This is what it has come to in this society: defining and redefining what
are acceptable impacts in and to society.  As one consitutent of society, 
I am obligated to participate in those definitions, or be subjected to
the definition of the greater power.

MArk

    Gee,
    
    If Paul speaks for Christianity, then Laws are anethema to
    Christianity.  I Corinthians is my reference.  His argument is that if
    Christians have the spirit what do they need laws for.
    
    He also says that it is better for a Christian to be wronged than to
    utilize the courts to judge another Christian.
    
    Of course, I am not saying that Paul is authoritative.  But some of you do.
    
    
    Patricia
    

    
    
    -1
    
      And what does the spirit say Patricia?

>    If Paul speaks for Christianity, then Laws are anethema to
>    Christianity.  I Corinthians is my reference.  His argument is that if
>    Christians have the spirit what do they need laws for.

I don't think so.

>    Of course, I am not saying that Paul is authoritative.  But some of you do.

And how does this size up with your statement.  If you do not think
Paul is authoratative, then why use what he says to support your point
of view?

But to speak to the issue:  Laws are not anethema to Christianity.  
In
fact, Christ spoke of the [Mosaic] Law when he said that he did not come
to abolish the law but to FULFILL IT.  A far cry from anethema.

What has this meant?  What did he mean?  

The law of Love, expressed by Christ and also found in Deuteronomy, is 
expressed in one commandment: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and
strength.  This law transcends all others.

But let's come closer to earth and look at the ten commandments. 

1.   Love God only - have no other gods.
2.   Have no idols
3.   Do not misuse God's name
4.   Remember the sabbath day  - devoted to God
5.   Honor your parents
6.   Don't murder
7.   Don't commit adultery
8.   Don't steal.
9.   Don't bear false witness
10.  Don't covet your neighbor's belongings.

Each of these is also an expression of the law of love.  There are a billion
things one can do without stealing, such as talking a walk, singing a song,
or bowling.  These laws that God gave did not codify actions, per se, as the
ensuing Levitical laws did, compounding burdens upon the people.  These
laws of God codified attitudes more than actions.  Jesus drives the
point home of "putting the cart before the horse" when he said, "if you
lust after another woman, you have committed adultery in your heart" and
if you hate your brother you are guilty of murder (in your heart attitude).
Action is an expression of attitude, and the laws of God define the 
proper attitude we should take.

But people being what they are wanted more.  It wasn't enough to "love God
with everything," because they wanted to know *what* that entailed (action).

Laws are made to codify the attitude and distill it into the action definition.

Jesus spoke to the Pharisees on one occasion; they used the law to loop-hole
their way out of the responsibility to their parents.  Their technical actions
meant that they couldn't spend the money on mom and pop, but in fact, they 
retained their money for themselves claiming it was for the Lord.  On another,
Jesus castigates the pharisees for tithing their "mint and cummin" but
neglecting the weightier things of the law like mercy and justice.  Then
he says, "these things ought ye do [tithe your mint and cummin; obey the law"
and not neglect the former.  The idea being that if you have the right 
attitude, you'll obey the law, (and not the reverse, because obeying the law
doesn't mean you necessarily have the right attitude.)

Another example, Cain and Abel BOTH brought sacrifices.  Abel's was accepted;
Cain's was rejected.  Cain's was not brought with the proper attitude,
with the proper obedience.  And obedience comes freom the attitude, and
not vice versa.

So, in one sense, we do not need "laws" (codified definitions of behavior)
if people's attitudes were "that of Christ Jesus."  But since some people
are not, the law of love demands justice also.  [Love for whom, you may
ask, and then we get back to who defines what is good.]

Mark

    -2
    
    The spirit says "love the lord with all your heart, soul, and mind and
    love your neighbor as yourself.  That is the only commandment I need."
    
    The spirit breathes life into that commandment everytime I read it.
    
    I reject the ten commandments.  I agree with some of the commandments.
    There are a couple that are dousies though.
    
    The one about God being jealous and the one about coveting thy
    neighbors wife just don't measure up.
    
    I site Paul even though I do not hold him to be authoritative because
    he has much of importance to say.  I accept his definition of the
    Spirit living in each of us.  I accept that with the Spirit one does
    not need laws because a superior law is governing from within.  I am
    aware that there are passages in Paul that conflict with passages in
    the gospel and in other books of the Bible.  That is not a problem for
    me because I see it as  part of the process by which the bible was
    written and collected.  In the gospels there are also many examples
    where Jesus was severely annoyed by the Preachers trying to literally
    enforce the laws.  Particularly the sabbath laws.
    
    Patricia
    

    
    
    Patricia,
    
    
    > this is the only commandment I need
    
     You are not granted the privledge of selecting what you will and will
    not accept. Remember( I do not have my bible on hand) in the bible it
    talks about one of the signs of the end time will be
    
    " and they shall acquire teachers that will tickle there ears with
    doctrine that suits there desires"
    
    David

    So are you refuting Paul's message that if we are spiritual we have the
    Mind of Christ?  That's citation is from  1 Cor 2.
    
    Patricia
    
    .

    When Jesus was asked "What is the greatest commandment?"  He replied
    "Love the Lord, thy God with all your might and Love your neighbor."

    If you're not doing this you are messing up *MORE* than if you
    steal or kill or anything else.

    I didn't do the selecting, Jesus did.  That's perhaps the hardest
    commandment to fulfill and I believe the New Testament is based on
    it, not to mention Christ's work here on Earth.

    If you follow that commandment then all the others just naturally
    follow.  At some point, little transgressions simply fall into the
    category of "noise".

    Tom

    Why, even Paul summed up the whole of the Law in a single sentence.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    
    Patricia
    
     1 Cor 2( verse? chapter?)
    
     I just read it. I do not refute it. I do believe that you have not
    applied it correctly.
    
    David

Note 783.23

>     I just read it. I do not refute it. I do believe that you have not
>    applied it correctly.

This is to be expected somewhat, David.  After all, the letter was not
written to us.  It was written to the assembly located in Corinth nearly
2000 years ago by a contemporary of theirs who knew at least some of them
personally.

This is not to say that your application (whatever it is) is incorrect, either.

Peace,
Richard

Re: .11 Mark

>So society begins to define what is right and wrong behavior, outlawing
>the waving of my hands in front of my friend's face in his home without
>his permission, even though I'm doing him no harm.

But you would be doing him harm.  You'd be invading his privacy and
disturbing his sleep.

>  But there is some
>greater good on which society has placed a value (privacy) than on my 
>expressive gesticulations where I choose to make them, and so it enacts
>a law to govern this greater good from intrusion of the defined bad 
>(invasion of privacy).

The "greater good" is simply that you can't do things that harm your
neighbor.  Waving your arms in front of your friend's face in his home
without his permission isn't a crime against society, it's a crime against
your friend.  If he chooses to press charges, then it becomes a crime
against society.

				-- Bob

Re: .13 Mark

>We can talk about water without getting hot under the collar (pun intended).
>But talk about sex, and we're a bit more emotional.  I daresay we'd be
>emotional if/when water is a scarce resource.  Sex, like water, is good
>and healthy under some circumstances; good as defined by some.
>And like water, it's use or misuse can also be bad, as defined by some.

Clearly sex is a scarce resource, and we need to have a mechanism for
making sure that everyone gets their fair share. :-)

>Society has the power to define good and bad for its constituents,
>and the power to enforce that definition when made aware of those
>who run counter to the definition.  As a people, we define that
>privacy in one's own home is a good thing, but even it has its 
>limits, especially in times of drought, or shooting your oozie submachine
>gun within the confines of your own home.

Life is a series of tradeoffs.  Yes, sometimes the needs of society
conflict with the needs of individuals, or the needs of some individuals
conflict with the needs of others, and in those cases we need to
decide whose needs will take precedence.

>People don't have the
>right to the pursuit of happiness at the expense of someone else, which
>leaves out those people whose happiness is derived from others' expense;
>not every one will be included in the law.

In some cases people do have the right to the pursuit of happiness at the
expense of someone else.  For example, if you own a house that's on the
beach, and the town has an easement allowing the general public access to
your beach, I have the right to enjoy myself by jogging past your house
even though this might disturb your view of the ocean and even lower the
value of your property.  (This is the problem that George Harrison is
having in Hawaii.)

>The fact is, we legislate [im]morality, usually defining what is a no-no
>and setting fines and punishments for infractions.

The way I would express it is that we legislate what is legal, rather than
that we legislate what is moral.  Each person has their own beliefs about
what is moral.  I would think that Christians would agree that the
government can't legislate morality, because if God said that something
was immoral it wouldn't become moral just because the government said that
it was legal.  Or if God said that something was moral, it wouldn't become
immoral just because the government made it illegal.

In other words, legislation might be based on some people's opinions about
what is moral but it wouldn't define what is moral.

				-- Bob

Re: .14 Mark

>Certain things, even when done in private, are deemed anti-social
>and destructive to the fabric of society.

Wrongly so, in my opinion, unless it directly harms other people.

>Many of these interactions that are distinctly you have little impact
>on others such that their rights are not considered abridged, nor
>their values, for that matter.  Eating with a fork in your right hand
>may have little value to most (virtually everyone); no value abridgment.

I'm glad to hear that you're at least willing to let me choose which fork
I use to eat my food.  At least we can agree on something.

>However, we can easily think of other values that can cause conflict and
>reactions deemed (defined by some) detrimental to the fabric of a "good"
>society.
>
>Some of these values can be challenged and redefined.  Women's voting rights,
>and human dignity for people of color are prime examples of redefining.

Woman's voting rights and human diginity for people of color have to do
with the way people interact with each other.  How can I deny woman the
right to vote in the privacy of my own home, for example?

>Should pedophilia be legalized?  Some would say yes, and I even heard of
>a recent college institution (I think - have to check my mail) where
>people are not to be discriminated against based on their propensity
>or desire for minors (I should find the exact wording). 

I think it should be legal to have sexual *desire* for children.  What
would you be charged with if you were a pedophile and pedophilia were
illegal: a thought crime?  (See George Orwell's "1984".)  What should be
illegal is *acting* on pedophilic urges, because it harms children.

> To further cloud
>this particular issue, I have also seen some TV programs where the 
>police circulate the picture of a known pedophile before any crime is
>committed.  And the lawyers are considering the ethics of this from
>both sides.

I'm sure you can guess my feelings about this.

>This is what it has come to in this society: defining and redefining what
>are acceptable impacts in and to society.  As one consitutent of society, 
>I am obligated to participate in those definitions, or be subjected to
>the definition of the greater power.

Yes, you and I will each try to influence society and its laws, based on
our own beliefs.

				-- Bob

re Note 783.18 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     I reject the ten commandments.  I agree with some of the commandments.
>     There are a couple that are dousies though.
>     
>     The one about God being jealous and the one about coveting thy
>     neighbors wife just don't measure up.
  
        Do you think that it is sometimes OK to "covet thy neighbor's
        wife"?

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    		You fishin to see if she's gay? :-)
    
    
    Dave

    I suspect Patricia's rejection is more that the commandment is patriarchal
    in nature, identifying the man as the property owner and his wife as his
    property.  There is no converse commandment and the command is not one of
    those cases where "the man" (understood) stands generically for both sexes.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

>    The spirit says "love the lord with all your heart, soul, and mind and
>    love your neighbor as yourself.  That is the only commandment I need."
>    
>    I reject the ten commandments.  I agree with some of the commandments.
>    There are a couple that are dousies though.

These two statements are diametrically opposed, because to love God is to
obey His commandments.  Perhaps you don't believe they are *His* 
commandments?  Then you have a problem of another sort.

>    The one about God being jealous and the one about coveting thy
>    neighbors wife just don't measure up.
    
Doesn't measure up to whom?  What is jealousy?  Is it only an unholy thing?
Consider purity and holiness before you reject scripture based on your
tainted understanding of what jealousy is.  And coveting a neighbor's wife?
Jesus said, if you lust after another man's wife, you have committed adultery 
in your heart.

And interesting exercise for all Christians is to consider which two of the
ten commandments you would dispense with.  Immediately, you have found your
two weakest points.

>    In the gospels there are also many examples
>    where Jesus was severely annoyed by the Preachers trying to literally
>    enforce the laws.  Particularly the sabbath laws.

That's because obeying the law without meaning is useless.  God said, I 
desire obedience (attitude) rather than sacrifice (action).  Jesus said
to those same preachers "These things ought ye do (tithe your mint and cummin)
without neglecting the weightier things of the law (justice and mercy).

Jesus did not dispense with the law, and as a Jew followed it as God intended
it.  He trangressed tradition on the Sabbath declaring that the sabbath was
made for man (attitude adjustments needed) and not man for the sabbath.

Mark

Note 783.25   "Bob Messenger"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: .11 Mark

>>So society begins to define what is right and wrong behavior, outlawing
>>the waving of my hands in front of my friend's face in his home without
>>his permission, even though I'm doing him no harm.
>
>But you would be doing him harm.  You'd be invading his privacy and
>disturbing his sleep.

  Subjective definition, Bob.  I could be doing "harm" to my neighbor by
  drinking water in my home, if water was a scarce resource.

>>  But there is some
>>greater good on which society has placed a value (privacy) than on my
>>expressive gesticulations where I choose to make them, and so it enacts
>>a law to govern this greater good from intrusion of the defined bad
>>(invasion of privacy).
>
>The "greater good" is simply that you can't do things that harm your
<neighbor.  Waving your arms in front of your friend's face in his home
>without his permission isn't a crime against society, it's a crime against
>your friend.  If he chooses to press charges, then it becomes a crime
>against society.

  As a member of society a crime against one is a crime against all.
  Choosing to press charges or not is merely a liberty society grants as a
  whole to the individual.

================================================================================
Note 783.26  "Bob Messenger"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>The fact is, we legislate [im]morality, usually defining what is a no-no
>>and setting fines and punishments for infractions.
>
>The way I would express it is that we legislate what is legal, rather than
>that we legislate what is moral.  Each person has their own beliefs about
>what is moral.  I would think that Christians would agree that the
>government can't legislate morality, because if God said that something
>was immoral it wouldn't become moral just because the government said that
>it was legal.  Or if God said that something was moral, it wouldn't become
>immoral just because the government made it illegal.
>
>In other words, legislation might be based on some people's opinions about
>what is moral but it wouldn't define what is moral.

  Oh, now we're talking Absolute morality versus relative morality. There
  is no absolute outside of God, therefore all other moral definitions are
  a function of the society that exerts the most power.  Absent the
  absolute authority, we have a series of hierarchical and temporary
  "absolute" authorities, until they are usurped.
================================================================================
Note 783.27  "Bob Messenger"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Certain things, even when done in private, are deemed anti-social
>>and destructive to the fabric of society.
>
>Wrongly so, in my opinion, unless it directly harms other people.

  But we are back to defining "harm" are we not?

>How can I deny woman the right to vote in the privacy of my own home,
>For example?

  If you had women in your home, you could prevent one or more women from
  voting.  By this isolated incident, you impact all women's right to vote,
  even though you do not prevent all women from voting.

>>Should pedophilia be legalized?  Some would say yes, and I even heard of
>>a recent college institution (I think - have to check my mail) where
>>people are not to be discriminated against based on their propensity
>>or desire for minors (I should find the exact wording).
>
>I think it should be legal to have sexual *desire* for children.  What
>would you be charged with if you were a pedophile and pedophilia were
>illegal: a thought crime?  (See George Orwell's "1984".)  What should be
>illegal is *acting* on pedophilic urges, because it harms children.

  This is an extremely interesting statement, Bob.  It is the *acting* on
  these desires that becomes the crime?  I agree with you.

>Yes, you and I will each try to influence society and its laws, based on
>our own beliefs.

  Indeed we will.  In fact, we must!  Or be subjected to another
  definition.

  More upcoming...

Note 783.27  "Bob Messenger"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Certain things, even when done in private, are deemed anti-social
>>and destructive to the fabric of society.
>
>Wrongly so, in my opinion, unless it directly harms other people.

  But we are back to defining "harm" are we not?

  You defined a "direct harm" as invasion of privacy.  Another defined it
  as the extent of one's nose.

  Going 90 mph does no direct harm to anyone, either, yet we have
  legislated a 65 mph maximum in the USA because of potential harm to
  members of society; not to mention wear and tear on tires, using up the
  rubber resource more quickly, gas non-conservation, etc.

  And sex has an impact on society.  Society generally commends the
  institution of marriage.  Sex within marriage promotes a bond between two
  people which make them happier individuals, and we know how morale can
  have an effect on productivity, and productivity is a valued commodity in
  society.  (Aside: In WWII, they found that workers were more productive
  on a 6 day on/1 day off schedule than on a 7-day schedule.)  And
  sometimes "good" can ALSO be measured by the lack of its [potential]
  negative impacts to society - such as divorce and its cost in emotion,
  morale, money, and so on.

  Sex outside of marriage is traditionally tabooed.  What harm is there for
  two consenting adults who happen to be brother and sister?  Incest is
  still thought of by many to be "very wrong" even if engaged by adult
  siblings, is it not?  For whatever reasons, society deems this wrong.
  In private, who will know, and so one thinks there is not affectation to
  society.  But it is demonstrable that nothing exists in a vacuum and does
  have some affect, be it great or small.  Who defines whether some
  affectation is great enough to impact society negatively?  Society does.

  Society defines what is "harm" whether direct or indirect, because it is
  the greater authority over the individuals who choose to engage in
  incestual adult relations.

  Mark

Note 783.32

>  Subjective definition, Bob.

That which is objective possesses no natural superiority to that which
is subjective.  It is only through Eurocentric reification that we, as
a culture, have come to revere the idol of objectivity.

Notice sometime how Carl Sagan, an agnostic (if not atheist) who I admire
for his clear and critical thinking, speaks in such negative terms about
"the mystics," a term he uses to blanket all subjective thought, particularly
religious thought.

In truth, that which is subjective is often more universal, more far reaching
and less myopic than the objective.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard has correctly interpreted my objection to thou should not covet
    thy neighbors wife.  That commandment assumes that women are a man's 
    property.  I believe that God is wholy good and that jeolosy and rage
    are not good, therefore to say I the Lord your God am a jeolous God is
    blasphemy.  I also have problems with the Thou shall not kill because
    the meaning really is thou should not kill your fellow Israelites
    unless of course God tells you too then it is OK.  Exodus later on
    speaks of God commanding the killing of the Canaanites.  I therefored
    can argue that the ten commandments are sexist, immoral, and
    blaphemous.  
    
    I maintain that there is only one commandment we need.  To love God and
    our Neighbors and our Selves.
    
    Patricia
    

 
   >I maintain that there is only one commandment we need.  To love God 
   >and our Neighbors and our Selves.
  
Which only raises the question - what god are you going to love?

Collis

    .36  Why do you suspect it's any God other than the One who is the
    Author of life?  Why do you suspect it's any God other than the One
    who Jesus was referring to in citing the Great Commandment?
    
    It's very nearly an insulting question.
    
    Richard
    

    
    I always thought there was only One, but apparently Collis doesn't.
    
    So, can you give us some 'other god choices', Collis?
        
    Cindy

re Note 783.35 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     Richard has correctly interpreted my objection to thou should not covet
>     thy neighbors wife.  That commandment assumes that women are a man's 
>     property.  

        Does it?  I do not consider my wife my property, nor do I
        consider my neighbor's wife to be his property, yet I still
        consider it VERY good advice not to covet his wife.

        (Or do you consider every possessive case noun and pronoun to
        be referring to property?)

>     I believe that God is wholy good and that jeolosy and rage
>     are not good, therefore to say I the Lord your God am a jeolous God is
>     blasphemy.  

        I agree that this commandment anthropomorphizes God.  Yet I
        think it conveys a VERY important message that there is a
        risk of making gods of our own that take the rightful place
        in our lives of the true God.  (It seems to me that the only
        people who would be considering the 10 commandments to begin
        with would be people who would be considering following the
        God of the 10 commandments.)

>     I also have problems with the Thou shall not kill because
>     the meaning really is thou should not kill your fellow Israelites
>     unless of course God tells you too then it is OK.  Exodus later on
>     speaks of God commanding the killing of the Canaanites.  

        I think it is quite unreasonable to judge the 10 commandments
        by its adherents' limited understanding of them.  But you
        are certainly welcome to judge otherwise.

>     I therefored
>     can argue that the ten commandments are sexist, immoral, and
>     blaphemous.  

        I agree that they are limited. :-)  They don't say everything
        that could be said and they don't say it in a way that a
        writer would have chosen to write them today.  But in many
        ways that are still way ahead of the morality of their and
        our days as generally practiced.  As such I see them having
        great value if followed.
    
>     I maintain that there is only one commandment we need.  To love God and
>     our Neighbors and our Selves.
  
        I agree with you and Jesus.  Yet the practical implications
        of this can fill volumes.

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    Who is the God of the ten Commandments?
    
    Is it the same God you worship?
    
    Is the God of the ten commandments an image created by the persons who
    wrote the ten commandments?
    
    Is the God we worship today an image of God.  Can we know anything
    other than an image of God.  As in seeing in a mirror dimly but then
    face to face?  What determines our image of God?
    
    Bob,
    
    I am learning Historic Criticism and Forms Criticism as a means of
    understanding the Bible.  Both assume that we need to understand the
    text as it was written to gain real meaning.  It has been suggested
    that I read Vatican II for another view of finding meaning in
    scripture.  Richard capture the image wonderfully in one of his notes
    when he said, "God breathed, means that God breaths meaning into
    scripture everytime we read scripture."  I believe that.  That allows
    us to use our personal experiences and feeling and images as we read
    scripture.
    
    I would agree with the commandment if it  read "thou shall not covet
    thy neighbor's spouse"
    
    Patricia
    
    

    .39  I, too, would discourage you from coveting your neighor's wife
    and would also discourage your neighbor from coverting your wife!
    But I also believe that the neighbor's wife and your wife have some
    measure of responsibility in all this coveting business, which is
    utterly absent from the tenth commandment.
    
    The overall tone of number 10 is one of ownership.  There's an unbroken
    chain of property claims which includes a man's wife, his slaves, his
    donkey, or any of his accumulated possessions.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    
    PS  I also believe that do not treat your wife as mere property.
    

Re: .32 Mark

>>But you would be doing him harm.  You'd be invading his privacy and
>>disturbing his sleep.
>
>  Subjective definition, Bob.

Right.  I'm stating a general principle that for an action to be illegal it
should have to harm someone.   I'm not trying to make a precise legal
definition of what I mean by "harm".  I'm not saying that every action that
harms someone or inconveniences someone needs to be illegal, just that
actions that don't harm anyone should be legal.  My definition of "harm"
is fairly flexible but not all-encompassing.

>  I could be doing "harm" to my neighbor by
>  drinking water in my home, if water was a scarce resource.

Yes, if water were strictly rationed, e.g. in a severe drought, you might
be harming your neighbors by drinking water in your home, and I might even
agree that your action should be illegal in those limited circumstances.
This doesn't mean that the government would justified in preventing you
from drinking water under normal circumstances.

>>The "greater good" is simply that you can't do things that harm your
><neighbor.  Waving your arms in front of your friend's face in his home
>>without his permission isn't a crime against society, it's a crime against
>>your friend.  If he chooses to press charges, then it becomes a crime
>>against society.
>
>  As a member of society a crime against one is a crime against all.
>  Choosing to press charges or not is merely a liberty society grants as a
>  whole to the individual.

What if the relationship between you and your friend were such that you
knew that he'd take your "invasion" of him home as a harmless prank, and
your friend justified this belief by not pressing charges?  Then there
would be no crime, and no offense against society.  There would only be an
offense against society if you had harmed your friend.

>>In other words, legislation might be based on some people's opinions about
>>what is moral but it wouldn't define what is moral.
>
>  Oh, now we're talking Absolute morality versus relative morality.

Of course - that's one of my favorite topics, and I'm having a discussion
about it right now with Don Randall over in GRIM::RELIGION.

> There is no absolute outside of God,

I agree, and since I'm an agnostic...

>therefore all other moral definitions are
>  a function of the society that exerts the most power.

Not just societies but individuals within the society.  We have each have our
own conception of what is moral. Even the most powerful country on earth
hasn't been able to force its citizens to drive 55 m.p.h.

>  Absent the
>  absolute authority, we have a series of hierarchical and temporary
>  "absolute" authorities, until they are usurped.

The temporary "absolute" moral authorities are illusary; no authority is
absolute.

>>Wrongly so, in my opinion, unless it directly harms other people.
>
>  But we are back to defining "harm" are we not?

I haven't attempted to define "harm".  I have an intuitive idea about what
I mean by "harm", but I'm not sure I could define it with legal precision.
It's like the Supreme Court with pornography: I'll know it when I see it.

>>How can I deny woman the right to vote in the privacy of my own home,
>>For example?
>
>  If you had women in your home, you could prevent one or more women from
>  voting.

You mean kidnap them on election day?  That would fall under my definition
of "harm".  I would be violating the rights of specific people.

>  By this isolated incident, you impact all women's right to vote,
>  even though you do not prevent all women from voting.

No, I don't think so.  What would impact all women's right to vote would
be if the law turned a blind eye to my crime, because it would mean that
other men could get away with what I had done.  But as an individual acting
against individual women I wouldn't be impacting all women's right to vote
(at least IMO).

				-- Bob

Re: .33 Mark

>  You defined a "direct harm" as invasion of privacy.  Another defined it
>  as the extent of one's nose.

In the past I've also used the "extent of one's nose" metaphor.  It's just
that - a metaphor, not a precise definition.

>  Going 90 mph does no direct harm to anyone, either, yet we have
>  legislated a 65 mph maximum in the USA because of potential harm to
>  members of society; not to mention wear and tear on tires, using up the
>  rubber resource more quickly, gas non-conservation, etc.

I'm not sure it's such a bad thing to drive 90 mph - they do it on the
Autobahn in Germany.  A better example is drinking and driving - I concede
that it should be illegal to drive while intoxicated even if no one gets
injured as a result.  To stretch a point, we might say that the drunk
driver inflicted "statistical harm" on the other drivers on the road, i.e.
there was a good chance that he'd harm someone.  Still, this is a case
where the potential harm was very real, since in the past many people have
been killed by drunk drivers.

>  And sex has an impact on society.  Society generally commends the
>  institution of marriage.

Less so than in the past.

>  Sex within marriage promotes a bond between two
>  people which make them happier individuals,

I'd rather leave it up to individuals to figure out how best to maximize
their own happiness.  Do you really want some bureaucrat telling you "Mark,
you haven't met your sex quota this week.  We think you'd be happier if
you..."?

>  And
>  sometimes "good" can ALSO be measured by the lack of its [potential]
>  negative impacts to society - such as divorce and its cost in emotion,
>  morale, money, and so on.

Again, I'd leave that up to the individuals, although unfortunately the
courts do have to become involved in some respects, e.g. division of
property and custody of children.

>  Sex outside of marriage is traditionally tabooed.

Things change, although I think marriage may be on the upswing again.

>  What harm is there for
>  two consenting adults who happen to be brother and sister?

Not much, IMO.  If my neighbors are brother and sister it's none of my
business what they're doing behind the shades, as long as they're both
consenting adults.

>  Incest is
>  still thought of by many to be "very wrong" even if engaged by adult
>  siblings, is it not?  For whatever reasons, society deems this wrong.

Some people in society deem it wrong.  I admit that it's the sort of thing
that I'd snicker about (e.g. from "The Rocky Horror Picture Show": "Weiss
is nice but incest is best, put your sister to the test"), but I have no
great objection to it... in other people.

>  Who defines whether some
>  affectation is great enough to impact society negatively?  Society does.
>
>  Society defines what is "harm" whether direct or indirect, because it is
>  the greater authority over the individuals who choose to engage in
>  incestual adult relations.

Yes, society can and does attempt (often successfully) to control the
behavior of its members.  As a member of society, I am attempting in my own
small way to change it in the direction of less control.  Apparently your
attempts have been to change it in the opposite direction.

				-- Bob

re Note 783.41 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     .39  I, too, would discourage you from coveting your neighor's wife
>     and would also discourage your neighbor from coverting your wife!
>     But I also believe that the neighbor's wife and your wife have some
>     measure of responsibility in all this coveting business, which is
>     utterly absent from the tenth commandment.
  
        I said as much, Richard -- there are a gazillion things
        missing from this commandment.  There are a gazillion things
        missing from the 10 commandments.

        Does this make the commandment invalid?  When one claims that
        "don't covet your neighbor's wife" is bogus, the implication 
        isn't that more should be said, or that there would be a
        better way of saying it, but that what was said is wrong.  I
        don't believe that you think that what is said is wrong -- I
        sure don't.
          
        I think that you, Richard, as a parent who wants a child
        under your care to understand moral responsibility, would be
        sensitive to how one "amplifies" and explains the teachings
        of Scripture.  If the better reading is "don't covet your
        neighbor's spouse", is one led to this by saying that the
        tenth commandment is wrong -- or is one led away?

        While I agree that it would be wonderful if society would
        follow the two great commandments, it would be an improvement
        over today's society if people would even follow the 10.  
        The 10 are an approach -- a start on the way -- training
        wheels if you will -- to the great two.  I think that by
        tearing down the 10 we are reducing the chances of people
        getting to the two.

        Of course the 10 are incomplete.

        Bob

    My neighbor's wife is a wonderful woman.  She is an official Domestic
    Engineer.  She majored in home economics.  She sews her entire family's
    clothing, bakes all of her bread, and has a body like a Playboy bunny.
    
    She never forgets to return a phone call and her children always have
    their homework done on time.  She is thrifty, cheerful, and
    imaginative.  She knows how to install drywall, do basic wiring,
    plumbing, and helped her husband build 2 of their homes.
    
    She sings in the church choir.
    
    At times I have wished she would come live with me and put my life
    together!
                       
    Ruth
    
    
    
     

    .44  I'm not in disagreement with you, Bob.  The commandment is not like
    "Do not kill," "Do not steal," or "Do not commit adultery."  An improved
    version might be:
    
    "Do not covet anyone joined in covenantal relationship with another, or
    anything that belongs to anyone else."  But it doesn't.   
    
    The premise of the 10th commandment is not a bad one.  Its weakness lies
    in its patriarchal bias.  The 10th commandment suggests all the economic
    power - all real wealth - belongs solely to men (which, granted, it did
    at that time), and that a wife (or wives, for that matter) was a man's
    property.
    
    That's all.
    
    Richard
    

re .46

The traditional interpretation of the word "covet" means "to desire to
have that to which you are not entitled."

Therefore "coveting your neighbors ox" means that you aren't supposed
to sit around wishing it were yours -- instead, you go out and earn
your own ox.

Likewise, "coveting your neighbors wife" means that you aren't supposed
to wish that your neighbor would die or that he and his wife would divorce
or that she would sneak over to your tent just for the night.

It calls people to believe in the sanctity of the marriage bond and to
respect the marriage vows people have made to each other and not try to
break up families.

It is one of the more important commandments for our age.

/john

    As a woman, I think the commandment "thou shall not covet thy neighbors
    wife" IS wrong.  By treating men as the norm and woman as other it does
    irreparable harm to women and men.  The issue is not to covet or not to
    covet. The issue is why treat women and men differently.  Why treat
    women as property.  Why have a thou shall not commit adultery when men
    are allowed to have multiple wifes?  Why have a covenant with God which
    is sealed by an operation on the Penis?  Why have Good tell the
    Israelites to prepare for the covenant meeting by not sleeping with
    their wifes for three days before the meeting.  The message of the
    whole story is that the covenant is between God and men and women are
    only part of the covenant as property of their fathers and husbands.
    
    The commandments treating women as property are wrong.  Pure and
    simple?  Women are every bit as much of God's creation as men are in
    spite of how they are potrayed in the Bible.  In fact, this is how I
    know that the Bible is not the word of God.  God would not create a
    humanity in which half of the members were inferior to the other half. 
    That mythology is a human construction.
    
    Patricia

    RE: .48
    
    I never read that "property"/women idea in the Bible. Granted the times
    were different, but somehow when I read the Bible, the words just don't
    have the same sense of "oppression" that you see.
    
    You can dismiss the whole thing, I quess, because a am a man, but, I
    wonder if you aren't "looking" to be offended?
    
    Marc H.

Re:  .37, .38, .39

The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses.

The God of the Bible.

The God that says, "I am a jealous God".

Patricia has made it clear that she has no love for this god.
She loves a different god.  The obvious question is, which
one?  I'm sorry if that is an offensive question.  I'm glad
that it gives one pause to think.  The answer to the question
is (in the Bible's opinion) of eternal importance.  It's
also an appropriate discussion in this conference (at least
I thought it was).

Perhaps it is not clear to you, but it is crystal clear to
me that the god of Patricia and the god of Collis are not
the same god.

Collis

RE:             <<< Note 783.48 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>
                         -< The commandment is wrong >-

   .    wife" IS wrong.  By treating men as the norm and woman as other it does
   . irreparable harm to women and men.  The issue is not to covet or not to
   . covet. The issue is why treat women and men differently.  Why treat
   . women as property.  Why have a thou shall not commit adultery when men
   . are allowed to have multiple wifes?  Why have a covenant with God which
    

     I believe the Christian women that I know, and millions of other Christian
     women would strongly disagree with you.  And as has been pointed out count-
     less times before, men and women each have responsibilities in God's 
     plan.  


.    spite of how they are potrayed in the Bible.  In fact, this is how I
.    know that the Bible is not the word of God.  God would not create a
.    humanity in which half of the members were inferior to the other half. 
.    That mythology is a human construction.
    
 
     How do you know what God would and would not do?  And no where is their
     any mention of inferiority that I know of.  Each has a responsibility.
     One day we will all find out what is and what is not "mythology".  I
     for one will take the book that I can hold in my hand over anybody's
     feelings and suppositions
   

    Mark,
    
    I will take the Spirit of God over any book of codified laws and
    images.  I really love 1 Cor 2.  
    
    I am inspired by it without quite knowing exactly what inspiration is.
    
    Patricia.

 But, how do you *know* its the spirit of God?

    Collis,
    
    Patricia believes that there is only one God and that none of us can
    entirely know God.  
    
    Are you stating that there is more than one God?  I didn't realize that
    you considered yourself a polytheist.
    
    Collis, you really would make a God characterization of Paul.  He says
    the same thing.  Any one who teaches a different Gospel than the one I
    teach is a false prophet.  2 Cor 11.  I still can admire Paul for his
    brilliance while rejecting his arrogance and boasting.
    
    Patricia

    re 783.53
    
    Mark, 
    
    How do you know its not?
    
    Patricia

 Barbara, I use the Bible as the standard by which I measure all spiritual
 things... And you?





 Jim

    
    
    
    > how do you know it's not
    
    Actions????
    
    David

    A new topic has been started on the 10 Commandments.  Note 794.
    
    Richard
    

    ...but mostly I just covet my neighbor's computer.

    .47  You missed the point of .46.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 783.56 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  Barbara, I use the Bible as the standard by which I measure all spiritual
>  things... And you?
  
        By what standard did you reach THAT conclusion, i.e., that
        the the Bible is the standard by which one measures all
        spiritual things???

        Bob

re Note 783.50 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Re:  .37, .38, .39
> 
> The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses.
> 
> The God of the Bible.
> 
> The God that says, "I am a jealous God".
> 
> Patricia has made it clear that she has no love for this god.

        The thing Patricia has made clear is that she has no love for
        Abraham's, Isaac's, Jacob's and Moses' -- and the Scriptural
        writers' -- complete understanding of God as expressed in the
        written word.

        You believe that that is identical to the reality of God? 
        You are free to do so, but that is quite a stretch.

        Bob

    Is your name Bob or Barbara or both?
    
    If your question were directed at me, I'd answer with the same answer
    in regards to my salvation... *faith*.
    
    

re Note 783.63 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     If your question were directed at me, I'd answer with the same answer
>     in regards to my salvation... *faith*.
  
        So you would say that there is at least one important
        standard for judging spiritual matters other than the Bible,
        and in fact it stands in judgment over the Bible?

        Bob

    .64
    
    No..... but I'm sure you'll tell me yes...  
    
    I am interested in your opinion though.

  
>        By what standard did you reach THAT conclusion, i.e., that
>        the the Bible is the standard by which one measures all
>        spiritual things???

 
  What other standard do we have?




 Jim

re Note 783.66 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>   What other standard do we have?
  
        Nancy answered *faith*, as would I, and as I suspect Patricia
        might, also.

        Bob

   >The thing Patricia has made clear is that she has no love for
   >Abraham's, Isaac's, Jacob's and Moses' -- and the Scriptural
   >writers' -- complete understanding of God as expressed in the
   >written word.

No, she has made it clear that she rejects the God that they
present.  They did not claim a complete understanding of
God (since they didn't have it, it was smart not to claim
it :-) ).  However, they did claim to know what God had
revealed to them about Himself and it has been shared -
through the written word - with us.  Patricia rejects this
god and I accept this god.  That's simply a statement of
fact, is it not?

   >You believe that that is identical to the reality of God? 

I do indeed believe that God breathed out Scripture, including
the sections detailed about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses.
I admit that some view this as radical.  I simply view it as
logical.

Collis
      

Re:  .54

   >Are you stating that there is more than one God?  I didn't realize 
   >that you considered yourself a polytheist.
 
What I stated (and seems quite clear based on our past notes)
is that you and I believe in a different god.  Your god has
little resemblance to the god I believe in.  This does not
make me a polytheist, since I also believe your god doesn't
exist.  Likewise, it doesn't make you a polytheist to
acknowledge that we believe in different gods because you don't
believe my god exists.
 
  >Any one who teaches a different Gospel than the one I [Paul]
  >teach is a false prophet.

This is not simply Paul's teaching.  It is a teaching that is
consistent throughout the entire Bible.

  >I still can admire Paul for his brilliance while rejecting 
  >his arrogance and boasting.

Is it boastful to proclaim God-given truth?  Certainly you admit
that Paul believes what he teaches/shares comes from God.  Is it
then boasting to proclaim it so that we all know what God says?

I think boasting has to do not only with proclaiming something,
but the motivation for the proclamation.  Paul's motive was not
to build himself up, but rather to build up Christ and His Church
(at least, that is what he claims several times during his "boasting".
Therefore, I disagree that Paul was boasting.  For similar reasons,
I do not believe Paul was being arrogant.

Collis

    Bob,
    
    Thank you,  You have captured my feeling.
    
    I am trying hard to ignore Collis insinuations and only argue on the
    logical difference.
    
    Collis,
    
    The main point always get back to your Belief based on your faith that
    scripture is God breathed and therefore the reality of God is the same
    as the image of God potrayed in scripture.  This is different from my
    Belief based on my faith that scripture is an incomplete understanding
    of the reality of God.  The multiple images of God potrayed in the
    Bible are all incomplete representations of the reality of God.
    
    No human can completely understand or comprehend the reality of God. 
    The humans that wrote the Bible could not any more than you or I could.
    Humans can know God through Faith and through the Spirit of God.  This
    is not a complete knowing.  God remains a mystery
    
    
    

I see this has turned into just another "I have the right handle on God
and you don't" topics.

Richard

    
    
    
    Isn't it odd that a number of you that reject the traditional
    understanding of the bible are also living lives in complete 
    disregard of it ??
    
    
    Incoming,
    David

    .73  Either substantiate that accusation or withdraw it.
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .74
    
    Agreed....that reply is out of line.
    
    
    Marc H.

I am at somewhat of a loss to understand why my acknoledging
that Patricia and I believe in different gods is such a
revelation.  I consider it obvious.  Isn't it?  And the
insinuations that Patricia has successfully ignored really
aren't there in the first place.  I've stated bluntly that
I don't believe in Patricia's god just as she has stated
bluntly that she doesn't believe in my god.  What insinuations?
That I'm right and that she is wrong?  Well, that insinuation
can be read into 95% of all notes that are entered here and
it is no surprise to anyone that people share what they
believe (rather than what they don't believe).

The question - which I thought was relevant at one point -
was, what god *do* you believe in?  I admit that it can be
a tough question, particularly when you still trying to
figure it out (we all go through a figuring out process,
so this is not a knock of Patricia).  My point being (if
we ever get there :-) ) that Patricia's definition of god
(whatever that definition is) is inconsistent both with
itself and with evidence that she purports to accept for
god.  Paul Ferwanda just briefly touched on this, I think,
in some note (not sure if it was in this topic).

Collis

re Note 783.68 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> No, she has made it clear that she rejects the God that they
> present.  They did not claim a complete understanding of
> God (since they didn't have it, it was smart not to claim
> it :-) ).  

        Well, that's the ambiguity of written language for you.  I
        wasn't claiming (nor was anybody else) that Abraham et al had
        a complete understanding of God.  What I was referring to was
        their complete understanding of God, i.e., all that they
        understood, not that they understood all.

> However, they did claim to know what God had
> revealed to them about Himself and it has been shared -
> through the written word - with us.  Patricia rejects this
> god and I accept this god.  That's simply a statement of
> fact, is it not?

        No.  Patricia rejects this understanding -- an
        "understanding" isn't a god.  Don't make a human being's
        understanding, even if it is Abraham's or Moses', your God.

        Bob

>I am at somewhat of a loss to understand why my acknoledging
>that Patricia and I believe in different gods is such a
>revelation.  I consider it obvious.  Isn't it?

Yes, it is obvious.  And sad.  For Patricia, and those who hold similar views.

It is the result of the basic flaw of seeing man at the center of the
universe, defining all else in terms of man's wants, needs, thoughts.
Instead, picture God (the one of Isaac, Abraham, and Jacob) in the center,
with His wants, goals, thoughts.  Things look a little different now.
He said that the penalty for sin against him is death.  Yet, we're still
all breathing.  Does anyone lose any sleep over the unfairness of that?

-Steve

re Note 783.78 by CFSCTC::HUSTON:

> It is the result of the basic flaw of seeing man at the center of the
> universe, defining all else in terms of man's wants, needs, thoughts.
> Instead, picture God (the one of Isaac, Abraham, and Jacob) in the center,
> with His wants, goals, thoughts.  Things look a little different now.

        Well, they don't look all THAT different.

        (You are human, right?)

        Bob

>        Well, they don't look all THAT different.
>
>        (You are human, right?)

I know my brain is tired, but I don't get it...

-Steve

It sounds like you wish to argue semantics, Bob:  Patricia
isn't claiming that a god doesn't exist, she is claiming that
an understanding of god is wrong.

Likewise, I suppose, I am not claiming that a god doesn't
exist, but am claiming that an understanding of god is wrong.

I accept both of these to say the same thing.  If you prefer
the second way to the first, it's o.k. to talk in those terms
(although I view it as a harsher way of speaking).

Collis

    Collis,
    
    None of your claims was that my understanding of God was wrong.  you
    very specifically said that my god was different that your god.  Since
    both of us acknowledge that there is only one God. Your claim is that I
    do not have a good.
    
    I clearly believe your understanding of God is different than my
    understanding of God.  I don't question your belief or your faith or
    your intent.
    
    There is quite a difference.
    
    Your message is explicit.  If I don't accept your definition of God, I
    do not have a God.  That is insulting.
    
    I really appreciate the support from Richard and Bob in supporting my
    right to my own faith without others in here saying it is no faith.
    
    Patricia
    
    
    

    
    
    Marc H., Richard,
    
      It is my opinion. I note that many people in here that disagree with
    what I call traditional christianity are living lifestyles that
    traditional christianity holds as sinful. I really do not wish to
    name names....
    
    David

    
    
    
    
    ...I am leaving for the day. If you still want me to delete the note
    I will do it in the morning.......
    
    
    peace,
    David

    .85  Your neighbor's neighbor is far from shabby herself!!
    
    *<8*} <beaucoup clowny-faces>
    

re: Note 783.83 by David

>      It is my opinion. I note that many people in here that disagree with
>    what I call traditional christianity are living lifestyles that
>    traditional christianity holds as sinful. I really do not wish to
>    name names....
    
Many people who agree with "traditional christianity" are living lifestyles
that "traditional christianity" holds as sinful.  Besides being sinful 
according to "traditional christianity" it is also hypocritical.

I shan't name names either...  .-)

Peace,

Jim

    
    
    Jim,
    
     I sin!! I do not try and change what the bible says in order to make
    what I do not a Sin!!
    
    David

  I must apologize because I have not kept up with the notes in this string
so this may be a bit of an interruption. I am not sure when I can get caught
up, but I did skim some extract when I had two minutes to rub together 
yesterday, so I will get to Bob's comments (sometime); Richard's ideas
on the subject continue to astound me (you can take that as a compliment,
if you like), but Patricia's comments on Monday (?) have stuck with me and 
I wanted to take the time this morning to respond.

  Patricia said two connected things: that Jesus' commandment to love God
with our being was the only commandment we needed, and that at least two
of the Ten Commandments could not and would not be taken seriously as being
from God because she could not see God having jealousy; in fact, she found
that "blasphemous."

  I consider the very idea that one can agree to Jesus' commandment yet
reject any of the Ten Commandments as blasphemous and here's why:

  Regardless of whether you think the Bible is inspired, the historical
  Jesus was a Jew, who followed the law (though he challenged some
  traditions; he NEVER broke a law of God.)  As a Jew, Jesus subscribed
  to the Pentatuch as "Scripture" and never once nullified any of the 
  Ten Commandments.  In fact, he reinforced them by telling us that if
  we only hate our brother, we are guilty of his blood (murder), and if
  we lust after another man's wife, we are guilty of adultery in our hearts.

  Jesus further made this plain in no uncertain terms that "he did not come
  to abolish the law but to fulfill it."  This law was certainly the Ten 
  Commandments.

  To Patricia's credit, she is correct in saying that one need follow only
  one commandment: "Love God with all your heart, sould, mind, and strength."
  This commandment was not first uttered by Jesus, by the way.  It was given
  in Deuteronomy 6:5 by Moses (see Dt. 1:1), the same man who "supposedly"
  wrote the "patriarchal" Ten Commandments.  

  Jesus quoted Moses, and reinforced this commandment as the overarching 
  commandment to all the law and the prophets. Jesus subscribed to this 
  overarching commandment in which the Ten Commandments are encompassed.
  (So you see how I came to say that Patricia's statements are diametrically 
  opposed to one another.)

  And by the way, Deuteronomy 6:5 and Exodus 20:3 go hand in hand.  If you
  love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, you will have no 
  other gods.  (As for jealousy, Paul speaks of a godly jealousy in 
  2 Corinthians 11:2, so rather than pitch something because you understand
  it to mean something that doesn't make sense to you, consider where the
  source of confusion is originating.  It could be the text or the reader
  of the text in his or her understanding of what is being said.)

  One other thing about the law, and Jesus' healing on the Sabbath.  The 
  commandment is to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.  Jesus is asked
  whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath day (Matthew 12).  He then
  explains that tradition has put the cart before the horse, so to speak,
  to where codifying what one can and cannot do had become more important
  than the attitude that the Commandment expresses.  (And this is the danger
  of legalism.)  In other words, it can be both right and wrong to something
  depending on context.  For example, taking a prescribed drug should be done
  when it is needed, and not to be abused.  There are not-a-few other examples,
  too.  Jesus said, "it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days."  So you
  can easily see that Jesus was not breaking any law or commandment, but 
  was breaking with the tradition that rigidly defined what one could and
  could not do on the Sabbath day, which brings us back to the greatest 
  commandment:

  Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind,and strength.

  This does not rigidly define what you should and should not do.  This
  is very liberating, to be sure, BUT! it is the liberty to fulfill the
  meaning (or spirit) of the law and Never to do away with it.

Mark

P.S.  I may be busy for some time.  I'll try to get an extract of this note
string at some time.  If you must get a more immediate response, E-Mail
works well.  But I wanted to speak on these points. 

>    Your message is explicit.  If I don't accept your definition of God, I
>    do not have a God.  That is insulting.

(I do not speak for Collis; but I can defend his actions...)

On the contrary, Collis' message is very loving towards you.  He sees you
on the wide road that leads to destruction, and has tried to warn you of
that.

In heaven, I (as I'm sure is true of Collis) would rather see you there
than eternally separated from God.

-Steve

re Note 783.89 by TOKNOW::METCALFE:

>   Patricia said two connected things: that Jesus' commandment to love God
> with our being was the only commandment we needed, and that at least two
> of the Ten Commandments could not and would not be taken seriously as being
> from God because she could not see God having jealousy; in fact, she found
> that "blasphemous."
...
>   In fact, he [Jesus] reinforced them by telling us that if
>   we only hate our brother, we are guilty of his blood (murder), and if
>   we lust after another man's wife, we are guilty of adultery in our hearts.

        So if Patricia had said that those two commandments with
        which she takes exception should be "reinforced" by an
        amplified understanding, instead of saying that they lacked
        divine character as written, she would have been doing the
        same thing as Jesus?

        Bob

    Steve,
    
    	I see you also carry extra-biblical notions about "everlasting
    life" around with you.
    
    	You need not pity Patricia (or me) for where you assume we'll
    end up in some life yet to come.  It's best that folks like us won't
    be there to contaminate all the truly righteous and orthodox people
    who'll be there.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

"There are none who are righteous...no not one"


   Romans 3:23



 

 Jim

    
    RE: .92 Richard, is that intended to be sarcastic and insulting or
    do you honestly feel the Heaven is better off without you?

    			Alfred

   >None of your claims was that my understanding of God was wrong.  you
   >very specifically said that my god was different than your god.  

You have totally lost me.  How do these two statement differ?  We each
define god - and we define god differently.  (That's statement 2.)  We
each define god and one of our understandings of god is wrong (that's
statement 1).  I believe my understanding is correct and yours is wrong
and you, naturally, believe the opposite.  The dinstinction you want
to make that one of these somehow or other doesn't always imply the
other is totally lost on me.

  >Since both of us acknowledge that there is only one God. Your claim 
  >is that I do not have a god.

You know that I don't believe your god exists just as you don't believe
my god exists.  Does this hurt you to have this pointed out to you?
That's not my intention (to hurt you).  But I do think it is reasonable
to discuss both your god and my god acknowledging that they are quite
incompatible with each other.

I expect that you're a very nice, warm, loving, caring and sincere
person, Patricia.  I'm not claiming that you don't believe in a god.
You do.  You have a god.  Whether or not the god you choose to believe
in really exists is a prime subject for this notesfile, isn't it?
Certainly whether or not the god I believe in really exists is a
prime subject of this notesfile as this gets discussed all the time.
a prime subject of this notesfile.

  >Your message is explicit.  If I don't accept your definition of God, I
  >do not have a God.  That is insulting.

If you find it insulting to recognize that:

  - your god and my god are *very* incompatible
  - one of our gods obviously doesn't exist (perhaps both)
  - I believe my god is the true god

then you may feel insulted.  If you know of a way that these (obvious)
facts can be discussed without insulting you, then let me know and I
will attempt (honestly) to discuss them in a non-insulting way.  If
the facts themselves are what insult you, then there is little I can
do other to avoid insulting you other than to never mention the facts.
Since this subject is an integral part of this particular notesfile,
I expect that it will come up again and the facts will once again
make an appearance - if not from me then from someone else.

  >I really appreciate the support from Richard and Bob in supporting my
  >right to my own faith without others in here saying it is no faith.

It is a tenet a liberal Christianity it is acceptable to believe in
essentially any god.  (Different liberals set the limits at different
places.  All set the limits beyond the conservatives.)

It is a tenet of conservative Christianity that it is acceptable to
believe only in the one, true living God as He has revealed Himself
through Jesus, the Bible, experience, reason, etc.

I acknowledge that this is a notesfile that welcomes those who believe
the tenets of liberal Christianity and it is not my intention to insult
you.  But recognize the difference between us - and the fact that my 
faith *demands* a non-acceptance of any god except the one, true God -
may help you to see that my intention is not to insult you, but rather
to discuss and share the god that I know.

If you believe that I am eternally lost or hopeless confused because
of my beliefs, that's o.k. with me.  I'm not insulted by that belief.
I appreciate that you don't wish to insult me.  But the issue we face
is not simply a personal choice - it is a requirement that God Himself
instituted and that I willingly submit to as He is my Lord and Savior.
I will not have *any* other gods before me - because there is only
one, true God.

Collis
 


 

re Note 783.95 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> If you find it insulting to recognize that:
> 
>   - your god and my god are *very* incompatible
>   - one of our gods obviously doesn't exist (perhaps both)
>   - I believe my god is the true god

        Collis,

        It is VERY likely that if, at this moment, your wife were to
        write a description of you, and I were to write a description
        of you, the two would be *very* different and probably
        contradictory in some ways.

        Which Collis wouldn't exist?

        That would be a stupid question -- there is just one, and he
        exists, but the understandings are different and one or both
        may be wrong or incomplete in some way.

        Bob

    re: 783.91
    
    Bob,
    
    I never thought it  quite like that. Thanks.  Yes, the ten commandments
    need to be amplified.  I believe a positive statement is better than a
    negative.
    
    for instance.
    
    1.  Love all humankind, do good, harm none.
    2.  Be honest and faithful with your partner.  Honor all commitments,
    both stated and implied.
    3.  Be grateful for the gifts that God has given.  Do not covet gifts
    given to another.
    4.  Seek God. Seek Truth.  Seek authenticity. Encourage one another to
     spiritual Growth. 
    
    5.  Use language and symbols and deeds to build up others and not to tear
     down.  
    
    6.  Be honest in all your deeds.  
    
    7.  Love God, yourself, and others
    
    Can't think of three more right now.

   >It is VERY likely that if, at this moment, your wife were to
   >write a description of you, and I were to write a description
   >of you, the two would be *very* different and probably
   >contradictory in some ways.

   >Which Collis wouldn't exist?

Neither Collis would exist.

However, I would still exist.

Does that help clear matters up? :-)

Collis

Note 783.42 & .43  GRIM::MESSENGER 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob, 

  I'll condense our conversation rather than respond point by point to the
  170 lines in these two notes.  Also, for other readers, if you want me to
  respond or reply to anything you have to say regarding the notes after
  .50 or so, please let me know because after 50 notes behind, I think I
  need to SET SEEN, or something - no guarantee I'll see your query.

>My definition of "harm" is fairly flexible but not all-encompassing.
...
>>  As a member of society a crime against one is a crime against all.
>>  Choosing to press charges or not is merely a liberty society grants as a
>>  whole to the individual.
>
>What if the relationship between you and your friend were such that you
>knew that he'd take your "invasion" of him home as a harmless prank, and
>your friend justified this belief by not pressing charges?  Then there
>would be no crime, and no offense against society.  There would only be an
>offense against society if you had harmed your friend.
                                                            
  Was I not clear enough the first time?  Society grants the individual the
  liberty to forgive the offense (in some cases; in others you can't 'drop 
  the charges').  The offense to society remains, but *because* the impact
  is less to society as a whole, it grants the individual license to
  forgive an offense. In many cases of felony, the offended party cannot
  forgive the offense.

>Of course - that's one of my favorite topics [absolute vs. relative
>morality], and I'm having a discussion about it right now with Don 
>Randall over in GRIM::RELIGION.

  I wrote a piece on Morality and Authority in the Christian notes
  conference, notes 31.*.  I will reproduce it here for this conference.

>Not just societies but individuals within the society.  We have each have our
>own conception of what is moral. Even the most powerful country on earth
>hasn't been able to force its citizens to drive 55 m.p.h.

  The society has not felt it important enough to enforce strictly.  If it
  wanted to, it could.  A communist Soviet Union has shown that whatever
  the state wants, it gets.  Oh, there are underground efforts running
  contrary to state definitions of right and wrong, but by definition of
  who is in power, these people commit wrongs, which the state can enforce
  (if it is powerful enough and catches those who commit these wrongs).

  Therefore, the greater power defines right and wrong.

>>  Absent the
>>  absolute authority, we have a series of hierarchical and temporary
>>  "absolute" authorities, until they are usurped.
>
>The temporary "absolute" moral authorities are illusary; no authority is
>absolute.

  I thought it was clear that quotes around a word gave it a different
  connotation.  To explain, when I say "temporary 'absolute' authorities,"
  it is an oxymoron, except in the isolation of the individual.  That is to
  say, if your home is your universe, then you are the absolute authority
  there, until such time as someone comes and usurps it.  

  You can argue that this is not absolute for all time, and you would be
  correct, but it is absolute for a finite time, hence the term "temporary
  absolute authority."  Clearer?

>> There is no absolute outside of God,
>
>I agree, and since I'm an agnostic...

  Good, we have agreement.  Allow me to finish your sentence.  "and since I
  am an agnostic, there is or is not an absolute, depending on whether God
  exists or not."  This is all the more reason to enter my comments of
  morality and authority.

  Basically, all questions eventually boil down to two:  Does God exist?
  (and this addresses part of your agnosticism) and if God exists,  what is
  He/She/It like?  Watch for the new note.

>>  Who defines whether some
>>  affectation is great enough to impact society negatively?  Society does.
>>
>>  Society defines what is "harm" whether direct or indirect, because it is
>>  the greater authority over the individuals who choose to engage in
>>  incestual adult relations.
>
>Yes, society can and does attempt (often successfully) to control the
>behavior of its members.  As a member of society, I am attempting in my own
>small way to change it in the direction of less control.  Apparently your
>attempts have been to change it in the opposite direction.

  Now, I am unclear about your wording here, Bob.  In fact, I am NOT
  attempting to change society in the direction of more control.  Perhaps
  you have missed my point: society has imminent control over its members
  no matter what its members do.  Therefore, our small ways of influence
  only attempt to add strength to the defining power of society.  If
  everyone on the planet were ABLE to exert no impact ("no control") over
  anyone else, then society as a collection of its members would have
  defined it.  But the fact is, nothing exists in a vacuum,and what you do
  affects me, and what I do affects you, whether great, small, or
  infantesimally.

  Mark

Re: .100 Mark

>>What if the relationship between you and your friend were such that you
>>knew that he'd take your "invasion" of him home as a harmless prank, and
>>your friend justified this belief by not pressing charges?  Then there
>>would be no crime, and no offense against society.  There would only be an
>>offense against society if you had harmed your friend.
>                                                            
>  Was I not clear enough the first time?  Society grants the individual the
>  liberty to forgive the offense (in some cases; in others you can't 'drop 
>  the charges').  The offense to society remains, but *because* the impact
>  is less to society as a whole, it grants the individual license to
>  forgive an offense.

I disagree in this particular case.  As long as you and your friend had
an understanding that it was OK for you to enter his home at night, there
would be no offense against society.  Entering another person's home isn't
inherently wrong; it only becomes wrong when you do it without that
person's express or implied consent.

> In many cases of felony, the offended party cannot forgive the offense.

Right.  In a case like that the perpetrator is considered to be a threat to
society, e.g. if you stab Mr. Smith and get away with it, maybe you'll stab
me next.  It's different in a situation where you entered a friend's house
and he didn't file a complaint - there's no reason to think that because
you entered a friend's house at night you might also enter other people's
houses at night.

>>Not just societies but individuals within the society.  We have each have our
>>own conception of what is moral. Even the most powerful country on earth
>>hasn't been able to force its citizens to drive 55 m.p.h.
>
>  The society has not felt it important enough to enforce strictly.  If it
>  wanted to, it could.

One way to put it is that the American people haven't allowed their
government to enforce the speed limit strictly enough to force universal
compliance.  And this is a good sign - it shows that in the United States,
at least, the power of the government is limited.

>  A communist Soviet Union has shown that whatever the state wants, it gets.

Have you read the newspapers lately? :-)  The Soviet Union wanted to
continue to exist, but it couldn't.

>  Therefore, the greater power defines right and wrong.

The greater power defines right and wrong for itself, but since (fortunately)
no power is absolute no system of right and wrong is absolute.  Life continues
to be a struggle between competing moral systems.

>  That is to
>  say, if your home is your universe, then you are the absolute authority
>  there, until such time as someone comes and usurps it.  
>
>  You can argue that this is not absolute for all time, and you would be
>  correct, but it is absolute for a finite time, hence the term "temporary
>  absolute authority."  Clearer?

But just knowing that my authority over my home is temporary means that my
authority isn't absolute.  For example, I might decide that drug use is OK
in my home, but I have to consider the possibility that the DEA might break
down my door at any moment and usurp my authority.  It would be misleading
to say that I had "temporary absolute authority" over my home, because in
reality my authority wasn't absolute to begin with.

>  Good, we have agreement.  Allow me to finish your sentence.  "and since I
>  am an agnostic, there is or is not an absolute, depending on whether God
>  exists or not."

There's also the possibility that there is no absolute morality even though
God exists; maybe God doesn't care about morality, e.g. God might be an
impersonal force.  But yes, if I believed in a God that endorsed a
particular moral system I'd probably also believe that that moral system
was absolute.

>>Yes, society can and does attempt (often successfully) to control the
>>behavior of its members.  As a member of society, I am attempting in my own
>>small way to change it in the direction of less control.  Apparently your
>>attempts have been to change it in the opposite direction.
>
>  Now, I am unclear about your wording here, Bob.  In fact, I am NOT
>  attempting to change society in the direction of more control.

Are you trying to keep the same level of control, or are you trying to
change society in the direction of less control, or are you not trying to
change it at all?

>  Perhaps
>  you have missed my point: society has imminent control over its members
>  no matter what its members do.

Did you mean "eminent" rather than "imminent"?  From the American Heritage
Dictionary:

	eminent adj. 1. Outstanding, as in reputation; distinguished.
	  2. Towering above others; projecting.

Does society's influence over its members tower above all other influences?
Does the moral authority of the government tower above the moral authority
of the Church, for example?

I'd agree that society has a limited control over its members no matter
what its members do.  The level of control is high in a totalitarian
society and less in a democratic society, but it's never absolute.

>  Therefore, our small ways of influence
>  only attempt to add strength to the defining power of society.

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning.  Do my efforts to get society to
leave me alone only attempt to add strength to the defining power of
society?  No, I'm attempting to weaken the defining power of society, not
strengthen it.

>  If
>  everyone on the planet were ABLE to exert no impact ("no control") over
>  anyone else, then society as a collection of its members would have
>  defined it.

Society as a collection of its members would have ceased to exist.

>  But the fact is, nothing exists in a vacuum,and what you do
>  affects me, and what I do affects you, whether great, small, or
>  infantesimally.

Right, as long as we interact at some level, e.g. just the fact that I'm
replying to your note means that your actions have affected me.

				-- Bob

>I disagree in this particular case.  As long as you and your friend had
>an understanding that it was OK for you to enter his home at night, there
>would be no offense against society.  Entering another person's home isn't
>inherently wrong; it only becomes wrong when you do it without that
>person's express or implied consent.

If you and I had an agreement to come to my home and discharge firearms
in the privacy of an enclosed basement (no chance of exiting the home and
hurting someone on the outside), society currently defines this as a wrong.
Inherent or not, definition is what counts.  And the enforcement of the
definition is the teeth that make inheritability a non-issue.  In other words,
You and I could be "minding our own business" shooting up the basement, but
the police (society's enforcement) could prosecute us (on the definition)
whether or not I gave you permission in my home.

>> In many cases of felony, the offended party cannot forgive the offense.
>
>Right.  In a case like that the perpetrator is considered to be a threat to
>society, e.g. if you stab Mr. Smith and get away with it, maybe you'll stab
>me next.  It's different in a situation where you entered a friend's house
>and he didn't file a complaint - there's no reason to think that because
>you entered a friend's house at night you might also enter other people's
>houses at night.

It is not different - only greater and lesser extents of the SAME thing.
Because some things are to such a lesser extent, the law of diminishing
returns applies and it is not worth the trouble to enforce the definition.
Getting back to rationing, drinking water has impact to others when it
is scarce, but [very little to] no impact when it is plentiful.  But BOTH
have impact.

>>  The society has not felt it important enough to enforce strictly.  If it
>>  wanted to, it could.
>
>One way to put it is that the American people haven't allowed their
>government to enforce the speed limit strictly enough to force universal
>compliance.  And this is a good sign - it shows that in the United States,
>at least, the power of the government is limited.

I don't buy this, and think that this argument is designed to fool oneself
into thinking they have power.  There's action and reaction.  I recall a
protest where people were encouraged to sail on through toll booths without
paying (in NH).  What power the masses have, right?  All it would take is 
for a police cruiser in each lane to stop traffic.  The power of the people's
mass would be VERY short lived (a temporary authority to ignore the government
usurped by a greater power's response).  The only way for a protest against
rising toll rates is to take those masses and redefine what the gov't wants
to do (that is change on the societal level).  The toll-running protest
didn't change the definition - it only rebelled against it.  Enter the
Smokeys to reinforce the definition.  Rebellion is NOT change.

>>  A communist Soviet Union has shown that whatever the state wants, it gets.
>
>Have you read the newspapers lately? :-)  The Soviet Union wanted to
>continue to exist, but it couldn't.

This is another conversation, but why do *YOU* think the USSR collapsed?
And when you have answered this for yourself, then ask what is the reason
for the reason you come up with.  Follow the chain of reason until you
come to the initating reason.  

Since your note is so long, I'll break this up and continue in the next note.

Mark

>>  Therefore, the greater power defines right and wrong.
>
>The greater power defines right and wrong for itself, but since (fortunately)
>no power is absolute no system of right and wrong is absolute.  Life continues
>to be a struggle between competing moral systems.

Yes, you are correct, partially.  Competing moral systems, yes.  And
when two powers are nearly equal in strength, then there is confusion of
definition; conflicting definitions of right and wrong, which is why notes 
798.* becomes an important issue.  You see, if there is a [significantly]
greater power, the greater power makes the definition and imposes it on
the weaker, which stands in rebellion to the greater definition.

Enter authority (power) to enforce definition.
The greater power defines because the greater power has the power to define.
Those who stand in rebellion are subject to that enforcement
.
In the case of an omnipotent God, we all become subject to that
enforcement.  (Trouble is, we get so focused on the temporal that 
we can't [refuse to] see that the eternal timetable doesn't synchonize
with the temporal one.  The scales of balance are radically different.
Like credit cards and checks, we get ourselves into debt because it
doesn't feel like we're creating obligations against ourselves; it feels
as if we are getting something for nothing, and we're getting away with it.
The eternal balance sheet is continuing the tally, though, and we're
all in debt (Romans 3:23) and no way to pay it off.

>But just knowing that my authority over my home is temporary means that my
>authority isn't absolute.  For example, I might decide that drug use is OK
>in my home, but I have to consider the possibility that the DEA might break
>down my door at any moment and usurp my authority.  It would be misleading
>to say that I had "temporary absolute authority" over my home, because in
>reality my authority wasn't absolute to begin with.

I see I haven't made myself understood to you.  When the DEA usurps your
authority, your absoluteness ends - hence the word "TEMPORARY" (in quotes,
again, to denote a different yet similar concept).  By the way, simply 
ask the DEA not to press charges.

>>  Good, we have agreement.  Allow me to finish your sentence.  "and since I
>>  am an agnostic, there is or is not an absolute, depending on whether God
>>  exists or not."
>
>There's also the possibility that there is no absolute morality even though
>God exists; maybe God doesn't care about morality, e.g. God might be an
>impersonal force.  But yes, if I believed in a God that endorsed a
>particular moral system I'd probably also believe that that moral system
>was absolute.

Agreed.  Ad I have said as much in 798.  (Reply .1 I think)  I just didn't
flesh out the whole argument here but deferred to 798.

>>>Yes, society can and does attempt (often successfully) to control the
>>>behavior of its members.  As a member of society, I am attempting in my own
>>>small way to change it in the direction of less control.  Apparently your
>>>attempts have been to change it in the opposite direction.
>>
>>  Now, I am unclear about your wording here, Bob.  In fact, I am NOT
>>  attempting to change society in the direction of more control.
>
>Are you trying to keep the same level of control, or are you trying to
>change society in the direction of less control, or are you not trying to
>change it at all?

I don't have to try to keep or change the LEVEL of control.  That level of
control is a constant.  Government interference or lack thereof is merely
a function of societal definitions and its enforcements of those definitions.
Society would have to enforce less governemtn intervention, don't you see?
So, we are on equal footing as individuals because we attempt to MODIFY
the definition by adding our individual voice to the collective societal
voices, thereby adding power.  And since the greater power defines, by
might or by number (often in concert, but not always so).

>Does society's influence over its members tower above all other influences?

No.  Only those influences over which it has power.  Hierarchical authority
structure. 

>Does the moral authority of the government tower above the moral authority
>of the Church, for example?

In some cases, yes, especially where the society is strong enough to 
suppress the church (and drive its opponents underground).  This was
true of much of the USSR.  We know that the church survived - but they
were defined as wrong by its governing body.  But, the church recognizes
a higher authority, which is why its members will refuse to align their
moral judgments with society.  So who is right and who is wrong?
The church is wrong by definition of the authority over it, but the 
society is wrong by definition of the authority over it (God), which
affirms the church's stand.

We can see this in our court system.  The district court overturns a decision
by a lower court, and appeals can run up the ladder of courts flip flopping
definitions of right and wrong until it reaches the supreme court, after
which there is no more appeal.

>I'd agree that society has a limited control over its members no matter
>what its members do.  The level of control is high in a totalitarian
>society and less in a democratic society, but it's never absolute.

I never said it was.  I said it was "temporarily absolute" meaning I have
the authority until someone usurps it.  In other words, we agree that
without God, there is no absolute (we said this early on).

>>  Therefore, our small ways of influence
>>  only attempt to add strength to the defining power of society.
>
>I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning.  Do my efforts to get society to
>leave me alone only attempt to add strength to the defining power of
>society?  No, I'm attempting to weaken the defining power of society, not
>strengthen it.

Your definition is to weaken the defining power of society.  That's like
saying "I want to define a process by which people cannot define a process."
Look at anarchy in its absolute - every man for himself - each an authority
unto himself.  It is impossible to have this *and* have a society, because
my authority might define itself to hurt someone else.  So we go the next
step, and say we need SOME rule because we all interact.   Who makes the rules?
Who defines how little is the best "weakening of the defining power?"

No.  You want to define ways to make society less intrusive on individuals.
And you will only do this if you get many, many people to agree with
your definitions of what "less intrusive means."  You add your voice to
these voices, and perhaps you may have the greater power to define and
enforce this definition of "less intrusion."

Now, you were probably asking me whether I was in favor of more intrusion.
The answer is no.  I don't want anyone intruding on me as much as the
next guy.  But defining what is intrusive is another matter, as is the
good of the members of our society.

Mark

    

>If you and I had an agreement to come to my home and discharge firearms
>in the privacy of an enclosed basement (no chance of exiting the home and
>hurting someone on the outside), society currently defines this as a wrong.
    >.
    >.
>You and I could be "minding our own business" shooting up the basement, but
>the police (society's enforcement) could prosecute us (on the definition)
>whether or not I gave you permission in my home.
    
    Not where I live!
    
    		Alfred

Re: .102 Mark

>Inherent or not, definition is what counts.  And the enforcement of the
>definition is the teeth that make inheritability a non-issue.  In other words,
>You and I could be "minding our own business" shooting up the basement, but
>the police (society's enforcement) could prosecute us (on the definition)
>whether or not I gave you permission in my home.

We're talking about two different things here: what's legal and what should
be legal.  It's legal to enter someone's house with their permission, and
it's illegal in at least some jurisdictions to discharge a firearm in the
privacy of your own basement.  Now if I understand you correctly, you seem
to be saying that it doesn't matter what *should* be legal, that all that
matters is what *is* legal.  If so, I disagree with you.  If something is
illegal and we think that it should be legal, first of all as citizens of a
democracy we will try to get the law changed, and second if we feel
strongly enough about the issue we might ignore the law and commit illegal
acts, either because we are scofflaws or because we are deliberately
practising civil disobedience.

>>> In many cases of felony, the offended party cannot forgive the offense.
>>
>>Right.  In a case like that the perpetrator is considered to be a threat to
>>society, e.g. if you stab Mr. Smith and get away with it, maybe you'll stab
>>me next.  It's different in a situation where you entered a friend's house
>>and he didn't file a complaint - there's no reason to think that because
>>you entered a friend's house at night you might also enter other people's
>>houses at night.
>
>It is not different - only greater and lesser extents of the SAME thing.

I don't agree with you, but I think we've beaten this particular issue to
death.

>Getting back to rationing, drinking water has impact to others when it
>is scarce, but [very little to] no impact when it is plentiful.  But BOTH
>have impact.

As I see it, drinking more than one's share of water when there is a
shortage and it's being rationed harms those who will have even less water
to drink as a result.  Drinking water when there is no shortage and it
isn't being rationed harms no one, as long as you don't forget to pay your
water bill.  But I don't think it's worth arguing about it.

> I recall a
>protest where people were encouraged to sail on through toll booths without
>paying (in NH).  What power the masses have, right?  All it would take is 
>for a police cruiser in each lane to stop traffic.

Stopping traffic is bad for business.  If enough people had participated
in the protest the law might have been changed.

Ask yourself why India isn't a British colony.  Ask yourself why black
people are allowed to ride in the front of busses in Alabama.

>This is another conversation, but why do *YOU* think the USSR collapsed?
>And when you have answered this for yourself, then ask what is the reason
>for the reason you come up with.  Follow the chain of reason until you
>come to the initating reason.  

I don't have the time or desire to get into a lengthy political analysis,
but briefly: the communist economic system was so inefficient that the
USSR was beginning to have trouble feeding its own people, let alone
maintaining its status as a superpower.  Gorbachev allowed a limited
number of western-style reforms in an attempt to improve the economy, but
he unwittingly unleashed so much pent-up frustration that not only was he
forced out of office but the republics that formed the USSR broke away and
became independent countries.

If the people of the USSR had really been cowed into submission by the
eminent power of the state there would have been no pent-up frustration to
be unleashed.  If the USSR really had absolute power over its subjects then
Gorbachev would have been able to reform the economy without being forced
from power.

				-- Bob

Re: .103 Mark

>You see, if there is a [significantly]
>greater power, the greater power makes the definition and imposes it on
>the weaker, which stands in rebellion to the greater definition.

Mark, when the state commits acts that I consider to be evil, I don't
consider myself to be in rebellion against the greater definition of what
is right.  I believe that I am right and that what the state is doing is
immoral.  It's true that my actions may be need to be tempered by the
state's definition of what is moral, but I do *not* change my own
definition of what is moral to conform to the state's definition.

>Enter authority (power) to enforce definition.
>The greater power defines because the greater power has the power to define.
>Those who stand in rebellion are subject to that enforcement.

The greater power can only define what it considers to be moral.  It is
not capable of creating an absolute, universal definition.

>In the case of an omnipotent God, we all become subject to that
>enforcement.

If such a God exists.

>I see I haven't made myself understood to you.  When the DEA usurps your
>authority, your absoluteness ends - hence the word "TEMPORARY" (in quotes,
>again, to denote a different yet similar concept).  By the way, simply 
>ask the DEA not to press charges.

It's going to be difficult for us to communicate if you use words like
"absolute" in such an unusual way.  Do you really think that I have
absolute authority over my house as long as no one else is there?

>I don't have to try to keep or change the LEVEL of control.  That level of
>control is a constant.  Government interference or lack thereof is merely
>a function of societal definitions and its enforcements of those definitions.

"Societal definitions" is rather vague.  In reality, in the United States,
government interferece or lack thereof is determined by laws that are
passed and regulations that are created by specific people who are elected
or appointed in accordance with a constitution.  As citizens of this
democracy, you and I have the opportunity to try to change the level of
control by influencing the people who pass the laws and write the
regulations, or by trying to get them replaced by people who agree with us.

>Society would have to enforce less governemtn intervention, don't you see?
>So, we are on equal footing as individuals because we attempt to MODIFY
>the definition by adding our individual voice to the collective societal
>voices, thereby adding power.

OK, so I just asking, in what way, if any, are you trying to modify the extent
to which the government interferes in individual lives?

>The church is wrong by definition of the authority over it, but the 
>society is wrong by definition of the authority over it (God), which
>affirms the church's stand.

What, there is more than one definition????  (Mock horror.)

>We can see this in our court system.  The district court overturns a decision
>by a lower court, and appeals can run up the ladder of courts flip flopping
>definitions of right and wrong until it reaches the supreme court, after
>which there is no more appeal.

But all those definitions of right and wrong are merely deciding what the
*law* considers to be right, not what really is right.

So what really is right?  It's my belief that *nothing* is really right or
wrong.  There is no absolute morality.  Morality is relative; it's in the
eye of the beholder.  (If I believed in the existence of God I might change
my mind about this.)

>>The level of control is high in a totalitarian
>>society and less in a democratic society, but it's never absolute.
>
>I never said it was.  I said it was "temporarily absolute" meaning I have
>the authority until someone usurps it.

But people defy the government's authority every day, so the government's
authority isn't even temporarily absolute, at least as I understand the
word "absolute".

>  In other words, we agree that
>without God, there is no absolute (we said this early on).

Right.

>Your definition is to weaken the defining power of society.  That's like
>saying "I want to define a process by which people cannot define a process."

I'm making a distinction here between society and individuals within the
society.  It's like saying "I want to define a process by which other
people cannot define a process", or more specifically "I want to define
a process by which the government cannot define a process."

>Look at anarchy in its absolute - every man for himself - each an authority
>unto himself.  It is impossible to have this *and* have a society, because
>my authority might define itself to hurt someone else.

OK so far.

>  So we go the next
>step, and say we need SOME rule because we all interact.   Who makes the rules?
>Who defines how little is the best "weakening of the defining power?"

In a democracy we vote on it.  In the United States we've created a
democratically elected government to provide for the common defense etc.
I'm just saying that my vote is to limit the amount of liberty that we
surrender to the government.

>No.  You want to define ways to make society less intrusive on individuals.
>And you will only do this if you get many, many people to agree with
>your definitions of what "less intrusive means."

Luckily many people do agree with my definitions.  Unfortunately many
people do not.  There is a continuous struggle between competing political
factions for control of the United States government.

But there is also a struggle within each individual conscience.  Should I
obey the law or should I break it?  Should I drive 55 m.p.h. on Route 128?
Should I declare all my outside income on my taxes?  Is it OK to make a
tape recording of a compact disc that I've bought?  In each case, do I
agree with the law?  How likely is it that I will be caught?  If I am
caught, what will be the likely punishment?

>Now, you were probably asking me whether I was in favor of more intrusion.
>The answer is no.  I don't want anyone intruding on me as much as the
>next guy.  But defining what is intrusive is another matter, as is the
>good of the members of our society.

True.  In some cases I *want* the government to intrude. The government
should force employers to provide safe working conditions.  It should
prevent discrimination in employment, housing etc.  It should prevent
child abuse.  It should provide assistance to the poor.  In each case
there are people who would be harmed if the government did not intervene,
but not everyone will agree with me about what constitutes "harm".

				-- Bob