Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Richard:
    
    Ever hear of a thing called the Promisekeepers?  They meet in large
    stadiums and is composed of men from many denominations who make a
    pledge toward spiritual leadership and sanctification.  It is really a
    neat thing.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Is Richard claim true that the men are told to go home and make sure
    they are solidly in charge?  Told to go home and take back their God
    assigned responsibility of dominating wife and children!
    
                                         Patricia

         <<< Note 1119.2 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    they are solidly in charge?  Told to go home and take back their God
>    assigned responsibility of dominating wife and children!
    
    	This is exactly what I'm talking about in the Promise Keepers
    	topic.
    
    	It is impossible to hold a discussion on this when the other
    	person's attitude/viewpoint is what you have written.
    
    	This is ***NOT*** what it is all about.  I'm afraid that
    	no amount of telling you this will make a difference, though.

 ZZ   Told to go home and take back their God
 ZZ   assigned responsibility of dominating wife and children!
    
    No, this is false in the context of domination.  Domination is the
    falsity here.  
    
    At Promisekeepers, men are admonished first to sanctification and
    purity.  Secondly, they are called to taking on the position of
    Spiritual leader in the household.  Michele would not have married me
    had I not agreed to take this responsibility...and I can assure you, I
    have been reminded of my role on many an occasion.  
    
    Think of it this way Patricia.  I am called to be spriritual leader in
    my house; but I couldn't adequately do this without Michele.  I would
    be incomplete.  An Automatic Pilot without an airplane is useless.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    If you wife has agreed to be subordinate to you, then that is her
    choice.  Just don't expect too many other women to go along with it.
    
    Infortunately what you will see as a result of this backlash is more
    violence against women as more and more women refuse to be
    subordinated!
    
    Other than the women who note in Christian, I've never heard a woman
    suggest that  man should be the spiritual head of the househole.
    
    

     ZZ   If you wife has agreed to be subordinate to you, then that is her
     ZZ   choice.  Just don't expect too many other women to go along with
     ZZ   it.
    
    Subordinate to me in what way?  She basically told me I had to take on
    the role if we were to be married.  Also, I hate to say this but the
    majority of women who understand biblical principles cling to the
    belief that the spiritual leader of a home belongs to the husband.  
    
    -Jack

   > Michele would not have married me
   > had I not agreed to take this responsibility...and I can assure you, I
   > have been reminded of my role on many an occasion.  
    
    
Sounds to me like a very stereotypical relationship to me.
    
    
    So is the spiritual leader the one who accepts the role or assigns the
    role!    

ZZ    Sounds to me like a very stereotypical relationship to me.
    
    In a way, it can be.  Men of today sometimes do stupid things and in my
    case, lack the forsight needed to esteem my spouse.  LISTENING for one
    thing!  If I didn't marry Michele, I'd probably still be living in a
    one bedroom flop, there would be dirty dishes in the sink and I'd
    probably be less healthy and live on a diet of pizzas and Burger King.
    This is the point I am making here.  God used my spouse, Michele, to
    groom me into a more refined individual which some more to go!  She saw
    spiritual leadership in my as an important element to bring up a
    family.  I truly see the wisdom behind this.  I can assure you
    Patricia, that I DO NOT even attempt to dominate in the relationship.
    This isn't what spiritual leadership is about.
    
    -Jack

    Noo...no no no no....not quite that way.
    
    It was more like as individuals, we both set our own spiritual tones
    for ourselves.  Michele made it clear to me her desire was for me to
    take that responsibility in dealing with the family unit.  This has
    proven to be quite profitable in our relationship because I have been
    able to be an adequate role model for my children.
    
    I fail to see your resistance to this...considering it is the very
    elements I am trying to grow which keep men from abusing their
    children, spouses, which keep them from becoming demasculated and gives
    them the conviction to maintain faithfulness.  Sounds like you want
    your cake and eat it too.  
    
    -Jack

    I didn't say leader, I said spiritual leader.
    
    -Jack

Jack,

Would you please explain the difference between being a leader and being a
spiritual leader?

				-- Bob

    Yes but let me point out that the man can be a leader if he stakes his
    claim and the wife submits to the same.  I am correcting Patricia here
    because she conveniently uses Spiritual leadership synonomously with
    dominance, inequity, lording over, and the like.  Rearing it's ugly
    head if I remember correctly.
    
    I believe Patricia did quite a good job with the basenote
    actually...and there isn't much I disagree with except the supposition
    that we are all alike which is inconsistent with reality.  
    
    As I have said, I believe it is the responsibility of the man to set
    spiritual practices within the two coupled family.  As far as
    leadership goes, Michele and I tend not to disagree very much.  The
    reason being is that our personalities and likes have driven us to take
    different responsibilities.  Michele for example bought a Taurus Wagon.
    I showed up strictly to sign the papers but she test drove and haggled
    on her own.  Michele found our current home and worked out the
    incidentals.  I tried to finagle financing, etc.  I tend to make sure
    the bills are paid every month.  Michele makes the beds, I wash the
    dishes...it is all a matter of preference.  We didn't have to have a
    committee to say, "Hey, we're equal so we have to take turns doing
    these things."  No no no nooo...I earn the money and she procures the
    items...including the high ticket items like cars, furniture, and
    homes.  Reason?  Why not, she has to live there, she has to drive it,
    and she has to look at it all day.  I believe my attitude is aligned
    with trusting and esteeming Michele as my spouse.  So the concept
    Patricia has voiced is quite foreign to our household.  There is no
    dominance as has been presented to me.
    
    Regarding what church we attend, where Greg goes to school (Christian
    vs. Public), do we have devotionals at night, do we pray before meals, 
    living above reproach as an adult....these are the characteristics of
    requiring Spiritual leadership.  Fortunately, Michele and I have been
    likeminded on most of these things.  However, I believe the
    father/husband needs to fast and pray over something of disagreement
    and make the decision.  
    
    I respect your right and reason for dissenting on this Patricia;
    considering there are many families in this country where the mother
    has sole responsibiliies in this.  You may be surprised to find there
    are many many women around here who would love their man to bring them
    flowers, open the door for them, and yes, make decisions and set the
    tone of the relationship.  
    
    -Jack

    .1 through .14 have practically nothing to do with the basenote in
    this string.
    
    See Topic 1121.0
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    In all honesty, I kind of chuckled at how the basenote was diverted
    into a complete rathole.  My apologies, I didn't know there was a
    Promisekeepers basenote at the time.
    
    -Jack

1121.33 Jack
    
>    Richard, based on this, what would "Cry for Renewal" have to offer that
>    the PromiseKeepers couldn't offer?
    
I don't see why you connect Cry for Rewnewal with Promise Keepers.  Cry for
Renewal is an attempt to say that the Religious Right does not speak for
all evangelicals.

In the materials I received there's an editorial cartoon showing Pat
Robertson, Bible in arm and wearing his Christian Coalition button.  While
immersing a proselyte Robertson proclaims, "I baptize you a Republican!"

Richard

    
    As far as I can tell conservative Christians only ally themselves with
    the Republicans because the Republican party platform and general
    beliefs are more in line with conservative Christian interests.  If the
    Democrats were more in line with Christian interests they would be
    allied with the Democrats.
    
    jeff

    Humerous.
    
    Then what I'm getting from you is that while promisekeepers promotes
    the beliefs of men of integrity, Cry for Renewal promotes the belief
    that political affiliation does not determine whether or not one is a
    Christian..that there are other alternatives for believers.  
    
    I agree with this.  Surely you must understand that typically
    conservative people affiliate with the party that best represents their
    beliefs just as it makes sense for liberals to do likewise.   
    
    -Jack

    According to Citizens Project, only last month James Dobson, head of
    Focus on the Family, wrote that those who disagreed with his conservative
    positions on public policy were agents of the Devil.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Then I suspect Citizens Project is a bit weak on the facts.  Dobson
    doesn't typically use that type of language.
    
    jeff

    .21
    
    This is the second time I'm asking: Are you on Dobson's mailing list?
    
    Richard
    

 I'm on the FOTF mailing list..what's up?





 Jim

    
    I never answer questions like, "are you on Dobson's mailing list?". 
    I figure intelligent people can figure it out.  And if they're not
    intelligent enough to figure it out, well, explaining it to them is
    like responding to questions like "what's your point?".
    
    jeff

 I was just curious as what the big deal is..





 Jim

    
    It's hard to say what the deal is as the questioner almost never speaks
    forthrightly.
    
    jeff

    .26
    
    The deal is that I suspect Citizens Project reported accurately about
    what Dobson said regardless of what you think Dobson is inclined to
    say.
    
    Is that forthright enough for your standards?
    
    Richard
    

 Which newsletter was it in?  I usually don't keep them for long, but I may
 have a couple laying around.




 Jim

    
    Yes, that's better, Richard.
    
    jeff

.28

I'm not sure it was in a newsletter.  I have a phone call into Citizens
Project to find out through what venue Dobson's statement was published.

Citizens Project is a grassroots organization in the Pikes Peak region
dedicated to upholding the traditional American values of pluralism,
freedom of religion and separation of church and state.  (Their
mission statement)

Citizens Project
PO Box 2089
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901

Richard

    	re .20
    
    	I'd be curious to see their exact quote.

 I read July's newsletter last night (I'm a bit behind in my non bill containing
 mail) and didn't see anything, nor did I see anything in the newest magazine
 I get.



 Jim

              <<< Note 1119.22 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Ps. 85.10" >>>

>    This is the second time I'm asking: Are you on Dobson's mailing list?
    
	Are you?  The topic you started and in which you asked the
    	question the first time seemed to have some direct quotes
    	from his letter.  
    
    	Are you asking this question as an accusation?  I see no reason
    	for a person to hide the fact that he is on such a mailing list,
    	just as one should not have to hide the fact that he is on
    	Citizens Project's mailing list.
    
    	BTW, Dobson himself doesn't have a mailing list, but Focus on the
    	Family has many.  I get their regular newsletter, as well as
    	their Family magazine and a newsletter called Parental Guidance.
    	Each of my kids gets the age-targetted magazine appropriate for
    	them.  We listen to their daily radio broadcast (and my wife
    	and I were guest speakers on a two-day broadcast back in
    	December titled "Hope for Troubled Marriages"), and we try
    	to catch "Adventures in Odyssey" on the radio as often as we
    	can.  I can also attest to the fact that he answers his personal
    	mail.

    According to Citizens Project, Dobson's remark (see 1119.20) appears
    in "Christianity Today," June 19, 1995, page 28.
    
    Richard
    

    Perhaps this is what Citizens Project is referring to. Dobson is at odds
    with the editors of Christianity Today and one of their writers, Dr.
    John Woodbridge.  

    "Some might argue that the biblical references I have cited refer to a
    spiritual war rather than to the "cultural war" occurring around us. In
    my view, both are manifestations of the same conflict. The heated
    dispute over values in Western nations is simply a continuation of the
    age-old struggle between the principles of righteousness and the
    kingdom of darkness. Thus, when we oppose hardcore and violent
    pornography, the killing of unborn babies, the provision of immoral
    advice to teenagers, the threat of euthanasia, and so on, we are
    engaged in a battle-not primarily with our philosophical opponents-but
    against "Satan, who leads the whole world astray" (Rev. 12:9). As the
    apostle Paul expressed it, "For our struggle is not against flesh and
    blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the
    powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in
    the heavenly realms" (Eph. 6:12)."

    Eric

    PS. The full text of the article can be found on America Online. Use
        the Keyword "Christianity Today." I have a copy online, if anyone is
        interested.

 I just read (must have been reading as Eric was posting) the article
 on AOL, and saw nothing that resembled what Richard posted.  Admittedly
 I don't have my glasses with me, and I'm a little tired and it was
 a lengthy article, but I scanned it twice and found nothing (other than
 what Eric posted).



 Jim

    	In fairness, Richard didn't really post anything of his own.
    	He only posted the opinion of a group that is opposed to
    	much of Focus on the Family's initiatives.

 Correct..sorry if I implied anything different, I certainly didn't mean
 to.




 Jim

    
    But Richard believes it all too easily, considering his bias against
    God's standards of morality as revealed in the Scriptures.
    
    jeff

    Actually Richard's noting is sarcastic in that it shows where some that
    insist on the innerrancy of scripture ignore tons of scripture in order
    to live their lifes by the most reactionary pieces of scripture.
    
    Richard has committed himself to the biblical notion of peace.
    
    i.e. "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of
    God.  i.e. Love you enemy.  i.e. Do unto others as you would have
    others do unto you.  i.e. thou shall not kill.
    
    Richard has also entered quite a bit about the social Gospel
    particularly as potrayed by luke.
    
    i.e. " Blessed are the poor"  etc.
    
    These passages are ignored or rationalized to mean something different
    by too many!
    
    Richard seems to me to have a bias against the Fundementalist Christian
    standard of morality revealed in that groups selection and adaptation of
     Scripture.
    
                                        Patricia

    
    Christians should commit themselves to Christ Jesus and all of the
    biblical instruction, not just to that which appeals to their
    fleshly sensitivities.
    
    The "social gospel" is not the Gospel of the Bible.  It is a unique (and
    flawed) interpretation of snippets of the Bible.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    In your not so humble opinion!

    
    No, in reality!
    
    jeff

    .41
    
    You've made that gross inaccuracy about the Bible before, then went
    away for a long time.
    
    Richard
    

         
    Dr. Dobson artfully skirts any *direct* attack on people and couches
    his condemnation of viewpoints in ambiguous statements. One has to
    connect the dots to come to the conclusion that Dobson feels that those
    opposing his point of view are agents of the Devil.

    He states:

         * There is no difference between spiritual and cultural issues. 

         * There is a clearly defined good and evil. There is nothing else.
           There is no room for discussion or reconsideration. 

         * Dobson and his ilk have the good and correct view on what is
         righteous; what to believe and how to act. 

         * Therefore if Dobson is carrying out God's desires -- principles
         of righteousness -- (an unquestionable assertion), then those with
         different viewpoints are by definition led away by Satan -- the
         kingdom of darkness.

    At best, Dobson is saying that his opponents on cultural and social
    issues are unwitting dupes of Satan. 

         Eric 

    
    According to Dobson's standard, the Bible and sound teaching of the
    Bible, his conclusions are correct.
    
    jeff

I have now read the article myself.  While I concede Dobson doesn't call
those not aligned with his views agents of the Devil outright (as indicated
in .20), it is a cogent summary and clearly the impression one is left with
upon digesting the diatribe.

I should also concede that there are a couple of points on which Dobson
and I actually agree.  I cannot account for the popularity of Rikki Lake's
show.  But that's the free market system for you.  If nobody watched it,
it'd be off the air.

Richard

re Note 1119.45 by APACHE::MYERS:

>          * There is no difference between spiritual and cultural issues. 
  
        It's this implied (and sometimes explicit!) merging of
        secular culture and Christian spirituality that gives me the
        greatest worry.  They really seem to believe that the
        Christian can be "of the world" as long as the part of the
        world being embraced fits their cultural requirements.

        I'm firmly convinced that NO culture of this world is exempt
        from the admonition in John 2:15 "Love not the world, neither
        the things [that are] in the world."

        Bob

    
    "The world" is that which is in opposition to God, consisting mainly of
    Satan and his minions and unredeemed humanity.
    
    jeff

    "Satan, his minion, and unredeemed humanity"
    
    i.e. anyone who doesn't believe in Jeff's brand of orthordoxy.
    
     

    
    No, according to the Bible and the sound teaching of its contents.
    
    jeff

     
    No, according to Jeff's implied inerrant interpretation of the Bible.
    
    Eric

    
    The Scripture which Bob mentions is clear enough when taken in its
    immediate context and in the larger context of the subject of "the
    world."  Like so much of the Bible, the message is clear enough to
    those who are interested in learning about God, His will,
    righteousness, etc.  Strawmen, constructed by those who are merely
    critics, blot the landscape and obfuscate the message, to be sure.
    
    jeff

    
    > Like so much of the Bible, the message is clear enough to those who are
    > interested in learning about God, His will, righteousness, etc.

    A good example of Dobinic indirection. I am not directly accused of
    being uninterested in learning about God. It is only the nameless
    people who disagree with Jeff Benson's proclamation of the clear
    message of the bible who are so accused. Of course if one connects the
    dots and reads a reply where I don't agree with Jeff, and therefore the
    clear message of the bible... well you can draw your own conclusion. And
    if anyone suggests that Jeff did accuse anyone of being uninterested in
    learning about God, he can (will) retort, with all the righteous
    indignation he can muster, that he did not state the exact words "You
    are uninterested in learning about God," and that his accuser is
    bearing false witness against him.

    This sort of argumentation seem weasely to me. Too much like
    politicians and car salesmen. 
    
    	Eric

re Note 1119.54 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     The Scripture which Bob mentions is clear enough when taken in its
>     immediate context and in the larger context of the subject of "the
>     world."  Like so much of the Bible, the message is clear enough to
>     those who are interested in learning about God, His will,
>     righteousness, etc.  

        That's certainly one reason why I spent the time to read
        *every* use of the phrases "in the world" and "of the world"
        in the KJV New Testament, including most of the containing
        chapters, before writing my reply.

        Like so much of the Bible, those who offer an interpretation will
        insist that those who are interested in learning about God,
        His will, righteousness, etc. will agree with *them*.

        Bob

         <<< Note 1119.51 

>    i.e. anyone who doesn't believe in Jeff's brand of orthordoxy.
    
    	Now wait a minute...  Just a few replies ago we were bashing
    	Dr. Dobson for HIS view of orthodoxy.  Now Jeff agrees with
    	it, so Jeff gets bashed because it is JEFF'S view.  And when
    	Jack agrees with it he gets bashed because it is HIS view.
    	And when I agree with it I get bashed because it it MY view.
    
    	Perhaps it is the view that you all have contempt for.  
    	Perhaps it would be more honest of you to state that, rather
    	than demonize individuals and trivialize the theology by
    	declaring it to be the view of the individual.  Perhaps
    	it is also time to realize that this is not a view held
    	by some limited circle of people, but rather one that is
    	quite widely held, and therefore worthy of being spoken
    	about as the common view that it is.

    
    It's clear, Joe, they only know one line. ;)
    
    jeff

    That's just the point.
    
    We have Jack's brand of orthordoxy and Joe's brand, and Jeff's Brand.
    
    There has never been one orthordoxy.  Just competing brands.
    
    When someone fights for the orthordox answer, they are fighting for
    their orthordox answer.
    
    During the time of the reformation, different players were murdering
    each other over whose brand of orthordoxy should win out.

    By the way, if you have not noticed, it is a major principle of this
    conference that there is no one Christian Perspective.  There are many.
    
    There is no one orthordoxy!

    Patricia:
    
    Christian Perspective is about as broad brushed a term as the freedom
    to choose. Christian Perspective on what???  Freedom of choice to do
    what???...to yell fire in a crowded theatre?! 
    
    Paul and Barnabus disagreed...Paul and Peter disagreed....yet they all
    had one thing in common.  These people had the risen savior and were
    sealed with the Holy Spirit.  
    
    Do you have the risen savior???How does one get the risen savior?  If
    two disagree on this matter, then true fellowship does not exist.  
    Friendship perhaps but not true fellowship.
    
    -Jack

    
    re .57

    > Now wait a minute...  Just a few replies ago we were bashing Dr. Dobson
    > for HIS view of orthodoxy.  Now Jeff agrees with it, so Jeff gets
    > bashed because it is JEFF'S view.  And when Jack agrees with it he gets
    > bashed because it is HIS view. And when I agree with it I get bashed
    > because it it MY view.

    You either have a blind spot, or I have been a poor communicator. I
    disagree with the view of orthodoxy held by ultra-conservative
    Christians, sure, but I respect their personal faith. What I "bash" is
    the assertion of personal infallibility in biblical understanding and
    the accusation that any non-agreeing party is a satanic dupe, or in
    some other way anti-God. 

    For example, I do not bash the view of a literal inerrant bible. I
    merely think it's wrong. However, I may bash the assertion that I am
    uninterested in God if *I* don't hold that view. I think there is a
    world of difference between bashing someone else's religious views (which
    I don't do) and rebuking a charge of following Satan's plan or
    shrugging of God (which I do).

    Over and over again, the ultra-conservative has confused criticism of
    the presentation of the idea with criticism of the idea. You are
    right. You will not scare people into agreeing with you in the
    conference by accusing them of being Satan's unwitting tools or
    anti-God. Assertions of possessing the only and infallible message of
    God will continue to fall flat with those who follow their hearts
    toward and spirit when reading Scripture.   
    
    Eric

re Note 1119.61 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Do you have the risen savior???How does one get the risen savior?  If

        I must admit that I find the terminology of "having" the
        savior or "getting" the savior -- as opposed to following the
        savior, trusting the savior, or being saved -- to be quite
        bizarre.

        Bob

    Eric/Bob
    
    Great points.

    ZZ        I must admit that I find the terminology of "having" the
    ZZ        savior or "getting" the savior -- as opposed to following the
    ZZ        savior, trusting the savior, or being saved -- to be quite
    ZZ        bizarre.
    
    I can appreciate this...you assume that having the savior and being
    saved are two different things.  I was thinking of this verse when I
    wrote it:
    
    "He that hath the son hath life.  He that hath not the son hath not
    life.  These thing I've written to you who believe in the name of the
    son of God, that you may know you have eternal life."  1st John
    5:12-13.
    
    The above verse connotes posession rather than following.  Kind of
    like, I have my wife and she has me.  We follow each other and trust
    each other.  However, I also trust my accountant and follow his advice.
    There is otherwise no connection there.  My wife and I are knit
    together...through vows and deep commitment (arguments not
    withstanding) :-)
    
    So Patricia, you were quick to accolade Bob for his point being good. 
    Are you prepared to lower your defenses for a change and afford me the
    same luxury!  I promise to frame it!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I would use the expression Opening oneself to Christ.  Inviting Christ
    into one's heart and soul and mind.
    
                                         Patricia

  ZZZ     66 of 66 
    
    Patricia:
    
    This would have been a good opportunity to do a devils deficiency
    snarf!
    
    The reality is that we belong to him and not the other way around.  We
    are his sheep and we follow him, so in essence both you and Bob are
    right.  However, the Bible also refers to the believer as being the
    possessor of Christ and the possessor of eternal life.  It is all
    semantics.  I just thought Bob's use of the word bizarre was a 
    liiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit overdone!
    
    -Jack 

    Jack,
    
    sometimes people use specific words for impact.  Bob was stating how
    your statement came across to him just as your stating the use of the
    word bizarre is a wee bit exaggerated!.
    
                                  Patricia

         <<< Note 1119.59 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    That's just the point.
>    
>    We have Jack's brand of orthordoxy and Joe's brand, and Jeff's Brand.
>    
>    There has never been one orthordoxy.  Just competing brands.
    
	In spite of differences, I'll bet that Jeff and Jack and Joe
    	all agree with Dobson regarding morals and standards and
    	virtue and behavior.
    
    	I erred in propogating your introduction of the word
    	orthodoxy.  None of us are calling for a common orthodoxy,
    	nor even a common religion.  But we (and a vast movement
    	in this country) *are* calling for some semblance of
    	commonly held morals and standards.  
    
>    During the time of the reformation, different players were murdering
>    each other over whose brand of orthordoxy should win out.

    	The difference is that we really aren't fighting a religious
    	reformation, but rather a social reformation.  You are creating
    	a strawman in suggesting that orthodoxy is the issue.

    Correct.  If we as a society held ourselves to a higher standard of
    conduct, then drugs, sex, and rock and roll would not be an issue!
    
    -Jack

>    	The difference is that we really aren't fighting a religious
>    	reformation, but rather a social reformation.  You are creating
>    	a strawman in suggesting that orthodoxy is the issue.
    
    
    
    Joe,
    
    That is exactly what scares me.  I do worry that the religious part of
    it all is a cover up for a movement to force a return to a more
    traditional culture.
    
    For all that is wrong with culture today, we have more freedom,
    opportunity, and access than ever before.  I certainly would not want
    to live in any other time or to see any more of the gains won by
    centuries of hard work being turned back.
    
                                      Patricia

  ZZ      For all that is wrong with culture today, we have more freedom,
  ZZ      opportunity, and access than ever before.  I certainly would not want
  ZZ      to live in any other time or to see any more of the gains won by
  ZZ      centuries of hard work being turned back.
    
    You baffle me because here you speak like a true libertarian...yet you 
    support a regime such as the current administration whose utopia is to
    put more government regulation and control in the hands of those who
    claim to think clearer and better than you do.  
    
    Furthermore, I believe if there is freedom without responsibility, then
    real freedom doesn't exist.  Right now I am feeling overtaxed and
    over-regulated.  You call this freedom?
    
    -Jack

re Note 1119.72 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>   ZZ      For all that is wrong with culture today, we have more freedom,
>   ZZ      opportunity, and access than ever before.  I certainly would not want
>   ZZ      to live in any other time or to see any more of the gains won by
>   ZZ      centuries of hard work being turned back.
>
>     You baffle me because here you speak like a true libertarian...yet you
>     support a regime such as the current administration whose utopia is to
>     put more government regulation and control in the hands of those who
>     claim to think clearer and better than you do.

        So tell me, Jack, are you speaking about the current
        legislative leadership?  It certainly is true that Gingrich,
        Graham, and company want to "put more regulation and control
        in the hands of those who claim to think clearer and better
        than you do."


>     Furthermore, I believe if there is freedom without responsibility, then
>     real freedom doesn't exist.  Right now I am feeling overtaxed and
>     over-regulated.  You call this freedom?

        Then why the blazes do they want to reduce the responsibility
        of corporations to be answerable for their actions in civil
        court?!

        Well, I'm fearing that my taxes will stay essentially the
        same while those who make much more than I do get generous
        tax cuts.  I'm fearing that big business in many areas will
        have their economic power unbalanced by any oversight "by the
        people" (yes, that's how Lincoln described the nature of
        representative government -- the government represents the
        collective voice "of the people".)

        Any action of government can *always* be portrayed as an
        encroachment of freedom.  Every law imposing a penalty on
        some act restricts freedom.  I agree with Patricia that, in
        the balance, the citizenry as a whole is more free (by a
        substantial margin) than 50 years ago.  Of course, those
        portions of society which already had the most freedom saw
        the least of this increase, and certainly saw some decrease
        in the areas where their actions led to the loss of freedom
        of others (for example, all of us lost the freedom to not
        hire Jews;  in those states where voting laws worked to
        prevent blacks from voting, the white population "lost" some
        political power).

        Bob

.69 CSC32::J_OPPELT

        I erred in propogating your introduction of the word
        orthodoxy.  None of us are calling for a common orthodoxy,
        nor even a common religion.  But we (and a vast movement
        in this country) *are* calling for some semblance of
        commonly held morals and standards.  

Joe,

   Out of curiosity, do you expect this semblance of commonly held morals    
   and standards to be codified into law or are you just hoping that folks 
   'wake up' and adopt them on their own?

Steve

    
    Wide-spread cultural adoption of sinful attitudes and acts is not
    conducive to freedom but to slavery.  All that many of you advertise as
    good and free is nothing more than calling good what God has called sin and
    which will end in great and sorrowful judgement by God on yourselves
    and those you encourage.  
    
    jeff

================================================
Note 1119.72                     Cry for Renewal                        72 of 74
MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"         15 lines  11-AUG-1995 09:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ZZ      For all that is wrong with culture today, we have more freedom,
  ZZ      opportunity, and access than ever before.  I certainly would not want
  ZZ      to live in any other time or to see any more of the gains won by
  ZZ      centuries of hard work being turned back.
    
>    You baffle me because here you speak like a true libertarian...yet you 
>    support a regime such as the current administration whose utopia is to
>    put more government regulation and control in the hands of those who
>    claim to think clearer and better than you do.  
   
    I fail to see the connection between my statment and your reply.
    I'm sorry I baffle you!
    
     
  >  Furthermore, I believe if there is freedom without responsibility, then
  >  real freedom doesn't exist.
    
    I have had freedoms unknown to women in the past.  I have had freedom
    to go to high school, college, and Graduate School.  In fact the
    Graduate school I attended, Bentley College not too long ago was open
    only to men.  I was one of a small number of women in the program there
    when I graduated.
    
    Responsibility went with that freedom.  I earned close to a 4.0 average
    throughout the program.
    
    I am a mother, professional Finance Manager, and student at Andover Newton.
    one hundred years ago, I could not have been a Finance Manager or
    student at a Theological School.   I believe that I have been quite 
    responsible in Juggling my responsibilities in those three roles as
    well as others.  I pay taxes, I vote, I am the Financial, spiritual,
    and emotional Leader of my family.  Soon I will marry and become
    partners with my husband in that leadership.  100 years ago I may not
    have been able to vote, and would may not have been able to be involved
    in a marriage that was a partnership of equals.  I certainly would not
    have been able as a single mother to support my family with the degree
    of comfort I have been able to do as a result of my education and
    career choice.
    
    I like many women have enjoyed freedoms unequal in the history of
    civilization.  Like most women, I have been responsible for myself, my
    family, and others in that Freedom.  
    
    I certainly am not advocating freedom without responsibility.
    
    
    
    
    
    > Right now I am feeling overtaxed and
    > over-regulated.  You call this freedom?
    
	Jack, you can look to the Bible for spiritual advice to your discomfort
    with feeling over taxed and over regulated.  I  believe the answer is
    in letting go of needless concerns and focusing on what is truly 
    Ultimate.
    
    Patricia
    
    
        
    

    re .75
    
    Society is broken-hearted.  We can heal the broken-heartedness by
    following God's greatest commandment.  i.e. to Love.  It is because
    society is broken-hearted that people substitute sex for love.  If we
    heal the broken heart, then people will know that sex alone hurts.
    
    If we heal the broken heartedness, then people will be set free from
    addictive behavoirs.  If we create spiritual communities of love, then
    every person could know from birth that they are loved, and cared for.
    
    The problem really is broken-heartedness.  The solution is not in
    punishing those who are already broken, but in loving, listening,
    embracing.  The solution is to create extended communities in which
    children are nurtured and do not grow up broken hearted.  The solution
    is to create healing places for those who need healing.
    
                                 Patricia

    Patricia,
    
    	Don't you realize that the only way to make everything good again
    is to go back to the way things were in America before the 1960s?
    
    Richard
    

    It would be horrible to be an adult before the 1960's.
    
    
                                          Patricia

    I concede some of your points Patricia....regarding freedoms and that
    sort of thing.  The reason I am baffled is because you stated a few
    weeks ago that Hillary Clinton and Bill were wonderful people.  And
    yet, these two are big proponents of large intrusive government.  It
    has been established that large government hinders freedom rather than
    curbs it.
    
    One may be a proponent of freedom but if some are not free then true 
    freedom doesn't exist in the first place.  Do you admire the Clintons
    because they truly represent freedom, or is it because Hillary is the
    closest thing to a first lady really running the show?
    
    -Jack  

    Jack,
    
    I guess I believe that it has been a strong Federal Government that has
    been necessary for my freedom, the freedom of other people,  and the
    freedom of people of Color.  I think all large organizations are 
    bureacratic. 
    
    I also appreciate the role of the Federal Government.  I do not find
    that the Government interferes with my freedom.
    
    
    As for taxes.  It's only money and I am very thankful to have food,
    clothes, and sheltar.  If no one had to pay taxes, then there would be
    more money around and prices would be higher.
    
    
                            Patricia

    ZZ    As for taxes.  It's only money and I am very thankful to have food,
    ZZ    clothes, and sheltar.  If no one had to pay taxes, then there would
    ZZ    be more money around and prices would be higher.
    
    You tend to look at this more tactically rather than strategic.  As a
    finance person, it shouldn't be a shock to yo that the private sector
    is the backbone of our economy.  It is the Private sector which creates
    the jobs and produces the Gross National Product.  Furthermore, it is
    the private sector which provides services to give us the standard of
    living and choose the modes of living we have available.  
    
    Re: Inflation, again this is something mainly controlled by the
    Federal Reserve.  That precious balance has to be maintained but before
    the Federal Government went tax crazy and usurped the ability to
    transact business in this country, people were able to buy homes have
    seven children if they wanted, and one of the parents could stay at
    home.  Amongst other reasons such as the high divorce rates, the bottom
    line is the value of the dollar is substantially weaker due to taxation
    and debt.
    
    While you are correct that we should be happy to have food and
    shelter, to which I am, I believe it is the entrepreneurship and desire
    to achieve excellence which made this country great...all ordained by
    God in my opinion.  I believe this desire is thwarted when government
    usurps ability or crosses the line to which they are entitled under the
    Constitution.
    
    The governments job is to defend the borders and adhere to the
    provisions of the Bill of rights.  There should be a House, a Senate, 
    the Executive Branch, the Courts, and a department of defense...that's
    it!  Leave the private sector to govern themselves and leave me alone!
    
    If there is a stock market crash, then by golly lets use the government
    to put together programs to meet the welfare of the citizenry.  Once
    the dust settles, put the government back in the closet like a used mop
    waiting to dry.
    
    A comodity...just like a car, a vacuum cleaner, or a lawnmower.  I
    don't go into my house after mowing the lawn and continually say, "Awww
    gee, isn't that lawn mower wonderful???...gosh what a great lawnmower.
    No...I paid for it and it's mine...and its there for a purpose...not to 
    be used for anything other than what it was intended.
    
    -Jack

      <<< Note 1119.74 by TINCUP::inwo.cxo.dec.com::Bittrolff "Spoon!" >>>

>   Out of curiosity, do you expect this semblance of commonly held morals    
>   and standards to be codified into law or are you just hoping that folks 
>   'wake up' and adopt them on their own?

    	I'm hoping for the latter, however I admit that I support a 
    	limited set of the former, most notably limitations on abortions.  
    	I could never support laws that outlaw fornication/adultry or 
    	other sexual immorality that I speak against.  But I also do not 
    	want to see (and therefore I speak/vote against) laws that encourage
    	or abet these things.  And likewise, I would not support laws that
    	establish any particular religion as being state supported.
    
    	I can see your question, and my answer to it, as precipitating
    	a tremendous rathole.  If the discussion is to go beyond this
    	answer to your direct question, we'd probably better serve this
    	conference and this topic by moving it elsewhere.
    
    	Joe

    
    You mean you don't support the laws we have against adultery, Joe?  I'm
    surprised!
    
    jeff

              <<< Note 1119.78 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Ps. 85.10" >>>

>    	Don't you realize that the only way to make everything good again
>    is to go back to the way things were in America before the 1960s?
    
    	Richard -- Your sarcasm bleeds through.
    
    	Do you think that there is NOTHING worth recapturing from 
    	the pre-1960's?  Is there nothing from pre-1960 that is
    	better than it is today?  It appears so, for your statement 
    	indicts the totality of that time.

    	re .84
    
    	What laws still remain are ignored.
    
    	And no, I really don't believe that things like adultry
    	should be regulated by law.  As I said in my original
    	reply, I hope for a collective change of heart, not a
    	legislated compliance.

    Lyndon B. Johnson, although his heart was in the right place, caused
    long term damage that will take years to repair.
    
    Take a walk through parts of Boston some night if you want an example.
    
    -Jack

.83 OPPELT

Joe,

A rathole I don't want, and you've answered my questions admirably, thanks!

Steve

    re: .71
    
    I guess that depends on how you define 'freedom'.  It is my view that
    we have less true freedom, but a lot more 'permissiveness'.  As the
    world strays farther and farther from God's design, permissiveness will
    increase in proportion to our bondage, as a society.  One goes hand in
    hand with the other.
    
    There is no freedom without moral responsibility.  Moral responsibility
    is defined in the very Bible that society is burning page by page. 
    
    I find it ironic that we spend so much effort to throw off
    'restrictive' Biblical morality in the name of 'freedom', when by doing
    so we only enslave ourselves in the areas that are really important to
    living free in our society.
    
    
    -steve 

    re: .77
    
    
    And sometimes to correct a problem you let get out of hand, you have to
    practice "tough love".  That is indeed what this society is in need of. 
    Not wishy-washy touchy-feely gushy love, but a real love that does what
    is best in the long run for society and all its members.
    
    God does not "gush" on us, though He does take care of us.  If God
    "gushed", we would never have hardships, pain or suffering.  Sometimes,
    however, hardships, pain and suffering are needed to instill a lesson
    that will provoke needed growth.  You don't grow strong in faith (or in
    any way) by having everything handed to you free of charge or effort.
    
    
    -steve