Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I've done my very best to avoid all references to OJ on the tv (and
    anywhere else).  I proudly proclaim that I know so little about this
    trial that I could not possibly come to a reasonable conclusion one way
    or the other.  
    
    I'm simply glad the trial circus is over- though I'm sure we will now
    be inundated with "life after the OJ trial" tv specials/news programs/
    books/ad nauseum.
    
    The only thing I feel about this whole ordeal is that I am sick and
    tired of hearing about it.  
    
    OJ has free will (and his freedom, it would seem), and his spiritual
    life is between him and God.  End of story.
    
    I wonder what the next token news-event will be?  The media in general
    has had a very low acceptance factor for me, the OJ fiasco only gives
    me another reason to ignore them.  
    
    What I find amazing, is that you get maybe a 15 second blurb (and a
    biased blurb, most of the time) about proposed Amendments or things of
    real importance to the American people (on the news)- yet you get hours and
    hours of OJ air-time.  
    
    It's not about information, it is about ratings and sensationalism.
    It's about agendas and brainwashing.  It's about keeping our minds busy
    on trivialities while the real issues pass us by.
    
    
    IMO, of course. (but I'm right)
    
    
    -steve                                           

RE: .1

>>    OJ has free will (and his freedom, it would seem), and his spiritual
>>    life is between him and God.  End of story.

Well.... is it?  You could extend that rationale to all criminals, in
prison, in the courtroom being tried and out on the street.  If you take
the attitude of letting God handle them and let them go in the meantime,
civilized living would come to an end.  We'd have the LA riots (x 10) going
on all the time everywhere.  So I ask, should anyone be put away in a prison 
for anything at all?  If so, how much evidence would you need to lock someone 
up?  

    
>>    What I find amazing, is that you get maybe a 15 second blurb (and a
>>    biased blurb, most of the time) about proposed Amendments or things of
>>    real importance to the American people (on the news)- yet you get hours and
>>    hours of OJ air-time.  

I agree.  And the OJ thing pales in the face of sit-coms, sporting events and
MTV. 



>>    It's not about information, it is about ratings and sensationalism.
>>    It's about agendas and brainwashing.  It's about keeping our minds busy
>>    on trivialities while the real issues pass us by.
  
I agree with the sensationalism thing, but I seriously doubt there's a
conspiracy to brainwash or distract the masses.
  
    
>>    IMO, of course. (but I'm right)
Are yousure?  Beyond a *reasonable* doubt?
    

-dave

    A few points to make:
    
    - OJ went through the process.  He was declared Not Guilty but he
    wasn't declared innocent.  If he is indeed guilty, then I believe God 
    will serve justice...I really do.
    
    - I see working around me a lot of disgruntled people.  I don't include
    myself since as Steve, I rarely kept up with it.  However, people feel
    it was the race thing that got him off.  This is proof positive that
    the race card and gerrymandering of any kind based on class undermines
    the trust factor in a society.  I told you...and told you...and told
    you.  Everything short of banging my head against the wall and all
    kinds of ephithets were thrown at me...racist...bigot, etc.  You set a
    precedent, you get your fingers burned!  Please listen to reason for a
    change.  Enough said.
    
    - The stability of jurisprudence must remain intact.  
    
    -Jack 

re Note 1155.3 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     This is proof positive that
>     the race card and gerrymandering of any kind based on class undermines
>     the trust factor in a society.  I told you...and told you...and told
>     you.  Everything short of banging my head against the wall and all
>     kinds of ephithets were thrown at me...racist...bigot, etc.  You set a
>     precedent, you get your fingers burned!  Please listen to reason for a
>     change.  Enough said.
  
        Well, you were right, except you were wrong to believe that
        this started with Affirmative Action, and you were wrong to
        assert that this would go away if only we would eliminate
        Affirmative Action.

        And I would suggest that blacks, being in the minority, are
        far more aware of this, and aware of how it has been a
        constant in American life *for centuries*, than whites in
        general.

        (I don't think you're a racist or a bigot, but you are
        *really* naive if you think that our society is racist
        because of Affirmative Action and that it would be less
        racist without Affirmative Action.)

        So please, if you think it will help eliminate racism,
        continue to bang your head on the wall.  However, banging
        your head on the wall to eliminate Affirmative Action will
        not eliminate racism.

        Bob

    Oh...I agree with that.  I do know that Affirmative Action will also
    not erase racism and in fact it will help propogate it more then
    eradicate it.
    
    Quoting a Sacramento School Board member yesterday..."We are
    reeeally making them study because there is no Affirmative Action
    Action anymore."   
    
    Gee...what a wonderful concept!!
    
    -Jack

re: .2
    
>If you take
>the attitude of letting God handle them and let them go in the meantime,
>civilized living would come to an end.  
    
    This is not what I was trying to say.  I merely stated the facts as
    they are.  He was freed by a court of law, so what I feel on the matter
    is not relevent.
    
>    So I ask, should anyone be put away in a prison 
>for anything at all?  If so, how much evidence would you need to lock someone 
>up?  

    Of course people who commit crimes should be put in prison.  I would
    like to limit prison space for violent criminals, however.  I prefer
    another form of punishment for thieves, and yet another concept of
    reform for drug users.  Simply throwing everyone who "breaks the law"
    into jail is not the answer.
    
    
>I agree.  And the OJ thing pales in the face of sit-coms, sporting events and
>MTV. 

    Depends how you look at things, I guess.  I'll agree that sit-coms and
    MTV engineer mentalities over a given amount of time, but I don't see
    the connection with sporting events (of course, creating idol-worship
    of sports personalities may in fact be a relevent issue, so I'll not
    deny you this point).
     
>I agree with the sensationalism thing, but I seriously doubt there's a
>conspiracy to brainwash or distract the masses.
 
    I've spun this every which way I know how.  I've made a study of TV and
    the direction it is taking.  I've looked at it from all angles that I
    know how to.  I can come to no other conclusion that an agenda is being
    pushed, and those who have executive power over the media are pushing
    the buttons.
    
    Conspiracy?  Depends on how you define the word, I guess.  TV is the
    opiate for the masses.  It is more addictive than you may realise. 
    
>>    IMO, of course. (but I'm right)
Are yousure?  Beyond a *reasonable* doubt?
    

    Beyond a reasonable doubt?  Yes.  
    
    
    -steve

    RE .6
    
    Is the fact that OJ (or whoever, for whatever case) went through "the
    process" good enough?  The inquisition was "the process" of the day.
    It doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean there's no room for
    improvement in our system of justice.  Just as I was outraged when the
    system exhonorated those guys that beat up Rodney King, I'm eaqually 
    outraged that the system apparently failed in this OJ thing.  
    
    I've got big problems with our system of justice because of the strong
    favorable bias toward people with money.  An innocent man going into
    court armed with the truth, representing himself doesn't stand a chance 
    against a million dollar laywer who's profession is more jury
    manipulation than persuing justice.  And that (IMO) is evil!
    
    I wonder where the various churches stand with regard to civil systems
    of justice, imprisonment, etc... .  Have the clergy ever been asked to
    take the proverbial stand?   Has a church ever pressed criminal charges
    against someone?
    
    -dave
    

.7

>    I've got big problems with our system of justice because of the strong
>    favorable bias toward people with money.  An innocent man going into
>    court armed with the truth, representing himself doesn't stand a chance 
>    against a million dollar laywer who's profession is more jury
>    manipulation than persuing justice.  And that (IMO) is evil!

And that (IMO) is the bottom line.

Richard

.7

>    I've got big problems with our system of justice because of the strong
>    favorable bias toward people with money.  

        Of course, the justice system isn't the only aspect of
        society that is biased towards those with money.

        (Of course, in the present instance, both sides of the case
        spent multiple millions of dollars to prepare and present
        their case.  There was relatively little differential of
        money in this case.  Is the injustice of wealth present in
        this case more than in the case, say, of a poor suspect vs.
        the same governmental machine?  Perhaps we should be
        complaining of the "bias of money" when a poor drifter is
        convicted of murder -- but perhaps we don't because of the
        bias of money!!)

        Bob

    .9
    
    >>There was relatively little differential of
    >>        money in this case. 
    
    I've heard that before but I still disagree.  The expenses involving
    police investigation, evidence gathering, lab work, etc... are routine
    excersizes in gathering evidence and finding a suspect or suspects.  It 
    should not be associated with prosecution expenses.  It's the 
    prosecution's interpretation of the evidence, lab results, etc... that 
    belongs to the prosecution, not the police work.  Subtract out the
    police work and you see the imbalance.
    
    But we're drifting off the subject of "Christian Perspective" with
    regard to this case.  
    
    -dave
    
    
    

In the U.S. legal system, there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence.
The burden on proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is on the prosecution.  The
defense is required to prove nothing.

Johnny Cochran has been blasted (verbally) a lot.  But if you ask me, he's
being blasted for doing the job for which he was hired, and doing it very
well.

I was told in the third grade that it's better to let a few of the guilty
go free that to punish the one who is innocent.  The system is not perfect.

For those who are into exalting the documents at the founding of our nation
as nearly sacred, I would remind you that one of the complaints against
the crown in the Declaration of Independence was the absence of trial by
jury.

The world is still a good place.  Praise God.

Richard

>> The burden on proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is on the prosecution.

The evidence was plentiful and convincing.  The BS from Cochran and the
rest was effective in establishing doubt, but nothing that approached 
"reasonable" doubt.  I think the comments of the DA were right on, namely 
that the jury acted on emotions and not reason.   IMO, Cochran did his job 
and OJ's free.  IMO OJ's a murderer and presumed innocent because of the
verdict.  

If he gets custody, and I believe he will, I fear for the lives of OJ's kids.

    Richard:
    
    I agree with you and also think it important to remember the court did
    not declare him innocent.  They declared him Not Guilty to which there
    is a difference.
    
    I still believe justice will be served eventually.  OJ will either pay
    for it or the killer will pay for it.  What I do detest however was the
    playing of the race card.  It is mutually exclusive to substance...that
    being where was he at the time, did he have a motive, and does the
    evidence convict?  Other than that, race is of no consequence unless
    evidence was planted by racist motives.
    
    -Jack

>    Other than that, race is of no consequence unless
>    evidence was planted by racist motives.

And it seems pretty clear to me that this to some unknown degree did occur.

Shalom,
Richard

    Yes...in that case it would be an obstruction of justice and the perp
    should serve hard time for it!
    
    -Jack

It looks like the LAPD, in their normally brilliant fashion, attempted to 
frame a guilty man.

    
    > I think the comments of the DA were right on, namely that the jury
    > acted on emotions and not reason. 

    My opinion is that the prosecution team is a bit hypocritical when it
    accuses the jury of being emotional.

    I find it presumptuous of people who are tearing their hair out,
    wailing "oh, the injustice" and claim to be less emotional and more
    informed than the jury.

    If there ever was a mountain of evidence, it was built on a volcano
    that erupted. Remembering that "not guilt" does not equal "proven
    innocent," I have to agree with the jury's verdict. We cannot take away
    a man's life (even if it is not by death) on the *possibility* of
    guilt. 
    
    Eric

    Eric:
    
    Exactly.  Compromise our justice system and it opens the door for
    anarchy!
    
    -Jack

RE .17

>>    My opinion is that the prosecution team is a bit hypocritical when it
>>    accuses the jury of being emotional.
>>
The prosecution presented hard physical (rational) evidence.  The defense 
played emotional games with the famous "race card" and worked to
discredit physical evidence with unsubstantiated theories and "what-ifs".


>>    I find it presumptuous of people who are tearing their hair out,
>>    wailing "oh, the injustice" and claim to be less emotional and more
>>    informed than the jury.
>>
Who's tearing their hair out or wailing?  Who claimed to be more informed
and less emotional than the jury?  

>>    If there ever was a mountain of evidence, it was built on a volcano
>>    that erupted. 
Not sure how to interpret that metaphor.  

>>     Remembering that "not guilt" does not equal "proven
>>    innocent," 
Agreed

>>I have to agree with the jury's verdict. We cannot take away
>>    a man's life (even if it is not by death) on the *possibility* of
>>    guilt.

Then we never convict anyone of anyting.  Doubt exists in every case that
comes to trial.  If there was an eye witnesses to the crime, some doubt
would exist because maybe there was a look-alike that commited the crime,
right?  Point is, *some* doubt always exists and that always equates to
"the *possibility* of guilt".  The fine line resides in the word
"reasonable" and that means "reason" and that points to the facts of the
case, not the emotion.

                      

re Note 1155.19 by CNTROL::DGAUTHIER:

> The prosecution presented hard physical (rational) evidence.  The defense 
> played emotional games with the famous "race card" and worked to
> discredit physical evidence with unsubstantiated theories and "what-ifs".

        As far as I'm concerned, the jury saw all of that -- for nine
        months -- in as much seclusion as humanly possible --
        according to the rules of evidence, and made a different
        decision than people who saw bits and pieces of evidence
        filtered by the media and who were at least open to being
        influenced not only by many of their peers but by various
        public figures.

        American society has been betting, for over 200 years, that
        twelve people following the rules and procedures yields
        better decisions, and is far less prone to abuse, than would
        trained jurists, police, investigators, prosecutors, victims,
        or the public at large.

        Of course, society makes this bet on the whole of decisions
        -- individual decisions may be faulty, but society's bet is
        that no other system would do as well or better on the whole.

        So this particular decision could be faulty, but I do not
        consider myself as competent to make that decision as the
        jury.  I don't consider you as competent as the jury to make
        that decision.  I don't consider Marcia Clark as competent to
        make that decision.  But you are certainly entitled to you
        opinion.

        My biggest concern about this verdict is that there will be
        riots -- whites will be rioting.  Unfortunately, instead of
        rioting in the streets and stealing TV sets and burning
        stores, they will be rioting in the Congress and stealing
        rights and burning the Constitution.

        No governmental system can withstand intense act-by-act
        scrutiny (as can no private organization, even Churches, and
        as can no individual).  It will always be possible to find
        some real failures, be they in the criminal justice system,
        the welfare system, the sexual failures of priests, or the
        sin that all of us are heir to.  It is regrettable that our
        society is getting to the point where everything is judged by
        spectacular failures that the media brings to light, rather
        than by the overall record.

        In some ways, Christianity led the way to this, by declaring
        that you were totally depraved if there were even one speck
        of failure (sin) in your life.  Of course, Christianity
        should be leading people to the realization that God forgives
        and gives the help to be better than humanly possible -- but
        does it?

        Bob

>>        decision than people who saw bits and pieces of evidence
>>        filtered by the media and who were at least open to being
Normally, I'd agree.  But in this case, it was on TV and we, the outsiders,
were privy to evidense that the jury was denied for some technical reason
or another.  I know, I know, there are probably good reasons why this
evidence was denied them but I question the rationale behind that.  



>>        Of course, society makes this bet on the whole of decisions
>>        -- individual decisions may be faulty, but society's bet is
>>        that no other system would do as well or better on the whole.

I wonder.  I mean we pick jurors pretty much at random.  They're just
ordinary people who have no experience at all in this sort of thing. 
They've never before had to determine what's realistic evidence, what's
undue theatrics by some lawyer, what some people are sometimes capable of
and many aren't even trained in how to reason out complex problems. 
They're pretty much lumps of clay that the trial lawyers try to mold into
thinking their way, despite the strength of the evidence or testimony.  I
wonder if it would be better to train people to do this sort of thing (one
of the abuse taboos you mentioned).  Would you expect any less from your
doctor, car mechanic, postman?  With a little training, a person could
probably become a much better juror.  In a case like this, a month spent 
in training before the trial might result in better decisions.  (just an
engineer looking to improve a flawed system)


>>but I do not
>>        consider myself as competent to make that decision as the
>>        jury

Concoct an extreme case where that would not be true.  The point I'm trying
to make is that some people would be better jurors (better able to see the
truth and voice it) than others.  I'm not saying that the jury in this OJ
trial was a bad one.  I don't know those people and can't speak to that. 

>>        My biggest concern about this verdict is that there will be
>>        riots -- whites will be rioting.  Unfortunately, instead of
>>        rioting in the streets and stealing TV sets and burning
>>        stores, they will be rioting in the Congress and stealing
>>        rights and burning the Constitution.
Well, what might seem like a riot to one might be considered reform to
another.  If the result is a legal system that can better determine
guily/innocence then it's a positive thing.  "Burning the Constitution"? 
A bit extreme, don't you think?  The Constitution has a built in system of
ammendments which allows the people to shape it to be anything we want/need 
it to be as time changes.  If "we the people" should decide to do so at
some point, the entire justice system could be overhauled with ammendments.
I think the ability to change the constitution with the changing needs of
the times is what's made it so successful and enduring.

>>        No governmental system can withstand intense act-by-act
>>        scrutiny (as can no private organization, even Churches, and
Agreed.  It's imperfect.  But people become upset when they see it fail. I
become upset when some piece of software I wrote fails.

>>      society is getting to the point where everything is judged by
>>      spectacular failures that the media brings to light, rather
>>      than by the overall record.
One problem is that we don;t have a very good idea what the overall record
is.  Have you seen any reputable stats on "bad decisions" made in the
American system of justice?  I'm talking about a "reputable" study using
hard evidence and numbers.  May not be possible to get that sort of info
to make that sort of determination. So we proceed on, hoping we're doing
the right thing.

    
    I think we should be more concerned with the countless indigent
    defendants who are rushed to conviction, than we are with the
    occasional millionaire defendant who is, after lengthy argumentation,
    acquitted. The former, I think, is the greater social injustice and
    deserving of more scrutiny.

    Is it a question of money buying justice, or poverty denying justice?
    Maybe a little of both, I'd say. In all cases, however, our sympathy and
    prayers should be for the victims.

    Eric

    The important thing is that the jury has NO personal interest in the
    defendant.  This way the jury can convict or free without compromise.
    
    This is why a jury put together based on race....either black or white
    can be a dangerous thing.  The trust factor dissepates!
    
    -Jack

re Note 1155.23 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     This is why a jury put together based on race....either black or white
>     can be a dangerous thing.  The trust factor dissepates!
  
        Why was the jury so heavily black -- was that the profile of
        the juror pool?

        (I assume that the defense and the prosecution both have the
        same number of challenges available to avoid jurors they
        don't like, so one would expect the preferences to cancel
        out.)

        Bob

    That may very well be and I happen to believe this jury acted
    appropriately.  I also understand that DA's office had just as much
    imput as the defense on who served.
    
    Unfortunately, the students at Howard University who were holding hands
    as the verdict was read...who jumped in ecstacy have no concept of
    jurisprudence.  To them it was strictly a matter of race.  Why do I say
    this?  Because these students were removed from this process just as I
    am removed from the process.  Taking an interest in the outcome is
    fine.  Being emotionally involved as they were in my mind was a bit
    overdone for a spectative audience.  Now the precedent is set.  If a
    similar occurance happens and the jury is 90% white, you can rest
    assure the suspicion level will be up and the trust factor will be
    nill.  Why?  Because it's all about race...nothing more.  Therefore, 
    gerrymandering of this kind is dangerous.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1155.25 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Unfortunately, the students at Howard University who were holding hands
>     as the verdict was read...who jumped in ecstacy have no concept of
>     jurisprudence.  To them it was strictly a matter of race.  Why do I say
>     this?  Because these students were removed from this process just as I
>     am removed from the process.  Taking an interest in the outcome is
>     fine.  Being emotionally involved as they were in my mind was a bit
>     overdone for a spectative audience.  

        Let me ask you this, Jack:  White audiences reacted very
        strongly to the verdict, too, although in a very different
        way.  Do you believe that their reaction "was strictly a
        matter of race"?  If not, why not?

        Do you believe that blacks are emotional, illogical, and
        racists?  Do you believe that whites are substantially less
        emotional, illogical, and racist than blacks?

        How might you imagine blacks thought about the reaction of
        white audiences -- do you think they might write exactly the
        same words you wrote?

        Bob

 ZZ    Do you believe that their reaction "was strictly a
 ZZ           matter of race"?  If not, why not?
    
    Yes, I believe as a whole, the reaction of whites is equally as absurd
    as those from Howard University...completely absurd.
    
    I believe the majority of people I've spoken to believe the verdict was
    based on payback, on solidarity of blacks, on reprocussions from the
    Rodney King affair.  A lot I've spoken to feel the jurists picked was
    not a coincidence...twn of them being black and all.
    
    Call me a sap, call me stupid...but I believe the jury did as they were
    supposed to do.  If they didn't, then they will have to live with
    themselves.  Throughout the trial I have always maintained a sense of
    objectivity and to this day feel the prosecution did not dispell
    reasonable doubt.  They clearly layed the groundwork for motive but
    that doesn't cut it.
    
    As far as blacks being more emotional, I can understand why the sheep
    of this world might be...black or white.  The bottom line is that this
    case was put on our laps by the media and people feel for some reason
    they have to participate.  Fact is that OJ Simpson is colorless.  The
    man has been wealthy for years and will not identify with the
    downtrodden of the world.  So the whole thing is a farce anyway.
    I believe Jurisprudence must not be compromised.  I believe a verdict
    must be based solely on the evidence...that is it!
    
    -Jack

    
    > Call me a sap, call me stupid...

    OK. Jack, you're a.... nah. Can't do it. :^)


    > I believe the majority of people I've spoken to believe...

    And therefore by consensus you know what went on in the jury room?

    > The man has been wealthy for years and will not identify with the
    > downtrodden of the world.

    I don't know about the downtrodden of the world, but testimony
    throughout the trial showed a man who was not aloof, and who was
    cordial to common people, whether they be fans or limo drivers... or
    bone heads (read: Kato :^)). This is just a nit, sure, but you made a
    rather bold an broad statement based on nothing, as far as I can tell.
    
    Eric
    
    PS. Getting too "soapboxy" for me. I think I'll bow out here.

    I'm surprised Eric.  The way I am stereotyped here I would think people
    would view me as being mad he got off.  
    
    -Jack

    
    That is not my view of your attitude. I didn't make it clear that I was
    only addressing: the process of using corridor conversations to gain
    insight into the jury's collective mind, and unsupported charges of
    OJ's total detachment from the common man.

    The only one's I'm truly happy for are his young children. It seems
    that they love their daddy very much. They must be thrilled to be
    together with him again. The only one's who maintained their dignity
    through all this are Mr. and Mrs. Brown, Nichole's parents. In the
    interview's I've seen, they are truly a class act. May God keep them
    strong.

    Eric

>    I'm surprised Eric.  The way I am stereotyped here I would think people
>    would view me as being mad he got off.  

I don't think you're angry over the jury's verdict.

Richard

    I know.  It's just that by my stands against Multiculturalism, as I
    define it, people tend to think I'm intolerant!  
    
    I am tolerant but I try to be extremely objective if I can.
    
    -Jack

    RE .30
    
    >>The only one's I'm truly happy for are his young children...
    
    OH-MY-GOD, his young children are the onles who I "FEAR" for.  Murderer
    or not, he was a wife beater.  People like OJ who physically abuse
    their loved ones should (IMO) be locked up until they can learn how to 
    control themselves.  This OJ guy is dangerous!
    
    .22 had an excellent point (..should be worried more about the indigent
    defendants who are rushed to conviction.).  Like the Chuck Stewart
    thing, this case was sensationalized to the exclusion of considering
    all the other murder cases in the area, at the time.  How many people
    were murdered in LA "during" the trial which we ever heard about?  How
    many of those were solved?  How many of those resulted in
    incarcerating innocent people?  And how many murderers are still out
    on the street?
    
    Some have said that this was a case about race.  I agree, to a point. I
    think it was more about money.  The money bought the lawyers who played
    upon race like Liberace would play upon a piano.  Given demographic
    stats, the chance that this jury was picked "at random" are about zero. 
    OJ's lawyers fought tooth and nail to get sympathetic jurors.  The
    prosecution might have thought their case to be so strong that it
    didn't matter, plus, when OJ was convicted, the chance of riots would
    be quelled given it was a predominatly black jury that would convicte
    him.  
    
    The author of a book called "The Jury" was interviewed on BUR the other
    night.  He had some interesting comments to make about this case. 
    One was the outrageous length of time this case took (should have been 
    no longer than a few weeks in his opinion).  His opinion on the
    evidence of this case was that there was an overwhealming amount of
    physical evidence implicationg OJ.  The fact that some of it might have
    been tainted and that some of it might have even been planted would
    STILL be insufficient to dissuade a reasonable analysis from a guilty 
    verdict.  
    
    
    -dave

>    - OJ went through the process.  He was declared Not Guilty but he
>    wasn't declared innocent.  If he is indeed guilty, then I believe God 
>    will serve justice...I really do.

C'mon Jack. God does not intervene in the going-ons (scuse my english) of 
human lives. Human's were set free by God after their creation. He gave us 
some advice on how to make life generally agreeable for everyone (the Ten 
Commandments) and later on send Jesus to extend this advice to everyone. 

It's for our own to make those rules work. That's why we have such extensive 
legal systems. 

At least in the US, people get to be locked up in real prisons with bars 
before the windows if they are a threat to society. Over here in the 
Netherlands, the legal system seems to care more about the psychological 
damage the criminals can get in prison than the threat they pose to the 
populace.

ZZ    C'mon Jack. God does not intervene in the going-ons (scuse my english)
ZZ    of human lives. Human's were set free by God after their creation. He gave
ZZ    us some advice on how to make life generally agreeable for everyone 
    
    "Be not deceived, God is not mocked.  For whatsoever a man sows, that
    shall he also reap."  The Bible also teaches us "God chasteneth whom he
    loves."
    
    Oh, God does intervene in our lives every day.  If you consider the
    judgements God poured on the Caananite nations as well as the
    judgements which are to be poured upon mother earth sometime in the not
    so distant future, it is evident that God does intervene.
    
    -Jack

>    Oh, God does intervene in our lives every day.  If you consider the
>    judgements God poured on the Caananite nations as well as the
>    judgements which are to be poured upon mother earth sometime in the not
>    so distant future, it is evident that God does intervene.

Then we are not free men, are we ? We can not do whatever we want to do, 
because God might intervene and stop us to do it...

>Then we are not free men, are we ? We can not do whatever we want to do, 


True freedom is the freedom to do what one ought, not what one's instincts
want.

/john

re Note 1155.37 by COVERT::COVERT:

> >Then we are not free men, are we ? We can not do whatever we want to do, 
> 
> 
> True freedom is the freedom to do what one ought, not what one's instincts
> want.
  
        So if we were constrained by God, a just government, or a
        church with secular authority to do just those things that we
        "ought", then we would be "free" -- is that what you're
        saying?

        Bob

ZZ    Then we are not free men, are we ? We can not do whatever we want to
ZZ    do, because God might intervene and stop us to do it...
  
    EXACTLY!  As King Solomon stated in his Proverbs, "The Hearts of Kings
    are like running waters.  The Lord directs their paths in the Palm of
    His hand!  
    
    Also, Paul the Apostle always opened his letters with, "Paul, a
    bondservant of.... or Paul, a Prisoner of the Lord Jesus Christ..."
    
    So in essence, God is running the show!
    
    -Jack

re free

Jesus once said "If you continue in my word, you are truly
my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth
will make you free." John 8:31,32 RSV

Question how can compliance to Jesus' direction set one free?
What is the freedom that Jesus is referring to?.


Phil.

    Phil:
    
    The natural person is in bondage to sin.  The freedom Jesus was
    speaking of is the freedom from sin that so easily entangles us.
    Through Christ we now have available to live the Spirit filled life.
    
    However, once somebody becomes saved they are yielding their lives to
    the Most High.  Paul displayed wonderful spiritual leadership by
    referring to himself as a bond servant.  I believe if one is unable to
    think themselves as a bondservant of Jesus Christ, then they will never
    be a Spiritual leader...of really free for that matter.
    
    -Jack  

Jack,

I have to confess that this is a nitpick, but man's
sinful condition is far from natural. However, I know
what you mean. Many people feel that freedom is being
able to do what one pleases. However, it is often 
overlooked that by excercising such an attitude they 
enslave themselves. In what way?, well take smoking for 
example.For many years I felt that I was just excercising 
my right to smoke, however nicotine is addictive and it
is a very hard habit to break. So in the end, fleshly
cravings for a cigarette was in control and therefore
I was enslaved to this nasty habit. You wouldn't believe
the lengths I would go to, just to get a smoke when the
shops and bars were closed. Fortunately for me, I 
studied the Bible and came to learn the truth and
through application was able to break free from this
addictive habit. 

Natural life for Adam would have been everlasting life
on earth. Jesus by setting persons free from bondage
to sin is opening the way to everlasting life (freedom
from death) for those who come to learn and apply the 
truth.

Freedom is relative, Paul enjoys freedom in heaven, from 
the problems we face such as illness and death. Even so 
he recognises Jehovah's Universal Sovereignty. So I 
believe he trully is free, remember worship of the Only
True God is something he wanted and it is something we 
are all free to choose.

Phil.
 

    I don't think that most have a clue to what real freedom is.  What it
    is not is the ability to do whatever you want, when you want to do it-
    which seems to be the consensus in America today.
    
    I bet I have some quotes from the FF buried at my desk somewhere- let
    me see if I can find them.  I'd like to compare 'freedom', as viewed
    today, opposite 'freedom' as viewed by our FF.
                                                  
    
    -steve

    Phil:
    
    Very good explanation.  Regarding the nit pick....
    
    I have a one year old daughter.  As beautiful as she is, there are
    times when she has a mind of her own.  The Point is this...her
    rebellion at times WAS NOT a learned skill.  It is indwelt within her
    just as it was indwelt in my sons, myself, and everybody else from the
    day they were conceived.  
    
    -Jack