HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Nf-ID: #R:kesher.UUCP:621:trsvax:272900092:000:3051
Nf-From: trsvax.tandy.com!cls    Apr  6 11:47:00 1992



< cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
 
<< pertinent clause and quote it.".  This leads me to ask, if you think that,
<< then do you personally follow every "clause" in the bible?
<
<I'll split this into 2 questions:
<
<1. Do you personally follow every "clause" in the Bible?
<   A: No, because I am not personally capable of doing so.  I'm not perfect.
<
<2. Do you personally think the Bible is an appropriate standard of conduct
<   which should be followed?
<   A: Yes.
<
<I should mention that personally, God has counted me as having followed all
<the "law" because I have trusted Jesus personally for my salvation, and
<repented of my sin.  Christ's righteousness has been imputed to me.  In that
<sense, I do indeed "follow every clause in the Bible."   Does this mean I
<have license to continue practicing sin?  No, because He has written His law
<on my heart, so that Jesus is changing me into His image and character.
<
<The O.T. was written for our instruction; i.e., we are to learn lessons from
<it.  Also, the O.T. (and the N.T.) give us an understanding as to what God
<says His character is like.  E.g., murder is wrong; loving one's spouse is
<right; taking care of widows' and orphans' needs is right; proclaiming the
<Gospel is right; etc.  In other words, the practical outworking of the
<Christian life is shown to us by example.  The principles and examples form
<a valid world view; the laws of one's country (IMO) should be consistent
<with that view.  It is in that sense that I believe the U.S. law (both
<federal and state) is originally founded upon the Judeo-Christian
<Scriptures, and rightly so.  It forms the best basis for personal freedom
<and righteous conduct.
<
<< One or two paragraphs can answer [my] question.
<
<Well, that was _almost_ within the 2-paragraph limit :-)
<--
<Chris Winemiller         Internet: cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org
<                         UUCP    : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
<                                   texsun!digi!keys!cwinemil

That's about as clear as mud, and not because it's a short answer.  

Part 2. is not necessary to discuss because we can already tell that you
think it is an appropriate standard of conduct.
Part 1. is not a clear answer.  Yes, we know no one is perfect.  I just 
want to know if you "try" to follow every single clause in the Bible completely
literally, or if your paragraph, the one that begins "The O.T. was written...",
means that you look at a particular "clause" in view of the entire set of
writings and the time in which each was written.

I feel you have not yet answered my question.  I also feel that my question
gets to the heart of the cause of most differences of opinion on political
matters which are based on religion.  It's like, answering this question gets
to a point beyond which there is no more to say if two people do not agree
on it.

-------------
Christine Siewert		Domain: cls@trsvax.Tandy.COM
                 		  UUCP: ...!uunet!letni!rwsys!trsvax!cls
				    or: ...!decvax!microsoft!trsvax!cls
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Perot
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:50:59 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <1992Apr13.185841.20766@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
> When I hear Perot say "We need to start phasing out Social
>Security, we need to get rid of farm subsidies, we need to make
>large cuts in our defense forces, we need to phase out some of the
>more useless federal departments" then I'll think he has balls.

OK. Let's start with NSFNet.
-- 
/F{findfont exch scalefont setfont}def /S{moveto show}def /T{/Times-Roman F}def
6 T (Have you hugged your wolf today?)468 20 S 9 T (Taronga Park BBS)24 35 S 10
/Courier F(`-_-')488 40 S ( 'U` )488 30 S 6 T (+1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1)24 27
S (+1 713 568 1032 Trailblazer)24 20 S 12 T (Peter da Silva)24 45 S showpage
From: kasey@trsvax.tandy.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Jesus Christ/Tolerance/Judgemen
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:38:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:kesher.UUCP:621:trsvax:272900093:000:321
Nf-From: trsvax.tandy.com!kasey    Apr  9 10:38:00 1992


>Statistically, Jews are the MOST charitable of all people in the US as a
>group.  Charity is one of the foundations of our faith, and not only do we
>just TALK about it, we PRACTICE it.

If you really believe this, then you had better check your statistics again
because Muslims are the most charitable organized group.
From: joe@zx11.cactus.org (Joe Senner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Perot
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:18:19 GMT
Reply-To: joe@zx11.cactus.org
Organization: NOT

jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
]X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
]>                               If you don't like his policies, then
]>you don't have to work there.  As a matter of fact, that's why I
]>will never work for IBM-- I just hate to wear suits; but that
]>does not mean that IBM doesn't have the right to make those
]>employees wear those suits.
]What is it with IBM and suits already?  I've been at IBM (though I've
]never been an IBM employee ...) for three years and I only wear a suit
]when I'm trying to impress someone with the fact that I own a suit.

I used to think this about IBM as well. I now work in the newest of
the Austin buildings. I don't own a suit. I once wore thongs, sweat
pants, and a T-shirt with a picture of a very busty bikini clad woman
on the back. don't bother to apply chris, you wouldn't like it, too
easy going of a place.

ok, somebody tell me to stop wasting tx.polotics bandwidth already...

-- 
Joe Senner -- joe@zx11.Cactus.Org                                   Austin, TX
      "Nuclear weapons can wipe out life on earth, if used properly"
                                   -- Talking Heads
From: jcj6@ace4.sps.mot.com (james berry)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Perot
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:25:30 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: APRDL, Motorola Inc., Austin Texas

Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Organization: On the Beach, Simpson Bay, Sint Maarten, Nederland Antilles
X-Random-Thought: Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	          Very good!


*This has to be a trick question because the answer is "YES".  An employer
*MUST be allowed to do anything which is not a violation of the law.  If
*not hiring people who sleep around isn't a violation of the law, the
*employer must be allowed to have that policy.

I guess my question/statement would be why is it not the law?  Why do 
people think they have any right to tell me or anyone else how to live
their lives.  As long as I perform my job what possible right does anyone
have to tell me what I can or cannot do on MY own time?  If an employer 
can dictate my sex life, then it is a short leap to say what social 
causes I can support ect.  For instance I have been married to the same
woman FOREVER, (at least it seems so) :-)  and suppose I find that a 
divorce is indicative of a major character flaw, under your logic I 
would have a perfect right to either not hire or even to have fired a 
divorced person.  Not a pretty picture. 

*Any other system isn't capitalism.  Perot must have known what he was
*doing and must have had a good reason because it sure made him an
*incredibly rich man. 

Being rich has nothing to do with being right. The drug cartel is VERY rich.

*John F. Haugh II        | Every 56 days.   | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
*"A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats."
*		-- Benjamin Franklin


James L. Berry  jcj6@aslan.sps.not.com                 Motorola, Inc.
APRDL Technology Simulation Group                      MS K10
Phone (512)928-7376 Fax (512) 928-6687                 Austin, Texas 78721
"Austin gateway to BUDA"      Remember the Russian People in your Prayers!      
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hackney@moxie.hou.tx.us (Greg Hackney)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Organization: none
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:49:05 GMT


In article <1992Apr06.151446.24151@NeoSoft.com>, hari@NeoSoft.com
(Doug Andersen) writes:

[Ross Perot said he would....]
> collect all the taxes due and then $50 billion each from Japan and Europe
> in return for our defense of their countries (great timing, I'm sure
> they'd love to pay now that the USSR is gone).

It's strange that you seem to feel the USSR is 'gone' in terms of any
military threat, when now, more than ever, world leaders have expressed
concern over the possible use of nuclear weapons by the decentralized
Soviet military.
--
Greg
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The tax curve (was Re: Ross Perot...)
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:29:27 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <Y6HEYVI@taronga.com>, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> Only if you think the Government *needs* to get as much tax money as
> possible. That hasn't been shown to be an optimal method of allocating
> resources. Whether or not you believe in the Laffer curve.
 
Agreed.  The first step is to require a balanced budget.  And to stop the
practice of taking things like the S&L bailout and Social Security off
budget.  At least this will allow us to get a hand on the deficit. 
Although that doesn't do much for the debt we've already accumlated.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:05:23 GMT
Distribution: houston
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <14APR199221385977@uhdvx3.dt.uh.edu>, 0770am01@uhdvx3.dt.uh.edu (AUCLAIR RICHARD) writes:
> How many American citizens can afford the kind of health care that Congress
> gets?  Statistics say 20% of all Americans have no medical insurance, and many
> who do have it have to pay their own costs (no corporate sponsorship)
 
The number of people who are without insurance seems to be one of those
amazing statistics that jumps by leaps and bounds each time it's restated.
20% of the American public?  That's about 50 million.  Even the most
liberal number only get up to around 37 million.  I think we have to
remember what we are talking about is essentially an executive position.. 
How many executives have paid insurance?
 
> How many get their mail sent free of charge (franking priviledge)?
 
The idea was that this would allow them to keep contact with their 
constituents.  I think it's a sensible idea, but of course many simply use
as a re-election tool.  
 
> NO government body that is this irresponsible with the nation's treasury
> deserves the money the U.S. Congress is making.
 
You must have missed my point.  The pay should be based on the position
and the responsiblity.  If you don't think their performance is up to the
job, vote them out.  But that's another issue.  As a CEO (not sure who)
once said "Write down how much you think you're worth.  And then write me
a resignation letter in case I don't agree."
 
Yeah, this country may go under because of massive debt, but at least
we'll get rid of those franking privileges and unpaid lunches.  I know
I'll sleep better.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Jesus Christ/Tolerance/Judgemen
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:17:42 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University

In article <272900092@trsvax>
   (Christine Siewert)   cls@trsvax.tandy.com writes:
 
><
><1. Do you personally follow every "clause" in the Bible?
><   A: No, because I am not personally capable of doing so.
><      I'm not perfect.
><
> Part 1. is not a clear answer.
 ...text deleted...
 ...text reformatted due to excessive line length.....
> I feel you have not yet answered my question.  I also feel that my
> question gets to the heart of the cause of most differences of
> opinion on political matters which are based on religion.  It's
> like, answering this question gets to a point beyond which there
> is no more to say if two people do not agree on it.
 
 
   Chris W. did answer your question; quite clearly in fact.
I think you just didn't like his answer so you want another one....
 
      ----------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |  "Success is the realization of your
x005cb@tamvm1.tamu.edu  |       worthwhile dreams" ---  Dexter Yager
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |  "A goal is a dream being acted upon"
(409) 845-8454 (work)   |                          ---  Don Wilson
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: The tax curve (was Re: Ross Perot...)
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:25:32 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <167C59798.X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu>, X005CB@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
>     This is somewhat a change of topic, but since you mentioned
> it, I thought I ought to respond.  You seem to indicate that you
> believe that raising taxes will always raise the amount of money
> that the government receives.  This is simply not true.  In reality,
> the tax rate and income are related according to this graph.
 
Yeah, yeah.  We're all familiar with a Laffer curve.  It's also far more
complicated than you put.  Besides, you haven't shown that we are to the
right of the (semi-mythical) optimum tax rate.  Your own theory could
support a tax increase if the rate was to the left.
 
One of the problems with the current system is that the tax code is so
complicated and constantly changing that it's hard to do any sort of
medium term planning.  I don't support Brown but he's right that we need
to simplify the tax code and then LEAVE IT ALONE.  
 
I don't disagree with your comments on a balanced budget.  But the Laffer
curve is far from an established fact.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: employment 'rights (was Re: Perot)
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:54:40 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

In article <1992Apr15.142530.1480@oakhill.sps.mot.com> jcj6@ace4.sps.mot.com (james berry) writes:
>*This has to be a trick question because the answer is "YES".  An employer
>*MUST be allowed to do anything which is not a violation of the law.  If
>*not hiring people who sleep around isn't a violation of the law, the
>*employer must be allowed to have that policy.
>
>I guess my question/statement would be why is it not the law?  Why do 
>people think they have any right to tell me or anyone else how to live
>their lives.  As long as I perform my job what possible right does anyone
>have to tell me what I can or cannot do on MY own time?  

Employment is more or less an agreement between an employer and an 
employee.  If that agreement includes stipulations on your personal
life, and they're not covered by laws, then there's nothing illegal
about them.  If you don't *like* those stipulations, then work for
someone else.  It's that simple.  

In my case I have already decided that I will not work for certain 
companies that I feel place unreasonable demands on my personal life.
But that doesn't mean the company has no right to make those demands.
Obviously, if too many potential employees object to these demands, then the
company will either have a shortage of competent employees or will
go under.  The free market at its finest.


>If an employer 
>can dictate my sex life, then it is a short leap to say what social 
>causes I can support ect.  

But *intelligent* employers will not make demands that impact the
number of affordable, competent employees they can hire.  If you don't
like the restrictions, don't work for that employer.  No one's forcing
you to.

>*Any other system isn't capitalism.  Perot must have known what he was
>*doing and must have had a good reason because it sure made him an
>*incredibly rich man. 
>
>Being rich has nothing to do with being right. The drug cartel is VERY rich.

Agreed.  But in this instance, Perot was simply creating the sort of
work environment he wanted with the sort of people he wanted to have working for
him.  There is nothing inherently wrong with this.  Considering the number of
people I know who *want* to work for places like EDS (even in the Perot
years), his demands were not considered unreasonable.

Daryl
-- 
Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    dlb5404@rigel.tamu.edu  or  dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
     Seen on a bumper sticker: "My kid beat up your honor student."
From: john@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Jesus Christ/Tolerance/Judgemen
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:36:48 GMT
Reply-To: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstation Division, Austin, TX

John "The Adulterer" Haugh writes:

|> To the extent that the verse makes sense when framed in the context of
|> Matthew 22, yes, I try to follow everything in the Bible.  

except "spare the rod and spoil the child"
except "don't have sex"
except "don't get divorced" 
except "But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend never despairing"
except "be perfect"

|> So, to summarize, I think it is possible for a portion of scripture
|> to become irrelevant 

If you're going to pick and choose only portions of the bible that you
find convenient, then you might as well toss the whole thing. 

-- 
John Iacoletti                      Internet: johniac@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
IBM Advanced Workstations Div.    "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't hit his tail
Austin, TX                         on the ground.  Too hypothetical." - G. Bush
My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1495 tx.general:228 austin.general:1533
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general,austin.general,ut.general.austin.talk
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:48:51 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Apr09.141514.3526@NeoSoft.com>, rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
> In article <1992Apr09.054624.1430@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
> >The fact that the public is ready to throw the incumbents out over an
> >issue like this check situation, rather than something important,
> >just shows how idiotic this country has gotten.
> 
> 	It seems to be an issue that many Americans can understand. If
> it takes such an issue to awaken Gulliver, so be it. Awake now, let's
> hope Gulliver realizes his size and strength.
 
The American public can't understand a deficit?  You spend too much, you
have to borrow.  That's easy to understand.
 
It DOES matter why the public is throwing the incumbents out.  The message
seems to be "we won't tolerate people who 'bounce' checks and abuse their
perks'.  Great.  So we'll get a bunch of politicians who will be extra
careful about not bouncing checks or using too many perks.  Does that
solve our problem?  Not hardly.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1497 tx.general:230 austin.general:1535
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general,austin.general,ut.general.austin.talk
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:08:50 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

> >  The message
> >seems to be "we won't tolerate people who 'bounce' checks and abuse their
> >perks'.
> 
> 	The average citizen can relate to this. There is no rhetorical
> answer for this from Congress. The issue is not clouded. That Capone would
> evade taxes stemmed from his ethical system, it was part of the larger
> problem. Yes, selfish behavior contributes to the deficit. It also created
> this scandal. 
 
Selfish behavior on whose part?  The deficit was caused by the fact that
the American public likes to pretend it can spend more than it has without
any deleterious effects.  And because they didn't care about deficits
they didn't hold their representatives responsible for deficits.  And
Congress, wanting to get re-elected, did exactly what the people them to
do.  They spent more than they had.  Whose fault is that?
Unfortunately, I can't throw the American public out of office.  And since
the current Congress has learned this lesson as well, throwing them out of
office is necessary.
 
> >  Great.  So we'll get a bunch of politicians who will be extra
> >careful about not bouncing checks or using too many perks.  Does that
> >solve our problem?  Not hardly.
> 
> 	Good point. I'm still glad to see politicians worrying about 
> their constituents' votes. I like to think that the recognition of their
> power in this case will reawaken the public. On that note, I've wondered
 
Reawaken the public to what?  They still think they can increase spending
(national health care, more unemployment benefits, better schools, house
the homeless,etc) and at the same time solve the deficit, without
increasing taxes at all!
 
> exercise it's power to vote to the fullest (maximum turnout), couldn't
> they wield a lot of power in elections? If they did, would other groups
> respond by getting their folks out to vote? Could "competitive voting"
> spur near-100% turnout by all groups? I know that both parties try to get
We know that voting (the act of) correlates with education, with age, and
with wealth.  If more people started voting, the greatest proportion would
come from young poor uneducated people.  Do you have any reason to think
that group has a better vision than the current group that votes?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1492 tx.general:224 austin.general:1520
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,tx.general,austin.general,ut.general.austin.talk
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:46:24 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <1992Apr7.151154.16814@montagar.lonestar.org>, davidc@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey) writes:
> 	Well, it depends on what you mean by civil liberties.  I feel he
> will be least likely to take liberties (check bouncing, etc...) that
> politicians have been enjoying.
 
Does anyone really think that the "check bouncing" scandal is the
central problem with Congress?  I mean, "minor" issues like the deficit
seem to get a fraction of the public attention that this supposed check
bouncing scandal did.  
 
And let's be honest.  This really isn't check bouncing or check kiting, no
matter how many times the media says it is.  The House bank was set up
with the understanding that they had overdraft protection.  It's clear
that they made very liberal use of this protection, and some of them went
way overboard (supposedly there was an understanding that they wouldn't
overdraft more than one month's salary).
 
The fact that the public is ready to throw the incumbents out over an
issue like this check situation, rather than something important,
just shows how idiotic this country has gotten.
 
Yes, we should throw them out of office.  But let's do it for something
sensible like fiscal irresponsibility, not because they get free haircuts
and cheap raquetball courts.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Elections
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:42:18 GMT
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.


  Well, another election day in Houston, and the early returns are 
late :-) It seems that the guy at the county clerks office who has 
the job of counting the absentee ballots took the day off today! 
That's effective government for you :-).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Exculpatory, a nifty little word that meant confuse
           the hell out of the jurors. -- Stephen Coonts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1564 tx.general:295