From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Family values defined
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:50:45 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <1992Sep30.155435.11242@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

Thanks again for showing how intolerant I am and how understanding you are.

|Richard Pitts writes
|
|>Are we in your so called "free society" in America - is that what
|>we are????????????
|>Why do we have so many laws regulating the so called RIGHT you have 
|>to "live and let live" - we have to regulate what people want to do.
|
|Do you know what's meant by 'free society'? Do you understand the
|difference between that and anarchy? In principle, we have laws that
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rules and laws.  But more so, one needs an internal desire for
good and not just laws - for there are many places around the world
that have laws and also have plenty of trouble.  Why is it ok to
have sex with minors in Holland and not here - is that something we
need to work on fixing?  Which way?

|keep other people from pissing on our trousers. Each of us, however,
|may wet his own pants to his heart's content. That I may attend zen
|meditation on Sunday mornings without being handcuffed (not yet,
|anyway) by a Bible-brandishing goon squad makes this a relatively
|free society as far as I'm concerned. And "live and let live" is not
|a right. It is an attitude one holds regardless of the government's
|view on the matter. Like belief in God. 

Agreed.  Yet, you don't want me informing others of my strong 
convictions.  Your views are more like "live and let live, but don't tell
me about any improvement you've found over the way I am, even though
you once were in my shoes".

|>|requirement for harmonious human coexistence suggests strongly that
|>|you are opposed to the concept of free society. To where will you
|
|>No you are for you don't want to conform - we have to conform to some 
|>extent.
|
|And to what extent must I conform so that we may have a free society?
|I drive on the right-hand side of the road. I don't play drums at
|2AM. I pay my taxes and make sure my cats get their rabies shots.
|Should I also have to, say, profess belief in God in order to keep my
|job? Would that be your idea of a free society? Admit it, Pitts. You

I do want everyone to know the Love, Power, and Freedom of Jesus
the Christ, God incarnate.  I do wish everyone would follow the
Lord.

|guys don't want a free society. I hear it on the news and in the
|streets every day. You don't want all these queers, heathen,
|fornicators, rappers, single moms and other sinners breathing the
              ^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^

Rapping is a job not a sin.  Single moms are not sinners.  Anyone
can sin.  You are the one that wants to over classify our view of
things.  What one does with what one has is to some extent the
definition of sin.  Most actions are A OK, but the timing or specific
use of them is the key to whether the action (passive or active,
internal or external) is a sin or not.  [It is ok to kill someone
who is actively killing a whole bunch of people, but you don't just
go out and kill the person.]

|same air you do, corrupting your children. Oh, and mind your
|punctuation, will you? You're becoming increasingly difficult to
|read.   

Sorry, I'm not a good proofreader nor do I always try hard.

|>|lead by example? Away from this more-or-less free society to a New
|>|Fascism? Who's going to follow you? Those who already agree with you,
|>|of course, and perhaps a few others. Nonconformists will somehow have
|>|to be forced, or you will have to learn to share your world with
|>|them, i.e. "let live" (I'm sure you have no problem with the "live"
|>|part). You have already expressed your unwillingness to do the
|>|latter. Guess what that means. 
|
|>Duh, you must be more brillent than I
|
|Well, I can spell 'brilliant'.

See, what did I tell you.

|>- please tell me.
|
|It means that you will have to compel nonconformists to toe the line,
|since you're unwilling to respect their choices or allow them their
|turf. It means that your purported wish to merely lead "by example",
|and not by force, is a turgid, throbbing lie. Clear? 

Again, you can only say that with ANY validity, if you actually knew me.

||>>Now, you can either somehow force
||>>the single parent to marry, or impose sanctions against single parent
||>>families, or you can compassionately accept their condition and find
||>>it in your heart to provide assistance _if_ _asked_. Which path do
||>>you think Jesus would have taken? 
|
|>The answer would be "GO AND SIN NO MORE"
|>Again, Jesus often told people to "go and sin no more" after he healed
|>them [..]
|
|AFTER he healed them! What will YOU do to heal them, Pitts? An

Depends on the situation.

|admonition from _you_ to "go and sin no more" will get you a warm,
|hearty "Fuck off, clown." What are you going to do to ease their

You rightly say so - for words alone do not do much good.

|suffering? Lecture them on Family Values? Mother Theresa, move over.
|Richard Pitts is here. 

I don't work for man's acclaim - I serve God.

|>|I see no compassion at all in your attitudes as presented. I see only
|>|a self-interested drive to mold the lives of others to suit your
|>|liking. 
|
|>Maybe, I know someone (God) that has told give a better plan than what
|>the general population thinks is the right way to go.  I am not 
|>advocating my way - I didn't invent it.
|
|Does this mean that you do, in fact, intend to mold others' lives to
|suit your liking? This would, after all, be quite consistent with and
|consequential to your aversion to "live and let live". 

I will help mold those I can.  I will not force them.  If they don't
claim to be a Christian - I don't judge them, but if they name the Name
of Christ, I will more readily direct them in the way of the Lord, which
is to DO justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.

|>Could you cite, specifically, where I have pushed some kind of legal 
|>enforcement of any of these ideas?
|
|Well, let's see if we can collect some data right now. How do you
|feel about this Oregon Citizens Alliance? Will you lord it over women

Don't know them.

|by taking control of their bodies? Will you lord it over
|non-christian children and their families by imposing prayer in
|public schools? How do you feel about our illustrious president's

See above.

|characterization of atheists as unpatriotic, second-class citizens? 

I haven't heard this, but can you understand what he is saying?
That is look at it from his viewpoint and try and understand.  You
may not agree, but you probably can understand.

|>|>Jesus said be a servant leader - NOT LORDING IT OVER THEM LIKE THE  
|GENTILES,
|>|>but that doesn't mean you don't say anything nor advocate the better way.
|
|>|That you have decided for everyone what "the" better way is tells me
|>|that you would, in fact, lord it over them given the power to do so.
|
|>Ok, so leading by example completely excludes informing someone or
|>everyone of the goals I have.
|
|No, but if your example is worth anything, you needn't say a word. Be

Depends on the situation.  If it is a daily interaction with people,
I tend to agree with you.  If it is a place where one has only a few
moments, then one needs to be straight forward.  Again, it is hard
for anyone on this Usenet thing to really know ANYTHING about another
users, than what is written.  How else on here do you want me 'to be seen'?

|honest. These aren't just goals _you_ have. These are goals you want
|_everyone_ to have. THE better way, remember? Your arrogance
|precludes your being a servant leader or a servant anything else. 

No, my boast is in the cross of Christ - I again say I don't preach
myself or my ideas, but follow the Lord - I be confident in Him and
Him alone.  My confidence is in the Lord and God can be glorified
by that.

|>|A servant leader is one who unassumingly leads without leading.
|
|>Can you name someone who fits this? 
|
|Yes, several people I have known over the course of my life. Nobody
|you know. 

Oh.

|>|People quite naturally follow him, without word or beckoning on his
|>|part, simply because they like what they see. Obviously, there are
|
|>Again, he is obviously limited to non-verbal communication, I guess.
|
|Why would you guess this? Do you think verbal communication is
|limited to obnoxious moralizing? 

No.  Isn't obnoxious in the eye of the beholder.  Obviously,
for you call my speech obnoxious - however, if I was to say
something was obnoxious (homosexuality) would you not cry foul?

|>Why can't he also give his ideas.
|
|He can, but rarely does because he humbly recognizes the limits of
|his perception and understanding; because he knows that he knows
|nothing; because his walk with God (or whatever) can only be his own
|and that each needs to be free to seek his own connection with I AM.
|He has no intention of being a leader. His peaceable demeanor and
|quiet humility are precisely what attract people to him and cause
|them to want to follow him - without making them feel that they're
|being led at all. Such a person would just as soon vomit as preach. 

Again, much of this comes from knowning a person and not by seeing
them on the net.  By the way, Christians are commanded to make disciples.

|>|many, many who do not like what they see in the so-called New Right
|>|and its Family Values(r). I know servant leaders. Some servant
|>|leaders are friends of mine. You're no servant leader. 
|
|>Oh.  How do you know - 
|
|Easy! By your aversion to "live and let live". By your arrogant
|claims to absolute knowledge of correct human existence. I see
|nothing of servile humility in you at all. 

You confuse my confidence and your dislike for my ideas.

|>|>>Who gets to decide what's 'better'? You have two choices:
|>|>>force everyone to embrace your values, or learn to accept and even
|>|>>love the diversity, eccentricity and scariness that is human
|>|>>nature. What's it gonna be? 
|
|[ irrelevant prattle ]

Oh.

|>|Just answer the question: What's it gonna be? Give me some reason to
|>|abandon my preconceived idea, if you can. 
|
|>BECAUSE IT IS PRECONCEIVED
|
|So SHOW me already, Pitts. With your every passing sentence, I have
|more and more reason to believe my 'preconceived' perception of you
|is correct. This is your chance to blow it away. Now, will you force
|everyone to embrace your values, or will you learn to at least
|tolerate human diversity; to live and let live? Stop squirming and
|answer. 

Believe away.  

|>I claim no wisdom of my own, for this life.  I ask God for wisdom
|>and I seek it in his written word, for He does give wisdom freely and
|
|Do you believe that each and every one of your opinions is purely of
|divine origin? Assuming you don't want to go on record as claiming
|infallibility, how do you distinguish divine wisdom from
|Pitts-stained wisdom? Is your method of discernment infallible? 

I keep going back to God - I submit to Him and not to my own ideas.
If I better learn what God wants, I'll quickly change.  That is my
commitment to Him.  I am not infallible.

|>Again, your preconceived idea or bad experience has blinded you to 
|>God's plan.
|
|That swings both ways. You can't disprove your own blindness anymore
|than you can prove your God's existence. 

Agreed.

|>|Once again, just how do you think you're going to 'promote' this
|>|'better' way? By example? What will you do when you find that many
|>|people are going to turn their noses up at your example? 
|
|>Keep being an example, working as unto the Lord.
|
|If only it were so, but your objection to "live and let live"
|emphatically belies this. 

Again, if I have been set free through knowing the truth (Jesus the
Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life), then I can surely share
this with others and let them know there is an alternative, can't I?

|>We say we hold a tight line on values, you claim to be have more 
|>freedom/light, but you actually far exceed us in the area of
|>intolerance proportional to each of our camp's view/stated policy.
|>Can't ideas be presented?   Or is that only if they agree with yours?
|
|Don't ask ridiculous questions. Show me some figures on this alleged
|intolerance ratio. Who's telling conservative christians they can't
|or shouldn't run their lives and their families as they see fit?

The point was that you seem pretty intolerant of my ideas, but yet
you claim to be tolerant, correct?  In comparison, I don't fall as
far outside the norm of my ilk.

|Nobody's trying to censor you, unless 'censorship' means stopping you
|from forcing your values on people who don't share them. You guys
|even have your own radio and TV networks, fercrissake. Who is it
|that's smashing records and having books pulled from library shelves?
|Who's preaching the one, true way? The only thing we're intolerant of
|is having our lives invaded and personal freedoms abridged by a
|particularly powerful religious cult. 

You can and will probably continue to reject the power, but I wish
you wouldn't do so.

|>|The point is that it's the up to the individual, not you or anyone
|>|else, to set personal goals and priorities.  
|
|>This is true
|
|Then what's all this talk of setting goals for society (i.e. people
|you don't know)? Have you just changed your tune? 

How can one arise above their teacher?  One needs to have information
that is beyond them to improve, at least morally and spiritually.  

|> - change comes from within,
|
|The true understanding of which leads one to "live and let live",
|which you don't believe in, hypocrite. 

Again, note my other comments.

|>Give a specific in the moral area, in which I benefit [from "live
|>and let live"] - again, I  guess I'm too slow or uninformed. 
|
|Well, you said it. I don't know what 'moral area' is supposed to

You said I have greatly benefited from the "live and let live" 
idea.  I asked you to cite a instance of this in the area of morals.

Again, I ask you to do so.

|mean, but when's the last time somebody forbade you to pray
|(quietly), say, before a meal in a restaurant or other public place?  

No one.   It is not unusual for restrictions to be placed on the
distribution of religious literature at parks and airports - they
are overturning some of this in the Supreme Court.

|>|There are any number of rights I won't give up for your (and Mr.
|>|Potatoe Head's) twisted vision of society. 
|
|>Name one.
|
|The right to freely practice the religion of my choice, without
|harassment or social or economic consequence. The right of women to
|sovereign control of their own bodies and reproductive choices. The
|right of homosexual people to be treated with the same dignity and
|respect afforded heteros. 

Pursue it, but leave me the opportunity to pursue other avenues.

|Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc