Re: The greatest challenge facing mankind

From: janice matchett <>
Date: Mon Oct 03 2005 - 14:53:10 EDT

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I'm just now getting caught up on
email since I got back in town for a short period.

At 08:22 PM 9/26/2005, George Murphy wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <>janice matchett
>Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 6:44 PM
>At 05:30 PM 9/26/2005, George Murphy wrote:
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <>janice matchett
>>To: <>George Murphy ;
>>Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 12:48 PM
[ snips] Among other things :) -- Janice had written:
>>#2#2# Words mean things. Leftist elitists have their own personal,
>>politically correct idea of what constitutes "responsible
>>environmentalism" and those who disagree with their definition will have
>>it crammed down their throats if extremists can get away with it.
>If this is all you meant to say you could just as well have skipped it
>since I said nothing to suggest that I'm a "leftist elitist." (Those
>who've known me long enough to remember my campaigning for Goldwater would
>howl with laughter.)
#3#3# Goldwater was doing well until his advanced senility was exposed
when he married that politically correct emasculator half his age. Sad end
to a great man.

You gave me the impression that you have an inordinate interest in, and are
highly focused on, dubious environmental concerns. I thought you were a
supporter of Kyoto and other "follow-the-money" junk science. The extremist
environmentalist movement is merely a front for the Marxist/Communist
agenda. David Horowitz <> was raised by
Communists and used to be an activist, himself. Quite interesting - the
names of other activists he knows from back in his "Black Panther" days -
who are still active - some very low-key for obvious
reasons: <>

If you're not one of the above-mentioned "environmentalist whacko" types,
that's good. :)

>Do you ever pass up a chance for a political harangue?
#3#3# If I had been espousing the politicized scientific/religious
position you embrace would you view it as a "harangue"?
Or will you attempt to get us to believe that science and religion is
divorced from politics? Man's freedom depends on which of the two world
views (religions) he embraces.

>#2#2# I never inferred, nor do I believe any of the "God is not
>sovereign" ideas that you attribute to me above, therefore I see no
>relevance of this to the paragraphs of mine that you quoted. Did you mean
>it to have some connection? Or was it just catharsis?
>Your reference to 'Only one who embraces one of the various expressions of
>the man-centered religion would think that puny men can thwart God's will
>unless the arrogant elites step in to "save the planet"' show that my
>criticism is on target. Unless you just don't know how to express
>yourself very well, the clear implication of your statement is that
>humanity can't "thwart God's will" by destroying the planet - i.e., that
>God will make sure that the planet is saved & doesn't need any help from
>"arrogant elites."
#3#3# My God is the God of providence and he says he knows the end from
the beginning. Whatever happens - good or evil - is within his permissive
will. His plan is in motion and in spite of what the arrogant religious
left believes, he is not in the process of "learning" anything from his
creation, nor does anything that man would do, "surprise" him.

Christians are free to love God and do as they please. (Let that one
sink in) LOL
>If this isn't what you meant then you should write more clearly.
#3#3# Is that the second or third time you tried to blame me for your
lack of comprehension (I think you termed it, "thick-headnesses")

Since you used the word "should", did you mean for us to infer that you
were implying you are in charge of behavior modification for the adults on
this forum?

> (Among other things you used "inferred" where I think you meant
> "implied" - a common error.)
#3#3# I sure did. Sorry. LOL

BTW! Since you missed these, I thought I'd point out that I also pulled
another boo-boo by misspelling two words, [1] origin and [2] monitor in
my post to Pim van Meurs on 9/23/2005, to wit:

[1] "Origion of man now proved. -- *Metaphysics* must flourish. - He who
understands baboon would do more toward *Metaphysics* than Locke." ---
Darwin, *Notebook M*, August 16, 1838 ]

[2] If this forum existed in Galileo's day, and he joined "the
discussion", how long do you think the easily offended would have put up
with him here? :) I can only imagine what the behind-the-scenes whining
and sniping against him would have looked like as the namby-pamby,
self-appointed hall-moniter-types "reported" him so as to have him
"moderated" and forced to be more "reasonable". "How DARE he not
respect / esteem the opinions of the "learned" majority as being worthy
of carrying more weight than the fools on the forum", they no doubt would
have confidently intoned."

Sigh. But that's the chance one takes when one doesn't use spell-check or
take the time to carefully edit ones posts for errors before hitting
"send". :)
>(Such claims are not uncommon among today's so-called conservatives. Page
>152 of Limbaugh's The Way Things Ought to Be is a good example.)
#3#3# So, like the Haines lady, unless you say it's conservative, it ain't
conservative? - is that it? LOL

>& you should make up your own sarcasm. Just repeating back what someone
>else has said isn't very witty.
#3#3# I "should"??? And something ain't witty unless you say it's
witty? LOL
>Among other things snipped, Janice had written:
>#2#2# A socialist's idea of the meaning of the word "dominion" in
>Gen.1:28, etc., is different from a capitalist's point of view. Never the
>twain shall meet. Capitalism is the only moral form of economic
>activity. To wit:
><>In Defense of
>Capitalism (Debunking The Religious Left)
>Trying to read modern economic systems back into Genesis is as mistaken as
>trying to find general relativity there. This doesn't mean that scripture
>is of no importance for economic issues today but you can't start by
>reading your preconceptions back into the text - whether you're a
>capitalist or a socialist.
#3#3# Wrong again. You couldn't have read my link above or you wouldn't
have made such a boo-boo.

Any economic system that advocates stealing from one in order to give it to
another is morally relativistic. The religious left likes to ask
meaningless questions of people such as, "Is God is a Republican or a
Democrat?" Of course they know the only logical answer must be, "neither".

You'll NEVER see the religious left asking anyone this question: "Is God a
moral relativist?", for obvious reasons. Unlike them, they know that Jesus
is never in favor of stealing - even if it's from "the eeeeeeevil rich". LOL

  BTW, I'm curious what you think of the requirements that land lie
fallow, land that's been sold be returned to its original owner, and
forgiveness of debts at fixed intervals. Are those good ideas or was
Leviticus 25 a mistake?
>Shalom -George
#3#3# You seem to have a thing for legalisms, ie: people "should" be
"required" to conform to [fill in the blank]. Of course, America's Framers
specifically set our government up in such a way so as to prevent people
from obtaining enough power and control so as to be in a position to impose
their own personal conscience on the rest of us.

If I am a farmer and want to have fertile, productive land (so that I can
prosper and feed myself and others), I will not be stupid enough to wear
out the land by not rotating my crops or letting it rest. If I am stupid
enough not to follow the "principles" that make for good land management, I
will be allowed to find a few things out the hard way.

Now if your religious conscience "requires" you to do certain things in
order for you to please you to be happy, you are free to do them. If you
want to forgive debts and give property you've bought back to the origional
owner after a specific period of time, no one is stopping you.

No one will care if you choose to do those things unless you try to impose
your religious conscience on those whose God doesn't demand that of
them. Each one of us is FREE to pursue happiness in his own way as long as
he doesn't harm his neighbor - ("harm" only as defined by God under the
"New Covenant").

"... Blackstone speaks on the subject of pursuing happiness.

"For he (God) has so intimately connected, so inseparably inter-woven the
laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual that the
latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former
be punctually obeyed, it cannnot but induce the latter."

Rights of Conscience is the foundation of American Politics. Many
Christians in America were worried at the time when the U.S. Constitution
was passed and feared that their right to let God govern their conscience
might be replaced by the authority given to Congress as the U.S.
Constitution was ratified. Thomas Jefferson was aware of their concerns and
wrote the following:

"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which
protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public

(Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church at New
London, Connecticut, Feb. 4, 1809).

In America, one man's liberty is not dependent upon another man's conscience!

by Stephen L. Corrigan -

~ Janice (who didn't use spell-check or edit for errors this time, either) LOL
Received on Mon Oct 3 14:55:31 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 03 2005 - 14:55:31 EDT