Re: The greatest challenge facing mankind

From: janice matchett <>
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 13:56:35 EDT

At 01:10 PM 10/5/2005, George L. wrote:

>If you were interested in showing due respect you wouldn't put words in my
>mouth. What I meant in fact was that I have a life to live & work to do
>and thus at some point have to stop spending time talking with someone who
>is either unable or unwilling to understand what I'm saying. N.B. I don't
>say "unable or unwilling to agree with me" but "unable or unwilling to
>understand what I'm saying."
>You may have the last word, which I'm sure will be very
>gracious. ~ George L. Murphy

#5#5# The post you responded to didn't go through because of its
length. I have deleted some of the previously posted comments in order to
shorten its length. You may have the last word. ~ Janice

At 12:06 PM 10/5/2005, janice matchett wrote:
>At 08:32 PM 10/4/2005, George Murphy wrote:
>>This may be my last contribution to this exchange because (1) it's
>>tending to get away from topics appropriate for the asa list & (2) it
>>doesn't seem that much real communication is taking place. We'll
>>see. Comments below in red. - Shalom George
>#4#4# With all due respect, here is my translation of that communication:
>"This started out to be an appropriate topic for the asa list, but I "may"
>have to pick up my marbles and go home unless I can force "real
>communication" to take place, as evidenced by how successful I am in
>steering "this exchange" to a conclusion I can live with. [Correction:
>"..with which I can live."] After all, "It ain't communication unless I
>say it's communication."
>----- Original Message ----- From: <>janice
>>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. :)
>>I probably don't fit without remainder in either of your good guy/bad box
>>boxes. Most people don't.
>#4#4# I hope you're not as "nuanced" as John Kerry - the remainder he
>has sticking out depends upon whose box he tries to fit into at any given time.
>> >>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"?
>>If your posts were loaded with pejorative jargon only marginally germane
>>to the subject at hand, yes.
>#4#4# Come now. You know that you wouldn't think I was using disparaging
>language if I voiced the same beliefs you hold. And since it would be the
>subject at hand, it would automatically be germane.
>>You have consistently missed the point I made: God has given us no
>>guarantee that we will have all the resources we want or that we will be
>>protected from the results of our irresponsible behavior. Nothing of
>>what you say addresses that.
>#4#4# The fact that you say I didn't address that just proves that you
>either ignored what I wrote, or didn't "get it" (which of course would be
>my fault).
>You inexplicably continue to assign beliefs to me that I, in no way, hold.
>In this case, to wit: [1] God has given us the "guarantee" you mention,
>and [2] God keeps us from suffering the consequences of our own actions.
> In what I have previously written, I stated and implied the exact
> opposite of what you infer.
>> Let me put it simply: Do you think God is obliged to give us what we
>> want regardless of what we do?
>#4#4# The works men do or don't do will not "oblige" God to
>anything. That is Arminian/semi-Pelagian thinking. God "makes his sun to
>rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the
>the unjust" (Common grace)
>>Words have meanings, and conservatives especially should pay attention to
>>what words have meant in the past. Just one example that sticks to our
>>original topic: It's rasonable to expect that a conservatives would be
>>for conservation - a point that James Buckley, US Senator from New York
>>(on the Conservative Party ticket) & a conservationist, made in an
>>article in National Review in the early 70s. Many people calling
>>themselves conservatives today - including Limbaugh - aren't.
>#4#4# How far in the past did you decide we "should" go? Tribal or
>primitive conservatism is the oldest and truest kind, the original first
>conservatives. These conservatives hunt, fish, herd, and grow their own
>food, built their own houses/huts/tents, and make their own clothing. All
>other types of conservatives appear liberal by comparison. Would you be
>offended if they said, "Many people calling themselves conservatives today
>- including George - aren't"?
>>> >>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.
>>The laziest form of argument is "If you'd read X you'd see that I'm
>>right." I'm under no obligation to read your link.
>#4#4# I didn't imply that you would agree with me if you had actually
>read the link - just that you wouldn't have responded with a non sequitur.
> If you can't formulate the argument yourself then be still.
>#4#4# Yet you weren't still - you felt obligated to respond to an
>argument you didn't feel obligated to read. LOL
>>Any economic system that advocates stealing from one in order to give it
>>to another is morally relativistic. ...
>>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
>>The issue is neither moral relativism nor stealing. Neither capitalism
>>nor socialism in anything like their modern forms had been invented 3000
>>years ago. That doesn't mean that the Bible says nothing about economic
>>morality but what it says isn't put in those terms.
>#4#4# BSR: "Only capitalism operates on the basis of respect for free,
>independent, responsible persons. All other systems in varying degrees
>treat men as less than this. Socialist systems above all treat men as
>pawns to be moved about by the authorities, or as children to be given
>what the rulers decide is good for them, or as serfs or slaves. The rulers
>begin by boasting about their compassion, which in any case is fraudulent,
>but after a time they drop this pretense which they find unnecessary for
>the maintenance of power. In all things they act on the presumption that
>they know best. Therefore they and their systems are morally stunted. Only
>the free system, the much assailed capitalism, is morally mature." ~ Dr.
>Ronald H. Nash
>> >> 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# .... 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").
>>Again you have missed the point. Nothing I have said suggests that torah
>>regulations must be made the law of the land. But if your earlier claims
>>about believing in the inerrancy of scripture are correct then you
>>believe that the laws of Leviticus 25 were required of the people of Israel. ..
>#4#4# "...required only of the people of Old Covenant Israel." And what
>was "required of them" at that time was not "required" of "strangers" in
>the land. One example: "..from the nations that are about you, from them
>you may buy male and female slaves .. and they shall become your
>property. You may take them as an inheritance for your children after
>you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent
>slaves. But regarding your brethern, the children of Israel, you shall
>not rull over one another with vigor." But if one of the children of
>Israel becomes poor and sells himself to be a slave of a rich "common /
>unclean" stranger, he may be redeemed after a certain number of years. If
>neither he nor his family can afford to redeem him, then he will be
>released in "the Year of Jubilee" because "the House of Israel" had agreed
>to the terms of the Old Covenant thereby indenturing themselves to God as
>his permanent slaves. [ Lev 25:39-55 ]
>This means, among other things, that property rights were not to be
>considered absolute by Israel. This in itself blows up the claim that the
>Bible endorses any economic system that absolutizes private property.
>#4#4# " Israel" are the operative words. That in itself "blows up
>the claim" that the Bible endorses any form of socialism - unless it's the
>sort of small-scale, limited socialism that takes place within ones family
>circle or within the church organization one chooses to help support.
>>Another example is the requirement that part of one's harvest be left for
>>the poor (Dt.24:19-22). This practice of allowing the poor to take the
>>last of the wheat, olives or grapes of a well-to-do farmer sounds kind of
>>like "stealing from one in order to give it to another." Is God
>>therefore a moral relativist? Or is it possible that there is indeed an
>>absolute morality and that the morality of Janice Matchett is out of
>>synch with it?
>#4#4# See above.
>The bottom line "morality" under the Old Covenant for "the House of
>Israel" is this:
>Lev. 25:17: "You shall not therefore oppress one another; but you shalt
>reverence God: for I am the LORD your God."
>Under the New Covenant, we have "the Law of Christ" summed up in two
>If you love God above all others, you will love all others - even your
>enemies - as much (and no more than) you love yourself. God defines love
>as "doing no harm to your neighbor". No rational person would ever
>deliberately do harm to himself - he loves himself too much.
>"If a man say, I love God, and hates (harms) his brother (by lying to him,
>stealing from him, defrauding him in any way, murdering him, etc.) he is a
>liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love
>God whom he hath not seen"
><>1 John 4:20
>Mark 12:28-31 The two greatest commandments of all: "Then one of the
>scribes ... asked Him, "Which is the first commandment of all?" Jesus
>answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the
>Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with
>all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your
>strength.' This is the first commandment. And the second is like it: 'You
>shall love your neighbor as much as you love yourself'(and no more). There
>is no other commandment greater than these."
><>Matt. 25:35-36
>>Again, let me emphasize that I am NOT saying that these regulations of
>>torah must be made the law of the land: Christians are free in that
>>regard. But if we take scripture seriously I think the principles behind
>>those rules are clear and should (yes, should) be taken seriously - at
>>least by Christians.
>#4#4# I can only reiterate what I posted in response to what you wrote here:
>At 11:07 AM 9/23/2005, George Murphy wrote: "There's a fair amount of
>truth in what Crichton say: I think that all responsible
>environmentalists recognize that there are extremes to the movement."
>I responded: "Responsible stewardship of our environment has always been
>a priority for those whose conscience is constrained to put into practice
>the admonishments in what they consider to be the "Word of God" which they
>look to as their "only" standard. No other "laws" are necessary for such
>people." ~
>If the land is filled with regenerate Christians (the invisible
>church), the land will be full of those who will (depending upon each
>individual's degree of spiritual maturity) make every effort to reach the
>ideal of loving others as much as they love themselves.
>If the land is filled with those who don't voluntarily follow God's law of
>love (do no harm), in order to ensure an orderly society, oppressive
>governments of men with iron fists will follow.
>"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human
>passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was written
>for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the
>government of any other." ~ John Adams
>"History is eloquent in declaring that on a people's religion ever depends
>their freedom or their bondage."
>>"... Blackstone speaks on the subject of pursuing happiness. .....[snip]
>>by Stephen L. Corrigan -
>>I have a great deal of respect for the US Constitution but that's not the
>>basis of my theology.
>#4#4# Nor mine. The Constitution is in place for one reason - to guard
>absolute (self-evident) moral truths. It is a meaningless document otherwise.
>It will always stand in the way of moral relativists on the right and on
>the left who want to dominate others - and that includes many "professing"
>Christians who want to obtain enough power to be able to impose their
>personal religious conscience on the rest of us. They, and the clueless
>useful idiots they've indoctrinated, call it a "living document" for the
>sole purpose of finding a way to get it out of the way of their agenda.
>Ain't gonna happen.
Received on Wed Oct 5 13:58:01 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 05 2005 - 13:58:02 EDT