For if you give, you will get! Your gift will return to you in full and overflowing measure, pressed down, shaken together to make room for more, and running over. Whatever measure you use to give -- large or small -- will be used to measure what is given back to you." (TLB, Luke 6:38)

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the LORD your God. (NRSV, Leviticus 19:9-10)

He who despises his neighbor sins, but happy is he who is gracious to the poor. (NAS, Proverbs 14:21)

"Feed the hungry! Help those in trouble! Then your light will shine out from the darkness, and the darkness around you shall be as bright as day. And the Lord will guide you continually, and satisfy you with all good things, and keep you healthy too; and you will be like a well-watered garden, like an ever-flowing spring. (TLB, Isaiah 58:10-11)

But whoever has the world's goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? (NAS, 1 John 3:17)

He who gives to the poor will never want, but he who shuts his eyes will have many curses. (NAS, Proverbs 28:27)

And [Jesus] looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a certain poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on." (NAS, Luke 21:1-4)

If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. (NIV, Leviticus 25:35)

What should we do then?" the crowd asked. John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same." (NIV, Luke 3:10-11)

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (KJV, Matthew 19:21)

and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday. The LORD will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land and will strengthen your frame. You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail. (NIV, Isaiah 58:10-11)

*****

I realize not everyone on this forum shares the Christian faith, though many (if not most) religions mandate charity. While much of this forum focuses on the "nuts and bolts" of Y2K, we would be remiss not to discuss the spiritual perspective.

I think the above Biblical quotes establish the Christian position on how to respond to "poor at the door." To those who question the survival implications of such charity, I must simply respond:

quid enim proderit homini si lucretur mundum totum et detrimentum faciat animae suae

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 15, 1999

Answers

"quid enim proderit homini si lucretur mundum totum et detrimentum faciat animae suae"

What does it profit a man if he gains the world, & loses his soul? What does it profit a man to give away all of his food, & watch his family starve to death?

Come on. Turning away hungry strangers in order to feed your own hungry kids is hardly "gaining the world." I can't read God's mind but I suspect that he doesn't expect his people to behave like idiots. You, on the other hand.... ;->

-- we already (know@about.you), November 15, 1999.

OK, let's take a vote, how many think that Decker has finally "lost it"???

And if anyone can translate that crap at the end for those of us not schooled in the classic (i.e., dead) language of Latin, please do so.

eckerday isway anway eatgray exampleway ofway anway educatedway oolfay

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 15, 1999.

Please, ...interpret the Latin for me.

The Biblical Christian perspective above is correct. Thank you.

Not giving = Lack of Faith.

Often, the Christian perspective seems backwards, but it is the best way...

Matthew 6:24-34 ... and there are many more.

-- eubie (eubie@heain'theavy.com), November 15, 1999.

Wow. Decker, who does not think y2k will cause serious food shortages, is instructing doomers in how to respond to the poor at the door? Decker, who has bemoaned the lack of useful information and high noise ratio on this forum, has started a thread sure to amplify religious conflicts? Decker, who objects to extremists, starts a thread likely to bring out the vocal minority "shoot 'em all" crowd? Gotta vote with KoS on this one: either Decker really has finally lost it, or this is a Decker imposter.

Never thought I'd be saying this about Decker, but here goes: ****Please don't feed the trolls****

-- (TrollPatrol@don't.com), November 15, 1999.

Ken,

Hello. Excellent post! Standing together in times of disaster is what will help us pull through this mess. If we don't stand together, surely we will fall.

Survivalists - Don't turn into what you despise the most: self- centered, selfish people. You really wouldn't want to live in a world that you're trying to espouse, would you?

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), November 15, 1999.

Maybe he just hasn't noticed that there are aleady thousands of threads that address this? Ken, why not just read the archives?

-- (.@..com), November 15, 1999.

Pure BS, plain and simple. So who are the poor? Standing next to Bill Gates, I guess I'm considered poor. With that said, I'll keep what I have in my pantry and let the government do it's charitable work for me. After all, 50% of my earnings are taken from me without my consent and used for socialistic programs for the poor. Thanks KOS, your right on as usual. And Ken, quit with the guilt trip crap please.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), November 15, 1999.

Ken, I wonder at your true motivation in posting this. Are you inspired by God and want to instill charity in others or do you simply dislike the people on this forum and feel that they must not not be allowed to enjoy the fruit of their hard work?

Charity is a good thing, but that is so up to the individual! One may feel compassion but still follow the need to survive. As the Bible says, "I set before you life. Therefore, choose life."

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), November 15, 1999.

This is a test.

-- testing (testing123@testing123.xcom), November 15, 1999.

Ah, the old argument, "I know what God said, but what he really meant...."

First, for the record, I do not feel anyone in America will starve to death because of Y2K problems. That said, the Bible is quite clear on a believer's obligation to serve the poor. "Gain the world" can be interpreted in much broader terms. One can argue God asks the faithful to place their souls above all else... including physical life.

I think to the recent Columbine shooting where a young girl was asked by one of the killers if she believed in God. She responded, "Yes," and apparently died for her answer. Perhaps responding in the negative would have saved her life.

Does God want people to be idiots? Did he want the girl at Columbine to deny him and save her own life? I think the Biblical answer quite clear. Christianity, it seems, is not a very convenient faith.

If you wish to learn what God thinks of our opinion on what is "idiotic" and what is not, read the end of Job.

To the last comment...

I am not instructing anyone how to respond to the poor. It may come as no surprise, but I did not write the Bible. I provided the quotes as a basis for discussing a spiritual perspective on charity.

Furthermore, the way to resolve religious conflicts is through reasonable discourse. It is possible, even on this forum.

I've taken some flak for suggesting the "bug out" mentality is selfish. I respect the folks who will work the rollover (and after) fixing the inevitable problems. I appreciate their commitment from a practical standpoint. Unless they work, we will be in deep trouble. There is also a spiritual perspective... but I think that's what we're discussing.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 15, 1999.

Come on people...can't you see what he's doing???? He is running a TEST to see if he is actually "shunned" or not!!!!! Wouldn't it be funny if the only people that would talk to him would be Flint, Cherri, Maria, Truth-whatever,etc?? This is just another typical Decker post: arrogant, condescending, "I'm better than you are" classic kenny. Please folks: IGNORE THE JERK!! (If you do, maybe he will eventually go away)

-- LongTimeLurker (Lurker@lurk.com), November 15, 1999.

Faith = trusting God for everything.

If you or your children starve to death BECAUSE you followed Christ and fed those who were hungry, do you really BELIEVE God is finished taking care of you? Saving the body is not what being a Christian is about. Being anxious about saving the body is even LESS what being a Christian is about. "Choosing Life" for someone else over yourself is the greatest love you can experience. Why MISS that?

Those Biblical quotes above do establish the Christian heart response to feeding the hungry. The REAL Christians are ALREADY doing this in some way. Just like the widow who fed Elijah with the last food she had...God will take care of you and your children. To premeditate against a hungry child who is not your own is to call a judgement on your own house.

...really. Can anyone interpret the Latin?

-- eubie (eubie@heain'theavy.com), November 15, 1999.

Do flies on sh*t go away?

-- Doubting Thomas (doubtit@doubtitt.xcom), November 15, 1999.

Ken,

Unfortunately the Christian faith is a worldwide minority, although I would question the accuracy of the tome you quote from, charity does start at home. The issue I see is that every circumstance will be different. There are plenty of good, wholesome people in this world, but I fear they are being outnumbered at a rapid pace by the selfish, self-centered "me" generation (generation in this case is a misnomer... I know complete selfish assholes in their 80's).

Having faith and practicing faith is two different angles of the same problem. You may have faith in an individual or belief only to be shot down in flames at every turn. Practicing faith haas the same downfalls... Most people today cannot "turn the other cheek"; to quote your information source. In my mind you must practice the WHOLE faith, or you are merely a hypocrite.

I personally have no use for the "Christian" faith, or the examples of it I have experienced. I have my OWN faith which I preach at NO one. And since I don't push my beliefs on anyone, that is all I will say onthat subject.

Regarding charity at your doorstep if 010100 turns out to be bad, is strictly a case by case basis. No one knows exactly what they will do in an unfamiliar situation. And if TSHTF, it will be wholly unfamiliar.

Ken, a lot of people on the forum do not appreciate your posts, and immediately attack the poster without acknowledging the post. I hope I do not do that. I always look forward to your point of view.

You bought that dangerous game rifle yet??? I still say a Barrett .50 BMG is the best bet...LOL

see ya Ken...

snoozin' on the porch....

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), November 15, 1999.

Our patriotic duty on the subejct of charity is outlined in the Constitution. It is the "Pursuit of Happiness" which comes from Aristotle.

No one is obligated to feed the neighbor. You may not however in pursuing your own survival harm or steal from another. That means you may not hoard. Hoarding is the removing of items from the shelves during a time of shortage. You may not take that food from anothers table.

What you do beyond the Constitutional law by your own personal choice is your business.

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), November 15, 1999.

"quid enim proderit homini si lucretur mundum totum et detrimentum faciat animae suae"

Translation:

"What does it profit a man if he gains the world, & loses his soul?"

-- since you didn't listen (the@first.time), November 15, 1999.

Sheeesh, and I thought I was a kook!

Kook

-- Y2Kook (Y2Kook@usa.net), November 15, 1999.

Wow! Truly smart like bull, big like owl!

BTW, same ground's been covered here many times, even same quotes, e.g. On Preparation - lessons that apply to all

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.lit), November 15, 1999.

Too many times it appears we raise our voice against those views others express on this forum. We may not like what we hear, yet human intelligence requires we reason (and yes, even argue) the opinions expressed by others in a civil manner. Failure to do so only locks our minds and hearts upon pre-conceived notions of self-sufficiency.

Believing that "No man is an island unto himself", I will help, if not out of my pantry, than through community effort to restore the infostructure neccessary for survival.

Any student of religions will find these same principles apply to those of their faith. Different words, same meaning. Our lives take on new meaning as we reach out to others in need.

Go Decker! Go Flint!

-- Tommy Rogers (Been there@Just a Thought.com), November 15, 1999.

All... I know this subject has been covered before... but so has the essay on how to shoot an intruder. It seems fair to continue coverage of both perspectives.

Dog, the same conclusion about "wickedness" has been reached many times throughout human history... several chronicled in the Bible. I'd like to look at our advances (like the near universal condemnation of slavery), not just our failings.

As to your charge of hypocrisy, my reading of the Bible suggests we are all far from perfect. (In my case, rather dramatically so.) While you may not have any use for the "Christian faith," it is possible to acknowledge the revolutionary moral teachings of Christ. To consider the poor and downtrodden was a remarkable concept two thousand years ago.

Thank you for your kind words about my writing. Our disagreements have been marked with mutual respect. As to your final question, no purchase yet. I have actually fired a .50, both in the traditional form and in the custom-made bolt action rifle variety. Since the bolt-action weighed around 40 pounds, I'm not sure I'd want to carry it all day. Arguing about cartridges is like bickering baseball. Was Babe Ruth the greatest ever? (laughter)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 15, 1999.

Decker pontificating on the merits of Christian charity? Sorry for the delay, I was wiping the tears from my eyes. Isn't this the same as Clinton pontificating on the merits of monogamous marriage?

-- Not (taken@in.com), November 15, 1999.

This kind of thing is much better served at pastor chris' christian- y2k forum.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), November 15, 1999.

Got to admitt I am floored Ken.

Did or have you actually read Job?

Or how far down can you go and still look up.

Here is a link to the good book online, about 6 megs.

 The Bible (King James Version)

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 15, 1999.

This thread, and threads like it are the exact reason why nobody in their right mind considers this forum to be of any use whatsoever. Do you know how many threads along these lines have been started? Add those into the countless "what gun should I buy" threads and you pretty much have 50% of the forum's activity covered. Get the hell out of here now before some of this insanity rubs off !! And then go call your Mom.

-- - - (go@to.hell), November 15, 1999.

Hmmm.... pontificating? No, just providing some reading materials. As for you, "Zoobie," I glanced over your post on shooting. Seems fair to discuss alternatives to answering the door with guns blazing.

Brian, what can I say? Job is my favorite book of the Bible. While Ecclesiastes is pithy and trenchant, it lacks Job's literary quality.

Finally, you are free to consider this thread a waste of your time. I do find it mildly ironic that you took the time to express this particular thought. Personally, I have little use for the many "conspiracy theory" threads including those purporting that an international cabal of bankers is secretly running the world.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 15, 1999.

Ken, hypothetically, how should Noah have responded if/when confronted by a multitude of "poor (boatless) at the door" ?

-- DaveW (dwood@southwind.net), November 15, 1999.

Don't forget 1 Timothy 5:8:

If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (NIV)

-- winter wondering (winterwondring@yahoo.com), November 15, 1999.

Mr.Decker,y2k home defence is part of what board is set up to discuss not christian issues,as you well know.What this thread is discussing is more apropos to pastor chris' CHRISTIAN y2k board.Don't get snippy just because pastor Chris' board doesn't have enough members to stroke your ego.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), November 15, 1999.

Although to be fair I've posted my share of off topic posts (trepanation comes to mind)Although I'm sure pastor chris wouldn't mind the visit.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), November 15, 1999.

I'm developing a "fixed-position" so I can feed the poor creepy-crawlers who lose their way. God bless em.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), November 15, 1999.

Dave, if you can believe there's room on one boat for two of every species on the planet... you can probably imagine room for a few more homo sapiens.

Zoobie, personally, I think the link between Y2K and home defense is tenuous at best. I think it extremely unlikely Americans will be forced to defend their homes because of Y2K problems. Based on the best evidence available, the power will remain on. Any social unrest most likely will be a few opportunistic thugs trying to take advantage of the biggest party in a thousand years.

While I support the 2nd Amendment, I do question large numbers of people with no training or experience purchasing firearms and massive quantities of ammunition. To use a firearm under "field" conditions cannot be learned via the Internet. Hours on the range cannot prepare an individual for the stress, confusion and "fog" of an actual confrontation. For everyone's sake, I hope the firearms stay safely locked during the rollover....

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 15, 1999.

Would you expound on your experience with the "stress, confusion and "fog" of an actual confrontation," so that we might be better prepared?

-- Need all the help (I@can.get), November 15, 1999.

Need all the Help,

Have you ever had a firearm pointed at you? I have... It is not an experience I would EVER want to relive again. Can you say "slow motion"? Anyone who has experienced this will confirm this anomaly. COLD SWEAT. After the encounter, (mine was in my car) my entire body was either wet or moist from sweat.

Because of this experience, I will NEVER pick up a hitchiker again. The sweet little young woman hitching, was also packing... a .38 snub nose revolver. But then that is the story I would rather not relive right now.

So, ever been on the business end of a gun?? (all you ex-GI's have been there, done that, Im sure...)

hidin' under the bed...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), November 15, 1999.

I am really quite confused as I thought TB2000 was a Christian site and then when some post topics such as this they are ridiculed. I've only been lurking the last few months but find this post and others like it to be great.

I was surprised to see this from Decker but I say Amen and Amen. As a believer I too believe that we are to share with others and it will be given back to us and God will multiply it. After all didn't God provide manna from heaven to the children of Israel as they wandered through the desert?

I believe we should have our eyes on Israel during Jan. Feb. and March and see if the temple is set up and sacrifices begin and then are ended. Possibly the image will be set up and the antichrist will make himself known. (2 TH 2:4) (REV 13:1-8) The Middle East Peace Accord and its final status talks of Jerusalem are scheduled for annulment on February 15, 2000-should be an interesting date to watch and wait for.

Oh-maybe too deep for some but I thought I would toss it out there for consideration. Isn't this forum for exchanging each others thoughts and opinions without being shot down for our individual beliefs?

What does this have to do with Y2K?? Prophecy warns of a "distress upon all nations." The Middle East Peace Accord is a 7-year agreement, prophecy warns of a great tribulation beginning in a 7-year covenant with Israel and prophecy warns that the agreement will be cancelled followed by destruction. Could we be at the end of the age? Is Y2K what triggers all of the endtime events? I'm not quite sure but am watching and waiting.

I guess the question is not only, "Are you prepared for Y2K?"

"Are you prepared for the start off the Great Tribulation?"

Just like in the Days of Noah-Is your ark of faith built?

-- (I Believe (Repent@time is now.com)), November 15, 1999.

You can come to our house, Mr. Decker. You'll have to eat in a fixed-location dining room, but you're welcome.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), November 15, 1999.

Ken -

surely by now you know that the story about the girl who was shot at Columbine after she said she believed in God - is not true. Salon magazine has run several articles reconstructing what happened. The girl's mother has written a book and is promoting it (shamelessly?) It is hard not to be sympathetic to her effort to construct some kind of meaning out of her daughter's death. But in fact - it was just a senseless killing.

Of course, if the story were true, it is not clear what it means. Christians have been in love with martyrdom since the first century, even where their martyrdom looks like stupid behavior to others.

What good is it if you gain the whole world, but lose your brains?

-- kermit (colourmegreen@hotmail.com), November 15, 1999.

Ma'am, I'm sure you have a lovely fixed position dining room and will gladly accept your warm hospitality.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 15, 1999.

Hi Dave W. :-) According to Genesis 7:16, after Noah and his family were in the ark, "...the Lord shut him in." This implies to me that Noah didn't have to make a choice about letting anyone else in. God had already decided.

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), November 15, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Yes there are a lot of us out here who will try and feed the hungry. If TEOTWAWKI comes then we are all in for it. Civilizations have come and gone and we could sure join them fast enough.

Christianity is certainly not for those concerned solely with self. I have neighbors who have not thought much about Y2K and they have three children who have been like grandkids to my wife and I. We will certainly try and feed them and their parents and anyone else that happens to find us. We will not feed them steak and eggs, but just plain old soup with all kinds of what-you-can-find items in it.

However, I do not believe that I would allow looters to come and take what we have stored without strenuously objecting (fighting!!). If you will notice the Bible is full of the WRATH of GOD. He is a jealous GOD and has destroyed many nations in the past (were they all guilty of something?). We are born in Sin and without Jesus we will die in Sin. The Lord does what seems best to him not me.

However, keep up the good work. Being a Christian gets lonely sometimes, as I am sure you must know.

Oh, by the way, I am a thirty-three computer veteran and I can honestly say, I DON'T KNOW what Y2K will bring. Determine your own risks and act accordingly. Time will tell.

Wally Wallman

-- wally wallman (wally_yllaw@hotmail.com), November 15, 1999.

Ken, I was addressing your "economist side", specifically, a case of situational ethics where demand far exceeds supply. Ridiculing the premise (from the same text you used to start this thread) was one way to address the question. A legitimate, thoughtful response would have been more enlightening.

Gayla, I rememember that now! A subtle, but powerful demonstration of God's love.

-- DaveW (dwood@southwind.net), November 15, 1999.

Ken,

I do not question the accuracy of your quotes, but when the quotes are carefully selected to paint the picture you want, and this is discovered, the obvious result is that you are trying to put something over on people. You thus lose credibility, and ulterior motives then become the prime consideration.

For example, why did you not quote 1 Tim. 5:8,

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." (NAS)

I'm not commenting on the interpretation of this passage. I'm just pointing out that you apparently passed over this one because it didn't fit your "picture".

And "Winter Wondering", above, quoted this same passage. Now unless I overlooked something, you did not reply to Winter Wondering.

And others have pointed out passages you somehow or other didn't pick up -- of course, they didn't fit the mold.

Shame on you, Ken. Leave these good people alone.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 15, 1999.

Sometimes I find myself in unexpected company.

I will have to say that, even though he omits I Tim 5:8, I will have to agree with Ken on this one. Someone asked how you define poor, since we are all pretty poor compared to Bill Gates.

When you consider the necessities of life, the answer is obvious: the truly poor person lacks the necessities of life: food, clothing, water. These things, I feel I am obligated to share with those who lack them as far as I am able.

I feel that obligation as a Christian. Others may not feel the same way, and that is not offensive to me. I'm not at all sure why this thread drew so much hostility. (except for the latin at the end, which was unintelligible to all but the educated among us.) :)

regards,

gene

-- gene (ekbaker@essex1.com), November 15, 1999.

eve...

.....Good for you, Everyone else can see what's going on with this person. I like the shunning idea.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 15, 1999.

I would like to hear Mr. Decker expound on his experience with the "stress, confusion and "fog" of an actual confrontation." I have not seen Mr. Decker talk about being involved in an actual firefight. What he has written throughout his time on this forum sounds as if it came from a training manual. I would like to know if his opinions come from real-life combat, from training or from a manual.

-- Need all the help (I@can.get), November 15, 1999.

Mr. Decker, I am honored.

Eve: "For example, why did you not quote 1 Tim. 5:8,

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." (NAS) "

"...and especially for his those of his own household..." that part comes AFTER the part about providing for his own. I guess it depends on who you consider to be your "own". I consider many people to be "my own", and have tried to provide for them, and especially for those in my own household.

In church last Sunday they prayed for those who are "too paranoid and suspicious" to accept faith and for those "psychologically unable" to accept the love of God. I found that comforting. The scripture you quote is also comforting. Like there's hope for me in there somewhere.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), November 15, 1999.

Eve, I searched the Scriptures using an on-line engine (and modest amount of my own memory.) I did not include the many Biblical quotes calling for sacrifice, including sacrifice for self. There are also many more quotes supporting the general thesis of "Christian charity." I find your logic flawed and somewhat repugnant. You presuppose I saw and rejected a single quote. This is false. You also use the absence of this single verse to condemn both my argument and motive. If you wish to disagree with the thesis, present your Biblical quotes and make your case. By the way, I hardly think I Tim 5:8 contradicts the mandate to give unto the poor. Shame on you, Eve, for using such tactics.

Gene, I could learn from your graciousness.

Patrick, stop teasing me... off and read those Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theory articles.

It's been over six months and I've declined to disclose personal details about my life. I served in the military. To learn more, you'll have to stop by the house and see me in person.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 15, 1999.

Regards,

Mr. Decker
Raiding your local Y2K survivalist


-- (detrimentum@faciat.animae.suae), November 15, 1999.

Ken Decker:

I hope you don't prepare for y2k. We need less people like you.

-- Kate (Nolakate@aol.com), November 15, 1999.

Gene: Hypothetical:

You have yourself and two children. You have six months of water. Many poor people come to the door with no water. To make the water distribution even you will all have one day of water and die a horrible death within four days.

I take it that this is your ideal. Good luck explaining this to your children.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 15, 1999.

Ken,

Your reminders are painfully appropos, as though we don't have other things on our minds. Heck, I'm not as charitible as I should be now, let alone 2000. Good reason to prey. Haven't read everything you have ever written, but here you have posted the gospel and encouraged to people to try and follow it. "Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of slander against you [falsely] because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven." Mt 5:11-12 Now that I consider it wasn't there something after the multiplication of loaves about "Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal." John 6:27. Must say I have been reading a bit more from the book of Joshua of late (grin). This is really coming into a painful focus. May God help us all with charity, generosity, courage and mostly mercy. Good luck.

-- PD (PaulDMaher@att.worldnet.com), November 15, 1999.

"Feed my sheep."

So, Ken, are you ready for the hungry poor people who will be knocking on YOUR door?

-- mommacarestx (nospam@thanks.net), November 15, 1999.

Certainly, an interesting topic. Red, I didn't realize you were a Christian. It seems almost out of character. Are you, in fact, a Christian?

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 15, 1999.

Where do you stand

What is your statement

What is it you're trying to say

What's in your hand

What's in your basement

What's in the cards you don't play

Are you holding the key

Or are you intending to pick the lock of heaven's gate

It's confusing to me

The message you're sending

And I don't know if I can relate

Chorus:

What's your line

Tell me why you wear your cross of gold

State of mind

Or does it find a way into your soul

Is it a flame

Is it a passion

A symbol of love living in you

Or is it a game

Religion in fashion

Some kind of phase you're going through

We all travel the extremes

From cellar to rafter

Looking for a place in the sun

So I'm trying to see

What you're headed after

But I don't know where you're coming from.

-- Michael W. Smith / Wayne Kirpatrick (randomActs@lyrics.com), November 16, 1999.

I thought someone might get around to posting my "raiding" essay. The original post on this thread is the Christian "ideal" of charity. My earlier essay is the tactical reality of defending a fixed position. The purpose of my "raiding" essay was to help people realize the folly of a Y2K "stronghold." One should not gain false confidence from a handful of firearms and ammunition.

Kate... you are not the first person who has wished for my death. As always, your expressed desire tells folks more about you than about me.

Eve, I do not wish to "step" on Gene's lines. If I might presume Gene is a Christian, his faith provides your answer. The Bible asks all Christians to trust in God. If you do not share this faith, one cannot expect you to understand this response.

As for the structure of your question, you once again demonstrate a mean-spirited intent. "Do you only beat your wife on Sunday?" Where are Gene and his children? The Sahara? How do you "know" he cannot find water from some other source? We can all invent scenarios where Gene's decision is wise or foolish. For all we know, Gene may have saved a person who will in turn save one of his children. Or, refusing the crowd charity, might they simply take the water? I don't know... and neither do you. You asked me to leave these good people alone. And you are the one mocking their faith and baiting them with patently unfair questions. Shame, indeed.

Paul, (nice name) My original post was simply meant as a balance to the "shoot them at the doorstep" folks. You are right though, in that Christianity is a demanding faith.

"Mom," I have spent a good part of my working career in "service" of one stripe or another. Like Paul, I have fallen well short of the ideal, but I have given freely to those in need. If my neighbors need firewood, they can take from my pile. If they need food, they can share what I have. I remain unconvinced Y2K will result in food shortages, particularly in the well-fed United States. As such, I have not converted an outbuilding into an impromptu food bank.

I will live by my principles, whatever comes with Y2K. Those principles preclude me from hiding in a bunker munching on canned goods while the bulk of humanity presses forward. Call it a flaw of character.

Stan, you know full well I decline to answer personal questions on the forum. Email and ask... but I am a bit puzzled. What in my writings have you found "nonChristian?"

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 16, 1999.

Whether or not Decker is a Christian is irrelevant to this thread, since it is correct that most religions encourage charity or other forms of benevolence.

While I have tangled with him with the utmost intensity on this board, it is entirely out of bounds to suggest, even by implication, that one would wish for his death. That is outrageous and wicked.

I have said in the past and I'll say again for MYSELF, I don't view anyone on this forum as an enemy or, to put it in biblical terms, we are commanded to love our enemies ANYWAY.

As for who we feed, there are a number of biblical threads, if you will, that require sensitive discernment and adjustment, ranging from charity/mercy to justice/chastening.

As an aside, when thousands of peaceful believers were persecuted for decades in the mountains of France many centuries ago, they determined that they must take up arms for the protection of their families. If you read their writings, you would be hard-pressed to judge them as "unloving" or "murderous", let alone "unChristian."

Many should be met with food at the door (as people like Milne himself have long intended to do, if you read his comments on this forum yesterday), but not all.

On the one hand, the Bible is the easiest book in the world to live from. On the other hand, it will not let itself be manipulated by the agendas of sinful man, "good" agendas as well as "bad".

Remember Indiana Jones and the Ark? Spiritually speaking, those who look into the ark of scripture without possessing the right to approach, are indeed consumed.

That is not aimed at Decker but at all of us. Beware. The Bible is the most dangerous "magic" that was ever given to man.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), November 16, 1999.

Ken,

Is it possible you presume Gene is a Christian and I am not because he backs you up and I don't? Was there any reply from the dozens you received on this and disagreed with, where you presumed the person was a Christian, even though you disagreed? I didn't see anything in print, but this was a long thread and I could have missed something.

But in a way you answered my query to Gene perfectly! I was hoping to draw out an answer similar to what you just gave to me. If I may extrapolate and summarize, the Christian answer can only be that it depends on the situation, the conscience of the one with the stock, and that person's relationship with God and interpretation of the pertinent Biblical passages.

I don't believe that anyone should be second-guessing another's decision on how much to keep and how much to give. It's a deeply personal decision that can be excruciatingly difficult. I'm sure all the responders to this thread have already struggled with this issue (as I have), and are trying very hard to come to reasonable conclusions that they can be at peace with. It is in this context that I think selecting Biblical passages to fit a particular point of view the way you seemed to do, seemed somewhat manipulative and needlessly guilt-inducing, as if you're playing games with people. Of course I certainly could be wrong on this, overreacting, misconstruing, etc. But this is my honest initial gut reaction to your post.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 16, 1999.

Gene,

Ken indicated that my post to you was mean-spirited.

If my point came across to you as mean spirited, and I do see how it could be taken this way, I sincerely apologize; I was angry when I wrote it, more at Ken than at you; I just took it out on you. I was hoping to draw out a certain response from you.

Since Ken responded to this, I answered him and clarified my intent. Please see my prior post on this to Ken.

Again, I'm sorry, Gene. I don't think I want to know what your first impression of me must be.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 16, 1999.

How about directing people in need to nearby community food banks or garden soup kitchens and not allowing them to get as far as your door?

There is the chance that among the innocent, hungry are the hungry malevolent. I have small children. I don't want to get to the point of a confrontation if it is not necessary.

By all means, contribute to the community. Let your charity be from your heart... but not at your door.

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), November 16, 1999.

Red,

An interesting question that comes to my mind: is the concealment of one's Christian identity (if one is, indeed, Christian) in some way, a betrayal of Christ. This is not directed at you, but a question that comes to my mind. However, if you have any thoughts to share on my question, I have ears to hear and eyes to see.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

P.S. I am assuming that you hadn't gotten around to reading Lucian of Syria, Epictetus, or any of the Cynics. Even in those days, Christ was not the only one to emphasize the poor and bummed out. Of course, I do believe with full faith that Christ (unlike the philosophers) spoke authoritatively on the matter.

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 16, 1999.

Stan,

Funny you should say that you have ears to hear and eyes to see. From reading the words that you wrote last evening, one could seriously question that. I would think that your eyes are half closed and your ears are plugged with ear wax.

The actions of others does not surprise me much at all, but your actions do indeed surprise.

As others have so often said, Pot Kettle Black

If you profess yourself to be a Christian, why not conduct yourself as one?

-- (cannot-say@this.time), November 16, 1999.

Ken-- This is something I've contemplated since I heard that still, small voice in regard to stocking a pantry. For those that aren't Christians...that makes me whacko...grin. For those that are Christians...you understand my comment. I've posted in a couple of the previous threads that were mentioned I'm sure. I've stated that from the beginning it was my thought to stock extra in my pantry for the little help that might provide.

I'm praying that if there's any interruption of services or supplies, it'll be a short one of days or a couple weeks at max.

For those who care to rip my post to shreads...have at it...everyone's entitled to their opinion.

SARA NEALY-- I was disturbed and surprised when I read the re-post of the message from the Rev.from Fla. who witnessed food riots on the lawn of his church as they attempted to give out food following the hurricane in Homestead. I'm just hoping I have wisdom on how to dispense the small amt. of aid I can. We do have a food pantry at church that gives food to those who need it now.

Our conscience has to dictate our actions.

beej

-- beej (beej@ppbbs.com), November 16, 1999.

Eve, frankly, I do not know the personal religion of you or Gene. I simply disagree with your debating techniques. And I disagree with your definition as Christianity in terms of situational ethics.

Speaking of manipulative, why not simply make a point rather than attempt to trap a person with an unfair question? If you feel the spirit of the Bible is not congruent with my original post, make your argument.

Stan, you know well any personal information about me will only add to the "white noise" to discussion. And ouch, it looks like you've earned some brickbats along the way.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 16, 1999.

A few comments up 'Kate' wishes Ken dead. DEAD.

I've noticed SEVERAL times where 'doomers' wish 'pollies' dead. We're talking DEAD here.

One freak actually has a pollies@gonna.die handle.

Not once, NOT ONE TIME, have I ever seen a pollie wish a doomer dead.

This is some sad shit folks.......some really sad shit......

Just curious - anyone proud of this??

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), November 16, 1999.

Deano,

I don't quite imagine that Kate means what she writes. It seemed to me that she was expressing her frustration with Ken's excessive humility as the Count says. Still, if only an expression of frustration; it is as inappropriate as any of the other kinds of polly bansheeing that I have seen on this forum. Yes, it would be best if Kate were to apologize and simply say how Ken rubs her the wrong way. And it might be good, if Ken reflected for a moment on why a stranger would be so frustrated with him that they would express themselves in such a way. As Ken admits, this is not the first time that someone has expressed themselves in this manner.

I'd like to know who the others are that have been so frustrated by Ken that they felt compelled to give voice to such passionate words.

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 16, 1999.

Ken,

Yes, I was somewhat manipulative with Gene, but it was to get him to think about this in a way I had guessed he'd probably not yet seen. But this should be seen as distinct from those who enjoy manipulation as an end in itself, or for devious purposes (not necessarily you, Ken; I don't know you that well yet).

Ken, I just hope I'm wrong about you here; that my impressions are mistaken. Thanks for hearing me out, in any case.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 16, 1999.

cannotsay,

(I write this as kindly as I can) I'm not sure how I rubbed you the wrong way, but you seem to be mistaken. Exactly how you are mistaken, I'm not sure. But I feel strongly that nothing I wrote above deserved the insults that you heap upon me.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 16, 1999.

Is it just me or does Decker model his computer personna exactly after the aging astronaut Maurice on the old classic "Northern Exposure"?

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), November 16, 1999.

Stan,

It appears that you have a short memory. Last night, you were doing some mighty tall dirt slinging along with numerous others. Now, I must ask you, is that "Christian" behavior?

-- (cannot-say@this.time), November 16, 1999.

Stan,

That chat forum is gonna be trouble... mark my words...

snoozin'...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), November 16, 1999.

Dog

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

ROTFLMAO

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 16, 1999.

cannot say, Since Decker doesn't frequent the chat room, he probably doesn't know how infatuated you are with him. I respectfully request you use some discretion in what you post of anyone's comments from other places, or you may find a few of your own come back to bite you in the behind. Seriously.

-- (rude@very.rude), November 16, 1999.

cannot say,

I believe we may be entering into an intense discussion that may be more appropriately debated in a court of law. I think we better connect in private email.

In my own defense, I will emphasize that in this chat room you speak of... I have neither knowingly advocated nor knowingly encouraged any action that offends God. In fact, I recommend that we must all ever struggle to good and avoid evil.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 16, 1999.

You just never know what will push someone's 'button'. This whole discussion just pushed me over the edge. I'm taking food TO my neighbors. I'm not waiting for them to starve out. I'm not waiting for them to ask. I'm not shooting them off the doorstep. Hell, I'm going to die sometime in the next 150 years or so, given current medical methods for life extension. My kids will die sometime within the next 200 years. I can't prepare them for every single bad thing that might happen. I can show them how to take care of others.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), November 17, 1999.

I wonder how it is that those who feel that having excessive "preps" borders on hording, can at the same time remind those who "have" to share with those who do not "have"?

And I wonder too how those who do not "have" can expect charity if everone else is in exactly the same boat as those who are in need?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 17, 1999.

Helen:

I'm just curious; very roughly, how much are you going to give your neighbors, compared with what you have?

I believe it is good to be kind and charitable, but not to the point that you are doing serious damage to your family/loved ones. Of course, ultimately this is an individual judgment, as I pointed out in a prior post.

I guess I just can't understand why some people would take it to the point where they would sacrifice their loved ones to strangers, some of whom are bad people. Even from a Christian perspective.

No offense intended, Helen. I'm here to learn, as well as to teach. Perhaps you can teach me something here.

Thanks,

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 17, 1999.

Stan,

Well, well, well... it seems you've been badmouthing me in some Y2K chat room. And like your pal, Russ, you seem pretty justified in your behavior. I'd talk further, Stan, but it looks like you have a beam in your eye that needs attention. Oh, that is before you go trolling for everyone who dislikes me.... It's been a disappointment, Stan, but not a surprise.

Deano,

Remember, this is the Church of Preparation for SOME folks. That makes me a heretic. Well, you can fill in the blanks.

Eve,

So when you manipulate it's good... but when you think I'm doing it, it's bad. And this is because you can see into my soul and plumb my motivations. Oh, and your motivations are obviously good. It seems you and Stan are made for each other.

Dog, man, the more I talk you, the more I smile.

Cannot Say,

The first cold beer is on me. Thanks for standing up to the backstabbers. And don't like someone like Stan threaten you with an insinuation. I'll help pay your legal fees if Stan wants to sue you.

Ms. Staten, you have earned my respect, ma'am. Any time you want to break bread, I'd be deeply honored.

Uncle,

I'm sure you're not referring to me. I've never used the word "hoarding" on this forum. I do suggest the Widow's Mite as a good story for you.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 17, 1999.

Stan

Whether Kate meant it or not, she said it. It's not the first time (by a long shot) that a member of the doomer crowd has wished DEATH on a member of the pollie crowd.

If you're looking for a difference in the doomer and pollie camps, I think you found it. Not one pollie, NOT ONE, has ever wished death on a doomer (at least I haven't seen it) - although some might want to take a couple out back and teach them some manners, it wouldn't result in death.

To me, that says a whole lot about the kind of people we are.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), November 17, 1999.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to research whether or not you have used the word "hording", so I will take you on your word that you have not. However, in general, your body of "work" here has been, in general, critical of those who you see as indulging in extreme or excessive preparations.

You do make a valid point about a forum highly populated by "Christians" who lose sight of the lessons Jesus provided them on how to treat their fellows. I poke at the hypocritical Christians here myself, pot meet kettle.

Also, on the subject of backstabbing: While I am not sure of the basis for the dispute between cannot say and Stan, I shall "out" myself and admit to having pondered your motives for posting here while in the chat room. I think you derive enjoyment from the responses that you know you will get from your detractors. I think you enjoy stirring the pot from time to time. Again, as I look in the mirror, pot meet kettle

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 17, 1999.

Ken,

Obviously you didn't understand my post. Just reread it and think about it some more.

And take it easy. I tried over and over to let you know in different ways that these are basically superficial impressions I'm getting from reading your posts on this. I'm not in any way trying to definitively state that this is what you are trying to do.

So if someone has an honest negative impression of something you're saying or doing you don't want to hear about it?

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 17, 1999.

Eve: This thread is rapidly making its way off the bottom of the list, so you may not see my answer.

I don't have much of a plan. I know most of my neighbors. I'm going to visit them over the Thanksgiving (food food food) holiday and ask them if they know much about the y2k bug. They must have heard something about it by now. We lose power out here all the time, so all of them have alternate light and heat and water sources. We're rural, so most of them will have extra food for the times we can't get out in the winter.

I'm going to tell them that if they find they need ANYTHING, they can come to me. I'll tell them I'd like permission to check on them after the rollover if it looks like we're having power/phone problems.

If checking on them becomes necessary, I won't go empty-handed. There's this custom the old people here have of always taking a little food of some kind to the house you're visiting. You just hand it to them as you say hello and don't refer to it. (You don't hand them fish directly unless you've cleaned and bagged it first. If it's meat or produce, you have it in a sack or box.) Most of the old people here survived extremely harsh times and remember that not all households have food to feed you in hospitality. Even now.

I plan to have a good time doing it. If someone shoots me, may s/he be a marksman taking a head shot. I'll never know and die having a good time. Can you beat that?

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), November 17, 1999.

Eve,

You said, "I was somewhat manipulative with Gene, but it was to get him to think about this in a way I had guessed he'd probably not yet seen."

And people call me arrogant. First, you attempt to justify manipulative behavior and an unfair question. Second, you assume Gene has not thought about the issue. Then, you suggest I did not "understand" your post.

I read your response, Eve, and I think your question was patently unfair. Your attitude towards Gene is patronizing. For all you know, Gene holds an endowed chair of theology at a major university. You've displayed the same unbridled arrogance towards my knowledge of economics. Ease back on the attitude, Eve, and we might find a middle ground somewhere.

Deano... remember, you are arguing with some "true believers." They feel utterly justified in their words and actions.

Deedah, I have been critical of extremism and of the "bunker mentality." I think self sufficiency is a dangerous myth. We all depend on others. I think "extreme" preps have limited utility, although I defended the right to spend money as one sees fit. I have attacked distortions of Y2K information including the propaganda of Y2Knewswire and the faulty "domino" logic of the economy. My body of "work" has not made me particularly popular on this forum.

My point on the Christian virtue of charity was not meant to offend, but to simply balance the "shoot them at the door" posts with an alternative philosophy. Given the rather nasty personal attacks, it's hard to see this forum as highly populated by Christians, though I am humbled by the grace of Ms. Staten.

As for the backstabbing, I appreciate that you are man enough to admit to the "speculation." If you want to know my motivations, Unc, just ask me. The email is real if you want to talk without the Greek chorus of "Decker is evil and must be destroyed."

After the many battles, I feel somewhat committed to the forum. To leave now would seem to grant victory to the forum bullies. I plan to stay until far enough into the rollover where we know the end result of Y2K. Until then, I will try to encourage the "thinking" process. For me, Y2K is not an article of faith, it is a question still under debate. It makes me a heretic in the Church of TB 2000, but doesn't every religion needs its outcasts? (laughter) Be well, Unc, and I appreciate your candor.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 17, 1999.

Deano, the kind of people we are. Well said.

Y2K is the division of one opinion of many which each of us encounters daily. Right, wrong; pro life, pro choice; christian, non christian, etc. Let us not confuse, nor forget, that we are but a cross section of the bigger world. Whether we are polly or doomer, next year at this time may or may not be significant, but we will still be the same person we where before we ever heard of y2k, yes?

I mean no disrespect for the person who said this, nor for you pointing it out. But you must acknowledge one can not lump pollies or doomers under such broad classifications.

The basis for the statement "going to be dead next year", in general, can be associated with the fact if one believes y2k, as an event, is to be truely disasterous, deaths would be a given. True? Similarly, as if we where talking about an earthquake, one would associate a proportionate amount of deaths.

-------------------------------------------------------

Decker, I have never, unless accidentally, posted to a thread related to you. My opinion would not be flattering, nor posting it here productive. We shall leave it at that, and I make this exception.

You would be the first to admit, I think, that you have made yourself a "topic", for lack of a better word, on this forum. You have done this by your own choice. Each post we make here is by choice.

Your posts are of the nature that you invite debate. You touch nerves, this you would, I think, also admit. Your intentions for doing so, you have explained. Perhaps what you intend to do, here on this forum, is not actually very close to what you are doing on this forum. I will leave that comment to your own personal thoughts, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you do not intend to harm people.

You seem to enjoy stirring the pot while it is boiling, then you marvel that it still runs over.

The chat room, referred to is Bokonon's Room, the password is newt. As a person who frequents this room in the evening, I think I can honestly say you would be welecome, as would Dean or any person be. But be prepared, y2k is occasionally the topic, though never far from any one's mind when other topics come up. Now, since you have put your self in such a position to participate on this forum regularly, and, for what ever reason, stir the pot; why would you be so surprised as to be a topic in a chat room of people who frequent this forum?

The underlying theme, if there was one, of the chat room, is enjoyment and lots of humor; lots of sharing, concern and, get this, caring.

This, I think is because y2k is what brought us together, here in this place and time, this moment. If we did not think y2k was going to impact our lives in a most significant way, we wouldn't be here. We would not be a part of this forum. Why are you here, Decker? To learn, to teach, to comfort? Look at the outcome of this thread?

If I may borrow from Deano and ask, "are you proud or satisfied with the outcome of your words? Was your goal to cause discomfort among people? Have you met your objective? Was it to trivialize another 'doomer misconception'? "

You are not better than I, you are no worse than I, we are just different. I don't care much for you on this forum; this has little to do with whether I like you or anyone else in person.

P.S. I was present at the "conversation" in question, you misunderstand if you think that it was not anything Stan would have, indeed probably has said, to your face, considering you two seem to have talked otherwise. He breeched no confidence or anything you might want to imagine like that, you know him better than that don't you?

I commented also, if you wish to know what I said, or why, I will freely tell you my words, I do have a very strong opinion about your words. Most of us do, one way or the other, and you know it. Does that really surprise you? I think not.

I have heard worse said about you on this forum, in chat, whatever (laughter). Ok, that was sarcastic, but I make my point.

----------------------------------------------------------

Ok, now, more on topic to this thread, I must get back to my daily routine of preping and real life. I have 40# of rice that comes out of my freezer today. Is it for my family? No. It is approx. $9.00 I have invested for my neighbors. Did I "cheerfully" spend my husband's hard earned $9.00 on my neighbors? No. Nuf said.

-- Lilly (homesteader145@yahoo.com), November 17, 1999.

And that is exactly my point, Red. I would be surprised if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu because... in the past, you have written with such contempt for religion and faith. It almost *seems* you sneer every time you mention "religion" and "faith". I have seen this come up in your writing, again and again. And, yes, it rubs me the wrong way. So don't be surprised if I push back. What do I mean?

You write:

"For me, Y2K is not an article of faith, it is a question still under debate. It makes me a heretic in the Church of TB 2000, but doesn't every religion needs its outcasts?"

We know how you feel about Y2K. Therefore, your description of Y2K in religious terms can only mean that you only have contempt for the things that those words describe (beyond Y2K). Therefore, I can only assume that you imagine people who hold articles of faith to be inferior and stupid. And churches are also bad? Well, I don't agree at all. Nor do I agree with your misuse of pseudo-sociological terms.

So while this topic is an interesting topic and, hopefully, further consideration of this topic will be undertaken, what stands out to me and to others is that your *apparent* contempt for any religious belief makes problematic your sortie into Christian ethics. And that doesn't mean we aren't already having a conversation about these very things. There are several threads here and on the Humpty Dumpty forum.

Myself, I am one for helping others at some certain risk to myself. Some think me foolish or naive for wanting to be of assistance should my assistance be required. And I can live with that. There is, however, a theoretical point in which the risk to me and mine and my capacity to be of assistance might be such that any assistance I might offer would be supererogation. And, you totally ignore this question.

You ignore it because you do not perceive the risks to be such. Yet, you do not qualify your insistence on charity. In other words, you are willing to define charity in such a way that supererogation becomes meaningless. Whether or not you blur these distinctions intentionally is unclear. But as much as you dislike fuzzy thinking, you make some fuzzy arguments. Myself, I am somewhat qualified to speak on ethics.

(grin)

I'm not that interested in whether or not you are a Christian. Myself, I wouldn't go around speaking on Islam or Buddhism as if I were a Muslim or Buddhist. I would approach such conversations with respect for beliefs held to be sacred-- even if I studied under professors trained in Islamic theology at Al-Ahzar in Egypt or was a high priest of an esoteric Buddhist order in another lifetime. (laughing)

Unfortunately, what you may have done now is clouded some people's minds on these questions. And caused some hearts to be hardened to the Truth that shines down from the Cross. And, however, unfortunate it is that some people will respond to *you* in such a way, you might consider your actions and the impact of your actions with greater care.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 17, 1999.

Lilly,

As you might have noticed, I divide the "camps" into optimists and pessimists. Terms far less arrogant than "GI" and "DGI." I have met many thoughtful pessimists... and defended them on the Debunker forum. While you may disagree, I have a nuanced view of Y2K and the people on this forum.

Your comment on death is misplaced. Deano correctly observes that SOME folks on this forum look gleefully towards the death of "Pollies." This is much different than predicting casualty rates of a natural disaster.

I have become something of a forum regular. I am certainly responsible for what I have written. While I think my words have been honest, there are times when my "tone" has interfered with the message. In retrospect, however, I think my willingness to address the "hard" issues would have isolated me.

I do want honest debate on this forum... without the rancor of personal attacks. I think issues like Ed Yourdon's potential conflict of interest ought to be discussed. Let this be a marketplace of ideas....

As for the "chat room," I strongly disagree with idea of my being "welcome." Frankly, I have no problem with people discussing my threads or responses. I would be flattered to have them discuss my ideas. What I dislike is the apparent second-guessing of my motives, my values, my worth as a human being, etc.

I think this thread has been valuable... as have many on this forum. You can find others who have contributed far more to this forum, but I think my presence as a moderate optimist has added, not detracted, to the discussion. If I have helped someone think more clearly about Y2K, my time has been well spent.

As for Stan, he has chosen to make his remarks, not to my face, but behind my back. If he wants to make them in person, he knows I am willing to see him nose-to-nose. Like Stan, if you disagree with what I write, Lilly, feel free to make a counter-argument. Show me where my specific predictions or assessments are incorrect. I respect a good argument. You might even change my mind. But please know that I have little patience for the attacks that have nothing to do with what I have said about Y2K.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 17, 1999.

Montana boy,

You write:

"Well, well, well... it seems you've been badmouthing me in some Y2K chat room. And like your pal, Russ, you seem pretty justified in your behavior. I'd talk further, Stan, but it looks like you have a beam in your eye that needs attention. Oh, that is before you go trolling for everyone who dislikes me.... It's been a disappointment, Stan, but not a surprise."

Apparently, you need to a trip to woodshed this time. Then, you owe me an apology. Again, it seems. I am not really disappointed nor am I at all surprised.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 17, 1999.

P.S. Stop sulking, montana boy.

"What I dislike is the apparent second-guessing of my motives, my values, my worth as a human being, etc."

For the record, I never made any such comments in the chatroom that second guessed your motive, your values, or your worth as a human being. Heck, I didn't even disparage your apparent intelligence, your education, your appearance, or your country manners.

But I will say this here: who knew your were so idle as to take rumor as the gospel!

(laughing)

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 17, 1999.

Stan,

First, Stan, you have apparently made some harsh personal attacks on me in the Y2K "chat room." In the future, feel free to make those comments to my face.

Second, find one post where I have criticized religion or faith. Just one. My only post in this area has been comparing the belief of Y2K as the "end of the world" to a religion (and this forum as a "church.") This was not a critique of religion... but of taking an issue like Y2K and making it into one.

I do not sneer at faith. I simply keep faith and science in separate drawers. The existence of God is not a matter for science, but of faith. The impact of Y2K falls squarely into the realm of reason. Your twisted statement about my description of religious terms is badly flawed. Again, you fail to see the essence of my argument. Y2K has become a "belief" system. Because I question Y2K as a belief system does not mean I categorically reject ALL belief systems.

If you decide to worship a Kiwi tree, I may not agree with your personal faith... but I am a tolerant fellow. If you say the world is ending because the Kiwi tree told you so, I'm going to be skeptical. I think Y2K should be approached as a social, economic and technical problem. As such, it can be debated using the standards of scientific inquiry. When Y2K become a "faith," you can no longer debate the issue. Most of the "extreme" Y2K fears are based on a nonrational belief rather than an objective consideration of the available data. I have said from Day One, Stan, if you want TB 2000 to become a Church, I will leave. If God is telling you to prepare, I will accept that you believe you hear God and leave you alone.

You have been busy building up the straw man of my alleged contempt for religion. It's a sleazy tactic, Stan, but I guess this is how you want to engage in this discussion.

By the way, the insistence on charity is not mine. Please see the authors of the quotes for any particular disagreement you have with them.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 17, 1999.

Montana boy,

Are you calling me sleazy, now? If so, this would be the second time, I suppose. Looks like you, infact, are the one who has been slinging the mud.

How some light-hearted ribbing (much less than I give you here) would ever be considered to be a harsh personal attack eludes me. Therefore, I must now consider more seriously if I have been slandered. It seems that I will have discuss this with attorney.

Do you anything further to add?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 17, 1999.

P.S. Why do you drag Russ through the mud everytime you get mad at me? Is there safety in mud slinging at numbers?

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 17, 1999.

helen,

You're alright! Those customs of looking after the neighbors, not returning a plate empty, etc., aren't geographically or age specific - thank goodness. Your folks & kids have the right to be proud of you. There was a thread about 'what is your biggest fear' not long ago, mine response had to do with us hanging on to our 'moral compasses'.

'Buster',

Thanks for adjusting your ph level, I appreciate it.

Deano,

As a parent & a coach I'm sure you know what you get when you choose to focus primarily on the undesirable behavior - {more of it}.

To all in general & no one in particular,

For me the tone of the forum shifted for the worse when cliques of folks peeled off months and months ago, now apparently we have several flavors to choose from. This clannish behavior is no more attractive or productive than it was in high school. { And in a perfect fantasy forum I'd throw out the devisive labels of doomer, polly, optimist, pessimist, GI...- dream on, eh?}

-- flora (***@__._), November 17, 1999.

Stan,

I trust my source on your chat room comments. You've been sulking since I mentioned your preparation obsession.

Returning to my comments, I called your tactics sleazy. Please feel free to consult your attorney. It will simply cost you time and money to have him (or her) tell you to get a grip. Oh, and I see you have adopted the tactic of a veiled legal threat elsewhere. I'll contribute to the legal defense fund of anyone who bruises your tender feelings. (chuckle)

I see you have dodged my request to provide any "anti-religion" comments posted by me. Did you even bother reading my response? Do you understand my criticism of the "religion" of Y2K? Or is this just your way of poking at me?

Why not just drop this and go back to posting your magnum opus on a regular basis? Focus on the prep forum, Humpty whatever and your chat room. With 44 days left, most of my posts will be repeats. If you don't bother me, I'll not go out of my way to hassle you.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 17, 1999.

Red,

If you think that your pensive and sulky insistence that it *seems* I have abused you in the chat room serves your purposes here, by all means... carry on. Have I called you a moron? Did I say you were evil? Have I wished you to be counted among imaginary casualties? And who said that you should be destroyed? Now that sounds a little paranoid to me, Red. As mis-construed as your own arguments come, you're no Frankenstein, and no villagers hunt you with torches and pitchforks.

I don't have quite as many problems expressing myself as you. I find myself not having to make excuses for my style or tone, post after post. Myself, I don't have to resort to mud-slinging and bad mouthing-- which one wonders about your own conversations with others about me. And, I have no problem speaking my mind in person, but your invitation doesn't seem to be so sincere. You never did reply to my suggestion of my coming up to your neck of the woods and having dinner.

Your defense may be that you are so damn obtuse as not to be able to see how your comparing so-called hysterical fears about Y2K with religious belief (which is understood to be belief in the sacred a la Eliade Mircea) as opposed to irrational belief and superstition is problematic. Of course, you aren't just an amateur economist, you have ambitions to be an ethnographist, anthropologist, and theologian among other things. If obtusity is your defense, and you are man enough to admit it, I'll leave you to reflect further on your use of language.

And, yes, you got it all wrong about science and faith. My case in point: philosophy (being the science of all sciences) is intimately concerned with questions about God's existence. Nor is God the God of faith alone. God is the God of faith and reason. And if you don't see that, you probably don't see how faith and science has nurtured each other through the ages. Of course, you read history differently than I. I imagine you think science has always been at odds with faith and vice versa.

The better question which you might have pressed for answers is why do some put so much emotionally into dealing with the seemingly unlikely risks associated with the Y2K technology problem. Of course, the answer is not as hip as calling it a cult; rather the answer lies in intense personal yearnings for positive and meaningful change, for hope, for community, for relationships, and for renewal in one's life. These answers take us back to ourselves, to self-knowledge, and to the meaning of life.

Since you know that I am a Roman Catholic, are you now comparing my Church to a Kiwi tree? Don't forget to answer this question-- however convenient it may seem to you to dodge answering it. Beyond the question of whether or not you have just unkindly insulted my faith and sensibilities, I agree that Y2K should be approached as a mystery that solicits more than just the social, economic and technical answers. Why you want to limit the conversation and characterize the issues is beyond me.

The fact is that your (true?) lack of country manners is becoming more apparent. Perhaps, an apparent lack of a classical education is also showing through. What next?

Cheers! Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 17, 1999.

P.S. There you go again, inserting the other foot into your mouth. How do you speak with such a mouthful? That's right, all you have to do is keep on typing. What this about preparation obessions, preparation wardens, and forum bullies? Maybe, you got pushed around in the school yard, one too many times. But I didn't do the pushing, Red. I promise.

(laughing)

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 17, 1999.

(The Dog dons the black and white striped referee's tunic...)

Stan!!!... Ken!!!... CHILL!!!

Ken, I have to tell you that I have been in the chat room when you are brought up as a topic and Stan is very reserved and has NOT disparaged you behind your back.

Now as to you two's heated discussion on this thread, have at it. But I assure you, when I have been in the chat room, and I frequent that place on a regular basis, Stan is NOT the one doing the backstabbing. I have no reason to lie about this, and I defend your esteem as well, in the chat room.

Ken you have definitely ruffled some feathers, no offense. There are many on the forum who wish the worst for you (very un-Christian, IMHO, for what it is worth, being a non-denominational) and I think bygones need to be bygones as it were. You are placed in the same category as Poole, DoomersSuck, CPR, etc... I personally think you do not belong there, but many here do. You add to the conversation around here very well, (when I posted this there were over 95 messages on THIS thread) and you are every articulate and knowledgeable. Have you ever asked yourself why some here are so rabid when you post? I really don't know myself, I have always had decent conversation with you.

I guess some think you preach to them as opposed to talk.

Stan,

I don't know how you feel about this response to Ken, but I think he does add to the subject matter, no matter what the more rabid say.

growlin' at the regulars...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), November 17, 1999.

Stan,

First, check your dictionary... I've been neither pensive nor sulky. I'm pretty relaxed about the whole matter. I am simply pointing out you can address any criticisms to me directly... and I find some contradiction between your professed faith and your behavior.

As for expressing myself, I do just fine. I could be a little more tactful, but c'est la vie. Oh, and a bit more patience with my usual hecklers might help.

As for dinner, you and your signficant other are welcome. Ask Flint about my hospitality. Since I have many evening meetings, I just ask for a week or two notice.

If you want to debate millennialism, please carry on. I am no expert, but I'm willing to talk along. I do know that some folks stopped THINKING about Y2K rationally well over a year ago. They have decided Y2K will be the end of the world and they filter all information through this static belief system.

In the eyes of the empiricist, all faith is nonrational. You cannot build a bridge to faith through reason... or so I learned from Kierkegaard. Who defines what faith is "superstition" and "irrational belief?" How do you feel about a chemist testing the doctrine of transubstantiation? Your "sacred," Stan, may be mere mythology to another man.

Making the leap of faith means you essentially abandon the tools of science. This is not to say theologians and metaphysicians haven't been busy little bees. The ability to "prove" the existence of God, however, belies the need for faith. Thankfully, our scientific tools fall short on some tasks.

With the scientific revolution, reason (as it were) began to supplant faith as structure for our understanding of the universe. I am the first to admit "pure" science fails to answer many of the universal questions. Perhaps we will grow into a world where science and faith begin to intermingle.

Personal faith may help one reach a greater understanding of Y2K. My argument has been not against personal faith per se, but against a dogmatic approach to the Y2K issue that eliminates an objective consideration of the ongoing data. In a spiritual realm, this rigidity might be appropriate... consider the Roman Catholic Church and its stand on female priests. One might admire the Church's consistency in the face of social pressures.

On the other hand, zealotry is not always appreciated. For example, I do not consider Christianity and evolution as mutually exclusive. Some Christians simply refuse to consider the scientific record on evolution. As a matter of personal faith, I "live and let live." As a matter of educational curriculum, I think creationism must stand a more rigorous public test.

I see Y2K is somewhat the same light. If you want to discuss Y2K in a public forum, saying you "believe" in a Y2K catastrophe is simply inadequate.

I have speculated about the underlying psychological motivations of the forum pessimists. (And have the scars to show for it.) I do sense a profound sense of dissatisfaction with modern society and a hunger for more traditional values and a slower pace of life. There has been a "homestead" movement in the U.S. since after WWII. People can pursue this lifestyle without the excuse of Y2K. Unfortunately, it seems like people need to feel morally justified as well.

Frankly, Stan, I did not recall that you were Roman Catholic. Again, to a pure "rationalist," your faith in the Church is not signficantly different than following a pagan religion. If I wear the hat of a sociologist, I see Roman Catholicism as another religion (albeit one with a long and fascinating history.) Were I Catholic, I'd see the Church differently.

We both see Y2K, Stan. You are on the inside looking out... and I am on the outside looking in.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 17, 1999.

Red,

Allow me to make the next step in the right direction. I continue to imagine that you, I, and others sometimes bring needed perspectives to this intense conversation about Y2K (and all other interesting ideas that come up). So I do agree with the dog. (Good dog!) Obviously, I haven't shunned you. And, despite even the unkind exchanges that we seem to periodically get into with each other, I am at the ready to resume this ongoing conversation about Y2K and everything in general.

What makes a Christian, truly, a christian? That is a very interesting question, generally speaking. However, you might leave such judgements about me to my God to decide for Himself. Unless, you want me to make judgement calls about your character in public-- without the benefit of knowing you well as a friend, acquaintance, or colleague over many years. You can wonder whatever you like outloudly in impolite ways too. It's an error, however, to attribute actions or words to me that are not mine.

Kierkegaard does not have the last word. I strongly recommend for your millenial reading, some Karol Wojtyla. Yes, before the man became the Pope, he was not just a compassionate human being, he was a scholar and philosopher. Now Karol's philosophy is not light reading, but I think his is the last word, philosophically speaking, in this century. Interestingly, his may also be the last word, theologically speaking, in this century. It is stunning when faith and reason come together in one man.

In fact, some chemists have tested the doctrine of transubstantiation at times and have arrived at irrational results. Generally speaking, however, the chemist should stick to chemistry, the economist to economics-- so to speak. If you really want to explore the possible religious elements of millenialism, I think you need to read up on Eliade Mircea and Joachim Wach. Your thesis on Y2K as religion lacks any of the proper tools that are used in the examination of religious ideas and symbols.

If it were not for the very fat Saint Thomas and many other Catholic scholars, the scientific revolution would not likely have had the bang that it did. I suspect that our advances would have been much more slower in the coming-- only a little better than the confusions of the far east. But the Catholic scholars owe a great deal to the Muslims who made their contribution in better preserving some of Aristotle's books. That's not to say that reason and science did not have earlier beginnings.

Interestingly, the infancy of science in Europe began with arguments about how many angels would fit on the head of a pin. So it seems that this particular argument is more useful than many concede of it. The renaissance man seems quite a stunning fellow, but without his great Catholic education, he wouldn't be much different from the rude and stupid peasant that he kept as his servants. The distinction might only be made that he was richer-- had he lacked a classical education.

As for dogmas and dogmatics, there are, in fact, more appropriate nouns and adjectives than those maliciously stolen from the Roman Catholic Church and, then, mockingly used to describe things which must be inherently evil because they are dogmas or they are dogmatic. If you are going to practice or pretend tolerance, you might consider a vocabulary couched less in veiled malice. Or if you are irreverent, take a pot shot across the bow and interchange dogma and dharma at your leisure.

More later... if you like.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 17, 1999.

Unholy cow Batman!

Uncle Deedah, did you work for Reader's Digest? You have a knack for succintness.

Regarding those who brought in the verse "The man who does care for his own..." We can play with "Who is my neighbor...", but clearly this was meant as an exhortation to care for your spouse, children, parents etc. This verse was not brought in to negate the verses that Ken originally posted, but to bring in balance and context. If you ignore those two things, then you will most likely start or join a cult.

Yes, Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes. But remember, He ASKED for donations. He did not send the disciples to confiscate food. Personally, it is clear to me in light of my faith that our personal preparations should include plans to share with others. I don't believe that this must be an either/or decision, as portrayed by the two priests in "The Mission". I believe that God will give us wisdom as to how and when to share what we have.

I have to wonder how many of you have small children. It's one thing to talk about walking to the neighbor's and laughing about getting shot by a good marksmen. No offense intended, but if you follow through on possible violent scenarios, how about when the shooter/looter makes his way to your home, rapes/sodomizes your children and does who knows what with them? A quick death? You can hope that besides being a good marksmen that this person(s) is not perverted.

I perceive that this thread, whether it was Ken's motive or not, has deteriorated into personal interpretations of what it means to be a Christian during Y2K. Ken was right to quote from the source of Truth, whatever his motives. I disagree with his response to those who added a verse to bring balance and context. If you would like more Scriptural perspective on how God has led and directed His people during times of crisis and danger, write to BB at peace2u@bellatlantic.net.

Yes, God commands us to show charity and hospitality; however, he did not seize the widow's mite, but blessed the heart that gave it. We are told to be merciful, as He is merciful. I hope that all who profess to be Christians are praying and endeavoring to have the opportunity to share. But are they to ignore the responsibility of stewardship for their own family? Are you prepared to give a Scriptural defense for that position? As I stated, I do not personally believe this is an either/or choice.

Interesting to me Ken, is your critique of those who 'ignore' evidence for evolution.

"Some Christians simply refuse to consider the scientific record on evolution. "

My faith 'evolved' from applying reason and examing the evidence that God's Word is trustworthy. The biggest uproar is from 'zealots' who go ballistic when it is suggested that evolution is taught as a 'theory'. It is their religion. If their 'evidence/faith' is challenged by hard science, they simply 'mutate' to theories such as aliens seeding the earth. Forbid the notion of a Designer!

I still remember your advice that a fixed position is the most difficult to defend. That was good advice. I also agree that to be isolated is to weaken one's position. We do need each other. A strong community is the best (Ecclesiastes 4:12). For one who presents and promotes himself as being reasonable and balanced, you must realize what is at stake, particularly for those of us who have dependents. I cannot take quite the same position as you do, because I am in a different situation altogether. This is NOT situational ethics or hypocrisy. It is recognizing reality. It is why we send young men to war instead of pregnant women, children, or the sick and elderly. Some of us must approach Y2K differently, more intensely if you will, than others.

PS Acknowledging basic faith is not equivalent to the disclosure of personal details about you or your life. Interesting and telling that you would consider it to be so.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), November 17, 1999.

Mumsie pointed out

"Forbid the notion of a Designer!"

We are in complete agreement here Mumsie. Thank you. Good commentary.

The creator is reality, everything human will pass in time.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 17, 1999.

Mumsie -- I never said I'd leave my small children unguarded. I also won't be waiting until after a crisis starts to begin the process of helping my neighbors. It doesn't have much to do with formal Christianity in my case -- (Stan, I went to Catholic class tonight and had to keep my mouth firmly shut) -- it just has to do with being the same after the rollover as I am before. I wouldn't let you lie in a bloody car wreck on the highway NOW. Why should I plan to do it later? I see little difference between letting you die in a bloody car wreck and letting you die more slowly of hunger.

Sure, if I think you're a threat to me, I'll do something about it. Feeding you is an option in that case too. See? Do you get it? If this life is all I get, then I want to do it this way. If there's life on the other side, doing it this way won't hurt. Christ have mercy.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), November 17, 1999.

helen,...I admired your statement that you would not wait for your neighbors to come to your door, but would go to theirs. I agree with that. I should have stated that earlier, sorry. I hope you understood the gist of my concerns.

It has been deeply disturbing to read about the problems and violent behavior associated with various relief distributions. My point is that Christians should plan to share and help, and Christians should, in fact, share and help, but should apply wisdom and caution so that the safety of their dependents is not seriously compromised. Many people, including myself, have difficulty comprehending the potential depravity and cruelty of man to man.

Best wishes helen, and I hope your neighbors appreciate what a gem you are!

-- Mumsie (shezdremn@aol.com), November 18, 1999.

Science catches up to God again...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer? pagename=article&articleid=http://washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/world/A13897-1999Nov17.html

-- Mumsie (shezdremn@aol.com), November 18, 1999.

The Rocky Mountain, cave-dwelling Batman, is struck down once again.

Will he recover?

Will he ever locate his cave?

Will the world ever learn his TRUE identity?

Tune in next week for these answers and more........

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), November 18, 1999.

Mumsie, the remark about the head shot was made in complete seriousness. I'd rather my teeth were worked on by a licensed dentist and my murder carried out by a pro. Less pain.

You're absolutely right about approaching people with caution in a crisis. Maybe I should have made it clear that if I'm sallying forth into the unknown after a bad rollover, it'll be with a dry mouth and shaky knees. :)

You're an asset to us all now, and you will be after. You can't help it. :)

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), November 18, 1999.

Soup, anyone? (smile)

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 18, 1999.

Stan,

Again, you seem to miss my point entirely. My criticism about Y2K as a "religion" has nothing to do with theology, particularly Roman Catholic theology. If you want to analyze Y2K from a spiritual perspective, please carry on. My discussion has focused on Y2K as a technical and economic problem. In my opinion, Y2K is best discussed using the tools of reason... not faith. You may disagree.

My criticism of Y2K as a "religion" is simple. Some pessimists have arrived at the conclusion Y2K will be the end of the world... and now reject all data that does not support this conviction. These people also attack anyone who presents an alternative view, much like true believers have attacked "heretics" throughout history.

The rejection of the optimists' arguments is much like the Creationists rejection of evolution. They simply refuse to acknowlege the scientific data available. For them, it is a matter of faith, not reason.

This is why I have described TB 2000 as a church, where many participants are bound by a common faith. For the pessimists, this faith is in an apocalyptic Y2K and the gospel of preparation. Much like the Roman Catholic church has it renegades, so does this forum and I count myself proudly among them. (In truth, I find much to like in those who strongly oppose the ultra-conservative doctrines of the sitting Pope, but that for another day.)

This comparison is not to condemn religion... but to make an observation about the order of the forum. In the end, I think this "church" and yours are as well served by dissent as obediance. Again, you may disagree, but this comes from a man who finds the actions of Martin Luther heroic. (chuckle)

Now, the last time I checked the Roman Catholic Church does not have licensing rights on "dogma." Though, they may have a trademark on "indulgences." I apologize if my use of the word "dogmatic" in its common form offends you, but we are discussing Y2K... not Roman Catholic theology.

Oh, I did have a thought about how you might have thought I have a low opinion of religion. I have spoken critically of the Inquisition and the Crusades during a couple of posts. This is not meant as a condemnation of Christianity. Honestly, I think these events were the antithesis of Christian morality....

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 18, 1999.

Do be careful you don't stab yourself with your crucifix as you attempt to get your enormous ego through the door Decker.

BTW, the door's *that* way......

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), November 18, 1999.

Will Continue,

Actually, Will, I do not own a crucifix, but check with Stan. It's a popular fixture in Catholic homes. Perhaps you might consider one for your cave in Wyoming. You know, the one you plan to hide in until you realize Y2K has not been the end of the world. Why not move in early, and beat the holiday rush.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 18, 1999.

Ken,

In your post to Stan you have put yourself in the position of a Luther or a Copernicus. You put yourself in the place of a martyr on this forum. That is what Will was pointing out above and I notice others above as well.

I think this is the first time I have posted to you Mr. Decker. I respect your opinion. No one knows for definite sure how this will all turn out, including yourself.

In regards to this forum being a church, I would point out that in a church there is the extreme left, the extreme right, and then there is the mainstream. I find your argument here is with the extreme right, ie. those who see the end of the world.

The mainstream doomer position is that no one knows just how bad it will be because no one, I mean no one has all the information on how embedded systems, or other nations remediation efforts, or what Russia is up to, or what cyberterrorists will do etc. etc.

The mainstream doomer position is that the overwhelming evidence points to the need to prepare and prepare well, as INSURANCE for our loved ones.

You sir, are not a martyr, nor a messenge of truth. You are just one man with his opinion.

I love the texts you quoted. All Christians should do all they can to help others, AFTER their children are cared for. I for one will be selective in who I help, namely children, single moms, and widows. James 1:27 reads that true religion is to care for the children and widows in their afflictions.

So how will you help them if y2k turns out different than you expect?

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), November 18, 1999.

Ken mentioned

"In my opinion, Y2K is best discussed using the tools of reason... not faith."

wow Ken great idea! When are you going to start?

:o)

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 18, 1999.

Peace,

Martin Luther's shadow has more philosophical "weight" than I do. Same for Copernicus. Nor am I a martyr. Nasty things happen to real martyrs. I have yet to even lose any sleep over the attacks on the forum. As for Will, I think she was just reaffirming her patent dislike for me.

Like everyone else on the planet, I have no idea what exactly will happen next year. Like most folks, I think it will be something like this year... except I think the economy will sour.

Unlike you, I am not sure there is a mainstream "doomer" position. I do argue that in an extreme scenario, "preparations" may become irrelevant. In anything up to another Great Depression, I think the best preparations are financial... not of the food and water variety. From a Christian perspective, one must be prepared at all times... with faith.

As for me, I left my old job and took a substantial cut in pay to take a leadership position in a small community. I can assure every citizen in my area the water will flow. (We don't own the power utility, but I have everything up to a signature in blood we'll have electicity.) We have backup generators for wells and pumps, a plan for public works and law enforcement. I've written an article on Y2K for our community newsletter and have distributed the Red Cross and FEMA literature through our public facilities including libraries. I will be "on the job" at rollover and every day after.

I'm not saying this is "noble" of me... there are millions of people who will help us whip the Y2K problem. I just want to be part of the solution... and I don't see how anyone can help from the inside of a fortified bunker.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 18, 1999.

You won't be of much help if you're starving, dehydrated or have x's in your sockets either, Batman.

God helps those who help themselves. You're trolling and it's most unbecoming of a self-proclaimed 'country gent'. (vomit)

Go find Robin (Flint in tights) and yada-yada to each other. You play people like a musical instrument and then chuckle and poke fun in your condescending fashion. You are infantile and drip with insincerity. Flint is tolerable because he is simply clueless, but YOU on the other hand play games that shall sooner or later bring you agony. We can only hope.

What next from you Batman? What shall be your next entertaining tid- bit?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), November 18, 1999.

Will continue,

I don't see what you see in Decker's posts. I don't see what Stan sees either, as far as I can tell until he starts using big words to describe why he disagrees with Decker's posts. I don't understand why Decker (and Flint) bother you so much. Why do you call Decker 'Batman'? Why does it matter so much to you what either one of them writes? Their stuff isn't (until they start using big words and I lose them) all that inflamatory.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), November 18, 1999.

Will,

Since I manage the local water system I can assure you our jurisdiction will stave off thirst. We'll make do insofar as food, shelter, etc. even without digging any caves.

Perhaps you can show me the Biblical quote about God helping those who help themselves. As I read the Bible, it seems clear God is willing to help anyone who asks.

And, Will, I am sincere. I sincerely don't like you or your rude behavior. I disagree with your personal philosphy. You feel justified to act poorly towards anyone you disagree with. Not exactly a "New Testament" attitude.

As for agony, Will, don't hold your breath. Life is too good and too short....

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 18, 1999.

Will has confessed that she considers herself neither a devout "Christian" nor a "Churchanist", and Will continues (pun intended) to prove it with every post she makes.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 18, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I'm glad you have done your little part to help the whole. I started and led out in our county's y2k action group. The main(stream) thought was that since there is so much uncertainty about so many things it is wise to prepare. That is the doomer mainstream position in my opinion.

The doomer is concerned about the big picture not just one component. Things are interconnected in ways no one can comprehend. The overwhelming evidence is on the side of a person making preparations, not in a fortified bunker, but in his/her home. The alternative is too possible.

I personally do not judge a person who may feel it is necessary to build a fortified bunker. There is a possibility it may be needed as I look at the evidence.

Stay well

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), November 18, 1999.

I think in Matthew somewhere Jesus said something to the effect of "what you do not do FOR THE LEAST of my brethren I will not do for you; for whoever fails to give to the poor shall suffer eternal punishment..." Or something like that. I know that the Savior did not mince words here, like many times in "overlooked" passages of the New Testament. Somebody help me out...how does the passage go?

While there is a lot of emphasis in modern religion about Christ being part of a purely loving God--you know, the angels and cute cherubs and flowery lovey-dovey stuff--let's not forget that Jesus spoke about Hell and eternal damnation quite often. He said that he will separate the sheep from the goats in the Final Judgement, and that to the goats he will say: "When I was hungry you gave me no meat; when I was naked you gave me no clothes; when I was thirsty you gave me no drink." In the "goat" crowd there will be "wailing and gnashing of teeth." Not a pretty sight.

While goodness is blessed, let's not forget that, in Christianity, evil is squarely punished. This includes greed and lack of charity. This includes envy. This includes pride, which is the deadliest of sins and the father of all other sins.

The faith you proclaim is all in vain and a sham unless you have works to back it up. A person who is truly faithful will be out there doing as much good as is possible for him to manage. (See James, "Faith without works is dead.") Yes it is true that it's possible for a "deathbed conversion" but one can only imagine how sincere such a plea will sound to the Almighty.

I don't want to scare you but if you call yourself a Christian you had better read up on what that means. Yes you are "redeemed" at the time of death but you are called upon to perform superhuman acts of love in your life.

To all who call me a hellbound hypocrite, your point is valid and I am "working on it."

-- coprolith (coprolith@fakemail.com), November 18, 1999.

Being the doubting Thomist ;) that I am, there are days when I totally forget about my spiritual obligations so this, i think, is a very productive thread.

-- coprolith (coprolith@fakemail.com), November 18, 1999.

Red,

Glad you got water taken care of where you are. Where should we send for water?

(grin)

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), November 18, 1999.

Coprolith,

What are you doing on the 23rd? I'll be down that way and was hoping I might see you.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), November 18, 1999.

Stan,

I will be working on my committee meeting talk that day during the day. But it would be nice to meet you. What time would you be passing through? Email me at rocketship.

-c

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), November 19, 1999.