laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/07/85)
I think we have a difference of opinion here. Some of the readers & posters to net.religion.christian think that net.religion.christian should be a nice warm place where Christians can talk about Christianity and maybe argue a bit among themselves and not have to defend anything they say from flammage/arguments from Rich Rosen and any other non-Christian. The problem is that when net.religion.christian was created, a lot of the folks that *wanted* it particularily wanted it so that both sides of the Christian arguments would go somewhere else so that whatever was left in net.religion would be a) lower in volume and b) emphasize something other than Christianity. We can read the Christian arguments when we have time... (in other words, Rich, you've gotta move too...) Do we need net.religion.christian.only? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) (02/09/85)
> I think we have a difference of opinion here. Some of the readers & > posters to net.religion.christian think that net.religion.christian > should be a nice warm place where Christians can talk about Christianity > and maybe argue a bit among themselves and not have to defend anything > they say from flammage/arguments from Rich Rosen and any other non-Christian. > The problem is that when net.religion.christian was created, a lot of the > folks that *wanted* it particularily wanted it so that both sides of the > Christian arguments would go somewhere else so that whatever was left in > net.religion would be a) lower in volume and b) emphasize something > other than Christianity. We can read the Christian arguments when we have > time... (in other words, Rich, you've gotta move too...) [LAURA CREIGHTON] The vast majority of my articles do not pertain specifically to Christianity but to any and all religious movements that base their tenets on non-tenable "evidence" and yet still expect some form of moral sway over the population at large. The ones who answer and respond to these articles, oddly enough, are almost always Christians. Thus, many followups ask questions of the responders regarding Christian thought. It is worth noting that many of those who specifically saw the newsgroup as a form of refuge from my questions and my viewpoints were not loath to mention my name, attack my viewpoints, and even ask me questions, assuming that I wouldn't be able to answer. -- "Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/11/85)
I created net.religion.christian and at that time I emphasized
it is not net.flame.christian. The official description says
it is for "discussion" of Christianity (distinguished from "debate").
So, if all this makes any difference, I don't think net.religion.christian
was intended for pro-/anti-Christian debates but for Christians to discuss
their religious diversity among themselves.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gamrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/14/85)
> I created net.religion.christian and at that time I emphasized > it is not net.flame.christian. The official description says > it is for "discussion" of Christianity (distinguished from "debate"). > > So, if all this makes any difference, I don't think net.religion.christian > was intended for pro-/anti-Christian debates but for Christians to discuss > their religious diversity among themselves. [GORDON MOFFETT] Others would disagree (see Laura Creighton's article for one). It would seem that teleological arguments regarding the purpose/intention of net.religion.christian are seemingly contradictory and invalid. :-) -- "Right now it's only a notion, but I'm hoping to turn it into an idea, and if I get enough money I can make it into a concept." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/14/85)
>> I created net.religion.christian and at that time I emphasized >> it is not net.flame.christian. The official description says >> it is for "discussion" of Christianity (distinguished from "debate"). >> >> So, if all this makes any difference, I don't think net.religion.christian >> was intended for pro-/anti-Christian debates but for Christians to discuss >> their religious diversity among themselves. [GORDON MOFFETT] > >Others would disagree (see Laura Creighton's article for one). It would >seem that teleological arguments regarding the purpose/intention of >net.religion.christian are seemingly contradictory and invalid. :-) >[Rich Rosen] See Laura Creighton's more recent article, Rich. She suggested moving you. How about net.religion.rosen? So who are the ones who disagree with Gordon's idea of what net.religion.christian if for? Not Christians, it seems. Who's going to dictate? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd ... or is it Paul DuBois? No, my birth certificate says... right here... "P-a-u-l D-u-b-u-c". I'm no longer confused... I think.