ecl@hocsj.UUCP (10/26/84)
Reference: <>, <331@klipper.UUCP> > P.S.: Let's build net.religion.christian[.only], > to build a place for christians. Why does only ".jewish" > exist? Sounds like a reasonable idea. Seriously. Then net.religion could be for general discussions of religion (why it exists, etc.) and comparative religion, and net.religion.christian could be for exclusively Christian topics. Perhaps other subgroups might be useful too. net.religion.pagan for example-- there are a lot of neo-pagans out there, which may or may not surprise some people. Needless to say, net etiquette would dictate *not* attempting to proselytize in other religions' subgroups. (And needless to say, people would do it anyway.) Comments to whoever's in charge of these things, or Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/28/84)
I've been waiting several weeks for the right opportunity to make this suggestion, but Evelyn has beaten me to the punch. I think it would also help to satisfy Steve Aldrich in his plea for tolerance. Net.religion is a general term where no religion should start with the basis that they are right and it's up to everyone else to PROVE differently. Yet, this is the attitude I see from Christians on net.religion. On the other hand, net.religion. Christian is the proper place for starting with the such an assumption and discussing whatever topics Christians find interesting in whatever manner they wish... as long, of course, as it doesn't get racist/anti-semitic, etc. I can only speak for myself, but I have no desire to express my position on net.religion.Christian unless I see something anti-semitic. If Christians want to PRESUME they are more enlightened than everyone else and that everyone else is pathetically ignorant, lost and doomed, then the place for that is in a forum among themselves rather than arrogantly presenting such an arrogant point of view on a general net hoping to 'save' these poor pathetic souls. Net.religion is where they can hear that it is they who are doomed and lost and unsaved because they believe in a counterfeit antichrist. Net.religion.jewish is a forum where readers and contributors agree that Judaism IS THE correct religion. Discussion is regarding what this means, what is the correct interpretation and/or expression of Judaism, what is the interpretations of sages on various matters, etc. I agree with Evelyn... why don't the Christians have a net.religion.Christian where they can have the same kinds of discussions free of stepping on toes of other religions (within reasonable limits of course). I will not be butting into Christian affairs (unless it gets anti-semitic) for several reasons: 1) I'm not interested in Christianity 2) I have much better things to do and to con- sider 3) I think Christianity is irrelevant. I don't think other Jews would contribute because, in addition to these reasons, they are usually less inclined to bother trying to explain to Christians who are usually closed-minded and argumentative. The point is that I don't think you would have any 'missionary activity' from our side. From the other side of the coin, I'm not at all concerned about trying to convert us. As readers are by now well aware, Judaism does just fine against Christianity. So it seems to me that a net.religion.Christianity would provide Christians with a forum where they could all reinforce one another without having to face critical points of view, it would alleviate net.religion of a group which presently attempts to domineer the forum and presume its own correctness, and would contri- bute to a more serene net.religion. Hats off to Evelyn and Steve. Please start a net.religion.christian.
rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (10/28/84)
In article <187@hocsj.UUCP> ecl@hocsj.UUCP writes: > >Reference: <>, <331@klipper.UUCP> > >> P.S.: Let's build net.religion.christian[.only], > >Needless to say, net etiquette would dictate *not* attempting to proselytize >in other religions' subgroups. (And needless to say, people would do it >anyway.) > Evelyn C. Leeper If it is needless to say, why did you say it? ( :-) ) As far as I know, net.motss and mod.motss are the only groups with a stated policy against such pro and con arguments (but only in relation to BEING gay; arguments within the topic are of gayness are ok). This is because most of those using that group want to discuss other topics free of "noise" articles and/or harassment, which is fine. Religion, on the other hand, is by its very nature a group where most of the discussion will range around who's right and who's not, because that is what people generally talk about when they "talk religion" in face-to-face communications. I can't see any way to cut out "proselytizing" articles and still have something resembling a religious discussion group, simply because it implies that only agreement is allowed in the discussion group. I read net.politics for the articles which I disagree with, not for those people who agree with me. -- "HELLO!?...Hi, Ma...no, I'm fine, Ma...look, I'm booking someone now..." Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (10/30/84)
In article <428@uwmacc.UUCP> rick@maccunix.UUCP (Rick Keir) writes: >In article <187@hocsj.UUCP> ecl@hocsj.UUCP writes: >>Reference: <>, <331@klipper.UUCP> >>> P.S.: Let's build net.religion.christian[.only], >>Needless to say, net etiquette would dictate *not* attempting to proselytize >>in other religions' subgroups. >> Evelyn C. Leeper > Religion ... is by its very nature a group where most >of the discussion will range around who's right and who's not, because >that is what people generally talk about when they "talk religion" in >face-to-face communications. >Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC I do not agree. There is a lot to be said about how to read certain versets(?), how to act in certain circonstances, about someone's experiences, about litte- rature, etc. Of course, communication means hearing things you didn't know yet, including hearing evidence you didn't know yet supporting things you didn't (yet) believe. But that's quite another thing than arguing "who's right and who's wrong". The main difference between this and e.g. net.politics is that in the latter people try to find evidence that agrees with their beliefs (yes, this is a broad generalization, I know that!), and in (good) religious discussions one is trying to find a belief that agrees with the evidence. But the real reason for subgrouping net.religion is, that it is fatuiging(sp?) to have to defend the basics of your creed which you just want to assume to be able to talk about the `details'.(net.micro.hp-users don't have to defend their choice of an hp either, every time.) Anyway, I still strongly advocate the keyword based net system I proposed in net.news.group (last week reposted). -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it. --Voltaire
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (10/30/84)
Since I (1) am a part-time reader of net.religion, (2) only part-time because
of the high article size, and (3) in a position where I can create
net.religion.christian, let me propose this:
I will take a poll from the net as to whether or not net.religion.christian
should be created. Send me mail ONLY -- I do NOT have time to read all the
flames in netnews that will be generated by this. If I receive enough pos-
itive response, I will create the group.
Note well that for people interested in discussing Christianity in a civilized
manner (ie. all agreeing that Christianity is the right religion -- no flames
about whether or not Christianity is the right religion) there is a mailing
list for that purpose. I believe it has already been announced -- you can
send me mail and I will have you put on (or send mail to umcp-cs!liz -- she
is the moderator). The existence of this list may make net.religion.christian
redundant: consider that when you reply.
Once this group is created (if it's created) you folks will have to promise
not to duplicate your articles in net.religion (I see this happening sometimes
in net.religion.jewish), because if you do this you will be defeating the
purpose for which net.religion.christian was created.
I hope to see some feedback.
--
Baby tie your hair back in a long white bow ...
Meet me in the field, behind the dynamo ...
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbodave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (10/30/84)
In article <428@uwmacc.UUCP> rick@maccunix.UUCP (Rick Keir) writes:
~| As far as I know, net.motss and mod.motss are the only groups with a
~| stated policy against such pro and con arguments (but only in relation
~| to BEING gay; arguments within the topic area of gayness are ok).
Not true. When I first proposed the creation of net.religion.jewish
(on behalf of about 15 people), that question was covered. I don't
have the exact wording handy, but it was clear that:
- discussion (including contributions by non-Jews) of
Jewish laws and customs, including the "rightness" or
"wrongness" or, say, Orthodox vs. Reform Judaism, is fine;
- proselytizing by non-Jews, or other articles which
began with the assumption that being Jewish is "wrong",
are not appropriate for net.religion.jewish.
The group has functioned quite well on that basis.
~| ... I can't see any way to cut out "proselytizing"
~| articles and still have something resembling a religious discussion group,
~| simply because it implies that only agreement is allowed in the discussion
~| group.
Not at all. There's lots of argument in net.religion.jewish. However,
the basis of the argument is "what is the correct way to observe Judaism"
rather than "what is the correct religion".
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{ allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!davemangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/31/84)
In article <1619@ucf-cs.UUCP> yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) writes: >I've been waiting several weeks for the right opportunity to make >this suggestion, but Evelyn has beaten me to the punch. I think >it would also help to satisfy Steve Aldrich in his plea for >tolerance. > >Net.religion is a general term where no religion should start >with the basis that they are right and it's up to everyone else >to PROVE differently. Yet, this is the attitude I see from >Christians on net.religion. Frankly, the sound of such words from Yiri makes me gag, seeing the manner in which he argues against Christianity. During the period in which I followed net.religion.jewish, I found that the discussion was almost without exception predicated on belief in Judaism; I can only recall a single instance where the validity of Judaism was in question. If a net.religion.christian is established, are we to expect the same? In that case, I think the effort will have been wasted; the fierce battle over the validity of christianity (which all anyone ever seems to want to talk about) will still be in net.religion. I suspect that the reason christianity is such a hot topic (in both senses) is that a) certain branches stress prosyletizing (sp?), and b) it's the only religion the atheists know much about historically. Until we have lots of Taoists or Buddhists on the net, I don't expect to see much activity that doesn't somehow involve christianity. Charley Wingate
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/31/84)
> But the real reason for subgrouping net.religion is, that it is fatuiging(sp?) > to have to defend the basics of your creed which you just want to assume to > be able to talk about the `details'. I guess some people would rather assume than "waste time" defending the basics of their creeds. After all, despite the fact that SOME may consider thinking a good exercise, wasting time delineating precisely what the roots of one's faith (or non-faith) really are might actually lead you to see things you haven't seen before, and that's not what faith is all about, is it? Better to congregate with one's own kind and not ask questions than to hear what other people have to say, including their "offensive" sacrilegious questions, right? Petty divisive isolationism only leads to 1) stagnation and reinforcement of beliefs without allowing for further analysis and (more importantly) 2) breeding grounds for intolerance that lead to terror, assassination, war, and death. No, I don't believe that people will be killed because of religious subgroups, but it reinforces the mentality of divisiveness and "master-racism" rather than encouraging discussion among ALL people. One might say "but what about the person who doesn't want to talk with other people, only those of his/her own kind?" I'd prefer to accommodate those who wish to have a community to talk to everyone rather than those who wish to isolate themselves. Having people define groups for followers to belong to has been the single most devastating destructive element in civilization. It leads to race hatred, holy wars, "nationality"/"religious movement" (both arbitrary classifications created by those who wanted power over large groups of followers) slaughtering other nationalities and religious movements. If we can't even create one community of people on a computer network, I have very dim hopes for the "real world" doing the same. -- "Come with me now to that secret place where the eyes of man have never set foot." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (10/31/84)
> Yirmiyahu BenDavid: > So it seems to me that a > net.religion.Christianity would provide Christians with a > forum where they could all reinforce one another without > having to face critical points of view, it would alleviate > net.religion of a group which presently attempts to domineer > the forum and presume its own correctness, and would contri- > bute to a more serene net.religion. Hats off to Evelyn and > Steve. Please start a net.religion.christian. I must disagree on one critical point: discussions (arguments?) about Christianity in net.religion usually start from challenges by NON- Christians, to cause the Christians to defend their faith. It has been that way at least as long as I've been on the net (early '83). Virtually all of my articles have been follow-ups (whether generated via 'f' or not). Therefore I seriously doubt that net.religion.christian would accomplish BenDavid's desire. With abortion, origins, etc., in their separate groups (motss quickly becoming CENSORED), perhaps a better solution (as I suggested to Steve Aldrich) is simply to zap net.religion (keeping net.religion.jewish) for the rest of '84. If at some point in '85 (or later), discussions elsewhere warrant, it could be re-created. But the situation there now is hardly "Religious, ethical, and moral implications of actions" -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
ag5@pucc-k (Leo Buscaglia) (11/01/84)
<<>>
This stuff about net.religion subgroups could get out of hand.
Keep in mind all those different brands of Christians... Then we
could have net.religion.christian.roman-catholic, net.religion.christian.wasp,
net.religion.christian.methodist, net.religion.christian.southern-baptist,
net.religion.christian.lutheran.m-s (missouri synod), net.religion.christian.
lutheran.alc-lca, etc.
At least us non-Christians have it simpler.. This still has
the potential to turn the net into a three-ring circus, complete with
elephant acts. And, I could then subscribe to net.religion again . .
(all my postings there are actually posted to another group which has
been sharing a discussion with net.religion...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|sequent|inuxc|uiucdcs}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
{allegra|cbosgd|hao|harpo|seismo|intelca|masscomp}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's a radio for deaf-mutes!"yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/01/84)
From what I have seen, the REASON that Christianity has been 'challenged' is because Christians make assertions based upon the presumtion of their rightness. Without that presumption, their arguments fall apart. But the proper place for starting with the presumption of rightness is on your own net, not on a general net expecting the world to accept your presumptions just because you do. When the world balks at your presumptions of rightness you have no right to claim that your are then simply fending off a challenge. Begin by presenting your position starting with logical arguments for these basics, not presuming they are so and that you can THEREFORE build upon them. Leave that to net.religion.christian. I'm getting the impression that Christians don't want a net.relgion. christian. What they want is to continue preaching to every one else and EXPECTING us to automatically accept these initial presumptions of rightness. But it won't wash.
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/01/84)
In addition to mailing my response, I feel a response is in order regarding the notion of net.religion.christian being redundant vis-a-vis a christian mailing list. A christian mailing list is, in comparison with a net forum open at least to public ears and monitoring (if not to their keyboards), a rather secretive alternative. Such a secretive alternative as a SUBSTITUTE FOR a public forum strikes me as something out of pre-WWII Germany and makes me, as a Jew, very nervous. There are many christian mailing lists, jewish mailing lists, etc. and that is to be expected.... but why is a christian mailing list suggested AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO a forum open to public monitoring? Is this to be a network where KKK and neo-nazis can spew their obscenities without fear of being 'found out'? Well, I don't think so... but, on the other hand, we see from such things as the Donahue shows that this is not an unreasonable fear. It also strikes me as contradictory that christians are fighting against having a forum of their own... that they PREFER to try their best to IMPOSE their unjustified presumptions on others and that 'discussion' is simply a ruse to give them an excuse to do it. If this were not so, they could do it far more effec- tively on their own net. Why is it that I suspected from the outset that christians would oppose their own net? Because the notion of IMPOSING their ideas on others is an integral part of their religion. As a Jew, I am aware of the consequences of this integral element of their religion. It has not gone away and is not, even now, very far from us. Evil prefers the cloak of darkness and secrecy. Uprightness prefers the light.
ecl@hocsj.UUCP (11/02/84)
Reference: <187@hocsj.UUCP> <428@uwmacc.UUCP> <342@klipper.UUCP>, <228@pyuxd.UUCP> Rich Rosen claims that net.religion.christian will lead to "petty divisive isolationism." The purpose of subgroups is to allow special interest groups to have discussions that are not of interest to everyone without cluttering up everyone's screens. Should we eliminate net.sport.all so that everyone who's interesting in *some* sport has to read about *all* sports? And let's not leave net.women out of this discussion, or net.nlang.greek, or net.nlang.celtic (which isn't about the Celtic language these days anyway, but that's another story). I would probably continue to read net.religion, but if A and B want to argue about whether there really is transubstantiation of the bread, take it to net.religion.christian. Having net.religion.jewish by itself is just the ghetto all over again--it implies that Christianity is *it* and Judaism is somehow not quite equal. (See yiri's posting about undercurrents of Christianity in net.religion.jewish for a better example of this thinking.) > If we can't even create one > community of people on a computer network, I have very dim hopes for the "real > world" doing the same. If the current state of net.religion is any indication, the world is in big trouble! Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/02/84)
Whether or not there is much activity on net.religion after the Christians have their own group is rather irrelevant. I have had many letters expressing the hope that Christians will take their overbearing and domineering attitudes to another net and allow the others to discuss more interesting matters. The notion that the validity of Christianity is a hot topic is strictly in the minds of Christians who are simply not challenged frequently be- cause it is too much trouble to argue with them and they generally don't want to be bothered with the facts because their minds are already made up. Not only would the discussions be more interesting without the Christian domination, they would almost certainly be on a higher level and conducted in a more subdued manner. Other groups don't take the attitude that 'I'm right, and it's up to you to challenge and disprove me... and if you try I'll get wound tight'. My words may gag you... but Christian attitudes gag many.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/03/84)
> > Needless to say, net etiquette would dictate *not* attempting to proselytize > in other religions' subgroups. (And needless to say, people would do it > anyway.) It would probably be difficult to refrain from this, because inevitably in the discussion of one religion, one will compare it with one's own, possibly different, religion. And the definition of "proselytize" is sufficiently broad for some people that any mention of, say, Christianity, constitutes proselytization. A similar phenomenon may be seen on this net in connection with the word "flame". This term is often applied indiscriminately to any response not agreeing with one's own viewpoint. And surely, simple disagreement need not constitute "flaming"? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (11/03/84)
> Net.religion is a general term where no religion should start > with the basis that they are right and it's up to everyone else > to PROVE differently. Yet, this is the attitude I see from > Christians on net.religion. On the other hand, net.religion. > Christian is the proper place for starting with the such an > assumption and discussing whatever topics Christians find > interesting in whatever manner they wish... as long, of > course, as it doesn't get racist/anti-semitic, etc. > > ... Please start a net.religion.christian. This sounds like a good idea to me. Now net.religion (itself) can perhaps provide a more ecclectic religious forum. -- (It's only a model) Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam [ This is just me talking. ]
liz@tove.UUCP (Liz Allen) (11/04/84)
As the moderator of the Christian mailing list, I thought I should speak up and give you our statement of purpose: The purpose of the list is to provide a non-hostile environment for discussion among Christians; not to hide our discussion from non-Christians. Non-believers may "listen in" by being hand-forwarded discussion from a member of the list. Full blown debates between Christians and non-Christians are best carried out in the net.religion news group, and it is hoped that the availability of this list will not diminish the contribution Christians make there. Our motivation is really not that much different from the motivation behind the feminists' mailing list; we just want a forum in which we can discuss our beliefs and how they effect our lives without needing to defend our fundamental beliefs. Now I'm not saying that diversity on the net is bad; it isn't! I enjoy being able to participate on the net and am not (usually!) afraid to state what I believe. I'm just saying that there's a time and a place for everything. I think the reason this mailing list is being suggested as an alternative to a net.religion.christian is related to the reason that net.women.only is not being used any more (except for the "add me to the list" messages). The list is more like a family -- you can talk about things like your personal life without fearing someone will attack you for the place you're coming from. I'm not really opposed to a net.religion.christian; I just think it would be under-utilized. Let me say, too, for the record, that, as the moderator of the group, I am not going to allow messages to be posted that express hatred for any person or group of persons. (Not that I expect any. I think the people on the list know Jesus' love well enough that they'd not want to post such messages.) For any Christians out there who would like to join the list, send mail to seismo!umcp-cs!mailjc-request and I'll add you. -- -Liz Allen Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz@maryland "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5
ecl@hocsj.UUCP (11/05/84)
Yes, Charley, net.religion.jewish is predicated on a belief in Judaism--that's
how it was defined. Yes, net.religion.christian should be similar.
Questions about the validity of religion should go into the appropriate
subgroup. If a Baptist and a Catholic want to slug it out, they should do it
in net.religion.christian. If the Baptist wants to save all the
non-Christians as well, he should consider the following:
if they are at all interested in Christianity,
they'll read net.religion.christian
if they're not interested, his postings are only going to irritate
them, not convert them
Examples:
Are crickets considered fleishich (sp?) or parve -> net.religion.jewish
How often should Catholics go to confession -> net.religion.christian
Is Thanksgiving a secular holiday -> net.religion
What is the historical basis for the New Testament -> net.religion.christian
What is the historical basis for the Old Testament -> net.religion.christian
and net.religion.jewish
If you don't convert, you'll burn in hell -> /dev/null
> I suspect that the reason christianity is such a hot topic (in both senses)
> is that a) certain branches stress prosyletizing (sp?), and b) it's the only
> religion the atheists know much about historically. Until we have lots of
> Taoists or Buddhists on the net, I don't expect to see much activity that
> doesn't somehow involve christianity.
Proselytizing "irritates" (a stronger word might apply here) Jews because
historically it has been "convert or die." A basic understanding of this
feeling might make some of the proselytizers less gung-ho about forcing their
"help" on the rest of us poor benighted souls. (Then again, it never has in
the past.)
What bugs me about Wingate's statement above is that he's either 1) just
written off all the Jews on the net, or 2) lumped them in with the Christians.
*This* is offensive.
Evelyn C. Leeper
...ihnp4!hocsj!eclrohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (11/05/84)
>>From: yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) >>A christian mailing list is, in comparison with a net forum open >>at least to public ears and monitoring (if not to their keyboards), >>a rather secretive alternative. Such a secretive alternative as a >>SUBSTITUTE FOR a public forum strikes me as something out of >>pre-WWII Germany and makes me, as a Jew, very nervous. There are >>many christian mailing lists, jewish mailing lists, etc. and that >>is to be expected.... but why is a christian mailing list suggested >>AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO a forum open to public monitoring? Is this to >>be a network where KKK and neo-nazis can spew their obscenities >>without fear of being 'found out'? . . . >>Evil prefers the cloak of darkness and secrecy. Uprightness prefers >>the light. As a relatively new reader of net.news.group, I have been very impressed with the caliber of the discussions and the reasonable airing of dissent- ing viewpoints. Until now. Seldom have I seen such irrational intoler- ance as Mr. BenDavid exhibits in his postings. Sir, have you always been an intolerant paranoiac, or did you have to study? It is exactly this sort of attitude that probably prompted the Christian mailing list. As a committed agnostic, I have never read the contents of the mailing list, but I really doubt that the postings are KKK and neo-nazi obscen- ities. Your suspicions are absurd. There is currently a special mailing list for feminist interests which grew out of net.women.only. It is not read only by women, and men make frequent postings. We do not espouse the elimination of the entire male population. The list was created as a forum for people (men AND women) to discuss issues pertaining to feminism and being female. I strongly suspect that the Christian mailing list was created for parallel reasons. The creation of net.religion.christian is a good idea, but should be done with the understanding that arguments that Christianity is wrong are improper and should be submitted to net.religion. By the way, such intolerance, bigotry, and narrowmindedness as Mr. BenDavid's ought to be confined to /dev/null, but net.flame will do if he feels he must post such things. Mr. BenDavid, please do not subject the readers of net.news.group to such garbage. Lauri Rohn rohn@rand-unix.ARPA decvax!randvax!rohn Intolerance is the last defense of the insecure.
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/05/84)
> Liz, if you are using the ARPAnet to distribute a list which explicitly > discriminates in its membership on grounds of religion, you are asking for a > peck of trouble. That is definitely not a Constitutional use of government > resources. You'd best change your discriminatory policy! > -- > Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center > ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K > uucp: Try sending through a gateway such as DECWRL, UCB-VAX, SEISMO, > or HARVARD -- mailer conventions differ on syntax WHAT IS THIS? A posting by someone who supposedly is not on the net anymore? I trust you have read all the other articles appearing here in the last month. Especially my posting concerning your blasephemous article directed against my God. I hope you do post more often. Regarding your response above. Do you propose a police state to prevent Christians from speaking to each other? This sounds like a discrimination against people of a different religious view. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken ----------------
stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (Don Stanwyck) (11/05/84)
>From: yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) >A christian mailing list is, in comparison with a net forum open at least to >public ears and monitoring (if not to their keyboards), a rather secretive >alternative. Such a secretive alternative as a SUBSTITUTE FOR a public forum >strikes me as something out of pre-WWII Germany and makes me, as a Jew, very >nervous. There are many christian mailing lists, jewish mailing lists, etc. >and that is to be expected.... but why is a christian mailing list suggested >AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO a forum open to public monitoring? [...] >Evil prefers the cloak of darkness and secrecy. Uprightness prefers the light. And where were you making such suggestions when the net.women.only mailing list was started? (Seems that the "men" wouldn't stay out of the conversations that the women wanted to have.) I wonder if those critical towards Christianity would be willing to stay on the sidelines if net.religion.Christian was started. I suspect not. -- ________ ( ) Don Stanwyck @( o o )@ 312-979-3062 ( || ) Cornet-367-3062 ( \__/ ) ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck (______) Bell Labs @ Naperville, IL
mat@hou4b.UUCP (11/06/84)
I don't think that the proposed group discriminates -- nothing on the list
prevents you or anyone else from DISCUSSING christianity or asking questions
about it. It only is there to isolate the discussion which IS taking place
now. I read net.religion.jewish whenever I can. Perhaps someday I will have a
question to post there. If there were a net.religion.hindu or a
net.religion.wicca I might say the same thing.
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/06/84)
If net.religion.christian is going to be open to the same sort of attacks which dominate net.religion now, then the mailing list is going to continue to serve a purpose: to provide a forum free from these attacks. If net.religion.christian is going to kept free from such attacks, then I suspect it will go the way that net.motss has, and for the same reason. Attacks upon Judaism do not seem to be welcome in net.religion.jewish, I notice. Either way, this question needs to be resolved. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/06/84)
Rich Rosen, quoting an unknown person: >> But the real reason for subgrouping net.religion is, that it is fatiguing >> to have to defend the basics of your creed which you just want to assume to >> be able to talk about the `details'. > I guess some people would rather assume than "waste time" defending the basics > of their creeds. I think you're one of these people. The basis of your creed (for lack of a better word) is that just because there isn't physical evidence for something, it doesn't exist or it didn't happen. This is just an assumption, a rather cynical one. > Petty divisive isolationism only leads to 1) stagnation and reinforcement of > beliefs without allowing for further analysis and (more importantly) > 2) breeding grounds for intolerance that lead to terror, assassination, war, > and death. Perhaps "petty divisive isolationism" (pretty inflammatory language) would do such a thing. However, a Christian support group is for a purpose quite opposite from stagnation; it is for the purpose of increasing the power and strength of our Christian *living*. However, things we discuss in such a group would not make sense to anyone who had not shared the experience of being a Christian -- e.g. how to surrender to God, get yourself out of the way, and let His loving Spirit come through. This is something that's hard enough for a Christian to grasp, let alone an atheist. But yes, members of any faith do need to talk about the details unhampered by criticism. That way, they will (we hope) become better able to handle the criticism...not necessarily by splendid argument, but rather by showing God's love and power unmistakably.
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (11/06/84)
When we first discussed having a Christian mailing list, someone suggested that it would be viewed with suspicion. I didn't think so; what possible objection could there be to a list of private individuals who wish to communicate privately with each other? Well, I was wrong; it seems that, at least in our case, having such a list is Nazi-like, according to Yirmiyahu BenDavid, and even illegal, according to Tim Maroney (say, isn't he the one who complained about being censored?) YBD> In addition to mailing my response, I feel a response is in order YBD> regarding the notion of net.religion.christian being redundant YBD> vis-a-vis a christian mailing list. YBD> A christian mailing list is, in comparison with a net forum open YBD> at least to public ears and monitoring (if not to their keyboards), YBD> a rather secretive alternative. Such a secretive alternative as a YBD> SUBSTITUTE FOR a public forum strikes me as something out of YBD> pre-WWII Germany and makes me, as a Jew, very nervous. You think, do you, that you have a right to monitor other people's private communications? Talk about pre-WWII Germany... YBD> There are YBD> many christian mailing lists, jewish mailing lists, etc. and that YBD> is to be expected.... but why is a christian mailing list suggested YBD> AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO a forum open to public monitoring? Is this to YBD> be a network where KKK and neo-nazis can spew their obscenities YBD> without fear of being 'found out'? Well, I don't think so... but, YBD> on the other hand, we see from such things as the Donahue shows YBD> that this is not an unreasonable fear. Make up your mind; either accuse us of conspiracy or not. YBD> It also strikes me as contradictory that christians are fighting YBD> against having a forum of their own... We have a forum of our own; the mailing list. If you really think we should have a forum "of our own," why do you want to dictate what form that forum should take? YBD> that they PREFER to try YBD> their best to IMPOSE their unjustified presumptions on others YBD> and that 'discussion' is simply a ruse to give them an excuse YBD> to do it. If this were not so, they could do it far more effec- YBD> tively on their own net. How can we impose anything? We can't force you to read anything; we certainly can't force you to believe anything. Also, why do you think that we could hold discussions more effectively in a newsgroup than we can on a mailing list? We have discussed the possibility of creating such a newsgroup, if and when the traffic on the mailing list justified it; but there hasn't been that much traffic. YBD> Why is it that I suspected from the outset that christians would YBD> oppose their own net? Because the notion of IMPOSING their ideas YBD> on others is an integral part of their religion. As a Jew, I am YBD> aware of the consequences of this integral element of their YBD> religion. It has not gone away and is not, even now, very far YBD> from us. I thought you had agreed that you wouldn't try to speak for Christianity. YBD> Evil prefers the cloak of darkness and secrecy. Uprightness prefers YBD> the light. (Proverbs) We prefer that we not be forced out of net.religion. You prefer that we go off into our own newsgroup and stop bothering you. Which of us is trying to be in the light? Gary Samuelson bunker!garys
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/06/84)
> Rich Rosen claims that net.religion.christian will lead to "petty divisive > isolationism." The purpose of subgroups is to allow special interest groups > to have discussions that are not of interest to everyone without cluttering > up everyone's screens. [EVELYN LEEPER] The difference between subgroups based on topics (like different sports) and subgroups based on tastes (in music, religious persuasion, etc.) is that the former doesn't isolate people. The purpose of religious subgroups would seem to be to keep people of like minds together in one spot, where they wouldn't have to listen to other people who either have an alternative/antipodal point of view or a broader message that doesn't fit into the individual taste categories (assuming the isolationists stick to their subgroup to talk only with "their own kind" and ignore other subgroups or even the mainstream high-level group itself because it contains messages from un-like thinkers). > I would probably continue to read net.religion, but if A and B want to argue > about whether there really is transubstantiation of the bread, take it > to net.religion.christian. On the contrary, it would seem that some see the purpose of a subgroup under net.religion as twofold: 1) net.religion.xxxx would end xxxx proseltyzing in net.religion, and 2) xxxx's could discuss xxxx-ism without having to defend what they say. Personally, I'd rather have xxxx's out in the open saying their piece, answering questions posed to them (hmmm...), instead of isolated in their little cubbyhole avoiding questions. > Having net.religion.jewish by itself is just the > ghetto all over again--it implies that Christianity is *it* and Judaism is > somehow not quite equal. (See yiri's posting about undercurrents of > Christianity in net.religion.jewish for a better example of this thinking.) AGREED 100%!!!!!! Which is why I opposed net.religion.jewish just as strongly. Precisely because I felt it was important that Christians (excuse me, xxxx's) not get the idea that a newsgroup about religion was somehow THEIRS, I had hoped that Jewish issues/questions could be raised in net.religion by those who wanted a separate subgroup. (Just as I had hoped that classical music lovers would do the same in net.music!!) Alas, this was not to be. Of course, this would also mean that any questioning of Judaeo/Christian beliefs in general (as opposed to specifically Christian beliefs) would be directed at (and hopefully answered by) both Christians (I'll give up the "xxxx" stuff) and Jews. (Thus Christians would no longer be able to claim that those who sought answers about ALL religions were somehow "attacking" them!) >> If we can't even create one >>community of people on a computer network, I have very dim hopes for the "real >>world" doing the same. [RLR] > If the current state of net.religion is any indication, the world is in big > trouble! Agreed again (unfortunately)... -- "Come with me now to that secret place where the eyes of man have never set foot." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (11/07/84)
--
I do not begrudge any special interest group its mailing list,
but I find the structural difference between the existing feminist
list and the proposed Christian one quite amusing. The feminist
list is open to both men and women, and both sexes may and do
contribute. Someone posting about the Christian list mentioned
that only believers (however defined) may post to it--heathens will
be relegated to "observer" status and will not receive anything
directly from the moderator. I'd suggest that the Christians take
a tip from the feminists (look, you don't have to admit it), and
allow--nay, encourage--open membership but let the moderator determine
whether postings are suitable for broadcast. We discuss quite
personal matters without worrying about their audience. Indeed,
I suspect that some members of the feminist list are not feminists,
but why not reach out? Seems like the "Christian thing" to do.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 06 Nov 84 [16 Brumaire An CXCIII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7188 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/07/84)
>>>But the real reason for subgrouping net.religion is, that it is fatiguing >>>to have to defend the basics of your creed which you just want to assume to >>>be able to talk about the `details'. [LEEPER??] >>I guess some people would rather assume than "waste time" defending the basics >>of their creeds. [RICH ROSEN] > I think you're one of these people. [JEFF SARGENT] Oh. > The basis of your creed (for lack of a > better word) is that just because there isn't physical evidence for something, > it doesn't exist or it didn't happen. This is just an assumption, a rather > cynical one. As opposed to the creed that assumes (or is that not the word?) that even though there isn't physical evidence for something, it DOES exist and it DID happen. (p.s. it IS the word) >>Petty divisive isolationism only leads to 1) stagnation and reinforcement of >>beliefs without allowing for further analysis and (more importantly) >>2) breeding grounds for intolerance that lead to terror, assassination, war, >>and death. > Perhaps "petty divisive isolationism" (pretty inflammatory language) would do > such a thing. However, a Christian support group is for a purpose quite > opposite from stagnation; it is for the purpose of increasing the power and > strength of our Christian *living*. However, things we discuss in such a > group would not make sense to anyone who had not shared the experience of > being a Christian -- e.g. how to surrender to God, get yourself out of the > way, and let His loving Spirit come through. This is something that's hard > enough for a Christian to grasp, let alone an atheist. I thought you had said that the purpose was "quite opposite from stagnation". Yet the examples you give... > But yes, members of any faith do need to talk about the details unhampered by > criticism. That way, they will (we hope) become better able to handle the > criticism...not necessarily by splendid argument, but rather by showing God's > love and power unmistakably. Translation: they will (they hope) be better able to handle the criticism because they won't *hear* any criticism, and/or they'll have additional time to be better indoctrinated so that they either don't believe the criticism or ignore it (as being "satanic" or whatever). It seems that no one in THIS newsgroup needs that additional time, judging from responses to questions. -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (11/07/84)
In article <228@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >I guess some people would rather assume than "waste time" defending the basics >of their creeds. After all, despite the fact that SOME may consider thinking >a good exercise, wasting time delineating precisely what the roots of one's >faith (or non-faith) really are might actually lead you to see things you >haven't seen before, and that's not what faith is all about, is it? Better to >congregate with one's own kind and not ask questions than to hear what other >people have to say, including their "offensive" sacrilegious questions, right? > >Petty divisive isolationism only leads to 1) stagnation and reinforcement of >beliefs without allowing for further analysis and (more importantly) >2) breeding grounds for intolerance that lead to terror, assassination, war, >and death. No, I don't believe that people will be killed because of religious >subgroups, but it reinforces the mentality of divisiveness and "master-racism" >rather than encouraging discussion among ALL people. One might say "but what >about the person who doesn't want to talk with other people, only those of >his/her own kind?" I'd prefer to accommodate those who wish to have a >community to talk to everyone rather than those who wish to isolate themselves. > >Having people define groups for followers to belong to has been the single most >devastating destructive element in civilization. It leads to race hatred, >holy wars, "nationality"/"religious movement" (both arbitrary classifications >created by those who wanted power over large groups of followers) slaughtering >other nationalities and religious movements. If we can't even create one >community of people on a computer network, I have very dim hopes for the "real >world" doing the same. Don't forget those horrible groups of people coming together in universities, talking about scientific subjects in stead of staying on the streets investing their time in explaining those sciences to the masses! I wonder why you didn't share your article with net.astro.expert too. What I really want to say is: You forgot your smilie. As net.announce.newusers learns us: "subtlety tends to get lost". One general remark: When I for the first time proposed net.religion.[Cc]ristian, I didn't know that I was only receiving shared articles. So I'm afraid I started a lot of noise without ever being able to taste the fruist thereof (if any). A real pity. Please add me to the mailing list. Thanks. -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it. --Voltaire
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/07/84)
I suppose you probably feel the 6 million is also a myth?
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/07/84)
I have publicly stated more than once that I have no interest in contributing to a net.religion.christian. I am only interested in monitoring it for antisemitic content. From the venomous response, there must be a great deal to hide? Either that or a lot of paranoia. If those who have been the most vitriolic would curb their ignorance by reading Parkes (a Christian) book "The Conflict Between the Church and the Synagogue", they might have a little glimmer of why this is an appropriate concern.
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (11/07/84)
<eww, we can't take 'im ANYwhere> Yirmiyahu. Please keep your antiChristian proselytizing to net.religion. It is entirely inappropriate to net.news.group, even under the guise of "promoting" net.religion.christian. Hutch
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%UCB) (11/08/84)
>When we first discussed having a Christian mailing list, >someone suggested that it would be viewed with suspicion. >I didn't think so; what possible objection could there be >to a list of private individuals who wish to communicate >privately with each other? Well, I was wrong; it seems >that, at least in our case, having such a list is Nazi-like, >according to Yirmiyahu BenDavid, and even illegal, according >to Tim Maroney (say, isn't he the one who complained about >being censored?)... > > garys@bunker.UUCP I couldn't agree more. Everyone (even Christians :->) have the right to choose to whom they will speak. If I don't WANT to talk in front of you, you have no reason to butt in. So if personal mail is at all legal, it is legal for people to send their mail to whomever they choose, and not send it to whomever they choose not to send it to. Ken Arnold P.S. This is not a comment on whether there should be a net.religion.christian. I tend to think there should be, though.
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/08/84)
In response to Stephen Hutchison's comment... I've never put anything on net.whatever regarding religion except on net.religion and net. religion.jewish. Don't know how it got there. Blame someone or some- thing else.
ecl@hocsj.UUCP (11/08/84)
Reference: <187@hocsj.UUCP> <428@uwmacc.UUCP> <342@klipper.UUCP>, <228@pyuxd.UUCP> <1448@pucc-h>, <245@pyuxd.UURe: Proposal for net.religion subgroups Rich Rosen quotes: >>>>But the real reason for subgrouping net.religion is, that it is fatiguing >>>>to have to defend the basics of your creed which you just want to assume to >>>>be able to talk about the `details'. [LEEPER??] Nope, not me--Biep (ihnp4!decvax!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep). But I support his point (as I stated in another article earlier)--discussion of "details" is just as valid as discussion about belief and should be carried on in a smaller arena. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford) (11/08/84)
(Let's create two new groups: net.religion.zen and
net.religion.notzen. Of course, the two would be linked together so
that anything posted to one would also post to the other. But no one
ever needs to post to it.)
I've been reading this discussion for quite a while and it's about time
we either resolved it or moved it to a more appropriate group (out of
net.news.group, at least). Suggestions: net.philosophy and net.flame.
My particular view is that if one is sure of one's faith, it is
possible to quietly live it with confidence and strength, thus
providing oneself with not only a sense of security, but providing
others with a good example and statement about the quality of the
particular faith. I believe that people who feel the need to comdemn
other beliefs, constantly try to "convert" others, and spend a great
deal of their time loudly proclaiming their piety must be rather
insecure in their faith, else they wouldn't need to spend so much time
reinforcing it.
But that's just my view.
However, as it applies to the net, there are some points to be made.
First of all, there is a small but vocal contingent of "born-again"
and/or evangelical Christians on the net (as in almost any other
American group, these days). I see it is this group that is interested
in a separate newsgroup. There are many other "Christians" on the net,
but more in the sense of traditional Christianity, although they may
not be very vocal in net.religion. For that reason, I am against
naming any subgroup "net.religion.christian". I think another name
should be proposed for such a group.
And yes, I think there should be such a group. There has been enough
discussion generated by all this to show that there is both an audience
and an interest. If nothing else, the group can contain further
discussion on its Creation (if you claim that the appearance of such a
newsgroup is simply an aspect of the net evolving, you are doomed to
net.flame for all eternity :-).
Any "net." newsgroup is open for everyone to post to. This has always
been the case. By the very nature of the news, you cannot restrict
postings to "net" groups except by convention (viz., net.women.only).
If non-believers wish to post to the group, let them. View it as a
test of your faith (if you are a believer). If you're not a believer,
you will find the group rather boring after a while (unless you like to
continue to bait/abuse others of differing beliefs). The mailing list
will undoubtedly continue, and the public is in no position to comment
on the correctness of content of private mail -- unless, as Tim noted,
it is being sent on publicly supported machines or networks.
We have a net.religion.jewish to allow people to ask questions about
the Jewish religion and share items of interest to other Jewish
netters. It is also a forum to discuss Jewish history and heritage.
Should any other religious groups have a significant number of active
netters, we should consider, without argument, a ghetto for them too.
Likewise with the evangelical Christians. They need a place to discuss
common interests and discuss the Christian heritage (like torturing and
killing people of different faiths, book-burning, and war in the name
of God. A "net.religion.islam" could be used for the same thing. 1/2
:-).
But seriously, I am willing to create such a newsgroup as long as it
doesn't bear the name "christian" on it -- that implies more people and
issues than the group seems intended for. I'm not sure about a
"net.religion.newage" -- is there a sufficient number of readers to
support such a group? Or would "net.religion" be enough, once some
quantitiy of the pro/anti-christian stuff gets moved to its own
newsgroup? (I don't (and won't) read net.religion.)
If the content of this note has offended anyone, my apologies. I have
had some bad experiences with certain religious groups, and it has
created a rather permanent (and negative) impression. I don't care
what you believe, and I applaud you if your faith helps you find peace
and a better life, but I despise people who attempt to push their
beliefs on me. That's why I want to get this discussion resolved and
out of net.news.group before it turns into (more of) a religious
argument.
--
Off the Wall of Gene Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-sally}!gatech!spafrostig@fortune.UUCP (Grant Rostig) (11/10/84)
.
I feel that sub topics within net.religion would be nice. I remember
some people were not happy to hear about my non Christian path.
--
Grant E. Rostig Fortune Systems, Redwood City, California
...!{ihnp4, ucbvax!amd, hpda, sri-unix, harpo}!fortune!rostigtim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (11/10/84)
Liz, if you are using the ARPAnet to distribute a list which explicitly discriminates in its membership on grounds of religion, you are asking for a peck of trouble. That is definitely not a Constitutional use of government resources. You'd best change your discriminatory policy! -- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: Try sending through a gateway such as DECWRL, UCB-VAX, SEISMO, or HARVARD -- mailer conventions differ on syntax
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/12/84)
> Don't forget those horrible groups of people coming together in universities, > talking about scientific subjects in stead of staying on the streets investing > their time in explaining those sciences to the masses! I wonder why you didn't > share your article with net.astro.expert too. [klipper!biep] Could you please elucidate as to why people of different backgrounds and areas of expertise and knowledge coming together to discuss things, learn, and teach at a university even remotely resembles people of arbitary groupings (incl. nationalities, religions, etc.) SEGREGATING themselves and the discussions? > What I really want to say is: You forgot your smilie. As net.announce.newusers > learns us: "subtlety tends to get lost". Likewise. (I had no intention of putting a smiley in my article. But you must have, right?) -- "If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy!" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (11/12/84)
In article <1678@ucf-cs.UUCP> yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) writes: >I have publicly stated more than once that I have no interest in >contributing to a net.religion.christian. I am only interested in >monitoring it for antisemitic content. Well, two remarks to you: 1) [reacting to your general attitude, not to this article] I was the person who proposed net.religion.christian, and I am a [Cc]hristian myself. So what about your point that c.'s don't seem to want a subgroup for their own? (Another point is that I later found out I wouldn't receive it, but that's irrelevant to the subject) 2) If you want to monitor: why don't you subscribe to the mailing list? I'm sure they will let you read it, as long as you behave correct- ly with the contents (so no incorrect or misleading quoting, etc.). Perhaps you might even submit an article to it, if you have some genuine question, or you might enlighten some topic like Israelian Holy days. Have you tried?? -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it. --Voltaire
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (11/14/84)
You're absolutely right, Rich. Different newsgroups for people with different interests and approaches is just segregation. Therefore, I have sent out rmgroup messages for net.lang.c, net.lang.pascal, net.lang.mod2, and all the other net.lang subgroups. From now on, all discussions of all different programmiing languages will go in net.lang. And all discussion of all religions, including Judaism, will go in net.religion. (Darn, inews won't let me do that....) The lesson of net.religion.jewish is that discussion between people of the same religion is of a very different sort from inter-faith discussion. Both are extremely valuable, but they tend to interfere with each other if they are forced to happen in the same room. There was almost no discussion of Judaism except by Christians before the creation of net.religion.jewish; now there is a lot. I would say the message is pretty clear. -- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: Try sending through a gateway such as DECWRL, UCB-VAX, SEISMO, or HARVARD -- mailer conventions differ on syntax "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
ecl@hocsj.UUCP (11/16/84)
Reference: <1619@ucf-cs.UUCP> ... <1728@ucf-cs.UUCP> Yiri, in his eagerness to correct other people's logic, has demonstrated his own faults in this regard. He *says* that readers should "be careful to consider what [he has] actually written." But earlier he gives these "syllogisms": > Given the premises > 1. Christians don't want a subnet > 2. Evelyn is a Christian > is it then logical to conclude that Evelyn does not want a subnet? > No. and > Given the premises > 1. Christians don't want a subnet > 2. Evelyn wants a subnet > is it then logical to conclude that Evelyn is not a Christian? > No. Nice try, but Yiri seems to be saying/assuming/implying: 1) Evelyn is a Christian 2) Evelyn wants a subnet (If he isn't, what's the point of these examples?) First of all, I want a subgroup, not a subnet. A subgroup is part of the whole; a subnet is separate. And let me add my voice to the statement: THERE IS NO JEWISH NET! There is a net.religion.jewish subgroup. Second, I don't want a subgroup because I'm Christian; I want it because I'm *not*. If Yiri had read my other postings (re Chinese Jews et al) he would realize this. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (11/18/84)
I do not understand what is the problem with a net.religion.christian subgroup where being a christian is taken as a given. Having argued with Rich Rosen, I can understand why many might desire a newsgroup not cluttered with his postings or those of like-minded individuals. As for monitoring anti-Semitism in net.religion.christian or a christian mailing list, I do not care what christians think unless they act upon it. And I am not in the mood to see the establishment of thought police. There are many areas where I have negative opinions of christians and muslims. But, I will admit that most European nations have no equivalent of freedom of expression and public expression of antisemitism is a criminal offense. Presumably, European governments have noted that Europeans often follow antisemitic expression with antisemitic action. Americans have generally behaved much better in such areas. Yehoyaqim Martillo
wkp@lanl.ARPA (11/18/84)
What about forming a net.religion.christianoid? bill peter los alamos