rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/23/84)
You know, it's funny. Farewell addresses provide an opportunity that comes along rarely: the unabashed right to get in the last word. Considering the last words that David has offered us, and the tone with which he sort of ignores everything I (and others) have said, I feel a reply is in order. I do hope that someone gets a copy of this to him. > Has anyone else noticed that the general quality of net.religion been steadily > decreasing? I used to enjoy a serious religious discussion; Tim Maroney and > was a private correspondence). The Christians have been accused of meeting > serious questions with deafening silence; I believe the reverse is true. One > of my most pressing questions was that of {Justice/Punishment/Desert} in and > out of Christian theology. I think more than once I posted articles (but you know how reliable news has been, esp. around here) that summed it up: the concept of justice/punishment/ desert is a view of the world as you would like it to be. Nothing more. Nothing less. To ask "Where does that fit in to reality?" is equivalent to asking "Why doesn't everyone like chocolate?" > I've also noticed that only a few in the agnostic/atheist camp bother with > direct quotes from the Bible. Usually the matter is dismissed with some > vague phrase about "a 2000 year old book".This, I suppose, is not so unusual, > since every anti-Christian sentiment presented here that contained a > Scripture quote has been easily explained by one of the Christians. I > suspect that those who do not use the Bible to refute Christianity (this in > itself is ridiculous) either cannot, out of ignorance, or will not. The > latter group is probably arguing against some organized religion, and not > against the essence of Christianity. Reason: because it is just like quoting Marx to refute modern communism. On the contrary, there are no "vague phrases about old books", but rather some pointed criticism that asks "Where is the proof that we are dealing with divine material?". The notion that things can be "easily explained by Christians" is akin to saying that Mother Goose can be easily be explained as reality by children. It's a shame that pointing out that there is nothing to back up David's points, and asking for evidence that would, is called "anti- Christian sentiment". What it is is "pro-logical sentiment". Furthermore, what's the message in this paragraph? If we say that the Bible is nothing more than a book of old myths (Is it anything more?), we are dismissed as trivial by David. If we do, Christians can "explain" the real meaning. What's the point here? > I recently read an article which had a statement about C.S. Lewis' "empty > words". That's it. No quote. No reference. "Empty words." How about > posting a reply ala B. Russell, or Dr. Goad (or is that Joad?) > Lewis (besides being my favorite Christian author) is well known as a modern > Christian writer; and, to be honest, I take some offense at an unjust > criticism (this was probably the writer's only intention). I don't really > suspect for a moment that I will see a decent criticism of Lewis' works here > in net.religion. Experience tells me otherwise. Well, you don't just take offense at "unjust" criticism; you take offense at just criticism as well, and often you cannot distinguish between them. If you are referring to my own remarks about Lewis, I thought I was responding to someone else's remarks about Lewis that I had addressed in a previous article. Jeff Sargent referred to Lewis' notion (one of his primary tenets) that there must be a universal moral law that comes from outside of human logical construct, and I had asked for what reason one needed to believe that. In that same article, I carefully described how such morality could have formed in primitive societies based on people formulating rules that would assure the endurance of their society. Pity you didn't get to read it. >> "Statistics are used by politicians much the way drunks use lampposts: >> for support, not illumination." > I believe this was in response to an article by Karl Kleinpaste on the > statistics of net.religion. Now, the statement is a cute cliche, but does > little to undermine any of Karl's statistical work. If we are expected to > accept the statement on face value, then I assume we are expected to throw > the science of statistics out the window. If, as I suspect, the writer > intended to warn us of the dangers in mis-using statistics, I agree with him. > I also expect to see a better analysis of Karl's work, not just an empty > cliche. Again, I posted an article that clearly laid this out. It is certainly possible given the dreadful state of netdom here that you never got to see it, but further down there is evidence that you did. >> I hope >> to review many of the points that have been addressed by responses to such >> articles that were left unanswered... > This same individual continually annoys us with vague phrases such as "empty > shell of evidence" and "unanswered questions." Christians are often accused > of being hypocrites; I believe the statement is more often true of the > accusers. You could refer to me by name, but of course that would involve use of common courtesy toward people who happen to disagree. This makes THREE times in one article that David chooses to call me "that individual" or some other anonymous term. It is a pity that David will not get to address the issues that the article I mentioned will discuss (when I get to submit it). Not that I think he would. As Hitler found out, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it is the truth. As often as I've seen David referring to direct requests for substantiation as "vague phrases", and referring to his "accusers" as the "real" hypocrites, it makes me wonder. And as often as I've heard him say that everything that we ask directly is "vague"... > Some final words on this newsgroup in general. Sadly, I have come away with > a much lower opinion of the value of this forum. My main aim was to show > that Christianity is a logical and coherent faith. To show that the internal logic of the faith is coherent is not enough. One can take any set of random beliefs and create some form of internal consistency out of them. When asked to substantiate that which you put forth, you failed. Please accept that responsibility in the same way you've apparently seen fit to accept the "responsibility" of defending your faith. > What is needed is some Christian-only forum where beliefs and theology can be > discussed without fear of being insulted (and this is the only reason such > a forum need be created). You know, I had intended (but never got the chance) to submit an article that actually praised those like Jeff and David who, although they disagreed with the viewpoints of others in the newsgroup, had never felt the need to isolate themselves in a separate newsgroup or a "private" forum. I am saddened to now hear that David felt this way all along. -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr