david@ssc-bee.UUCP (David Norris) (06/20/84)
[@] This is the last article I am posting prior to leaving the Boeing company. The Great Tim Maroney Caper --------------------------- I've remained silent up till now on the Great Tim Maroney Debate. Since it appears that the discussion between Tim, Karl & I on the morals of God appears to be a major factor in what happened, I guess I feel obligated to throw in my 2 cents worth. Tim's articles had an unusual blend of carefully selected facts mixed with heavy sarcasm. He was extremely clever at manipulating just the right Scripture verses (almost always taken out of context) to convey *his* message. Fortunately, I found it easy to discuss the apparent dilemma since direct Scripture quotes were given. Tim, at the very least, did his homework. I can't say this of many others in net.religion. On practically every job interview I've gone on, an inevitable question is "Do you work well in a group and get along with other people?" Tim's articles demonstrated that he was argumentative and outwardly sarcastic to those who did not share his opinion. I don't think that it is a question of rights vs. privileges, or of religious discrimination. If one of my subordinates argued every little detail, became sarcastic when things didn't go their way, and then went ahead and did their own thing anyway (after explicit instructions not to), I would have no qualms about firing him. The sad part is that Tim is out of a job. If I had any part in this than I am truly sorry and profusely apologize to Tim and all others concerned. Perhaps it is better that he "found out" about the UNC staff; Tim would have gotten his bad opinion of them sooner or later (whether they deserved it or not). Still, I never wished Tim any ill and hope that his career and life are undamaged. Semantic content in net.religion -------------------------------- 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. Paul Torek has been discussing the concept with me privately (too bad I'm leaving, Paul). About all I could get from the other fellow (you know who you are) was some joking reference about strawberries (It seems he has confused Desert with Dessert.) 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. The empty response ------------------ 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. > "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. Failure of the Christians ------------------------- Many Atheists/Agnostics here *continually* emphasize the point that Christians have failed to answer their questions or provide evidence for Christianity. This has been a particularly frustrating point for me, as I feel the Christians have received the short end of the stick. It has been my experience that the opposite is true; that, in the course of a discussion, when a Christian asks a key question, he is the one that is met with "deafening silence". I had thought that this behaviour had gone unnoticed, but a recent article proved me wrong: > 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. "Finding" one's own religion ---------------------------- Many individuals here seem to think that the best way to "choose" a religion (if you are going to choose one) is to search and accept (perhaps with slight modifications) the one religion which best fits our pre-existing notions of what God and the universe should be like. In other words, what suits our fancy. To me, this is a bad approach; we are placing personal opinion, which can change with the seasons, above Truth. Perhaps an underlying assumption is that there is truth in all religions and we are only placing emphasis on different aspects of this "truth" as our personal tastes change. Hopefully, after growing (or maturing), these individuals will discover that there are wide variations among the world's religions, and after enough searching the so-called "common ground" will all but vanish. The result is a jaded agnostic or acceptance of one religion. Net.religion ------------ Some final words on this newsgroup in general. Sadly, I have come away with a much lower opinion of the value of this forum. I had hoped to be involved with some more intellectual discussions; instead, I found myself drawn into sarcastic and insulting arguments that seem to be the standard in net.religion. My main aim was to show that Christianity is a logical and coherent faith. I was honestly surprised at the amount of hatred and hostility my articles generated, contrasted to those who enjoyed reading what I had to say (at least they said they did). It is this phenomenon that leads me to say that this is probably not a good forum for Christians. The Christian opposition here seems to have its mind made up, and the few leftovers who are really interested in discussions can be handled by private correspondence. 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). Well, that's it. My sincere thanks to the good folks at Boeing who allow the use of their equipment for such activities. Thanks to all those for their support in net.religion. Peace be to you all. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david