david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (02/18/84)
Rich Rosen replied to Larry Bickford: > HOW LONG MUST WE PUT UP WITH LARRY BICKFORD MISQUOTING PEOPLE AND > USING THEIR WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT????? As long as you choose to subscribe to net.religion! :-) Seriously, Rich is not giving Larry a fair shake. Here was Larry's text: >> Rather than quoting everybody, I'll address an answer to the >> questions as Rich Rosen perhaps said them best: >>> 1. The god described in the bible is a pig (or some such epithet). >>> 2. If the bible is true, and this god does indeed exist as described, >>> he is much more worthy of repugnance than worship. [FOLLOWED BY >>> SUBSTANTIATION] >>> ...could you please show me where the illogic is? >> (1) is value judgment. On what (or whose) system is it based? >> (2) fails to include man as he is described in the bible. Tim's >> "substantiation" rejects the Biblical description of man. If you only >> accept part of the Bible, you could make a case for almost anything, but >> Tim's premise was that the Bible is true. Start with man not the >> innocent and deserving-of-compasison that Tim portrays, but one >> deserving judgment, and the picture changes. =><= And now for (part of) Rich's response: >Once again, Tim NEVER says that he believes the Bible to be true. He says that > (and I said that) "IF (Please look up the word 'if', Larry, and read the > example sentences that go with the definition!!) IF the bible is true, then > the following things are evident ..." > The context of the section of my article that Larry quoted is never made > clear, and again Larry takes the words and twists them to his own ends. > All that I said was that the train of logic that Tim appeared to take > was valid, but since Larry omitted steps 3 and 4 (and apparently assumed > that everyone has forgotten what they were), here is the complete list > (1-4). "4" goes a bit overboard but is included for completeness. Now logically, the argument should be of the form "if 1, then 2; if 2, then 3; if 3, then 4." Or alternatively, "1 because 2 because 3 because 4." Anything else, and we have don't have a logical stream of thought. Larry assumes that the argument took the first form, and (correctly) pointed out that the "God is a pig" premise blows the whole argument, since there is no logical basis for this premise. If you choose to accept the second form (1 because 2...), the argument *starts* to make sense. Larry (correctly) tries to show that the conclusion of 2 is based on a limited set of data from his premise (that the Bible is true). If you accept the premise that the Bible is true to prove the claim that God is a pig, then you can't accept only a portion of your own evidence. For example. Tim's theory doesn't do well when confronted with the good acts of Jesus (who tied Himself quite closely with the Old Testament Yahweh). Larry responded to Tim's conclusion based on his premise, and Rich complains that he doesn't like the premise. So why attack Larry? It was Tim's premise! Anyway, #3 points out that he doesn't believe in the Bible anyway. What has this got to do with the argument? "God is a pig because (if we assume the Bible is true) He is not worthy of worship but I don't believe in the Bible." So why bother stating 1 and 2? Why not say you just don't believe in the Bible? One possible answer was that the form of the argument was "1 because 2 and 3 and 4." This doesn't make sense: "God is a pig because I don't believe in the Bible." Of course, another possibility is that "I don't believe in the Bible, but let's put the Christians in their place." From the tone of the argument, this seems to be the case. A very recent argument I had went something like this: X: God is a pig; look at these verses. Me: You have taken them out of context; check these verses. X: God is still a pig; look at these verses. Me: Did you check my other verses? X: You are a Nazi. In any case, Larry has shown that steps 3 and 4 are irrelevant, since 1 and 2 were not properly addressed. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
david@ssc-vax.UUCP (04/27/84)
[wokkawokkawokka] Dick Dunn: > But I've got a different point to make here: I think that Bickford may be > showing his true nature. As I look over his comments again, I can't > believe that someone who alleges himself a Christian will treat someone > else's beliefs as he has. Are you new to net.religion? Are you aware how others in this newsgroup treat OUR beliefs? It's funny how the tune changes when people get a taste of their own medicine. How do you feel about Jesus, when he severely criticised the Pharisees? Or when He said to Peter, "Satan, get thee behind me"? To Peter, one of His most beloved disciples! I want to emphasize something I feel very important. Larry was not attacking any individual; he was attacking a document. It's like someone attacking the Bible; I like to think I can provide a reasonable defense for it. But there is little I can do when someone attacks my character: > He has taken pains to tell us that it is only > through God that we can rise above our evil natures, and that only through > God will we be pardoned for our multiple sins. He seems to take such a > negative view of human nature that I wonder just what sort of person he is, > deep down. This was a low blow. A basic tenet of the Christian faith is that man is in need of redemption. Whatever you may think of it, there are millions of people (including myself) who believe this, but also believe that God loves us so much He took care of the matter on a cross. Do you think this way about all of us? If so, then why degrade Larry specifically? Wouldn't it have been kinder to address your statement to Christianity in general? If you don't ask yourself what sort of person every Christian is, you owe Larry an apology. Worth and worthiness are two different things. God apparently thought we were worth it. We are not worthy of it. If we step back and look at the Christian message as a whole, we get a different view than if we closely scrutinized one small part (i.e., man's unworthiness). > I don't like to make a rash judgment, let alone an accusation, > of someone I've never met and only occasionally corresponded with, I can hear the "but" coming. > but I am > still hard put to ascribe any positive motive to his rather vitriolic > statements. Have you ever read a bad movie review? Anyway, isn't this statement a little hypocritical? > How about some of the other strong Christians - is Bickford's > reply the "standard" way of dealing with a philosophy you don't agree > with? Are your condemning statements the "standard" way of dealing with an individual you don't agree with? We would certainly all do a lot better if we could adhere to one of the two most important commandments: Love thy neighbor. And while most of us would probably agree that it is a good rule to live your life by, very few of us seem to be able to keep it up, even in the few minutes a day we spend in net.religion. Which only emphasizes Larry's point. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (04/29/84)
David, while I admire your "defense" of Larry, I think you skirt the
real issues that rankle many people, Christian and otherwise, when they
read his postings.
It *is* important to realize that ad-hominem remarks don't add substantially
to one's argument. But, it is also valid to point out the logical fallacies
and, um, shall we say, over-reactions, which characterize many of Larry's
responses to the "humanist manifesto." Kenneth Almquist had a fairly
reasoned point-by-point response to Larry's tirade.
It is also important to realize that comments like Larry's are not at
all representative of a Christian response to humanism, or of much else.
At best they reflect Larry's opinions, which I read as a pretty inseparable
amalgam of fundamentalist Christianity, conservative politics, and a
"bunker mentality." Naturally, this is not a put-down of any of these
three.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPArlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/29/84)
>> But I've got a different point to make here: I think that Bickford may be >> showing his true nature. As I look over his comments again, I can't >> believe that someone who alleges himself a Christian will treat someone >> else's beliefs as he has. [DUNN] > Are you new to net.religion? Are you aware how others in this newsgroup treat > OUR beliefs? It's funny how the tune changes when people get a taste of their > own medicine. [NORRIS] Really, now? Since when is questioning the logic of a belief system (yes, repeatedly and unswervingly---but only because *you* have had nothing concrete to say!) comparable with libelous inaccurate venomous lies about another belief system and its tenets? -- "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
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (05/01/84)
<> David Norris, on my response to Bickford's blast at the Annotated Humanist (whew!): >Are you new to net.religion? Are you aware how others in this newsgroup treat >OUR beliefs? It's funny how the tune changes when people get a taste of their >own medicine. I am not responsible for how others in this group treat your beliefs. I am responsible for my own postings. If you feel that I have been unjust to your beliefs - that is, that I have acted with malice and not in the interest of honest discussion - you should feel free to challenge ME on it. My statements may get out of hand at times; if they do, I'm wrong and sorry about it. But each action and each statement should be judged on its own. My ethics (and presumably those of sincere Christians as well) do not provide for the concept of "revenge" as a way to right a wrong. Your Lord did NOT command you to "do unto others as they do to you." [No, I am not new to net.religion. I have seen others treat your beliefs with everything from amazing compassion and restraint to blind rage. I will not be lumped together with every non-fundamentalist-Christian in the group as foes of yours. I am not your foe as yet, even if you have chosen to be mine.] >How do you feel about Jesus, when he severely criticised the Pharisees? Or >when He said to Peter, "Satan, get thee behind me"? To Peter, one of His most >beloved disciples! Neither Jesus, nor anyone like Jesus, has been posting to the net. (We don't have a benefit analogous to research!dmr over in net.lang.c.:-) >I want to emphasize something I feel very important. Larry was not attacking >any individual; he was attacking a document... No sale. If it were an empty document, with no one here subscribing to any of the things it says, you would be right - but then Larry wouldn't have attacked with such vigor. >>... He seems to take such a negative view of human nature that I wonder >>just what sort of person he is, deep down. >This was a low blow. A basic tenet of the Christian faith is that man is in >need of redemption...Do you think this way about all of us? >If so, then why degrade Larry specifically? If you don't ask yourself >what sort of person every Christian is, you owe Larry an apology. I wish I could have expressed myself better - my words (>>) say what I mean, but they carry connotation I wish they didn't. I mean just that I would like to know just what's going on inside Larry that manifests itself at the surface in this way. I DON'T know. I wish I did, and I would be equally confounded in such a reaction from any Christian (which, I am glad, I don't see very often). Now, here's one that's a little involved. Please bear with us: >> I don't like to make a rash judgment, let alone an accusation, >> of someone I've never met and only occasionally corresponded with,... >I can hear the "but" coming. >>...but I am still hard put to ascribe any positive motive to his rather >>vitriolic statements. OK, fine, you heard it. What's wrong? Can YOU ascribe a positive motive to what he said? Look, sometimes one writes harsh statements but with the intent of making a major correction or some such...I just can't find any such motive in Bickford's writing, e.g., equating "truth", "beauty", and "perversion". >> How about some of the other strong Christians - is Bickford's >> reply the "standard" way of dealing with a philosophy you don't agree >> with? >Are your condemning statements the "standard" way of dealing with an individual >you don't agree with? What are my condemning statements? You haven't illustrated any well enough that I can see them. (Please distinguish "critical" from "condemning".) I don't condemn the individual, only his actions. Moreover, the responses I have gotten from my question (>>) have so far been to the general effect that Bickford went overboard. (That's only a minor indication of sentiment. It doesn't make me right...) >We would certainly all do a lot better if we could adhere to one of the two >most important commandments: Love thy neighbor. And while most of us would >probably agree that it is a good rule to live your life by, very few of us >seem to be able to keep it up, even in the few minutes a day we spend in >net.religion. Which only emphasizes Larry's point. I couldn't agree less. I see no parallel between disagreement and a lack of love. In this group, we will inevitably disagree. I see nothing wrong or bad there. Since we all seem to have strongly held views, we will become perturbed from time to time. When that happens, we may expect to be called on it. (At least I get worked up, blow off steam, and need a little dressing down from time to time.) But I am not willing to believe that these occasional outbursts are indicative of what you and Larry seem to feel is a fundamental flaw in human character. How can you "live your life by" a tenet that you don't think you can keep up "even in a few minutes...in net.religion" when you are discussing your basic tenets, which should therefore be foremost in your mind? -- ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew. Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (05/03/84)
Actually, Larry Bickford is a nice guy. And despite some
insinuations to the contrary, he is not a repressed suicidal-
maniac chained only by the `fear of God'. Even though we have
our differences, we get along very well...(though there IS that
little problem of getting him into his straight-jacket each day,
so that he can hack-hack without hurting himself ;->).
Steven M.