Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq
From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Let's play a game
Message-ID: <640@pucc-h>
Date: Thu, 5-Apr-84 17:02:27 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.640
Posted: Thu Apr  5 17:02:27 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Apr-84 04:14:45 EST
References: <525@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 63

From Rich Rosen:

> ...how much I'd like (at times) to take a rest from answering all of the
> blithering that comes across this newsgroup.

Me too!  Except substitute the word "attacking" for "blithering", one
example of such attacking being the use of the word "blithering".

Rich proposes the game of REVERSO.  I am divided in my reaction to this.
On the one hand, for Rich to HONESTLY try to back up the Christian position
might eventually lead him to realize its truth, and I would hate to deny
anyone that immeasurable benefit; and the apostle Paul did say "I have become
all things to all men, that I might by any means save some" (I'm not sure of
chapter & verse on that).  On the other hand, for me to honestly try to back
up a position which Rich et al. do a great job of making look ugly and
deadening would mean that I would have to out-and-out lie, which I don't
think Paul had in mind.  (Yes, I recognize that, given Rich's current belief,
for him to defend Christianity would mean that he was out-and-out lying.)
Still...Rich, if you really want to play this game, I'll consider joining in,
if you start it by submitting a pro-Christ article so I can see whether you
intend to do anything resembling playing fair.  I'll give you a chance.

However, I think some amendments to the ground rules are in order:

> 1.  You can call a "foul" by private mail to claim that the other side isn't
>       holding up your position (your REAL position) to the best of their
>       ability.  Thus, my saying to D & J:  "You win.  There is no god."
>       would be a foul.

Why private mail?  In most games, fouls are immediately known to all
concerned.  I would prefer to post an article correcting any major
misrepresentations.

I might wish to add a 5th rule, related to my amendment to #1:

5.  It is legal to post unsolicited articles under one's true colors.

I doubt that I would do this very much; almost all the articles I have
originated lately (i.e. not posted for someone else) were in response to
articles by Rich Rosen, Jon White, Tim Stoehr, et al.

> (Before this starts, I have a few things to say in response to the
> recently extremely prolific and flashy all-around guy Jeff Sargent,
> which will appear in my next article.)

"All-around guy"?  I didn't know that.  In fact, I thought my articles made
it clear that I'm nowhere near that designation.

However, I will cheerfully agree that I am somewhat "flashy", but that's just
my personality, not anything directly arising from Christianity.  I was that
way long before I was a Christian.


I would be interested to see what Rich can come up with as arguments in favor
of Christianity, or rather of Christ.  I will withhold any REVERSO submissions
until such time as I see and evaluate one from Rich.  Of course, since it so
far looks as though it would be just a two-man game (at most), it might not be
much fun.  It's up to you, Rich.

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
Software maintenance:  It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.