Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: In defense of Larry Bickford
Message-ID: <104@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Apr-84 12:37:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.104
Posted: Fri Apr 27 12:37:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Apr-84 07:22:05 EDT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
Lines: 67

[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