Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: In defense of Larry Bickford
Message-ID: <432@opus.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-May-84 03:15:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.432
Posted: Tue May  1 03:15:27 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 3-May-84 08:28:27 EDT
References: <104@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 89

<>
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