Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site phs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!phs!lisa
From: lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: net.religion.christian?
Message-ID: <959@phs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Oct-84 08:24:15 EST
Article-I.D.: phs.959
Posted: Tue Oct 30 08:24:15 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Oct-84 06:34:01 EST
Organization: Duke Physiology
Lines: 49

<>

It seems that some of the recent discussions on net.religion are
getting a bit frustrating.  By now, I think I must have a better list
of people destined for the fire than St. Peter himself.  BUT, before
we cast off those stubborn evangelists into the outer darkness of
net.religion.christian, perhaps a word in their defense is in order.

I like to think that I have a modicum of concern for my fellow human
beings.  If one of my friends had too much to drink at a party, I like
to think I would try to talk him/her out of driving home, and would help
make other arrangements.  If I saw a building on fire and thought I could
help someone out, I like to think I would do what I could.

In the creeds of the Presbyterian Church (of which I am a member), there
is a doctrine called "election" - God knows who is going to "make it" and 
who isn't.  Thus I can feel free to discuss religion on many different
levels without trying to "convert" everyone to Presbyterianism.

Many of my more conservative "brethren" (and sistern) see things a lot
differently.  They see a literal lake of burning sulfur, and people
suspended over it by thin threads.  They see the Bible (interpreted
their way, of course :-)) as the final word on all of life, and (what
is most frustrating) they feel that they are on a "mission from God"
to convert everyone to their brand of Christianity.

I don't want to caricature these beliefs.  The point I want to make is
that several people on this net *really believe* this way.  If some of
us are more "intelligent", more "tolerant", more "enlightened", more
"critical", let's also be more "secure" personally.  If we can't compro-
mise our personal integrity to accept "the Bible said it - that settles
it," what right do we have to insist everyone else compromise *their*
personal integrity or get off net.religion?

Yirmiyahu BenDavid is absolutely right.  If people want to discuss their
own religious ideas without fear of disagreement (ie if they want to hide
their heads in the sand), let them go to a subgroup reserved for this purpose.
If the majority of us on the net are insecure enough that we can't expose
ourselves to these "fundamentalists" without feeling personally hurt,
if we can't give better answers to their arguments, and if we haven't
learned to use the 'n' key to skip discussions that have become futile,
then let us force the evangelists into their own net.ghetto.

	Jeff Gillette		...!duke!phs!lisa
	The Divinity School
	Duke University