Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site hocsj.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!hocsj!ecl
From: ecl@hocsj.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Proposal for net.religion subgroups
Message-ID: <221@hocsj.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Nov-84 08:50:17 EST
Article-I.D.: hocsj.221
Posted: Mon Nov  5 08:50:17 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Nov-84 06:37:47 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 41

Yes, Charley, net.religion.jewish is predicated on a belief in Judaism--that's
how it was defined.  Yes, net.religion.christian should be similar.

Questions about the validity of religion should go into the appropriate
subgroup.  If a Baptist and a Catholic want to slug it out, they should do it
in net.religion.christian.  If the  Baptist wants to save all the
non-Christians as well, he should consider the following:
	if they are at all interested in Christianity,
		they'll read net.religion.christian
	if they're not interested, his postings are only going to irritate
		them, not convert them

Examples:
    Are crickets considered fleishich (sp?) or parve -> net.religion.jewish
    How often should Catholics go to confession      -> net.religion.christian
    Is Thanksgiving a secular holiday                -> net.religion
    What is the historical basis for the New Testament -> net.religion.christian
    What is the historical basis for the Old Testament -> net.religion.christian
                                                      and net.religion.jewish
    If you don't convert, you'll burn in hell        -> /dev/null

> I suspect that the reason christianity is such a hot topic (in both senses)
> is that a) certain branches stress prosyletizing (sp?), and b) it's the only
> religion the atheists know much about historically.  Until we have lots of
> Taoists or Buddhists on the net, I don't expect to see much activity that
> doesn't somehow involve christianity.

Proselytizing "irritates" (a stronger word might apply here) Jews because
historically it has been "convert or die."  A basic understanding of this
feeling might make some of the proselytizers less gung-ho about forcing their
"help" on the rest of us poor benighted souls.  (Then again, it never has in
the past.)

What bugs me about Wingate's statement above is that he's either 1) just
written off all the Jews on the net, or 2) lumped them in with the Christians.
*This* is offensive.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl