Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Proposal for net.religion subgroups
Message-ID: <245@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 20:11:58 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.245
Posted: Tue Nov  6 20:11:58 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 00:55:08 EST
References: <187@hocsj.UUCP> <428@uwmacc.UUCP> <342@klipper.UUCP>, <228@pyuxd.UUCP> <1448@pucc-h>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 50

>>>But the real reason for subgrouping net.religion is, that it is fatiguing
>>>to have to defend the basics of your creed which you just want to assume to
>>>be able to talk about the `details'.  [LEEPER??]

>>I guess some people would rather assume than "waste time" defending the basics
>>of their creeds.  [RICH ROSEN]

> I think you're one of these people. [JEFF SARGENT]

Oh.

> The basis of your creed (for lack of a
> better word) is that just because there isn't physical evidence for something,
> it doesn't exist or it didn't happen.  This is just an assumption, a rather
> cynical one.

As opposed to the creed that assumes (or is that not the word?) that even though
there isn't physical evidence for something, it DOES exist and it DID happen.
(p.s. it IS the word)

>>Petty divisive isolationism only leads to 1) stagnation and reinforcement of
>>beliefs without allowing for further analysis and (more importantly)
>>2) breeding grounds for intolerance that lead to terror, assassination, war,
>>and death.

> Perhaps "petty divisive isolationism" (pretty inflammatory language) would do
> such a thing.  However, a Christian support group is for a purpose quite
> opposite from stagnation; it is for the purpose of increasing the power and
> strength of our Christian *living*.  However, things we discuss in such a
> group would not make sense to anyone who had not shared the experience of
> being a Christian -- e.g. how to surrender to God, get yourself out of the
> way, and let His loving Spirit come through.  This is something that's hard
> enough for a Christian to grasp, let alone an atheist.

I thought you had said that the purpose was "quite opposite from stagnation".
Yet the examples you give...

> But yes, members of any faith do need to talk about the details unhampered by
> criticism.  That way, they will (we hope) become better able to handle the
> criticism...not necessarily by splendid argument, but rather by showing God's
> love and power unmistakably.

Translation:  they will (they hope) be better able to handle the criticism
because they won't *hear* any criticism, and/or they'll have additional time
to be better indoctrinated so that they either don't believe the criticism or
ignore it (as being "satanic" or whatever).  It seems that no one in THIS
newsgroup needs that additional time, judging from responses to questions.
-- 
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
			Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr