Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer]
Message-ID: <4991@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Mar-85 13:17:32 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4991
Posted: Fri Mar 15 13:17:32 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 05:31:46 EST
References: <4947@cbscc.UUCP>, <302@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 47
Xref: watmath net.religion:6070 net.religion.christian:448

[Tim Maroney:]
>Paul, I take very poorly to people misrepresenting my positions.  I do not
>think Christianity is horrible.  I have never made any comment about
>Christianity that would imply such a belief.  Christians sometimes find it
>convenient to misrepresent me in this way to make it easy to write off
>anything I say, much as the segregated black social clubs which I opposed at
>college called me a racist.  My understanding of the motive does not lessen
>the negativity of my reaction: this sort of lie is totally irresponsible.

I have a different opinion about the implications of your writing about
Christianity, I guess.  I suppose our idea of what your words imply doesn't
count since we are only trying to write off anything you say?  If that isn't
your position, Tim, then I suggest you represent your position better.  Maybe
you do think there is something good about Christianity.  I certainly don't
know what it is.  By and large, you only speak out about Christianity and
Christians in order to condemn some aspect of it or their actions.  You have
even stated that horrible actions are inherenty justified by biblical doctrine.

To accuse me of lying here implies that I know of things that should give
me a different impression of your attitude toward Christianity.  I don't.
If my impression of your true feelings about Christianity is wrong, I apologise.
But I do get that impression from what you write here and I'm not trying pass
off anything you say.  At worst, I misunderstand your position, not
misrepresent it.

>Furthermore, I find it ludicrous that a fundamentalist creationist is
>demanding "proof" of others' religious positions.  Give me a break.

A fundamentalists I am not (unless you say so, of course).  Creationist?
Well, I'll just say that as far as evolutionism goes I am not a true
believer.  I don't buy the whole creationist line either.

I am not demanding proof from Byron in particular.  I differ with him
as to whether religious positions can be compared, or justified
philosophically in comparision to others.  He seems to understand that.
You have spent a lot of time rejecting the claims of Christianity with
rational argument.  Do you subject the claims of your own religion to
the same scrutiny?

If you want a "break" you are welcome to hit 'n' when you see my articles.
I'm not forcing you to read anything I write, Tim, and I would expect that
you would find much of it to be ludicrous.  Seeing how you are so quick
to belittle those who misunderstand you and infer that they are liars,
it comes as no suprise.
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd