Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!tim From: tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer] Message-ID: <326@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 00:16:24 EST Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.326 Posted: Tue Mar 19 00:16:24 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Mar-85 03:22:40 EST References: <4947@cbscc.UUCP>, <302@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <4991@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking Lines: 97 Xref: watmath net.religion:6177 net.religion.christian:475 > From pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Fri Mar 15 13:17:32 1985 > [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. I suggest you read better. Many times I have said here that I use Christian symbolism in my work and that I consider the Jesus legend a valid manifestation of the Dying God archetypal story. People don't want to hear that; it doesn't fit their image of me as a nasty hateful person who is just pissed off that Christianity is right. So they forget it as soon as it scrolls past their face. I do criticize Christianity, and I do it often. That is because people insist on saying false things about it, putting a nicer face in it than it really has. For instance, would you believe that someone actually claimed that it was impossible for a mainstream Christian to justify the persecution of unbelievers using the Bible, which is full of praise for people who persecuted unbelievers? I don't know where people get such nonsense, but I'm not about to let it go by. Also, fundies like the late (of this group, that is) and unlamented Larry Bickford, Ken Nichols, Gary Samuelson, etc., insist on insulting me by telling me I have to join their religion or I will be rightfully tortured for all eternity. When I explain to them why I don't consider that to be a valid argument, Christians of all denominations start screaming that I'm attacking them, when all I'm doing is defending myself. (This despite the fact that I was careful to avoid anything that implied that people who DID accept Christianity were wrong.) It seems that what is wanted is simply for me to shut up whenever I am attacked because of my non-Christianity, or I see someone spouting absurdities about Christianity. > 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. If you are going to represent my position in a certain way, you are supposed to have a reason for thinking that is what it is. Having no reason to think that is NOT what it is does not suffice. > >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. Sorry for misrepresenting you. I could have sworn you were a fundamentalist. What parts of the Bible do you think are false? In any case, I should not have said "fundamentalist", but "Biblical literalist"; that is, someone who believes that the Bible is largely accurate about such impossibilities as resurrection of the long-dead having occurred. My apologies for my lack of clarity. > 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? Yes indeed. Remember, I wasn't born a Thelemite. I picked it because it agreed with what my reason told me about morality and religious experience. Do you have some objection in particular? As for proof, that was in part a reaction to your net.religion message and in part to personal mail. Not just personal mail to me; someone else posted a message here recently saying that you had made a similar demand of "proof" in personal mail to him. > 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. When people misrepresent my positions, making them into what they wish the positions were rather than what the positions actually are, I can see no reason not to call that a lie. Whether it is from malice or irresponsibility makes no difference. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"