Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!hedrick
From: hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian,net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: The writings of Don Black (Bravo Rich!)
Message-ID: <1052@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 14:51:10 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.1052
Posted: Tue Mar 26 14:51:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Mar-85 05:01:51 EST
References: <653@pyuxd.UUCP> <200@ihu1n.UUCP> <1291@shark.UUCP> <745@pyuxd.UUCP> <1050@topaz.ARPA>
Reply-To: hedrick@topaz.UUCP (Chuck hedrick)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 44
Xref: watmath net.religion:6306 net.religion.christian:517 net.religion.jewish:1738

It is perhaps worth describing how I decide what to respond to on the net.
I think other people follow a similar strategy.  I would prefer these news
groups to be for rational discussions of topics that I find interesting.  I
do not expect to hear what every reader thinks on every topic.  Indeed, I
don't *want* to hear what everyone thinks.  What I want to see are
well-documented articles that actually give me information I wouldn't
otherwise have.  Good examples are the detailed summaries of Boswell's book
on homosexuality, and Jeff Gillette's exegetical comments on the relevant
passages from Paul.  But there is already too much random flaming.  I am
glad that Don Black posted his summary of Identity Christianity.  I am
appalled at the collection of beliefs there, but I am glad to know that it
exists, and I would rather hear it from him than get a second-hand summary
from someone who despises it.  If I had anything to say in response to it
that I thought most of the readers hadn't heard, I would say them.  But I
don't.  I have no first-hand experience of the holocaust, and their analysis
of the relevant OT and NT passages is so implausible that I can't believe
anyone would find my rebuttals of any interest.

If this group were a deliberative body, the situation would be very
different.  If someone suggested that my local church should adopt Identity
Christianity, then I would be obligated to do what I could to stop it.  In
that context, it might well be that "silence gives consent".  But we are not
a deliberative body.  We are not making any decisions, and there is no
obligation for people to speak up when they see something that they disagree
with.  Indeed this group would quickly become impractical if we heard from
everyone that considered a posting to be wrong or even immoral.

Non-Christians should not try to judge what Christians think by reading
net.religion.christian.  If you are interested, you might want to talk to
Christians near you, or contact a local church.  You are not necessarily
going to be able to tell which views on n.r.c are considered by most
Christians to be "off the wall", and which are wide-spread (though when I
post something, I do try to give you some idea whether I am giving you some
private speculation or something that I think there would be a concensus
about).  It would also be legitimate to post a request asking whether a
particular view is widespread.  Someone did that a month or so ago about the
Trinity.  That seemed a reasonable enough question.  Note however that in
order to get a good response to a question like that, we are going to need
opinions from at least a half-dozen people, who know various of the major
Christian traditions.  We certainly don't want to do this for every issue
being discussed.  If anyone seriously doubts that Christians in general
believe that the holocaust occured, you could ask.  But you should not
expect that the readership is going to feel an obligation to condemn
everything with which they disagree.