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,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: How come God doesn't affect Dave?
Message-ID: <1718@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 00:47:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1718
Posted: Tue Sep 17 00:47:39 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 03:08:49 EDT
References: <305@pyuxn.UUCP> <630@ihu1m.UUCP> <309@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 38
Xref: watmath net.religion:7669 net.religion.christian:1312

>>>He really is hurting inside worse than someone who simply disagrees or
>>>agrees with something.  It is so obvious that a psychologist would have
>>>little trouble diagnosing it as extreme or peculiar behavior likened to a
>>>psychosis. Paul is so obsessed with his ideas that he has lost the ability to
>>>reason rationally about this subject.  ... I happen to believe in a loving
>>>God, but I don't consider this as raving and ranting about it.  You would be
>>>doing Paul a big favor if you didn't pat him on the back and tell him
>>>everything is OK. [RAY FRANK]

>>I fail to see the difference between you and Paul.  I tend to think you are
>>two of a kind.  Your nonsense is just as raving as that of Paul, but at
>>least Paul speaks cogently and answers questions put to him.  You, on the
>>other hand, are an evader of the first order, and your positions have never
>>once been substantiated by anything at all.  Paul's reasoning may be exactly
>>the same in quality as those who believe in God (only diametrically opposite),
>>but your "reasoning" processes have yet to be seen. [ROSEN]

> Look up "obsessive behavior" in a psychology book. Paul's postings about
> the subject obiously show some deep-seated obsession about "beating" his
> god to the punch. [HATEM]

Hmmm.  What do psychology books say about "god whorshipers"?  (As Paul would
so eloquently say...)  Do they not qualify for such "obvious" judgmentalness?
Why?  Because their position is so obviously right?  I don't understand.
That's a very odd double standard you're wielding there.  Why is Paul's
"deep-seated obsession" worth condemning, while those obsessions of religious
believers in general are not?

(By the way, if we're talking about obsessive behavior, might I suggest
reading the articles of the man you chose to defend here, Ray Frank?  A
perfect example:  facts are answered with "Oh, yeah, well prove that I'm
wrong!" or "My mind is cast in cement".  A far cry from someone like Paul. 
Though his beliefs may be unconventional, his postings have always been as
clear and cogent as any I've seen in these newsgroups, yet still the victim
of a great deal of abuse.  Says something, doesn't it?)
-- 
Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.
					Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com