Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!uwvax!caip!sri-spam!nike!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!cbatt!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!magore From: magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: A Fig for 'what's his name'. Message-ID: <2572@watdcsu.UUCP> Date: Mon, 22-Sep-86 05:00:41 EDT Article-I.D.: watdcsu.2572 Posted: Mon Sep 22 05:00:41 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 00:55:38 EDT References: <5369@decwrl.DEC.COM> <8590@duke.duke.UUCP> Reply-To: magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 119 Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:237 net.religion.christian:4718 [warning light ahead]...Well perhaps In article <8590@duke.duke.UUCP> rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) writes: >[warning flame ahead] > >In article <5369@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: [munch] >>Ken Arndt > >A new crusader appears to have jumped on the net. Every so often someone >attacks the net with a vengence, spewing out article after article. Mr. Arndt >appears to be the most recent example. I have been following >talk.religion.misc since its inception and have been for the most part very >pleased with the high traffic and intelligent discussion in it. However, >occasionally someone like Mr. Arndt comes along and damages the arguments >of many on the net. His rambling, almost unreadable text is filled with ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Perhaps you can't damage an argument unless it has holes in it...?(-: If you *just* disagree *simply* state your position. History and your arguments will stand on it's own....But words like 'vengence', 'attacks', 'spewing', 'damages', 'unreadable'. Emotional words from someone who want's intelligent discussion? >condescending remarks and sickening cuteness. He evidently expects people >to agree with his opionions simply because he has said it is so. This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If this is the case it would have been noticed and *that would be that*.... >attitude and method greatly denigrates the efforts of the many well meaning, >intelligent Christians who have been submitting articles to this newsgroup. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And you speak for all? (Some ? ... a few ... 1)? >I must also comment on his disgusting racial slurs and political diatribe ^^^^^^^^^ I've read many postings by Ken and haven't seen any of this nature *yet*. An example would have been in keeping with what you expect from yourself. (I hope that people will not think I'm trying to speek for them here. I'm voicing my own views here... ie 1) >which he inserted into one of his early articles. That kind of statement >does not have any place in this newsgroup. > >I am not a Christian, but I am willing to listen and discuss the Christian >viewpoint at any time. It is this kind of discussion which allows people >of diverse religious backgrounds to live together in peace. It is the ^^^^^^^^^^^ To have peace one must be humble first to *accept* differing views. Here 'accept' is as in 'endure' without protest but still adult disscussion can happen. >intoleration of opposing religious views which has recently been on the ^^^^^^^^^^ There is a difference between intoleration and defence. To some defence *SEEMS* like intolerance. Two guesses why. >rise in the US that has so many non-Christians striking back in retaliation. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ever thought that 'retaliation' causes defensiveness, as in to defend? >I urge everyone who participates in this newsgroup to keep their postings >intelligent and thoughtful. Postings like Mr. Arndt's are ineffective ^^^^^^^^^^ It's been known that opinions are ineffective if you don't agree. >at changing opinions and merely incense others. This then leads to emotional >rhetoric from the other side and the ensuing feud wastes time which could ^^^^^^^ See above. >better be spent on logical, adult discussion. > >I am also amazed at people who post to the net without even bothering >to substantiate their words. Perhaps this is inevitable in a discussion ^^^^^^^ Use only accepted secular texts? ( I know you talk about circular reasoning later however....:-) >on religious issues. So many people have been taught religion since early >childhood that I believe they simply accept it as fact. It is obvious >that many Christians have had almost no real exposure to any other religion >but their own. In fact it seems that they are even unaware of the many >different sects and offshoots of the Christian religion which are thriving >today. I would urge everyone to spend a little time studying religion >before making rash statements which will simply be rebutted immediately >by someone more knowledgeable. > These last statements I agree with (just so I'm not labeled a critic here). [munch] >...The concept of circular reasoning >has been brought up over and over. I suggest you look up the term and >try a new method of persuasion. > >Jim Nusbaum [munch] >R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, [munch munch] And again I agree in that last statements. Jim I can see your upset. You fail to live up to your ideal in this posting though. What do you feel about people that have a personal experiance with God? Many Christians take that for granted when they quote the Bible as support. (re circular reasoning etc...) I realize Ken should reply here in his own defence. I feel issues here affect more then him. You brought up a problem. Here is an observation: The method and attitude that you use in your posting are a self example of some problems in this group. I hope I haven't cast too much gloom on your day though! # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.