Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Sundry Replies and a Survey
Message-ID: <471@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Feb-84 18:00:45 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.471
Posted: Fri Feb 17 18:00:45 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Feb-84 04:39:40 EST
References: <847@qubix.UUCP>
Organization: Central Services Org., Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 89

HOW LONG MUST WE PUT UP WITH LARRY BICKFORD MISQUOTING PEOPLE AND
USING THEIR WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT?????

> Rather than quoting everybody, I'll address an answer to the
> questions as Rich Rosen perhaps said them best:
>>	1. The god described in the bible is a pig (or some such epithet).
>>	2. If the bible is true, and this god does indeed exist as described,
>>		he is much more worthy of repugnance than worship. [FOLLOWED BY
>>		SUBSTANTIATION]
>> ...could you please show me where the illogic is?
> (1) is value judgment. On what (or whose) system is it based?
> (2) fails to include man as he is described in the bible. Tim's
> "substantiation" rejects the Biblical description of man. If you only
> accept part of the Bible, you could make a case for almost anything, but
> Tim's premise was that the Bible is true.  Start with man not the
> innocent and deserving-of-compasison that Tim portrays, but one
> deserving judgment, and the picture changes. =><=

Once again, Tim NEVER says that he believes the Bible to be true.  He says that
(and I said that) "IF  (Please look up the word 'if', Larry, and read the
example sentences that go with the definition!!)  IF the bible is true, then
the following things are evident ..."

The context of the section of my article that Larry quoted is never made
clear, and again Larry takes the words and twists them to his own ends.
All that I said was that the train of logic that Tim appeared to take
was valid, but since Larry omitted steps 3 and 4 (and apparently assumed
that everyone has forgotten what they were), here is the complete list
(1-4).  "4" goes a bit overboard but is included for completeness.

>>	1. The god described in the bible is a pig (or some such epithet).
>>	2. If the bible is true, and this god does indeed exist as described,
>>		he is much more worthy of repugnance than worship. [FOLLOWED BY
>>		SUBSTANTIATION]
3.  However, I do not believe the bible to be true.  I either believe that
	if there is a god it is of a different form than that described in the
	bible, or that there is no god at all. [FOLLOWED POSSIBLY BY
	SHOWING FLAWS IN BIBLICAL WRITINGS TO SUBSTANTIATE BELIEF THAT THE
	BIBLE IS NOT TRUE]

4.  Those self-righteous enough to believe that the "word" described in the
	bible is the "truth" and the only way are misguided.  Those who
	would look down upon those who do not are contemptible (despite their
	words about "god loves you anyway though you do not see the truth"
	and "you will see the truth in time").  Those who would impose this
	belief structure on others who do not adhere to it ("for their own
	good and the good of society" usually means "to increase my/our
	power") are dangerous. [THUS THOSE WHO CONDEMN "RELIGIONISTS"
	(autocratic ones) AND DENY THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THEIR HOLY WRITINGS ARE
	CONDEMNING THEIR SELF-RIGHTEOUS AND SELF-CENTERED ACTIONS, AND
	POSSIBLY ARE SAYING THAT THE VERY NATURE OF SUCH SOCIETAL-ORGANIZING
	SYSTEMS LEADS TO CORRUPTED ABSOLUTE POWER.  SUCH A PERSON COULD ALSO
	SAY THAT IF THE HOLY WRITING *ARE* TRUE, THE GOD THEY DEPICT IS NOT
	WORTHY OF WORSHIP, WITHOUT BEING "ILLOGICAL".]
>> ...could you please show me where the illogic is?

Larry fails to address the question directly.  Is this a standard
tactic of autocratic religionists or is Larry an isolated case?

Larry:
> 1. Fascism implies a despot. The Greek word which transliterates to
> "despot" is used several times in the New Testament. So you're not far off.

I guess this shows Larry's true colors.  Finally, in response to my
suggestion "Don't worship anything.", Larry simply says, "Impossible."
He then goes on to describe different modes of what he considers
"non-bootlicking" type worshipping, but he (of course) fails to state
why he thinks not worshipping anything is an impossibility.  Why is it
possible for so many independent thinking human beings?  What is
different about you?  Is it that you realize your lowly position in this
universe (and that, of course, we don't)?  Or because you believe that you have
such a position (or want it)?

It's one thing to offer an opinion, but quite another to misquote people
to make your opinion seem more valid.  I can't help but feel the physical
wall you put up, Larry, every time I post a note to you or read a note
from you.  Defined:  God knows what's best for me, so I will do it, because
it is the only way I can live.  "How do you know God exists, has your best
interests in minds, knows what they are, and/or is willing to communicate
them with you?"  These are all givens.  "Why?"  Because it says so in the
Bible, and because I have experienced it in my life.  "Give me an
example."            After a decade or so of this sort of banter that points
nowhere, when one or more of us ask "Why do believe these things about god and
the bible?"  We get 1) roundabout answers we've heard before 2) requests
for our input that wind up being misquoted and used out of context in your
next article.   What's going on here????
-- 
Pardon me for breathing, which I never do anyway oh, god, I'm so depressed...
	Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr