NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/religion/misc/21823

Text File | 1992-11-22 | 3.5 KB | 71 lines

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!gus.ecn.purdue.edu!lungtt
From: [e-mail] (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: God speaks
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 22:01:51 GMT
Lines: 59

>From: [e-mail] (Gregg Skinner)

>Mr. Sandvik asks more questions, but still refuses to either retract
>or defend his claim that he is morally sound.  I am forced to repeat
>myself.
Did he really claim to be morally sound?  I thought he only claimed
not to be a barbaric destroyer.  In any case, it is all relative,
and I would stop picking on the guy over the point.  I doubt if
he even meant it in absolutes.  As Richard Nixon would say:

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

...and English isn't Nixon's umptimillionth language.  And having
nothing new under the sun...I think Nixon is reflecting *a* gist
of James 1:19:  My dear brothers, take note of this:  Everyone should
be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry...

>Meaningful discussion cannot continue,
oh really?  was it ever meaningful to begin with?
>though, because at present there is reason to question whether
>Mr. Sandvik approaches these discussions with integrity.
Who does approach these discussions with absolute integrity?
I dare think most people *try*.  But for one data point [i.e. n=1]
I myself have a very difficult time keeping a straight face reading
some of this stuff.  Thus, I often find that I've drifted into bogosity
consciously or unconsciously.  More often I think, it is a drift
into fecetiousness or bad sarcasm.

>>...It seems many Christians have the view that primitive
>>barbaric tribes were atheist-oriented.
or anyone sufficiently ignorant...the ignorant are not uniquely
a subset of those considered-in-any-way-shape-or-form-Christian
you know...

>I greet with skepticism the suggestion that many Christian have this
>view.  Mr. Lung is the first I have encountered to say anything close,
        ^^^^^^^^  that could be me.  Am I Christian?  Why do you say so?
>and even he did not say much more than something about Attila the Hun
>being atheist.
>(Mr. Lung seems to favor using individuals as
>examples, explicitly avoiding generalizations such as the one above.)
Yep.  To be fair I should also have mentioned a couple child-molesting
priests and the extra-marital-affair-clergy that confirmed me.
Barbaric destroyers?  maybe.  were they ever Christian?  possibly.  atheist?
i dunno.  what should anyone think?  who knows?  [I would start
with 1 Cor 5...I am not proud of these examples, rather I am ashamed.]

Incidentally, I was being fecetious about Attila.  I've never been
convinced that anyone is atheist.  European propaganda called Huns the
*godless*, then German propagandists called the Russians Huns and
in turn, American propagandists [e.g. me] once called the Germans Huns
[e.g. my buddy Hans the Hun from Munchen]...
Gee.  I guess we're all godless.  NOT.  I think everyone is into one sort
of idol worship or another [often themselves].  Anybody dare to deny
worshipping something?  in a loose sense, I don't think a god has to
be a deity...maybe in a deluded sense of grandeur, but altogether...no..

Terence