From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!orion!lime!houti!hogpc!hogpd!avi
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: some replies to comments
Article-I.D.: hogpd.23
Posted: Wed Mar 23 22:54:36 1983
Received: Fri Mar 25 07:15:48 1983

I am afraid I may have been misunderstood. I am not debating the right
of Dave Lee (or anyone) to speak on the net - as Vickie Klick may have
assumed. I was trying to comment that I could not be convinced by anyone
who did not follow any of the rules I like to play the game by. Dave can
keep submitting, and I will probably continue to be amused by his
statements and attempts to resolve contradictions with quotations that
seem to be chosen at random. I am particularly amused by quoting from
the "Old Testament" to prove anything about Jesus and Christianity - as if
there could not be any alternate explanations for what those passages
refer to! Isn't there anyone else out there who often fails to understand 
how some of the Bible passages quoted by various people on the net are related
to the point the author wants to make?

I am not saying that amateurs should not attempt to interpret the bible. I am
just saying that they often tend to make serious errors in judgement because
they jump to conclusions based on limited evidence - and then defend their
first impressions no matter what new evidence is presented. I object to the
attitude that some "fundamentalists" (of any faith) have about their
religion. After they have decided that it is the total truth, they try to
"prove" it. If it is so "true', then why bother with proof?

I have had much of my experience with various brands of Jewish Fundamentalists
because I was raised Orthodox. Some of them are even more irritating than
anything I have seen on the net. Luckily, they form a minority within
the Jewish World (and within Orthodox Judaism). Part of what got me into
such a flaming mood, was that Dave reminded me of how useful it was to
debate with some of them. I was not trying to be anti-Christian. I just
am not very much for any group that KNOWS what is good for me and does
not care whether I want something else. I am equally against:
	- Khomeini's attempt to make Iran a totally Moslem state.
	- Attempts to make Israel into a "religious" Jewish State.
	- Any attempt to make America into a religious "Christian State".
	- Attempts by communist countries (such as the USSR) to make
	  atheism the official (and legal) "religion" in their sphere
	  of influence.
	- Book burnings, censorship .....

With regard to Vickies comments that I should follow my traditions while
allowing Dave to follow his, I am puzzled. I am NOT following my traditions.
I have decided that all the traditions I have seen all make equally much
(or dare I say equally little) sense. Most contain some elements of wisdom,
along with tons of garbage that accumulate over the ages. I prefer not to
accept all the religious laws and prohibitions that come with some of the
nice moral principles. I am attached to some of the culture, but not to the
dogma of the truly orthodox.

Finally, I have a comment about some comments made by Tim Maroney:
	Christians *are* preaching on the net. What's wrong with that? If they
	truly believe, it's their duty to preach. What I object to is
	distortion and confusion.

Why is it their duty to "preach". I have heard the argument that says
that we do not have to listen. Why should I have to unsuscribe to net.religion,
to avoid preachers. I do not intend to, but I know dozens of people who have. 
I would be glad to create net.evang (with all its subgroups like
net.evang.catholic, net.evang.baptist, ... net.evang.mormon, ....
net.evang.moonies) so that people do have a forum to preach in and most
of us could stay away from those groups. People do have the right to smoke,
but I am very happy that the law says that many places such as airlines must
supply me with an area where I too can breathe.

Finally, I wonder why some of you feel you are being persecuted every time
someone disagrees with you or questions your reasoning (or - heaven forbid -
your basic premises). I would not take it personally if someone responded
to my statements by giving reasonable alternative views and including
some reasons for their opinions. If convinced, I would admit it. The
problem with religion is (almost by definition) that many "faiths" involve
maintaining an unquestioning state of belief in order to attain some level
of salvation. When someone comes along and says "I refuse to BELIEVE", you
have to convince me with FACTS ...." this questions the entire foundations
of these religions. As some people have already mentioned in this group,
"What is there about the miraculous occurences claimed by one group that
sets them apart from the ones claimed by any other group."

Why should I believe the claims of any group more than those of another?
Why not believe in Olympic gods or Peter Pan or the Tooth fairy? I do not
believe any scientific theories that do not have adequate supportive
evidence, either. I am quite comfortable with relativity theory, but
would not be surprised if some new equations would have to be developed to
deal with some conditions Einstein did not account for - just as Newton's
laws had to be modified to deal with events occuring at higher speeds.
Since this letter has gotten quite long, I think I will retire and try
to catch all the medical 'mistakes' in this weeks episode of "Quincy".

	Avi Gross	(houx[a-z]!hogpd!avi)