Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!microsof!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!floyd!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!tim From: tim@unc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Views on Religions - (nf) Message-ID: <5319@unc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Jun-83 12:53:16 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.5319 Posted: Mon Jun 6 12:53:16 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 7-Jun-83 23:04:16 EDT Lines: 65 At first, I wasn't going to respond to this. I get so many per- sonal insults on net.religion that answering all of them would keep me from doing anything else. However, I hate to turn down a clear challenge. Note: things in [[ ]] are from unc!tim, our resident fla- mer....... [[ Please do not make unwarranted assumptions about all religions if all that you have known are popular religions. These thrive by feeding the lowest impulses of people and telling them that they are noble. That is how they get popu- lar, by telling their members that the mere fact of membership is sufficient to make them superior to non-members. ]] Gee, Tim, that sounds like a fat generalization to me. I am Catholic, and I have NEVER felt that I was noble just because I was Catholic and Person X was not. I resent the accusation that my religion feeds only my lowest im- pulses to keep me interested. Maybe yours does and that's why you're so into it...... Gee, Eric, that sure doesn't sound like the Catholicism I was raised in. The Church had this thing called "exclusive salva- tion". In laymen's terms, if you aren't a Catholic, well, sorry about that but you have to go to Hell. In Prolog, damned(X) :- not_catholic(X). This is a perfect example of the sort of ex- treme preferentialism fostered by popular religions. How can you treat the damned as equals when you are saved? Perhaps this is possible for a few, but it would be silly to imagine that most people can do this. This sort of doctrine encourages a lack of respect for unbelievers, and bolsters the ego of believers. As for your accusation about my religion, it is irresponsible and sophomoric, and has no place in a reasonable discussion. A ra- tional person does not talk about things he or she knows nothing about. [[ It is unreasonable to expect members of a re- ligion not to bring up their children within that religion. However, this need not involve brainwashing and jingoism. Your sweeping gen- eralities are very insulting to people of all re- ligions. Do not speak of "all religions" unless you know virtually all. ]] Thanks, Tim. I think you just abolished all need for this newsgroup. No one on netnews has seen everything, so I guess no one has the right to submit an opinion, huh?? Yeh, RIGHT!! I don't think YOU have experienced every religion around, so why are you saying anything about the popular ones. Ease up. More sophomoric nonsense. My exhortation not to make sweeping generalizations about all religions has nothing to do with what you claim I said. This is obvious to any rational reader, so I won't belabor it here. It is amazing to me that you could let your temper control you like this in a public forum. Ease up yourself. Remember, Christians have this thing about "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? Tim Maroney