From: johnsd2@lib111.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: A deep bit of flame bait
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib111.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:47:52 GMT

In article 12803@waikato.ac.nz, arron@waikato.ac.nz () writes:
>It seems to me that a lot of you readers in TALK.RELIGION.MISC really enjoy
>winding up Christians by putting out smart remarks/replies to any old subject.

Well, not just ANY old subject. :)

>I would just like to clarify that there is some cause for us to defend our
>Faith, it does become very important to us, and I can imagine we do look very
>funny biting the way we do.

Um no. I suppose I can only speak to my own motives, but I don't
mean to insult people, or ridicule them, or make them look foolish,
when I post. Not even in my knee-jerk posts (like this one).

I do one thing (that I see others doing also) that I _suspect_
is what is bothering you.

I probe any arguments that interest me, trying to poke at weaknesses
until the argument falls apart (if it does)

If this indeed offends you, then please understand I mean no harm, and
I fully expect you to do the same thing to my arguments. I rather expect
to learn something this way. I very often do.

An easy way to tell if this is what is really bothering you is to read
this article. Its filled with just exactly that sort of stuff. It it
offends you, that's it. :)

>However, it does leave me sad to think that all you guys out there are so happy
>to throw your insults at Christianity just because we appear to be dumb suckers,

Who's throwing insults? Don't overgeneralize. The closest thing to that
I've seen in awhile here is that cute poem about the damned; pretty
harmless imho. (also rather funny, imho)

>and you don't seem to want to take your lives seriously.

Now you are REALLY overgeneralizing. This is certainly not true of all
non-Christians on t.r.m.

Perhaps you should qualify that a bit more, and provide evidence?

> Study, knowledge and
>understanding are all great things,

We think so too.

> but babies don't learn why they should eat,

Sure they do. It just takes while. But they eventually learn about
how humans need food to keep on chugging. Many of them take
biology clases and learn _why_ that is.

>or indeed what is and isn't good for them as kids, before they start eating.

What's with the "before they start eating" time limit? Sometimes it takes
time to learn stuff. (in fact, it basically always does.)

>Also you can't know exactly what it feels like to gain control of a car sliding
>in gravel until you've done it.

That's true. If you mean to imply that non-Christian live = sliding in
a car and Christianity = controlling it, be away the same thing can be
applied in the exact reverse. (Christianity= sliding, non-Christiantiy=
controlling it) with equal validity. (I merely guess which you meant
from context)

>Christianity is real life, not textbook life,

Not sure what you mean to say by this. Literally it makes no sence.
Perhaps you should extrapolate. (I think I missed your metaphor)

> and you have to give it a go
>before you can really experience it.

I'll buy that. :)

But most people on t.r.m have tried, I'll wager. Or did you mean
_your_ brand of Christianity?

> I don't want to make anyone a Christian,
>because that could make me proud.

!!

Does this apply to ANY good deed?

That sounds rather disturbing.

> I want everyone to look for Christianity
>themselves, then the Holy Spirit (who Christ left to support the Church) can do
>the work of revealing to you all the truth of Christianity.

Hmm. That does not always seem to work. Or do we have to look 'hard enuff'?

It also appears to wear off with some people.

Kinda odd for a divine revelation, no?

> And I am looking
>forward to meeting all of you who seek earnestly for him, in heaven at the end
>of these days.                         ^^^^^^^^^

The underlined word is the trick here... "earnestly" just means
"hard enough that you find him". At least that's how it is usually
meant in this context.

If that's what you mean here, then remember that you assuming Gods
existance, which renders this process useless for determining
of God exists (it is a circular argument).

I realise you are not using it like that, but you are coming
close. Thot I'd head you off at the pass.

>Sorry that I care about you all, but it's too hard to stop me now.

I do not think I want to join any religion that discourages caring
about people, thank you very much.

I have enough personality problems without Divine Intervention. :)

---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.