From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Keywords: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:38:15 GMT


Note: The "Newsgroups" line now has talk.abortion and talk.religion.misc
and alt.atheism and alt.politics.misc in it.

In <BuCyC9.M6x.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>In article <nyikos.715888864@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>#In <Bu42ME.5y2.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>#
>##In article <nyikos.715655719@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>###In <1992Sep3.213620.21098@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>####
>####In <1992Sep3.201731.13010@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>###
>#####From article <1992Aug26.061545.18227@s1.gov#, by lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich):
>###### 	Well, to be fair, even Jesus Christ was known for white-hot
>###### rages, or so his biographers depict. Consider what those poor Scribes
>###### and Pharisees suffered.
>###
>#####Oh, yeah, He really crucified them.
>###
>####     I am disgusted. I find this lighthearted treatment of the Savior's
>####agony on the cross appalling and blasphemous. I demand an apology!
>###
>###You don't fool me for one second, M. Price.  I wonder if anyone doesn't
>###see you are being sarcastic.
>#
>##Why would you say that, Nyikos?  Do you think that no Christians
>##support legal abortion?
>#
>#Who said anything about abortion above?  Of course lots of Christians
>#support legal abortion.  What I'm saying is that M. Price's "disgust"
>#about "blasphemy" is phony.  I've known Christians of all shades and
>#stripes, and from everything I've ever heard from them, M. Price's
>#statement sounds as phony as a $3 bill.  

>Is DOD's outrage at statements which he thinks denigrate Christianity
>"phony"?  DOD claims not to be a Christian, by the way.

What little I have seen of them, they are not so transparently insincere,
and I haven't seen him use the word "blasphemous".

>#And that's even without taking into account his silence about Loren's
>#talk about the "white-hot rages."  With that, the statement becomes
>#as phony as a $3.50 bill.

>Indeed?  Do you define Christianity, now, too?

Christianity is something I have done an enormous amount of reading
and thinking and discussing about.

I know, for example, that crucifixion was a common method of execution
in Roman times.  Right with Jesus there were crucified two thieves,
and to one of them he said he would be that day in paradise, but he
said no such thing to the other thief.  Only someone who knows little 
about Christianity thinks it glorifies crucifixion to the point that
joking about it is blasphemous.  

People who believe in the main tenets of Christianity (which is something
quite different from people who call themselves Christians) do not use
the word blasphemy lightly.   This is one of the main points of a post,
"J'ACCUSE JOAN CAMPBELL" that I will be making today.

Some of them might very well take the comment about "white hot rages" to
be blasphemous, calling into question the divinity of Christ by the
implication that he was out of control.  M. Price's failure to comment
on this really gives him away.

>##  Any other stereotypes that you subscribe
>##to that you'd like to tell us about?
>#
>#Do you subscribe to M. Price's stereotype of how a Christian would 
>#respond to Suzanne's statement?

>A single statement does not a stereotype make.  You seem to
>believe that all Christians respond in the same way.  I
>wonder why.

There is an enormous variation in Christianity.  Many sincere 
Christians would think most of Job's statements in the Biblical
book of the same name are blasphemous, were they aware of them.
But Job has gotten an incredibly distorted reputation
as the "patient" person of the first and last chapters of the book.

But M. Price's statement and concomitant silence are simply 
beyond the pale. 

>##I note that you didn't make a similar response the last time DOD
>##got all self righteous about a religion he claims not to believe
>##in.  I'm not surprised.
>#
>#Before I answer this question, could you please tell me what DOD
>#stands for?  Dear Old Doug, maybe?

>I thought that was fairly obvious - Drieux does spell it out on
>a regular basis.

>Care to answer my question now?

I already answered it above.

>Susan