From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:50:05 GMT

In <1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>> In article mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>> >In nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> >    <...> the fact that Suzanne
>>> >used the word "crucified" to refer to the justifiable tongue-lashing
>>> >Christ gave those who debased His temple trivializes the agony and
>>> >suffering He underwent in His death and spiritual separation from His
>>> >Father.

>Suzanne seems to ignore the castigation of other Christians who take her
>to task for trivializing their god's contributions.  I notice she doesn't
>apologize for it.

Get with it, Gordon!  Don't you see how Ivan has exposed M. Price's 
"castigation" for the hoax that it is?  And I've addressed this
"castigation" myself several times.

And is M. Price really a Christian?  Who are the others who have
"castigated" Suzanne, and is any of them really a Christian?

If you insist on perpetuating this charade, go ahead, but tell the "other
Christians" to be prepared
to "defend Christianity" against atheists as well as actual Christians
like Suzanne.  Otherwise everyone will see how hollow their "Christianity"
really is.

>>> I don't think I'm the only one here (I'm posting from alt.atheism) who
>>> is tired of this talk about the "agony", "suffering", and "death" of
>>> Jesus from Nazareth.  (Yes, I mean all those quotation marks).
>>> ...
>>> Rightly so.  Go ahead, prove that he suffered.  Only be sure to make
>>> it quite clear that he didn't just fake suffering (for whatever purpose).
>>
>>Oh, yeah, you mean like the way unborn babies "fake" their suffering when
>>they are ripped limb from limb via abortion.
>>
>>Get real.

>Indeed.  I suggest you take that advice.  The suffering of the mythical
>"unborn baby" is on par with the "suffering" of the mythical Mermaid by the
>pollution of the oceans, or the "suffering" of mythical Pink Elephants
>that die in car crashes with drunk drivers.

If Suzanne chooses to regard a fetus as an unborn baby, her choice should
not be trivialized in this manner.

I note your failure to address the question of whether Christ faked his
suffering.  Since you are, by your .sig, a professional atheist,
 I suggest you get the
"Christians" who "castigated" Suzanne to address it.  Note especially
how M. Price uses the terms "trivializes the agony and suffering."

I have a feeling a lot of talk.abortion regulars have only a dim idea
of what the words "dead giveaway" have to do with.  They have heard the
words all right, and may be able to regurgitate a definition on a quiz,
but they are so fixated on the concept of "baseless speculation" that
they cannot recognize real-life examples of dead giveaways.

>  Please deal with the real
>suffering, of those women who accidently get pregnant when they do not
>want to be pregnant.  Those women who are in danger of losing their job,
>career, education, or possibly their family's love.

None of this takes a candle to the suffering of Nancyjo Mann related in
my post, THE SUFFERING OF SOME UNBORN AND THEIR MOTHERS, Case 1.  Or do
you take the view that she faked that suffering?

[BTW the post has expired on my screen but if I see a need, I can re-post 
it.  Follow-ups contain other examples of real-life suffering at the
hands of abortionists.]

At any rate, I have dealt with this real-world suffering and will
continue to do so.  If Suzanne has not, it is due to lack of time
rather than the kind of callousness to women that you and other
pro-choicers continually display towards the unborn.

>Gordon, Professional Atheist

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39413 talk.politics.misc:48598