Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!mit-eddie!barry
From: barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christianiod intolerance
Message-ID: <3543@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Feb-85 09:16:41 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.3543
Posted: Sat Feb  2 09:16:41 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Feb-85 05:38:15 EST
References: <4935@fortune.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 18

I cannot help but feel angry at everyone's treatment of Richard Bower.
What kind of a religion is it in which its members imply they are acting
on behalf of God by denying access to those whom its members consider
"sinners"?  It has appalled me to see the "knee-jerk" dogmatic response
to the so called moral sins (homosexuality, abortion, pre-marital sex...)
that has developed from the teachings of one who ONLY preached tolerance
and refrained from judgement of ANYONE.  Who are they to do what their
messiah deemed unacceptable?

The "modern day" (anything after about 500 AD) church has totally warped
the perceptions of the book they consider the most sacred (not to mention
warping the religions that came before to suit their own purposes).  The
 advice given in a previous article ("You be the best Christian you can,
while I'll be the best Jew") is the most logical and least dogmatic line
I've read in any of these newsgroups.  I guess, however, nobody would
agree with "be the best homosexual you can".

Blessed Be.