Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-nisysg!black From: black@nisysg.DEC Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Matthew 7:6 Message-ID: <1399@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 29-Mar-85 11:43:26 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.1399 Posted: Fri Mar 29 11:43:26 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 31-Mar-85 03:23:17 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 211 Somehow I fail to understand why everything that is not complimentary to Judaism is classified as "antisemetic," "Nazi," "racist," "bigoted," "foolish," "unintelligent," "Neanderthal," etc. Pick your explitive. People who don't follow the "approved" version of history are "naive," "stupid," "unintelligent," "a**h****s," "s***heads," etc. So far, the invectives I have seen on this net from some (not all) of the contributors have only served to strengthen my beliefs. Let me show you some examples of the MAIL I've received in the last few days. Most of it speaks for itself. Notice some of the inclinations to smear the individual, to question the intelligence level, to restrain the civil rights, to declare things to be not protected by law, all of which I have said in the past that I abhor out of principle. In this first letter, the writer did go into some very good detailed information. And he made some compelling arguements concerning the conduct of World War II. These comments more appropriately belong to net.politics. I have edited out those comments for brevity. >Thank you for your naive letter. It is nice to see foolish >innocence in the world. It also explains your foolish postings to >the various newsgroups from a psychological point of view. I will >try to explain what I mean in the simplest of language. I'll >avoid as many words of over 3-5 letters so you will understand. >If not, there is a big book called a "dictionary". You use it to >look things up in. Please use it when you don't understand a >word. As an example, why not start by trying to find the word >"condescending". This is what I am by even bothering to respond >to your naive letter. Note: con-de-scend (v.) To agree to do something one regards as beneath one's rank or dignity. >As far as what you consider yourself, a person who says "some of >my best friends are " generally would hate to be >considered a racist, but it is usually pretty clear that the >person is one. You exhibit extreme symptoms of antisemitism even >in your disclaimer. > >I have no coment about your feelongs towards communism. > >Don, every letter you write, to me, to the net etc indicates a >severe lack of education. Either that or a major case of >intellectual blindness. I do not know what you do for a living or >where you work, but with attitudes like those you profess, I hope >it is in a place where you cannot hurt anybody. > >Sam ..!{ihnp4}!eisx!XXX Notice the reference to an apparently innocent phrase, which I stand accused of using, that automatically brands one as a racist, no matter what the disclaimer, no matter how innocently it is used. I detect also a lack of concern about the menace of Communism. Everything I have to say, no matter how correct it may be, is automatically "extreme symptoms of antisemitism." Material such as this only serve to reinforce my beliefs. In this next one, the desire to limit civil rights and freedom of speech are blatant. I've included it unedited, just as I received it. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From: 10382::DECWRL::"decvax!research!grigg!ark" 26-MAR-1985 18:37 To: nisysg::black Received: from DECWRL by DEC-RHEA with SMTP; Tue, 26 Mar 85 15:36-PST Received: by decwrl.ARPA (4.22.01/4.7.34) id AA00223; Tue, 26 Mar 85 15:37:25 pst Date: Tue, 26 Mar 85 15:09:50 est Message-Id: <8503262337.AA00223@decwrl.ARPA> Apparently-To: decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-nisysg!black > I also believe that anyone, no matter what his political or religious > beliefs, has the right to have his views heard and considered. That's > still contained in the Constitution, the last time I looked. I don't think you meant quite what you said. Although I do indeed have the right to say what I want, I do not have the right to force anyone else to listen, nor may I force anyone else to transmit my messages. Thus, I do not have the right to have my views "heard and considered," and that right is not guaranteed in the Constitution. Or did you mean something else? --Andrew Koenig * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * What chemical is this person on? (There I go, using the tactics of the opposition.) I don't believe I have twisted anybody's arm to turn on their terminal and read my material. And there's no way to force DECWRL to transmit my material if it doesn't want to. Somebody's a little confused about facts of life. But this is just the kind of person that I am opposed to, those who would crush the opposition, crush free expression, crush free choice. This same person would slam the jail door on Ernst Zundel or provide the match to burn a library. Some of the opposition is far more subtle: > ...I wasn't suggesting that >you should be censored (by me or anyone else), but that you >should understand that others -- both inside and outside of DEC -- >may feel that you are in some way representing the company. I was under the impression that people on the net were far more professional than to carry there religious beliefs to the marketplace. I guess I was wrong. Here's a prime example of the use of "peer pressure" to silence "socially unacceptable" thought. "We-the-group-feel-that-your-beliefs- may-reflect-on-us-as-a-whole-so-if-you-expect-to-stay-part-of-the-group- you'd-better-mend-your-ways." Very petty, very unprofessional. Cowardice, actually. >If my reputation gets ruined because people accuse me of being a Communist >whether such accusations are true or not, then our country will have come >to a sorry state and I also do not want a stake in any system which would >ruin someone on such a basis. We may be heading in that direction but >I doubt that the situation will reach the point it did under McCarthyism. >That nobody >has been able to clearly define "secular humanism" (except that it is >every reasonable conclusion of science that the ranting right disagrees >with) does not prevent its possibility for being used as a tool of >persecution-it may even make it better, FOR HOW CAN ONE DISPROVE THAT ONE >IS A "SECULAR HUMANIST"? [Emphasis mine.--DB] > >Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin does this all sound vaguely familiar? > tim sevener whuxl!orb > democratic socialist and proud of it! OK, Tim--it's YOUR question. Now here's mine--HOW DOES ONE DISPROVE THAT HE IS A "NAZI," A "RACIST," A "BIGOT," OR ANY OTHER EXPLITIVE THE LEFT LIKES TO USE? In the last couple of weeks, the net has served to solidify some of my beliefs and opinions. I believe even more that Christianity is the most persecuted religion, and that it will get worse before it gets better. This net is obviously not the place to expect a free, open discussion of any religious topic unless a) it is 100% complementary of Judaism, or b) it fits into "established" religions, or c) it is a Humanistic topic about why Deism is wrong. I hope I cracked a few ivory towers. I hope it has stirred some thoughts in the minds of true Christians about who you are and where you should be going. And WHO doesn't want you to find out. And why. I urge every Christian to read the Bible. Get several good translations, so you can rectify any question about language. Find the oldest ones you can, to avoid confusion in the newer translations, and then get some newer ones for comparison. I personally use two copies of the King James version, one is over 100 years old, a Douay-Rheims, a Jerusalem, and two from the Witnesses, one of which includes the Greek interlinear translation. Recently I've started on the works of Josephus. For the Catholics, remember that over 90% of Catholic doctrine is in scripture--there's no sin in reading it. The basic difference in the King James version seems to be in the names and total number of books. The language translation tends to be very close. For you Protestants, don't be deceived by those who say the Old Testament has no relevance. Christ came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it. Some of you asked for proof that the US Declaration of Independence is based on scriptural law. For those of you who are open-minded, contact: The Christian Committee to Teach Bible law PO Box 481 Lakemore OH 44250 They offer a complete course on the subject. The first lesson is free; donations are requested for the rest. For those of you who have expressed an interest in Christian Identity, contact me off line, and I'll give you some material and contacts. I guess what it boils down to is that I've said enough--on this net. As you all seem to desire, I'm going to crawl back into my cave with the other dinosaurs. (They actually make better company than some humans.) Veni, vidi, vici. Don Black The Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 7, verse 6: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." If the shoe fits, wear it.