Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!wkp
From: wkp@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: To Wingate on Rosen
Message-ID: <24035@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 01:23:01 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.24035
Posted: Wed Apr  3 01:23:01 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Apr-85 07:03:39 EST
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Distribution: net
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 35


[Charley Wingate writes:]

>But Rich argues against EVERYTHING to which anyone has ever attached the
>name of Christ, and thus does not count.  Byron Howes, if I recall correctly,
>is sort of a gnostic christian.  Bill, if you are going to claim that Rich
>argues for reason, you are all wet.  As far as I can tell, Rich is arguing
>for shouting at the top of your lungs.

Charley, I'm not a psychologist and I don't care about people's reasons
for posting, or their personal ego trips.

I have already summarized the "actions" (i.e., inactions) of many of 
your friends in regard to IC.  The only thing I care about in this
regard is reality.  REALITY is not talking to god in Pizza Hut while
neo-Nazis stir up hatred.  REALITY is not watching people being shipped
to death camps and saying "I didn't know" or "imagine" or "care".  

It is action that counts.  And while many of your friends who discuss
"real presence" or "transubstantiation" theologized with Black, it was only
people like Tim or Rich or Byron or S. Aldrich or many others who saw
the inherent evil in that man's spouting.  Sorry, Charley.  You'll have
to think up better excuses why your friends didn't respond (didn't get
a chance to, were busy, 'rn' keys, etc.) or responded inappropriately
(were misunderstood, didn't know, etc.).

I'm really losing patience with some of your excuses.  If you have
a personal grudge against Rosen or Maroney, I don't care.  At least
they saw racism for what it was, and FOUGHT against it.

By the way, in your article you called Byron a "christian".  Using
your notation ("christian" instead of "Christian"), that's not
very complementary is it?  Or aren't Gnostic Christians Christian?
--
bill peter                   cmcl2!lanl!wkp