Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!fsks From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.jewish,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Old Ways - final comments Message-ID: <168@unc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-May-85 17:37:12 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.168 Posted: Tue May 7 17:37:12 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 8-May-85 05:54:09 EDT References: <715@decwrl.UUCP> <587@pyuxd.UUCP> <150@unc.UUCP> Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill Lines: 95 Xref: watmath net.religion:6843 net.religion.jewish:1931 net.religion.christian:705 Summary: >>> -- Rich Rosen >> -- me, Frank Silbermann > -- Rich Rosen -- me, Frank Silbermann In article rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: > >> The Identity Christian movement preaches racial hatred and anti-semitism. >> Though some members of the Moral Majority might be racist, the group as a >> whole does not preach such poison. This is an important difference. >> How much help to you expect to get from the Christians in fighting >> the Don Black's of the world when you constantly insult them >> IN THEIR OWN NEWSGROUP! >Insult? You mean open their belief systems to scrutiny? >What I "attack" is the foundations of a belief system which >I have seen gaping holes in. A belief system that some would >propose as THE one on which societal morality MUST be based. >I'll continue to do what I'm doing as long as the threat continues. I have nothing against your pointing out inconsistencies within Christianity. That is your right. But do it from within a Christian perspective or do it in another newsgroup. Leave net.christian for the Christians. ********************************************************************** >>>The Moral Majority and their radical fundamentalist ilk may speak >>>in sweet voices publicly how they're not Nazis >>>("See? We love Israel! Therefore we love the Jews!"- >> Would you prefer that they attack Jewish concerns instead? >> What's the matter with you? >I'd prefer that they would be less hypocritical. We've seen how >fundamentalist leaders are proud to proclaim that god does not >listen to Jews, only to hear other, more PR-conscious leaders >"denounce" the statement. The sentiment of that original proclaimer >is rampant in Christian America, both overtly and subconsciously. That only proves that there is dissent among Christians. Even if Jerry Falwell is hypocritical, his assumed hypocracy shows that he at least ACCEPTS the notion that blatant anti-semitism is unacceptable. If he is a hypocrite, then removing that hypocracy would only turn him into a raving anti-semite. I would NOT consider that an improvement. Perhaps you would. ********************************************************************** >> Some of the things Don Black said are consistant with Christianity. >> On the other hand, many of his statements are a perversion of Christianity. >> It depends which of his words you are talking about. Nobody is 100% >> screwed up. Even Hitler was kind to dogs. >Seeing dogs as worthy of life while Jews are not strikes me as screwed up, >doesn't it? Yes, but not 100% screwed up. If Hitler were also cruel to dogs, he would have been just a tiny bit worse. :-) The fact that Hitler liked dogs does not make liking dogs evil. Similarly, agreement that we would be better off returning to tradional values does NOT imply agreement on WHICH traditional values. ********************************************************************* >> You presume to be able to read people's minds. >> How do you KNOW the Moral Majority is not sincere? I, too, have my >> doubts about their sincerity. But for God's sake, give them the benefit >> of the doubt! >So that their movement can make inroads into laying a groundwork for >societal restrictions based on THEIR moral code? No thank you, I'll work >in advance rather than waiting around. Falwell's insincerity and double- >facedness is evident every time he appears on the tube. I don't give the >benefit of the doubt to people who seek the "old ways", knowing what such >statements about the "old ways" really mean. But your postings are INEFFECTIVE. If you want to persuede these people on any given topic, e.g. compassion and tolerance for homosexuals, then you must appeal to their most cherished Christian principles. If you start out by attacking their whole perspective, then nobody is going to listen, except those who would have agreed with you beforehand. And then what will you have accomplished? If you can't argue persuasively, then leave the job to someone else. Don't pester the net community with long-winded, ineffective monologues. ******************************************************************** >"There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" > Rich Rosen And you never stop going in circles. Frank Silbermann