NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/cyberpun/5892

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky alt.cyberpunk:5892 alt.industrial:780 alt.sex:36596 alt.sex.bondage:22299
Path: sparky!uunet!scorn!gorn!deeptht.armory.com!rstevew
From: [e-mail] (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk,alt.industrial,alt.sex,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Re: Perhaps we have forgotten the teachings of Jesus
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 10:37:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Armory
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (The Last Bard) writes:
>[e-mail] (cl.rich) writes:
>>>
>>>P.S. If you would like to flame me or talk at more length send me e-mail.
>>>
>>>PPS  the passage used in paragraph one is found in John 11. The verses quoted
>>>are 35 and 36.
>
>>Chip.  There are a great variety of other groups that you will find most
>>certainly much more welcome to your grand proclamations of The Truth.  I'm
>>not against you, yet I question your tact.  Let's not turn alt.industrial into
>>alt.praise.jesus.
>
>>cl.rich
>
>I think you missed the point...Ok so I believe that Jesus is the son of God,
>but that is not my post. My post was just saying that the arguements I heard
>(read) against Jesus, won't hold water.  Why?  because the book being quoted
>to show that Jesus is (in the case of most posts) was being misquoted.  Now
>I didn't think it was fair to you as intellectual humans to let go on
>misquoteing.  You might have a very good reason to reject God, but we'll never
>know if you say things that are inaccurate.  Now, I am not assurting that
>the bible is true, the previous posters were by quoting it as a reason for
>there rejection of the gospel.  I do believe it is true and If you would like
>to know why then email me, but don't be uninformed about the book the previous
>posters used.
>
>chip
>aka Virtual Benedicta
>.
------------------------
People try to be polite to you and deal with you on your own terms,
which we have discovered are, for fundies: They believe in the bible
for no apparent reason above any other book, when it doesn't make it
as any kind of cohesive work, nor do we have the authors to question
about all this. Thus we try to show you the inconsistencies in the
bible, using the bible. But actually, most of us are former christians
who would not bother with christianity for love or money. We consider
it a barbarous and wretched little pissant of a religion and its
followers to have the sense of sheep or hogs. So Chippie, take your
bible and stick it where the sun don't shine. We have a belief in a
"God" of sorts, which is so complicated and problematic to explain to
one with as limited vistas as yourself intellectually, that you
wouldn't get it in any reasonable amount of time. If you want to know
about it, read other and more recent books. Spend ten years reading
about other religions and their relationship to quantum mechanics and
uncertainty and phenomenology, and then you might have a chance. But
be assured. We don't believe a word of what you try to peddle. It's
just that some people here feel sorry for you. I do as well, but I'm
not of the persuasion that thinks they can get to you on your terms.
That's a slightly more naive newcomer approach to intellectual
analysis.
- Steve

--
* Richard STEVEn Walz   [e-mail]   [phone]  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will protect Women.  *