[net.religion] A & B: when will they get their act together?

rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/02/84)

> Sorry to be late in posting this but I have just stopped laughing over
> the Rosen posting machine's posting of its understanding of the teaching
> of the apostle Paul.
> His posting was dated thur.Sept22 I think.
> The Rosen posting machine fails the Turing game.
> Christ often spoke about judgement, values, against sexual sins.  Paul often
> spoke about love and forgiveness.
> Now if the Rosen posting machine had processed THOSE passages in the bible
> instead, we would have had the opposite statement - Yea Paul, Boo Jesus.
> [KEN ARNDT]

I wish Mr. Arndt and his clone Mr. Brunson would get their act together.
I mean, they're contradicting each other right and left (where both right AND
left = wrong, in this case :-).  Brunson's article talks about Paul's
admonitions against certain sexual behavior.  Arndt says it was Jesus who made
the statements.  Flaming holy Ubizmo, guys!  If you're going to clone yourself,
Ken, at least have your clone be consistent with you (though it may be a
logical impossibility--having another human being [or AI/NS project] agree with
Arndt).

> What must NOT be admitted, it would be PAINFUL you see, is that one can have
> both judgement and love in the same value system.   At least not in the
> "Christian" value system.  We all know how those Christians are!

What must not be admitted (apparently) is the erroneous assumptions on which
Ken builds his value system.  Assume god and morality the way you like it or
want it first, then tell others to justify based on your preconceptions.
"But these are based on laws, and on widely held beliefs.  That makes them
right."  This is related to Ken's famous "See?"  technique.  He says something
that he assumes everyone will accept as a given ("But society says you're
filth.  See?" -OR- "the bad guys---you know who they are" -OR- "the silence
following my asking this question leads to a conclusion").  He then calls any
responders slime for providing insight into the gaping holes in Ken's
swisscheese thinking.  I apologize for having to go over the (to me, obvious)
flaws and gaps in Ken's "logic", but it seems that some people actually believe
he has something to say.  Why this is so is beyond me...

> I just love to hear an apostate Jew define Christianity for us.

I just love hearing an asshole like Arndt showing his true colors: anti-Semite,
liar, hypocrite.  (Anti-Semite?  Who am I kidding?  Ken is anti-everyone!!
"Begel breath", Ken?  Not only can't you spell, but your armband is showing
from under your sheet...)

> Christians flee sexual thoughts, Rosen flees thoughts that don't fit.

Arndt flees thinking altogether...  (I must pay you well for you to set me up
like that.)

(I really do regret having to answer vacuous non-arguments from Arndt, but
when people begin to point to his bogus statistics and noise as if they formed
the basis for a logical argument and say "Wait, amidst his filth he has
something to say!", well, I'd laugh if I wasn't already crying.  It's truly
sad that people are no less snowable now than they were fifty years ago [in
Germany, e.g.].  That may explain how certain people get elected.  It
frightens me when people I respect believe that Arndt has something to say.
Frankly, though, it seems Arndt is frightened that people seem to be standing
up for him, thus he shows his true colors just to make sure EVERYONE is
offended by him.  Whew!  That was close, Ken.  You almost had people believing
you had something to say.  Is Arndt really just a nice guy trying to give
religionists/homophobics/etc. a bad name by describing himself as one and
feigning ignorance, poor spelling, irrational thought patterns, and a complete
absence of social grace in a slanted effort to portray one?  Will he win an
award for his performance?)
-- 
"Come with me now to that secret place where
 the eyes of man have never set foot."		Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr