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