brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (09/18/84)
[] There have been some downright nasty responses to a couple of articles that I posted recently. One person sent email with all sorts of unspeakable personal attacks. As far as I know, all these are completely unwarranted. I don't think I have ever directed personally insulting remarks to anyone in my brief (and very enjoyable) net career. Correct me if I'm wrong BUT PROVIDE EXAMPLES!!! There were, however, a few marginal phrases/terms that I would like to address now. Firstly, in a response titled "Re: Some Questions", I used the term "filthy people". This was (and is) in no way intended to be a slur against people. The use I had in mind was something like this: a person who farms is called a "farmer", a person who loves is called a "loving person" (*not* "lover" -- this has an entirely different connotation), and a person who practices filthiness could be called a "filthy person". In retrospect I realize that "filthy people" looks like a put down. In no way do I intend to suggest that *persons who practice filthiness* (in this case homosexuals) are without the love of God or incapable of breaking with filthiness (*repenting*). Homosexuals can certainly repent (in which case they would no longer be homosexuals) and attain to the same measure of prosperity and dignity as anyone else who loves God with his whole heart. Let me now repeat the offending paragraph with the necessary correction. Let me know if there are any other problems. >Until that wonderful day, however, conscientious citizens should >do all they can to prevent persons who practice filthiness from >gaining power in government, forcing employers to hire them, or >bringing economic sanctions via legislation against those who >would discriminate against them in business. Note that this paragraph in no way suggests that people should be turned out on the street hungry, penniless, pitilessly oppressed by the *mighty Christians*. Rather, it states that the right of citizens to hire whomever they desire (allowing recognized *legitimate* minority protection) should not be infringed upon. In a second article titled "Re: Christianity, Sex", I wrote the following oft-quoted paragraph: >If you don't agree that fornication and discipleship are incompatible, >then you have been eating too much cabbage. Period. While this is certainly true, it is a bit unnecessarily harsh. Again it was not intended to be a personal attack against anyone. I apologize to anyone who took it personally and I refer the interested student to Paul Dubuc's response to the same article for an example of a much more gracious approach. -- David Brunson "Do you think I have come to bring peace to the world?"