david@ssc-vax.UUCP (10/25/83)
Thought I would add my two cents to the articles I've seen so far.
First, comments on net.motss (what does motss stand for, anyway?): I don't
like the idea of a gay newsgroup on the network, but I suppose there is not
a lot I can do about it. I do believe that every man is entitled to have
and express his own opinion (free speech), so long as it does not hurt
anybody else. The proponents of this newsgroup are in error here;
they probably believe their activities are innocuous and not harming
anyone. This is not true; C.S. Lewis gives an excellent dissertation on
human moralities in his book "Mere Christianity" (which I can heartily
recommend). Humans cannot properly address human morality without concerning
themselves with the morality of the group. This argument is of course based on
the proposition that homosexuality is wrong (a sin).
On "the end of the world": I thought the idea humorous. I
personally believe that the end of the world will be soon, but 2001? The
Bible tells us that NO ONE knows that exact date of the return of Jesus, and
that we should live our lives day-to-day as if he were coming tomorrow.
I am fascinated reading stories of some religions predicting Christ's return,
dressing up in white robes, ascending some mountain only to be disillusioned
the next morning. The story is not an uncommon one.
I wondered why the originator of the survey left out "the beast" in
his survey? Did he think it was not connected to the end of the world, or
was he just not interested?
Dave Norris
...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!davidrlr@pyuxn.UUCP (11/01/83)
> I don't like the idea of a gay newsgroup on the network, but I suppose there > is not a lot I can do about it. ...The proponents of this newsgroup are in > error here; they probably believe their activities are innocuous and not > harming anyone. This is not true; ...Humans cannot properly address human > morality without concerning themselves with the morality of the group. This > argument is of course based on the proposition that homosexuality is wrong > (a sin). And where did you get that proposition *from*??? Boy, you could teach a logic class solely on the contents of this newsgroup. Of course, it would be of the "How Not To ..." genre. Rich
david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (11/02/83)
? Where did my proposition come from? The statement that homosexuality is a sin can be easily proved by picking up any Bible (don't ask me to quote, it's in there). What I believe you are REALLY asking is, "Why is homosexuality wrong?" No, I will not respond with "Because it is a sin." There have been many arguments pro and con, but if you want my reasons, here they are: 1. It is not natural. The process of evolution has determined that to procreate the species a man and a woman are required. Homosexuality defeats this purpose. 2. Sex in the United States has been blown all out of proportion. If you went to a country where people read dirty books consisting of pictures of food, went to x-rated pictures that consisted of nothing but food, told dirty "food" jokes, and got strange pleasure of doing unnatural things with food, wouldn't you say that the country's craving for food was unnatural? The cravings (or lusts) go beyond that which is required to insure the human body operates properly. This statement encompasses much more than homosexuality but certainly includes it. (This argument has been used by another famous Christian).
labelle@hplabsc.UUCP (WB6YZZ) (11/08/83)
You can have your bible, and your food. I'll keep my SEX!!!