mat@hou5d.UUCP (M Terribile) (11/09/83)
References: I have something to say to two groups here. First, I will speak to the group more likely to be open-minded. The use of such terms as bible-pus is offensive to me. It is probably offensive to a great many individuals who believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I understand that you are under attack, but I would appreciate it if you would try to direct your replies to your tormenters. Now, to those who insist on prothsletizing where they know they are not wanted: In one of the Gospels (please don't ask for chapter and verse), Jesus rather clearly tells His apostles to go from town to town preaching. But if they find a town where they are unwelcome, a town where they are reviled and not heard, they are to LEAVE, shaking the town's dust from their sandals. My unschooled interpretations (move THIS discussion to net.religion, please) is that they are to forget about that town (newsgroup) and put their efforts to productive use elsewhere, rather than dwelliing on tasks beyond your present effectiveness. Also, I seem to recall that Paul tells his readers that their most important preaching is their example. I do not think that those who continue to trouble a newsgroup such as this are setting a good example. 'nuf said? Further discussion on net.religion. From the lustful and hetero keyboard of the Duke of deNet Mark Terribile hou5d!mat
jbray@bbncca.ARPA (James Bray) (11/09/83)
I regret to burden this newsgroup with inappropriate material, but since I commented here, I should issue a clarification here. First, the term 'Bible-pus' was intended to refer to the antichristian misuse of the Bible. The Bible has been used as source and authority for both acts of the highest nobility and of the basest cruelty. It is to the latter that I refer. Issuing a bigoted and intolerant sermon from an anonymous login is to me a perfect antichristian act, and while I disagree with those who wish to preach fire and brimstone in this newsgroup and would expect them to do so in net.religion instead, and am surprised that they are inclined to read it in the first place since they are inimical to its existence, I would not myself bother to respond to them. It was the fact of such material issuing from the cowardly cover of an anonymous login that prompted me both as a friend of gays and as a detester of anonymous bigots to pick up my most flaming sword and issue forth the most violent psychological attack I could muster. I find it ironic that among those who now comment that both attack and response are inappropriate can be counted some who have privately thanked me for making such a response, but I agree with them that the whole topic should not be discussed here. The special case of cowardly assaults from anonymous sources, however, is something which should most vigorously be condemned; in my opinion, they should not be possible. --Jim Bray UUCP decvax!bbncca!jbray, Arpa jbray@bbncca