brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (06/25/85)
In article <611@sfmag.UUCP> samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) writes: > PS 2 - The use of the word "gay" tends to obscure what might > properly be called "sodomy". I think we should avoid accepting > false connotations of any kind. The use of the word "Jew" tends to obscure what might properly be called "Christ-killer". I think we should avoid accepting false connotations of any kind. Does this sound any better? Didn't think so. Merlyn Leroy Go ahead - flame my day
ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) (07/05/85)
> The use of the word "Jew" tends to obscure what might > properly be called "Christ-killer". I think we should avoid accepting > false connotations of any kind. [LEROY] I think I am going to be sick! If anyone wants to call anyone on this net a Christ-killer, I want to see the fingerprints and the evidence. Otherwise, I think a lawsuit for defamation of character is in order. [Personally, I think the whole thing was a frameup by some second century Romans, and even the New Testament says that children are born Holy, i.e. without sin or responsibility for the actions of others. (Luke 2:23) The whole "original sin" trip isn't in the New Testament.] Whether you call "Sodomites" by "Gay" or not, they ARE guilty of doing their thing. Many will even proudly confess their acts. We just spent weeks going over what the Torah says about Homosexuals. Do we have to now go through what Paul said?
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/05/85)
> I think I am going to be sick! If anyone wants to call anyone on > this net a Christ-killer, I want to see the fingerprints and the > evidence. Otherwise, I think a lawsuit for defamation of character > is in order. > Whether you call "Sodomites" by "Gay" or not, they ARE guilty of > doing their thing. Many will even proudly confess their acts. > We just spent weeks going over what the Torah says about Homosexuals. > Do we have to now go through what Paul said? Is irony really lost on EVERYONE who reads the net? While I allow for the tastelessness and offensiveness of the posting, the person above is simply missing the point. Samet very carefully described the orthodox (small-oh) view of homosexuality, but then made a rather repugnant editorial comment that was just as offensive to me and many other people, gay or straight, as the comment about "Christ-killers" was to anyone who took it on face value. Clearly, the person who made this statement (brian@digi-g?) was reacting to Samet's smugness, and responded with an tasteless attempt at irony. It is one thing to discuss the status of homosexuality within Judaic law; it is quite another thing to step outside of this argument with a gratuitous remark about gay people and how they choose to be called. Samet was out of order here as much as brian@digi-g. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/05/85)
>In article <611@sfmag.UUCP> of samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) writes: >> The use of the word "gay" tends to obscure what might properly be >> called "sodomy". I think we should avoid accepting false connotations >> of any kind. Merlyn Leroy: >The use of the word "Jew" tends to obscure what might >properly be called "Christ-killer". I think we should avoid accepting >false connotations of any kind. > >Does this sound any better? Didn't think so. The term "Christ-killer" implies that Christ is dead. Is that your attitude? Didn't think so. (What's the simplest way to tell the difference between G-d on earth and a blasphemer who SAYS he is G-d? Answer: you test whether you can kill him!). Frank Silbermann
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (07/09/85)
In article <669@digi-g.UUCP> brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian) writes: >In article <611@sfmag.UUCP> samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) writes: >> PS 2 - The use of the word "gay" tends to obscure what might >> properly be called "sodomy". I think we should avoid accepting >> false connotations of any kind. > >The use of the word "Jew" tends to obscure what might >properly be called "Christ-killer". I think we should avoid accepting >false connotations of any kind. > >Does this sound any better? Didn't think so. > >Merlyn Leroy >Go ahead - flame my day Very poor analogy!!! 1. The Roman procurator was as guilty as the Jewish leaders for His death! 2. Christ died willingly for His own people. 3. Christ died for the sins of mankind. Conclusion: 1. Christians are christ-killers since our sins put him on the cross. 2. God is a christ-killer since Jesus said He was doing the Father's will. 3. All mankind are christ-killers since He died for our sins. Your sentence should have read as follows: The use of the word "Man" tends to obscure what might properly be called "Christ-killer". I think we should avoid accepting false connotations of any kind. Dan
jlp@faust.UUCP (07/09/85)
{}
>............ [Personally, I think the whole thing was a frameup
>by some second century Romans, and even the New Testament says that
>children are born Holy, i.e. without sin or responsibility for
>the actions of others. (Luke 2:23) The whole "original sin" trip
>isn't in the New Testament.]
Actually, I think it is better to review this scripture in the context of
the passage. It is not "children" who are considered Holy, but rather
first-born sons ( "As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that
openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.) Further, the passage is
such the the child is being brought to the Temple for sanctification, that
is, being set aside to the ministry of the Lord. Although I agree with your
conclusion about the accountability of children, I don't believe that this
is the passage which substantiates it.
Jerryl Payne
...!ihnp4!inmet!faust!jlp