dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (06/04/85)
>I reject Torah. OK? I thought I had always been VERY open about rejecting >arbitrary contradictory subjective and hopelessly presumptively written >religious documents. You have as much "objective" support for your >"tradition" as Dan Boskovich does with his presumptive nonsense to >"objectively" support Christianity (read his "objective proofs" in >net.religion). Given that both of you haven't a leg to stand on, what >right do either of you have to invoke your "traditions" to tell other people >what to do? > Why don't you tell me just what in my articles was "presumptive nonsense". I asked for comments, flames, etc.!! I didn't expect to read them in another newsgroup!! I have NO right to tell other people what to do! And I don't! But I have every right to believe the Bible and to tell others what I believe. Just as you have a right to resort to name-calling and profanity on the net. Since when is disapproving of one's behavior equal to hatred. Disapproving of Homosexuality is not equal to hating Homosexuals just as disapproving of your childs disobedience is not equal to hating your child. Hatred is a buzzword used to invoke an emotional reaction. If you are going to reply, please do so on net.religion. I don't read Net.religion.jewish very often. Dan
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (06/04/85)
My sincere apologies to Rich Rosen for insinuating that he was guilty of name-calling and profanity. While typing in my comments I was confusing Rich with another unnamed party on the net. After reading my own article, I realized my mistake. Sorry Rich! Dan
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/05/85)
>>I reject Torah. OK? I thought I had always been VERY open about rejecting >>arbitrary contradictory subjective and hopelessly presumptively written >>religious documents. You have as much "objective" support for your >>"tradition" as Dan Boskovich does with his presumptive nonsense to >>"objectively" support Christianity (read his "objective proofs" in >>net.religion). Given that both of you haven't a leg to stand on, what >>right do either of you have to invoke your "traditions" to tell other people >>what to do? > Why don't you tell me just what in my articles was "presumptive nonsense". > I asked for comments, flames, etc.!! I didn't expect to read them in another > newsgroup!! [DAN BOSKOVICH] I guess four extended articles in net.religion wasn't enough... > I have NO right to tell other people what to do! And I don't! > But I have every right to believe the Bible and to tell others > what I believe. Just as you have a right to resort to name-calling > and profanity on the net. Like where, sir? I resorted to pointing out some facts about the sum and total of certain people's evidence. Nothing more. If that's name-calling (and "profanity"???) to you, well, that's YOUR opinion. > Since when is disapproving of one's behavior equal to hatred. Disapproving > of Homosexuality is not equal to hating Homosexuals just as disapproving > of your childs disobedience is not equal to hating your child. Hatred > is a buzzword used to invoke an emotional reaction. Hatred is also what happens when one uses an arbitrary moral code to punish individuals who engage in practices you just don't happen to like that don't harm any other people. If that ain't hatred, then I guess the Nazis didn't hate the Jews. They just "disapproved" of them. > If you are going to reply, please do so on net.religion. I don't read > Net.religion.jewish very often. Good for you. As I said, I wrote four articles in response to your epic (copied without permission from McDowell and Lewis), as did many other people. Your "evidence" is only believable if you already happen to believe, and I go into detail in the four articles. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (06/06/85)
> > Since when is disapproving of one's behavior equal to hatred. Disapproving > > of Homosexuality is not equal to hating Homosexuals just as disapproving > > of your childs disobedience is not equal to hating your child. Hatred > > is a buzzword used to invoke an emotional reaction. > Hatred is also what happens when one uses an arbitrary moral code to punish > individuals who engage in practices you just don't happen to like that don't > harm any other people... This is a very stretched definition of hatred which you can't expect everyone to agree with, even if you do have monopoly on truth. Y. Samet
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/07/85)
>>Hatred is also what happens when one uses an arbitrary moral code to punish >>individuals who engage in practices you just don't happen to like that don't >>harm any other people... > This is a very stretched definition of hatred which you can't expect > everyone to agree with, even if you do have monopoly on truth. --Y. Samet You're right. Why, a definition like this would imply that the Nazis hated the Jews! Pre-posterous!!!!! Sorry you don't agree with it. There seem to be a lot of things you and the rest of the civilized world disagree with... -- "If you offend everybody, you're doing a good job." --David Steinberg on the subject of satire Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr