ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) (05/06/85)
Subject: More coments on "The Old Ways - final comments" Bravo Frank Silbermann! You hit the nail right on the head! I am sick of hearing people in this net constantly maligning other people's religions. If we are followers of the name, then we should not be knocking other (different) followers of the supreme being, merely for being a member of a large group, such as Jew, Christian, Hindu, etc. Personally, I fail to see that great a difference between Jews who lump all Christians into the category of unholy evils and the Nazis who lumped all Jews into the category of vermin. Sometimes I wonder what people like Rosen would do if they were in the majority and they alone had the guns. If any follower of any religion wants to change the followers of other religions, let him first live his own religion. Only when he has mastered himself and follows the commandments he will preach should he speak out. I'm not particularly a lover of Farwell, but from what I have seen he hasn't done Israel any harm, and may have even made things better. Rosen was low and unfair lumping Farwell with the Identity Christian movement. It makes no difference if Black is merely the alias of some bigot in DEC. Wrong is wrong. And while we're on the subject of wrong, Rosen should know better than to try to equate homosexuality and freedom of religion. 1) Homosexuality isn't a religion, it's a sexual preference some people choose to live. 2) If Rosen is preaching Judiasm, he should know the basics of what the Torah forbids. Homosexuality is a capitol offense. See Leviticus, the 20th chapter and 13th verse. The Holy one who revealed those words to Moses 3500 years ago hasn't come down with any revision. Wrong is STILL wrong! Dave van De Kerk P.S. While you have your scriptures out, try Leviticus 19:18 on for size. Perhaps Rosen should review Deuteronomy 6:4-5 as well. Perhaps we all should.
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (05/07/85)
In article <161@ucdavis.UUCP> ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) writes: > >And while we're on the subject of wrong, Rosen should know better >than to try to equate homosexuality and freedom of religion. > 1) Homosexuality isn't a religion, it's a sexual preference > some people choose to live. And while we're on the subject of wrong, I find it interesting that you state that heterosexuality isn't a religion, it's a sexual preference some people choose to live. I think it would be really interesting to find out when you chose to be heterosexual and why you did so. Maybe if your reasoning is sound you can help other people just now chosing their sexuality to come over to you side. We all eagerly await your reasons. And while your at it, why don't you tell us why you chose the race your a member of. I presume you chose a lighter shade since, well, we know that's by far the largest in this country and there are many negative -you know- attributes associate with the darker ones. Certainly that would be enough reason to chose a lighter shade, wouldn't it? Well? We're waiting. Dave Trissel {siesmo,gatech,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/08/85)
> I am sick of hearing people in this net constantly maligning > other people's religions. If we are followers of the name, > then we should not be knocking other (different) followers of > the supreme being, merely for being a member of a large group, > such as Jew, Christian, Hindu, etc. Personally, I fail to > see that great a difference between Jews who lump all Christians > into the category of unholy evils and the Nazis who lumped all > Jews into the category of vermin. Sometimes I wonder what > people like Rosen would do if they were in the majority and > they alone had the guns. [DAVE VAN DE KERK] The same thing I'm doing now: fighting against assholes like you who seem to get some sort of pleasure out of twisting people's words to their own ends. I wouldn't feel obliged to use the guns though. I wouldn't need to. You're apparently just as unarmed in the wit department as you would be if "Rosen had all the guns". I just lump "Christians" who have your level of real tolerance into the same category as the aforementioned Nazis, differing only in degree. Where you and they belong. Your failing to see is difference is not surprising, given the scope of your vision. Your assumption that "we are (all) followers of the name", whatever that may be, though it exudes a feeling of oneness among religions, excludes anyone who isn't such a follower, and that is the intolerance of which I speak. I get the feeling you couldn't care less about such intolerance. > If any follower of any religion wants to change the followers > of other religions, let him first live his own religion. Only > when he has mastered himself and follows the commandments he > will preach should he speak out. And I follow no religion. And I see no reason why any human being should be forced or obliged to follow any religion. Do you feel the same way? > I'm not particularly a lover of Farwell, but from what I have > seen he hasn't done Israel any harm, and may have even made > things better. Rosen was low and unfair lumping Farwell with > the Identity Christian movement. It makes no difference if > Black is merely the alias of some bigot in DEC. Wrong is wrong. "Farwell" belongs in the same lump of the Identity Christians. The only difference, as I've said, is that Falwell and his ilk are more public relations conscious: they're not as anxious to piss off Jews. They want to appear as tolerant types, when in reality (as my article on those who profess a wish for the "good old days" stated) they are not. Wrong *is* wrong. Like your paragraph above was wrong. > And while we're on the subject of wrong, Rosen should know better > than to try to equate homosexuality and freedom of religion. > 1) Homosexuality isn't a religion, it's a sexual preference > some people choose to live. > 2) If Rosen is preaching Judiasm, he should know the basics of > what the Torah forbids. Homosexuality is a capitol offense. See > Leviticus, the 20th chapter and 13th verse. The Holy one who > revealed those words to Moses 3500 years ago hasn't come down > with any revision. Wrong is STILL wrong! Your version of wrong, based on arbitrary edicts from a book, is not necessarily wrong. And that's the kind of drivel I'm speaking out against. You proclaim that it's wrong, I proclaim the right of individuals to live their own lives. Where you got the idea that I was preaching Judaism is beyond me. I "preach" against restrictive arbitrary moralities of the kind you seem to support, in favor of the rights of individuals. Again, you would seem not to care about such things. > While you have your scriptures out, try Leviticus 19:18 on for size. > Perhaps Rosen should review Deuteronomy 6:4-5 as well. Perhaps we > all should. I have forgotten the commandments that were "given", because I and many others have no reason for believing in them. It is people like you, who would profess obligations of everyone to believe in your morality, that I would speak out against. I feel very proud that someone of your views attempts to ridicule me. I find it an honor. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr