rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/26/85)
>>In article <1291@shark.UUCP> hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) writes: >>>(Rich .. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to get furiously angry when someone >>> reads things into your writings which aren't there, then to turn around >>> and globally condemn us for our agreement with something we may not even >>> know about? ) >>> >>>Hutch >> >>I'm sure that the maxim "silence implies consent" is the reason that many >>of us non-Christians get upset over not seeing responces to racist/sexist/ >>homophobic trash by mainstream Christians. Although you may not have seen >>the article, there are other Christians out there. >>-- >>Richard A. Brower > Tell me something. You seem to believe that the silence idea is holding in > all such situations. I have not seen Black's writing, but from what you > have told me, it is pretty bad. So, with my limited knowledge, I condemn > what I have read. But,***haven't you ever heard the turn the other cheek > parable? Why give such prominance to such drival. Rich Rosen did it in order > to bait Christians. It is one of his favourite pasttimes by the volume of > his stuff he posts. BUT, I, along with most people just disregard all of such > trash. FLAME ON: Listen, buster. First you say you haven't read what was posted, thus admitting that you have NO idea what was said. (How you managed to ignore it is beyond me.) Then you proclaim the wondrous "christian" behavior of turning the other cheek, again without knowing what was said, though I recall you failed to turn any cheekturning yourself. In fact (third), you accuse me of posting drivel in order to bait Christians. Probably because you didn't read any of THAT either and are still quick to make judgments about that which you have no familiarity with. Some Christian. > Now for my flame: > TO RICH ROSEN, KEN ARNDT AND OTHER SUCH NET LOVERS: > JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T ANSWER YOU IN THE NET DOES NOT MEAN WE DON'T > HAVE AN ANSWER. THE NET IS ONLY ONE SMALL PLACE, RATHER INSIGNIFICANT > WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE. WHO CARES WHAT RICH ROSEN ET. ALL SPROUT > OFF, AND WHO CARES WHAT BLACK POURS FORTH. I CARE ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE > LIVE AND DIE AND ENJOY THEIR LIVES. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PEOPLE FEAD > WITH THE AMOUNT OF PHYSICAL, MECHANICAL, AND INTELLECTUAL ENERGY WE USE > ON THIS NET. Interesting how you "talk" (like Wingate) about "caring" whether people live and die and enjoy their lives. Funny, Black would appear to prefer to see certain groups of people only do the second of those three things. If you had read the anti-Semitic, anti-homosexual, anti-non-Christian, anti-freedom diatribes he's posted, you MAY (??) have had something to say given your acknowledged position on "caring". But not having done so, you feel obliged to pummel those people who have something to say about it, who ask what Christians have to say about it. Thanks for letting us know what you have to say, what your answer to all that really is: squat. Perhaps, not being a member of any of the groups affected by the above, you feel free to engage in cheekturning. Flaming hypocrite... > IN FACT, THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS NOT WORTH THE MONEY SPENT ON THE PHONE > BILL. > THIS MAY SOUND RATHER PREACHY, BUT QUITE FRANKLY, I'M RATHER GLAD I > AM LEAVING THIS NET, BECAUSE ALTHOUGH I WILL ALWAYS LOVE YOU, > AS THE CHRISTIAN THAT I AM, YOU ALL, AND LET ME REPEAT THAT, ALL, > IN SUCH POLITICAL AND INTELLECTUAL NETS, ARE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME > DISCUSSING THINGS WHILE PEOPLE ARE REALLY HURTING OUT THERE. GO AHEAD, > FLAME ME OR SEND ME VICOUS MAIL. I WILL IGNORE IT AND DO BETTER AND MORE > IMPORTANT THINGS. Like fight against people like Black? Like supporting the freedoms that would allow people to "live and die and enjoy their lives"? Or like turning the other cheek... Sounds more like rolling over and playing dead. -- "When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer. Superstition ain't the way." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr