From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 21:37:24 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> I see you advocating the idea that homosexuals are breed apart, who
> follow a sinful lifestyle which distinguishes them from ordinary,
> decent people.

A "breed apart"?  I don't see it that way.  If anything,  those who 
claim homosexuality is an inherent part of them, that cannot be 
changed, are making a case for the "breed apart".  I don't see it 
that way.   

> The consequences I forsee are that homosexuals who believe this will
> think less of themselves, leading to unhappiness and self-destructive
> behavior.  

I guess it's a good thing that all us 'phobes don't take your (general 
'you', not personal) attacks on us so hard.  And all the Christians 
that are attacked for having outdated morals, the same.  

> In the attempt to free themselves from this, I forsee that
> they will tend to abandon any attempt at a spiritual life.

So instead you want to dictate what religions can teach, so 
that people won't be turned off by them?  Come on!  You talk 
about openmindedness and tolerance, and the root problem seems to 
be that you don't want anyone saying homosexuality is not OK. 
I guess it's time for all the churches to forget about teaching 
their view of morality, and just go with the flow of 'anything goes'? 

> I forsee that heterosexuals will tend absorb the idea that here there
> is a group of people who are different and evil.  This will tend to
> lead to violence and hatred, just as it has with the Jews.

Different, yes.  And if they read some of the stuff posted here, 
they'd certainly question the morals; I still can't get over the 
comment about people's sex life being no more private than their 
golf score.  But violence and hatred?  I don't think so.   

> This isn't an argument.  To refute and argument, you must argue.  The
> above made a point, which you should either counter or concede to be
> correct; pretending that no point was made does not help.

An attempt was made to make a point, the attempt fell well short of 
its mark.  Excuse me if I choose not to 'argue' against a non-point. 

> This is clearly false, since Levitical prohibitions against certain
> types of sexual activity *are not* followed by Christians, and
> *are not* taught as a requirement my any major denomination.

Still wanting christians to follow the Mosaic Law, huh?  Keep saying 
it over and over, maybe someone will actually think arguing the Law 
makes sense...

> You have challenged other people as to the degree of knowledge they
> possess of Christian doctrine.  This raises the question of just how
> much *you* know about the Bible or Christianity--apparently less than
> you think you do.

Of course!  If I come to conclusions that are different from yours, or 
that say the Bible is against homosexuality, I must not know as much 
as I think...

> >Maybe you need to show how Christians create an atmosphere of 
> >anti-morality. 
> 
> Teaching bigotry creates an atmosphere of anti-morality.

And as long as Christians teach that homosexuality is wrong, 
they are teaching bigotry?  So to satisfy you, the churches have 
to stop teaching that homosexuality is wrong...righto, Gene. 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex