From: ap290@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ruth M. Hanschka)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Subject: Re: amendment 2
Date: 9 Nov 1992 06:14:28 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ap290@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ruth M. Hanschka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, gtoal@PIZZABOX.DEMON.CO.UK (Graham Toal) says:

>: Yup!  You got it!  By definition, the God I believe in is beyond human
>: understanding.  Then too, I've been accused of being lost in space before.
>: Frankly, half the time I'm not sure the accusers are wrong.:-)
>
>Good grief!  You mean you *don't understand* your God yet you follow
>His word as if it were gospel?  Don't you *think for yourself* woman?
>
Isn't this where we started?  You're going in circles Graham.  Get some
directions if you're actually tring to get somewhere.  This sounds like the

>I've just realised what you are.  You're not a Christian.  You're a
>bibliolater.  You worship the words in the bible (as written by Dead
>White Men) more than you worship God.  Here's a clue: try following
>the words that God gives to *you* *personally*.  What?  He doesn't
>speak to you? Well, how about following your conscience instead of
>a book.  Isn't bibliolatry next to idolatry in the scale of sinfulness?
<ROFL>!!!!!!!!!!  Kooky, this is so far out, it belongs on Star Trek!
The Bible is a hunk of paper, glue and some form of binding.  It's a tool,
not a God.  Heck, it's not even a "graven image"!<grin>  This one didn't
even come close to hitting anything Graham.  Better luck next try.
>
>: You missed the whole point of my original comments.  I didn't say that it
>: ought to be illegal, I *said* that I couldn't vote for it.  Would you ask
>
>Please tell us how you would vote on:
>1) Measures to make discrmination against gays illegal.  (Don't muddy
>the waters with unrelated questions about positive discriminatin - something
>I don't approve of either)  Note before you answer that many churches
>practise precisely the sort of discrimination that is being discussed.
I'd abstain.  Period.  

>2) Legalization of abortion for foetuses that could be proven to grow
>up gay.
Graham, luv, if you have to ask....  I'd get into the campaign lobby to
get other people to vote "no"!  I know you won't believe that, but it's
the truth.
>3) Legalization of enforced psychiatric treatment if homosexuality could
>be proven to have a genetic cause.
How would that kind of treatment change anything?  I'd vote no - and no
pangs of conscience afterward.  That's not only an offensive idea, it's 
stupid.

>4) Legalization of same-sex marriages
I'd have to vote no - conscience again.  

>Until I hear satisfactory answers from you on those points I'll lump
I have yet to see any evidence that *anything* I say will be to your 
satisfaction.  My conscience and beliefs radically differ from yours, and I
refuse to lie just to make you happy.

>you with all the other bible bashers.  if you do answer all these
Go ahead, it's your brain.  

>questions in a *decent* Christian manner I hereby apologise very
>profusely in advance for having harangued you here.
>
I'll believe that one when I see it.  I don't think any apology on this one
is going to be sincere, Graham.  I don't like that idea very much, but it's
how I feel.  I will take the apology, though; it's one of the only signs of
hope you've given me thus far.


>
-- 
		###	Ruth Hanschka, the Nethead    ###
			- ap290@cleveland.freenet.edu
	      Where anything can happen, and it usually does
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU