From: jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Originator: jlharris@c00579-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: jlharris@eos.ncsu.edu (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:29:54 GMT


In article <72149420218033@c00508-119rd.eos.ncsu.edu>, cddukes@c00508-119rd.eos.ncsu.edu (PakRat's Anonymous) writes:

|> >OK, HERE WE GO AGAIN!
|> It'll keep going until there are no more bigots like you, or
|> people that think differently than you and won't hide.
|> >In article <72141699814412@c00404-346dan.eos.ncsu.edu> you write:
|> >
|> >
|> >I have no right to make decisions for mama, I can tell mama what is legal, and 
|> >murder (aka abortion) is illegal.
|> By that measure I shall have to get into state government, and see about banning
|> every single religious text from this and every other public university.  I can
|> tell you what is legal too.  It would take time.
|> 
|> BTW by what you are saying we would then have to put every single woman that has
|> had an abortion, and their doctors into jail.  Seems like a waste of perfectly good
|> jail space, and perfectly good people...  But I forgot people like you like
|> waste.

Yep, and charge them with murder just like those who kill with guns. 
|> >
|> >Sorry, I don't know the history of the condom.  But I do know about the bible.
|> >It has always been my understanding that Jesus was alive until B.C. 1 and that
|> >his death brought about A.D., but then again, maybe I have been watching too
|> >many bible movies (I'll ask when I see dad this weekend, and he would know 
|> >exactly when is ad/bc everything happened.  And yes the new testament was written
|> >in ad
|> Jesus was BORN in 0 AD (Actually Christian scholars now argue that it might have
|> been 7 AD or 14 BC [something about things that could have been the star over
|> bethlehem, and some years we lost in the middle ages]).  AD is the abbreviation
|> for the latin which means "Year of Our Lord", NOT AFTER DEATH.
|> And this is from history teachers, history texts, AND the neighbors of mine that
|> are ultra religious, and follow and study the bible very closely.
|> And your statement "And yes the new testament was written in ad" is quite
|> condescending, it's damn unlikely for anyone who received a basic education
|> by 1990 to NOT know that fact if only from having the references in some bad
|> literature explained in English class.

I don't know where you went to high school, but no history of what is in the
bible was taught where I grasuated from, only when it was translated, this is not
a historical fact, it is a religous fact where I graduated.

|> >|> You can practice your religion until it starts causing a stink in my back
|> >|> yard, or my friend's back yard...  Well it's causing a stink in their
|> >|> back yards so kindly stop.  Believe what you want, but don't inflict it
|> >|> upon others...  I myself would prefer having bamboo slivers stuck under my
|> >|> toenails.
|> >
|> >Yes, I have my rights until they infinge on yours, and I think its a big enough
|> >campus for me, you and your friend, but I will avoid a flame by saying I don't 
|> >know how someone is stinking in your friend's backyard.
|> 
|> The second you say that folks can't have abortions you have took away their right
|> to have control of their body (If you don't want the fetus to die, go into 
|> bioengineering and figure out a way that the fetus can be aborted, and have a
|> machine, or another woman bring it to term, odds are the pro-lifers would make
|> you a hero, and you would make millions off of couples that can't make children)
|> you may have possibly taken away MY right to control my body.
|> You say that there should be no equivalent to homosexual marriage.  Well considering
|> that I KNOW the couple that were wed (in the eyes of the church) at Pullen last
|> March, you are taking their rights away.  Considering that I'VE dated more guys
|> than my sister, and the fact that if I were more emotionally mature I might have
|> made a serious long term committment with one of them.  Your stance Jonathan
|> takes away MY RIGHTS, RIGHTS THAT YOU ENJOY.  So yes you are stinking in my
|> backyard, you are stinking in my friends backyard... get out or take a bath.
|> Your morals and values INFRINGE UPON ME should you decide that they are the
|> Truth, and must be enforced by law.
|> (And before anyone goes ranting that homosexuality is chosen.  Yeah it's about
|> as if you are hungry and there is food in front of you.  You can eat, or you
|> can enjoy nice hunger pangs)

I can try to put my values on you just as you try to convice me that you have
the right to put yours on mine, I can disagree with what you do and demonstrate,
fuss, petition and yell until I get my way, the same as you.  Yes homosexual
marriages do happen, I just don't think any church should preform them as that
is not right in the eyes of many churches, but you can always find one that
does, mine wouldn't.
|> >
|> >Adultery is when you screw anyone that you are not married to (christian 
|> >definition).  And no, there is nothing wrong with recreational sex in marriage.
|> >You can try, religion like abortion will continue underground. But abortion and
|> >religion are two different issues, and man and woman have the right to say that
|> >it should be illegal, THAT gives me the right to say abortion is wrong.
|> 
|> As such I have the right to get into government, and declare that having your
|> bibles and christian texts on campus is illegal, as are the brickyard preacher
|> and the Gideons.  (The point I'm trying to get across is if you do unto others
|> as you would have them to do unto you, someone could decide that they would
|> like tribal scars, and decide that as such you would appreciate them being
|> given by you, and by your set of morals, you can only find that person's reasoning
|> correct.  Go for the more acceptable, sensible "Don't do unto others unless you
|> WANT them to do unto you.")

You try to use the biblical quote "do unto others as you would have them do unto
you" against me, while this is a good try, as others are ALREADY doing it to
me, I can try to do it to them (not very nice or holy I know, but if you
corner something it will fight)  many are in government doing just that, and
you protest when I want to tell you that you can't marry unless it is a woman.

|> >|> >
|> >|> >Yes, all are born  inherently sinful, and must repent, but the unborn have not
|> >|> >had that chance and therefore will go straight to heaven.  I can't quite figure
|> >|> >out what you are trying to say in the later part here, but it sound like you are
|> >|> >suggestion a government conspiracy against women by making abortion illegal, to
|> >|> >which I say, don't worry. Clinton will reverse the 12 years progress towards
|> >|> >outlawing abortion (I hope he doesn't  but he will if given the chance)
|> >|> 
|> >|> This is a bad thing... you mean that if the fetus is aborted it is going straight
|> >|> to heaven.  My goodness just to save the souls of the future generations we
|> >|> should abort every child now.  I mean any child that is born, and dies before
|> >|> he or she is old enough to find Jesus has sinned, and hasn't repented... and
|> >|> by God it's going to HELL....  we owe it to the children, for their souls.
|> >|> 
|> >This was a question in one of the books I read on preparing for attacks from
|> >those who wish to bring down your faith, what of the native who has never heard
|> >of Jesus, the answer is they will not be held accountable for not knowing, only
|> >those who know and reject it will be punished.
|> 
|> By that figuring the safest course would to be to remain blissfully ignorant
|> correct?  And it was a very bad thing for your god to have sent Jesus down because
|> if he hadn't been sent down everyone would be blissfully ignorant and could
|> not be punished.  I don't know for certain, but it seems to me that any god
|> that would go out of their way so as to get the opportunity to punish someone
|> sounds like the sort of god's house I'd be kicked out of anyways.  (Then again
|> the point is moot, as you believe the bible word for word you already know that
|> I'm going to hell because I'm wearing a cotton rayon blend today.  Even if
|> I hadn't of worn it though, I couldn't make it anyways because of the fact that
|> one of my forebears was a bastard.  Throw in some damage done unto me in
|> highschool, and I just don't have a chance... and that's even if I buy your
|> shit hook line and stinker.  See I have nothing to loose, if you're right I
|> go to hell irreguardless.  If I'm right well I'll probably end up in hell 
|> eventually anyways, but atleast I'll make it to the land of my &deity and be
|> there for about half an eternity).

The only way to remain ignorant is to be born in middle earth, away from all of
the missionaries and never have contact with what is considered the "civilized"
world (all cultures exibit some form of religion and most in these cultures
know or Christianity, if they do, they are held accountablefor their sins, if
they don't then they are not).
You obviously haven't read that part of the bible very well, many knew of god
and were offering sacrifices to him and doing other things to rid themselves
of their sins, the idea was that jesus was the ultimate sacrifice and his death
kills the sins of all who believe in him, if he hadn't come, then god would
be even more evident as every christian household would have its own alter, ther
would still be christians and there would still be more disbelievers.
|> >|> 
|> >|> BTW the conspiracy is mostly by MEN against WOMEN, and the money could be better
|> >|> spent feeding somalians (Gee some more of those children that have been born
|> >|> therefore they have sinned, but haven't been saved therefore they is going to
|> >|> HELL) to restrict the control that WOMEN have over their own bodies.
|> >
|> >see previous answer.
|> Then get rid of the missionaries.

Would work, but missionaries will always attempt to spread religion worldwide.
|> >|> 
|> >|> And remember if abortion is outlawed you will have a junky that thinks like me
|> >|> possibly with a fetish or few performing the procedures for outrageous prices
|> >|> (and excellent profits I might add) with decidedly unsafe equipment where often
|> >|> the woman (Who may not have repented for her sins) and the fetus (who hasn't
|> >|> sinned yet) will DIE... two deaths... and only one of them going to heaven...
|> >|> Boy you are EVIL... E V I L...
|> >|> >
|> >
|> >Same difference as abortion today, except, yes mortality will be much higher.
|> >And remember, most likely noone dragged this woman to this back alley, she knew 
|> >the risks.
|> Are you insinuating that folks are dragging women to abortions now...
|> The only folks doing any dragging around abortion clinics are the prolifers
|> without lives... and well I suspect that one of these days someone is going
|> to get pissed and start shooting at them.  You know I'll be selling tickets
|> and ammo.

Not usually, most women want the abortion, the others are doing it because they
don't want someone to find out they are pregnant, and others are made do so.
And talk about EVIL! you would sell someone the ammo to kill someone else?
That is as bad or worse as what you accuse me of if I succeed in having abortion 
outlawed.
 >|> >|> 
|> >|> >|> Fortunately, Clinton does not pander to this philosophy of the Religious
|> >|> >|> Right, and since I don't either, I supported him rather than Bush (among
|> >|> >|> other reasons).  
|> >|> >
|> >|> >That's your perogative and the exact reason I voted for Bush. But I wouldn't 
|> >|> >call it pandering.
|> >|> 
|> >|> If clinton listened only to the hindus you'd call it pandering.  Guess what
|> >|> Bush has been doing the same.
|> >
|> >Yep, I would and would be outraged, but if he panders to christians, I like it
|> >It's a double standard, but then again, politics is always unfair.
|> 
|> Christianity is a double standard.  You have proven it with statements like
|> "If I have insulted you... it is a sin, but I can be asked to be forgiven."  By
|> that logic if I had a slightly different ancestry, wore different clothes, and
|> didn't get injured in highschool.  You know I could sneak a gun into some
|> really large event, and start taking folks out all over the place... and as long
|> as I ask for forgiveness from GOD before the swat team zaps me (Which goes against
|> your christian beliefs anyways) I'm going to disneyworld (No wait... that's heaven)
|> Wonderful double standard...  It should make axe murderers proud.

I still wonder why you take such offense to "running to mommy" as you said in one
of our mail discussions when we do something wrong, it is a fact of life,
if you are human, then you sin, if you are a christian, you ask for and get 
forgiven for it, it isn't a license to sin, it's acknowledging that you have
done something wrong, which I don't ususally do on purpose or even if I did, and 
having the penalty for that sin removed. And yes murders can be forgiven (anger
is the same thing as actually sticking the gun to someone's head and pulling the 
trigger according to the bible, it is murder in the heart)
|> >|> 
|> >|> >Correct, flame me if you will, but I don't think homosexual marriage should be
|> >|> >legal, bottom line.
|> >|> 
|> >|> I don't think that heterosexual marriage should be legal either bottom line.
|> >|> (secular recognition of marriage is okay, just none of the legal niceties
|> >|> given by marriage including a free name change)
|> >|> 
|> >
|> >That's your opinion, I still don't agree with giving the same right to a homo-
|> >sexual couple as a heterosexual couple, it is just that I don't think 
|> >homosexuality is an excuse for two people to live together and get the tax 
|> >breaks and such, hey! why don't me and my roomate get married and then we can 
|> >share tax breaks, and all the other niceties.  To put it blountly, homosexuality
|> >is explicitly outlawed by the bible, and therfore I disaprove of rights for them
|> >above normal individual rights.
|> 
|> I don't think that heterosexuality is an excuse for two people to live together
|> and get the tax breaks for it.  (I dislike the idea of personal income tax anyways
|> so the point is moot).  However you believe that should you get married and you
|> get injured or sick, your loved one can visit you and vice versa.  It isn't as
|> easy for a homosexual couple.  Should you and your hypothetical wife be unable
|> to have kids you would have much less trouble adopting (And don't give no garbage
|> about environment causing more homosexuals and bisexuals.  From chatting with 
|> Elf, it almost looks like gay couples with kids put fewer homosexuals into
|> the world that straight couples. [E-mail elf@halcyon.com for more details])

To put it bluntly, it is the benefit of being "normal"
|> 
|> And yes I agree no minority deserves rights above normal individual rights.
|> This menas either give up those rights you receive for who you are (No marriage
|> as noted under law, make it just as impossible to adopt, no visitation rights
|> for anybody), or else give your rights to the others...

Like I said, this nation used to have alot of policy based on religion, homosexuality
is looked down upon in the church, so only now are homosexuals being given any
rights, no it isn't fair and I would'nt like it done to me, but I don't think
homosexuality is a factor like race or sex that should be a legal classification
this covers quotas for Univ. admissions or jobs and marriage.

|> >|> It seems unfair until you realize that if an idget like you were hiring and
|> >|> those laws weren't in place you wouldn't be hiring those people, and unless
|> >|> those folks hire the minorities it is damned difficult for them to get to 
|> >|> the position where they can become employers that won't hire the likes
|> >|> of you (And turn about is fair play... THEY can't do that either, unless
|> >|> you show yourself to be grossly unqualified.)
|> >
|> >I would hope race and sex would not enter into this hypothetical hiring I am 
|> >doing, as I see it as a pain to white males trying to get jobs for a less qualified
|> >women or minority to get my job.  And is is very hard for me to prove
|> >that a business will not hire me because I am a white male, but it happens
|> >more than you are willing to admit, but if a black is not hired, he can sue for
|> >discrimination and a lawsuit will follow, and the business will most likely
|> >give in and hire him, even if it means firing the more qualified applicant they
|> >had already hired.  There will be quota laws, there are no laws, and none will
|> >be passed saying the most qualified must be hired or promoted, so minorities will
|> >be given positions based on race and whites will be given positions because they
|> >are white, neither is fair.
|> Uhm personal opinion, but your earlier statements about not being able to backspace
|> on dialup0, or for that matter knowing how to turn on zephyr while on dialup0,
|> well you didn't write yourself off as too qualified.  So don't worry about it.
|> 
|> And uhm... have you ever considered maybe applying for a job at a company that
|> is mostly black?  Or mostly oriental?  Guess what there have been successful
|> lawsuits against those companies when folks from the "majority" in this
|> country have applied for jobs with them, and been turned down.  And don't forget
|> nice benefits like the fact that if you are white and decide to go to someplace
|> like NCCU, you can apply for, and successfully get a minority scholarship
|> (The former documented on 60 minutes, the latter by a friend of my Dad's)
|> 
|> >|> >Yes, I have darn good health insurance through my father and the Presbyterian
|> >|> >Church in America, and can see the benefits of a national health plan, but
|> >|> >how do you propose to pay for it without big tax hikes.  Those without health
|> >|> >coverage should have it, I just don't see how the government can provide it
|> >|> >without me paying a bundle for it.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Hmmm what about someone without the 'rents anymore, or any family, and
|> >|> friends are in a similar financial state?  Your little presbyterian policy
|> >|> won't do them any good.  I'll be the first to admit that socialized medicine
|> >|> does not work, and I am vehemently against the US going the way of canada or
|> >|> britain (or germany), an insurance program for the poor that is backed by
|> >|> the federal government and implemented by an existing health insurance company
|> >|> (That would have to be doing right well for itsself) would not be overly
|> >|> costly, or detrimental.
|> >|> >
|> >
|> >Yes, my best friend's mother has big prescription bills that their insurance
|> >doesn't pay for.  Everyone NEEDS health care, I agree with you social medicine
|> >doesn't work.  So seriously (i'm asking for your opinion) what should we do???
|> 
|> Caveats the following won't work all the time, but it helps.
|> 
|> First and foremost Americans have to get off their high horse of ignorance about
|> health, the human body, and medicines, and family members should take a more
|> active role in examining what the doctors are doing to other members of the
|> family (My family has been doing it for years because I have an uncle that's
|> a doctor, an aunt that's a nurse, and quite a few of my cousins are in various
|> health related professions.).  First and foremost each person should be responsible
|> for considering the combined effects of the medicines they are one and the food
|> they eat (Some combinations cause symptoms that are generally associated with
|> other ailments, which gives call for new medicines...).  Consider non drug solutions.
|> I mean some of the most expensive drugs are for ailments that can be alleviated
|> by changing your lifestyle (IE stress brings on some ailments, smoking makes
|> some other ailments worst, a bit of sensible regular excercise in conjuction with
|> sensible doses of regular pain killers can ease arthritis.)
|> 
|> The other thing I mentioned (having a federally backed health insurance plan that
|> is administrated by an existing company) would also be useful in improving the
|> national health, and making health care affordable.

I LIKE THAT!
|> 
|> (I'm a bit apathetic about politicians, they are pretty much all evil)
|> (I'm also apathetic about prayer in schools.  I mean they won't be
|> able to stop that private kind that is really important to the person
|> until they get rid of tests, and grades)

Ha HA very funny, but very true!

|> >|> Because of folks like yourself... the Clinton administration is not
|> >|> going to be pretty.  The problem isn't the administration, but how
|> >|> the folks that think like you and are in power will react to it.
|> >
|> >Calm down!  You are getting into a frenzy I liked the first part of this
|> >You are discussing not blasting me for what I said or believe in, but towards the
|> >end, you start making this a personal attack (I can handle that).   
|> >
|> >I don't see how people like me are the problem, that is only a matter of opinion 
|> >though.
|> When you put in legislation that denies me similar rights to others, that's a
|> problem.
|> When because you cannot peronally deal with concepts others have and start
|> waffling, or start to deny your abilities so that you can atleast see that
|> the damage you believe will be caused can be minimized.  Most of the problems
|> will be caused by "tantrums" either by or in response to the far right folks
|> that remain.  (Although I just hope that noone makes the mistake carter did
|> and get rid of any republicans in non elected office that might get into
|> politics when ousted.  Keep the politicians where they can't do as much
|> damage is what I say).
|> 
|> 
KIll the politicians is a mean but good idea, but then who do we blame
when the economy hits the skids?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.kibo,alt.religion.kibology