Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:52:45 EDT
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Hate the Sin not the Sinner

Missy:

It is interesting that you responded to my post in a way
as if I was attacking Jesus.  In fact I was attacking some
Christians.

What?  You equate attacking intolerant Christians with attacking
Jesus himself?  Then I have news for you.  Quayle has been trying
hard to distance Bush and himself from Buchanan and Robertson.
(This is my "brother" I never had Pat and this is my other
"brother" I never had Pat. :-)

From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

> Yeah, so?  Jesus sat down with the sinners and ate with them.  He didn't
> then go out and advocate for special rights for them.  In fact, he spent
> an awful lot of his time making speeches against what they did.

Special?  Jews have insurance rights, women, atheists, satanists,
adulterers, murderers, they all have insurance rights.  Advocating
giving the same rights to loving, law abiding homosexual couples
is considered by you "special rights"??

> Christians associate with sinners, but they call them by their right
> name:  "sinners."  They don't say, "Go on and sin some more."  Following
> after Christ, they say "Go, and SIN NO MORE."

(Regarding association: maybe you need to talk to Jay.)  Who said
anything about NOT calling them by their right names?  Who said
we should tell them "go on and sin dome more"?

Maybe you prefer to oppose those positions (that I did not take)
rather than the position that I did take.

> If the sinners don't like it, they don't have to eat with us.  By the same
> token, the Pharisees didn't say, "Oh, look.  This Christ is a bad guy because
> he says sin isn't sin."  They didn't say, "Oh, look.  This Christ is a bad
> guy because he sits with sinners."  They said, "Uh-oh.  This Christ is a bad
> guy because he doesn't like us and conform to our culture, and
> because he thinks he has the power to forgive sin.  He must think he's God.
> We'll show him what's what.  We'll kill him.  That'll show him."

Who said anything about Christ being "bad"?  It seems to me
that the Pharisees thought sitting and eating with sinners
is some kind of approval of them (sounds familiar?).  I am
trying to make the same point.  The same that sitting and
eating with a sinner is NOT approval of their sin, giving
homosexuals the same rights as others is not approval of
their sin -- especially if their actions/lifestyles are not
illegal.

> Didn't work, though.

> He sat with sinners, he called sin what it was, and he didn't sin.  So
> what's your problem with all of this?

BUt it seems to me he didn't also try to squeeze the last drop
of rights that they had either.  And you ask me what my problem
is with all of these?  Who said I had any problem with Jesus?
(Boy are we defensive?)  My problem is with the actions
of some of today's Christians.  So in your next respond try to
defend those Christians and not Christ himself.

> BTW, if this goes much deeper into theology, I think we should take it off
> the net.  This is still a bit political, but it's getting dangerous.

But a good portion of my off the net posts to you has never been
answered/acknowledged.

> --Missy P 2 B

--KAT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU