🚀 go-pugleaf

Karl Denninger wrote:
> 
> In article <61e5p1$e9a@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>,
> -Davis,R.H. <ronaldd@ihgp3.ih.lucent.com> wrote:
> 
> The point is that according to the words of Christ, all such distinctions
> are up to the individual to judge on their own (and God to judge in the
> end if you're not honest about it!)
>

what you are saying is nice rhetoric but it has little to do with how
religion
is actually practiced in reality.  ministers, et. al. are constantly
standing
on pulpits and talking about dearly deceased persons and declaring
"he/she is
with god as we now speak!"  presumably, such declarations *should* be
blaphemous,
but do you think ministers are going to stop making such declarations
because
god is supposed to be the only person to make decisions about who did or
did
not lead a "good" life?  let's face, rhetoric aside, the answer is "no".


> >to the extent that pk's make *specific* statements about one group, or a
> >select few groups, then they are clearly giving those target groups
> >consideration that is not being directed toward other groups.
> 
> I don't believe that the PKs have done this.  Please show me an example that
> you are objecting to on their part.
> 

i'm not objecting at all because i don't follow the pk's, but i can't
imagine
that groups like now are going to ask the pk's to sign documents with
absolutely
*no* example of behavior by pk's that they find opprobrious.  whether
other
people agree with their assessments is another thing altogether...


			[stuff deleted]

> The Bible and other scriptural texts have been used throughout history to
> justify all kinds of horrific practices, and are today still used in that
> fashion.  That doesn't make it right, any more than it is right to do so
> without using the color of authority of God.
> 

so if people are going to do bad things whether they are or are not
religious
then that would suggest that it makes no difference whether you do or do
not
practice religion.  the conclusion would seem to suggest that religious
practice
is rather pointless.


> >personally, i'm always concerned when i see people who claim to live
> >as the gospel "actually" states, because it becomes to easy to justify
> >any kind of behavior that fits that person's best interests.  so if
> >they totally screw someone over, it's easy for them to justify it as
> >being "the will of god"; as punishment for the "evil" lifestyles that
> >those people live...
> 
> Uh, if you *actually* read the Gospels, you'll find that the only entity
> who is justified in punishing "evil" lifestyles is God himself.  Nowhere
> is such justified in scripture for us humans :-)
> 

again, more nice rhetoric, but once again, it has little to do with the
practical realities of how religion is practiced.



> NOW is, IMHO, one of the most bigoted organizations around.  This doesn't
> mean that there is *nothing* that they stand for that I happen to agree
> with (because there is), but as is common in political organizations,
> they have taken what could have been an excellent and supportable position
> and completely corrupted it to the point of attempting to deprive people
> of their rights.
> 

i would say this, you sound as hysterical in your criticisms of now as
you
accuse them of being.  you speak of the "very real damage" that now has,
in
your view, done to the family.  well, last i read, about half of
marriages
end in divorce - how many members does now have?  do you *really* think
that
they have enough members to bring about that kind of fallout?  come
on...

-- 
  __  ______  __  / __/ | 
_/ (_(_) / (_(_/_/_(_/  . 

"in every loss is the opportunity for future gain."