Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Barnabus who wrote (21210)	10/19/1998 8:25:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

OMB And what do you think of the Christian right's plans to march and picket at the victim funeral? Do you think it represents christian "values" to do that while the family grieves? the family, right or wrong, fels their son was murdered for being gay. How will they feel when people show at the funeral protesting his gayness? mark

To: Barnabus who wrote (21210)	10/19/1998 8:40:00 PM
From: Sam Ferguson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

OMB OMS agrees with you. This made the headlines because the man was gay. However, just before this happened the Christian right put on a conversion drive for these "sinners." Both actions were wrong IMHO. God gave man free will and I think the Christian right should leave this free will from persecution because of their beliefs. There is an important difference between a lecturer and a Christian who assumes authority. The latter can command a hearing in the name of God, or in the name of the Bible. He does not have to satisfy his hearers about the reasonableness of what he preaches. He is God's mouthpiece, and no one may disagree with him. He can also invoke the authority of the church and of the Christian world to enforce acceptance of his teaching. The only way I may command your respect is to be reasonable. You will not listen to me for God's sake, nor for the Bible's sake, nor yet for the love of heaven, or the fear of hell. My only protection is to be rational -- to be truthful. In other words, the christian can afford to ignore common sense in the name of Revelation. But if I depart from it in the least, or am caught once playing fast and loose with the facts, I will irretrievably lose my standing. Truth should not protest its investigation. It should bear up against all evidence and not rely on faith. With the thesis of faith all religions and isms are correct. Your lot is no better than Muslim, Hindu, Mithraism, zoroasterism etc. All make the claim of truth based on faith and not fact. I do not know what I asked that was zypo. (what does zypo mean?) I would like my next answer to bw why John the baptist sent to find out who Jesus was. Then when answered Iwill ask the rest one at a time. Barney I hope you will devote some time to prove me wrong for it will either strengthen your beliefs or make you see you could be in error. While Dr. Shalom answers his question how bout you giving me a reasonable answer for this question. When Jesus was raised from thje dead why didn't he go back to the people who crucified him and prove his identity. If it had happened there wouldn't have been a doubter anywhere and it would have been implanted in every book and every individual from now on. Was he afraid to face them again? Help me make some sense of this. It seems far wiser than sending a handful of Apostles to spread the word when they could not even protect a single manuscript.