
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Brother Nate wrote:
> You provide all the evidence anyone could ever need to
> make that determination. No vicious circle is necessary
> to see that you're essentially Godless and amoral.
> > There are ways in which I fall short of the Christian
> ideal, but at least I try.
I am sorry, nate. But I will not let -you- attempt to grab the moral high ground on this.
The fact is that I, too, wish to see the problem of drug abuse go away.
Since when? I'm frankly surprised to even hear you describe it as a "problem". The last time I checked I could have sworn you claimed that drug use decisions were the purely personal business of the person sticking the needle in their vein.
I say your way is immoral (tacit support of the status quo as the best we can do), and you say mine is immoral (radical rejection of the status quo as a wrong against mankind the likes of which are only equaled by Holocausts and Killing Fields).
Your support of the killing fields is, of course much more Christian than my faith in the freedom and free choice given human beings by God.
It's clearly safe to trust you to forget that the killing fields of Cambodia were the work of Godless radical revolutionaries.
You are not empowered to or even asked to prevent people from "doing wrong," or "sinning," by anyone in American society...except yourself.
And to imply that you are trying harder to be a Christian than I, based upon my opinion on a certain single subject is quite not your place, but rather that of God.
And I am prepared for that decision to be made by God. I'm sure you're aware that in the case of many of your allies God is a being they don't even believe to exist.
I find you profoundly offensive to and hostile toward Christianity, quite frankly.
-- Brother Nate Electron Juggler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mypage.iu.edu/~nengle "Some Assembly Required"
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |