tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (05/16/85)
Hello. I went away for a while out of disgust with the general level of dishonesty and bigotry on all USENET's discussion groups, but my masochistic impulses were too strong to be denied for long. When I came back, there was two weeks of net.religion waiting to be read. The primary apparent feature of net.religion was that at least 50% and probably more of the messages were explicitly Christian and of interest only to Christians: debating Mormon theology, whether Jesus said that war was ever permissible, interpreting Biblical prophecies of Armageddon, and literally hundreds of other messages that properly belong in net.religion.christian ONLY. Let me explain something. I have been studying Christianity for most of my 23 years. I don't like it very much. It's boring, unverifiable, and inconsistent, and I had rejected it by the time I hit puberty. I am not being swayed towards becoming a Christian by being forced to wade through all this Christian stuff. If anything, I am becoming less tolerant of Christians who view their belief as the be-all and end-all of religion; my feelings are due to the incredible rudeness of their so frequently forcing themselves on the rest of us. I have nothing against Christian perspectives on inter-religious issues appearing in net.religion, for instance Dubuc's arguments concerning absolute vs. relative morality. (This is not to say I think these are valid or true perspectives, but they certainly belong in net.religion.) The specifically Christian stuff, on the other hand, belongs in net.religion.christian, not in front of my eyes while I am quixotically looking for something on eclecticism or ritual or modes of prayer or models of experience or anything else having to do with DOING religion instead of mouthing off about pet dogmas. This is most emphatically not a condemnation of Christian beliefs: as an eclectic I realize that there is truth in all religions, and I do not exclude Christianity. There is also boring, redundant rehashing of fixed dogmas, of interest only to people who have accepted the particular religion as the final and infallible one. I only ask that such beliefs not be inflicted on the rest of us continually, particularly since there is a more appropriate forum. I am glad that Christians have net.religion.christian in which to discuss their views without interference; if they would only use it more! Jews don't seem to have any trouble with keeping their boring, cult-specific stuff in net.religion.jewish; what is the problem with Christians in this respect? -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (05/17/85)
Bravo Tim!!!
Why, oh why, do the people in net.religion seem to take for
granted that (religion == christianity)?
I was hoping for a net.religion.nonchristian to maybe get
away from that sort of thing. But I suppose that would be
invaded too.
For now, why don't you get thee hence to net.religion.christian,
to which I have unsubscribed. Then real religious issues can
be discussed here.
--
Sue Brezden
Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb
AT&T Information Systems
11900 North Pecos
Westminster, Co. 80234
(303)538-3829
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Honk if you love Shiva!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~dss00@amdahl.UUCP (dss00) (05/22/85)
> I am glad that Christians have net.religion.christian in which to discuss > their views without interference; if they would only use it more! Jews > don't seem to have any trouble with keeping their boring, cult-specific > stuff in net.religion.jewish; what is the problem with Christians in this > respect? > -=- > Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking When followers of any religion believe, that spreading their beliefs to others constitutes an important part of practicing the religion they believe in, it is only natural that they can not constrain their use of a common forum for discussing matters of common interest. -- Deepak S. Sabnis ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!dss00 (408) 746-6058 (Usual Disclaimer Here)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/23/85)
>> I am glad that Christians have net.religion.christian in which to discuss >> their views without interference; if they would only use it more! Jews >> don't seem to have any trouble with keeping their boring, cult-specific >> stuff in net.religion.jewish; what is the problem with Christians in this >> respect? >> -=- >> Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking > When followers of any religion believe, that spreading their beliefs > to others constitutes an important part of practicing the religion > they believe in, it is only natural that they can not constrain their > use of a common forum for discussing matters of common interest. > Deepak S. Sabnis ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!dss00 (408) 746-6058 Parasomnambulism, a new religion that's existed for thousands of years that I just made up, has as one of its tenets the obligation of all followers to persuade other people to become followers through torture. Thus, by the logic above, as Christians feel that proselytizing is an important part of their beliefs, Parasomnambulists should (as these Christians would seem to) feel justified in engaging in their beliefs. What's the difference? Only one of degree. The rights of individuals to their own privacy and beliefs is not (apparently) important to those who see spreading the "word" as paramount. As we've seen, certainly not all Christians do this, but those who do feel more than obligated to do so. Human individual rights are unimportant to such people. (The first person to say: "But, Rich, this applies to you because reading your articles in which you spout YOUR beliefs is sheer torture!" will immediately be converted to Parasomnambulism... :-) -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
dss00@amdahl.UUCP (dss00) (05/29/85)
> > When followers of any religion believe, that spreading their beliefs > > to others constitutes an important part of practicing the religion > > they believe in, it is only natural that they can not constrain their > > use of a common forum for discussing matters of common interest. > > Deepak S. Sabnis ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!dss00 (408) 746-6058 > > Parasomnambulism, a new religion that's existed for thousands of years that I > just made up, has as one of its tenets the obligation of all followers to > persuade other people to become followers through torture. Thus, by the logic ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > above, as Christians feel that proselytizing is an important part of their ^^^^^^^ > beliefs, Parasomnambulists should (as these Christians would seem to) feel ^^^^^^ > justified in engaging in their beliefs. What's the difference? Only one ******more stuff here. Deleted by author of this article.***** > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Please do not draw wrong conclusions Rich. My statements do not say what should or should not be done. I am merely saying what I think is the reason for actions of some over-enthusiastic Christians. It does not imply that I agree with their views. I donot believe that freedom of practicing one's religion should permit any body to impose on others in any way whatever. As a matter of fact, the desire to impose one's views on others (religious or political), is at the root of several of todays problems. What we need today is tolerance of other people and respecting their right to differ. As long as we do not accept, that ours may not be the *only* true way to salvation (after-life, social or economic), we will never be tolerant of others in the true sense. -- Deepak S. Sabnis ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!dss00 (408) 746-6058 (Usual Disclaimer Here)
li63sbi@sdcc7.UUCP (MATTHEW HUNT) (05/31/85)
In article <994@pyuxd.UUCP>, rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: By the way, this is Rick Frey, not Mathew Hunt. I just borrow his account (it's on another machine) when my machine (sdcc6) is over loaded. > > Parasomnambulism, a new religion that's existed for thousands of years that I > just made up, has as one of its tenets the obligation of all followers to > persuade other people to become followers through torture. Thus, by the logic > above, as Christians feel that proselytizing is an important part of their > beliefs, Parasomnambulists should (as these Christians would seem to) feel > justified in engaging in their beliefs. What's the difference? Only one > of degree. The rights of individuals to their own privacy and beliefs is not > (apparently) important to those who see spreading the "word" as paramount. > As we've seen, certainly not all Christians do this, but those who do feel > more than obligated to do so. Human individual rights are unimportant to > such people. > Something that is not that great of a strategy is to attack a weak argument and then make it sound like you've successfully countered an important issue when all you've done is shown that one person's view might be a little off in left field. Let me start trying to restore the dignity of witnessing and open discussions by looking at your comments concerning human individual's rights. First, in the gospels, did Christ walk up to people, grab them from what they were doing (aside from the apostles) and start witnessing to them or isn't the case more like Jesus could hardly walk anywhere because the crowds of people following Him were so great that He often had to teach from boats that were anchored just off shore? In the book of Acts, did Paul or Peter ever force anyone to listen to them in the way you're implying? They stood on the street corners and preached and if that's making people listen than you're going to have to chuck freedom of speech. When they were accused in court, they gave a defense, but they were, in that situation, forced to account for themselves. In prison sure they sang, and maybe they were horrible, and maybe they kept the guard up or maybe they bothered the other prisoners but is that the type of proselityzing (sp??) you want to disallow? Hopefully you're shaking you're head violently, saying, "No, I realize that's simply free speech" which is good of you to agree like that. What you want to complain about (not just this, but mainly this) are the people who attack in airports, who pass out tracts with a vengence and are characterized by an agressiveness and a basic lack of concern for individual's rights. But the problem is that this is by no means the picture that Christ paints for witnessing nor is it by any means the best way to get controversial info around. Let me give an example. When Galileo was trying to tell people that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, they didn't want to listen to him. I'm sure he tried to force himself on a few people, but he probably quite quickly realized that that did no good. So he started to sit back and just wait for opportunities where people brought up the topic. Someone might say, "Gee, what a beautiful sunrise" and Galileo would probably jump on the opportunity and respond, "Well actually the sun's not rising. Believe it or not the sun is actually standing still." He'd continue seemingly forcing his opinion on this unwitting victim until the victim could get away from this apparent madman. Galileo might continue to try bringing up the topic as often as possible always looking for opportunities to discuss his beliefs and challenge the beliefs of others, using any situation he could manage. In Galileo's situation, he was forced by the church to recant this theory, on his knees and he was not allowed to talk about it anymore. But while he did talk, what was he doing? If you say Galileo was proselytyzing just like those Christians do then this world is in big trouble. If someone who believes that they have an answer to a question or problem that is of some significance and they aren't even allowed to mention it in public, then where will that get us? The big question is did Galileo force people to listen to him? I think a useful way of looking at the question is that it wasn't Galileo that forced people to listen, people chose to listen because the question was disturbing. Some Christians today might actually force you to try to listen to them. I don't disagree with you that that is wrong. But to say that anyone who wants to discuss something they feel is going wrong in the world is disregarding human rights is ridiculous. Were the people protesting the Apartheid in South Africa disregarding human rights by having a rally on our gym steps? I ate lunch there and I heard what they were saying and I didn't really want too (I was trying to study for a test and I didn't know about the impending rally). Those same protestors slept in front of one of our libraries for a few weeks. I had to walk over them and supposedly make a decision in favor of the regents by using the library, but is that o.k.? What about the air traffic controllers walking out on strike? People had flights to catch. Their rights were impinged upon but I don't see you complaining about that. The big problem with this question is people's opinions are less often based upon the actual premises of the issue (i.e. what constitutes over zealousness) rather then what is the problem at hand. Protestors might get called radicals or zealots but no one ever complains that they are making people listen to their opinion. That's what they get applauded for. Martin Luther King Jr. tried to do exactly that; bring issues to the light. But why wasn't he called a proselytyzer? It's mainly because most people finally came to the conclusion that he was right and if it's right or if you feel that it's worth protesting over than it's o.k. to break a few human rights. But if it's Christianity and you don't want to hear about how you and God are not on the best of terms and that Christ claims to be the only way to God (here I go proselytizing. Am I making you listen here?) then it's confining, obnoxious, over-zealous, and an infringement of human rights. Haven't you ever been in a conversation or been reading an article and heard someone make some blaring error and wanted to jump in and correct it? I agree that the desire to jump in should be modified by the level of assurance you have in the validity of your information and the level of its acceptedness (I couldn't have answered someone's argument with a controversial alternative, it would be an argument, not a correction) but as in Galileo's case, what's so bad about correction? I agree that I don't want every bozo who flunked high school physics to come up to me and tell me that the earth is really flat, but I would rather suffer a couple bozo's than miss one Galileo. Especially when it's a Galileo named Jesus Christ. This may sound odd, but would you have let Christ proselytize you? If you were just standing on the street and you heard him speaking outside, would you have yelled for him to shut up? Don't worry, I'm not looking for grounds for blasphemy, I'm really interested in why someone who has such faith in the human mind wants to shut it off to public access. > "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day > to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human > being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings An excellent quote, I've never heard it before. I agree with it whole heartedly, but we would disagree as to what it means to be yourself. The Bible says something similar, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind that you may prove what the will of God is; that which is good, acceptable and perfect." (Romans 12:2) Rick Frey ...ihnp4!sdcsvax!sdcc6
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/04/85)
>>Parasomnambulism, a new religion that's existed for thousands of years that I >>just made up, has as one of its tenets the obligation of all followers to >>persuade other people to become followers through torture. Thus, by the logic >>above, as Christians feel that proselytizing is an important part of their >>beliefs, Parasomnambulists should (as these Christians would seem to) feel >>justified in engaging in their beliefs. What's the difference? Only one >>of degree. The rights of individuals to their own privacy and beliefs is not >>(apparently) important to those who see spreading the "word" as paramount. >>As we've seen, certainly not all Christians do this, but those who do feel >>more than obligated to do so. Human individual rights are unimportant to >>such people. > Something that is not that great of a strategy is to attack a weak > argument and then make it sound like you've successfully countered an > important issue when all you've done is shown that one person's view > might be a little off in left field. [RICK FREY] It would have been a courteous strategy of argument to have made reference to what I was originally referring to. Obviously it was not your intent to use such a strategy. I was addressing the original person's statements regarding the foisting and imposing of notions onto others being perceived as "rights". If you don't like what I had to say about it, and how I related it to things in general, you could offer some evidence of flawed logic in my writing. Your choosing not to do so would seem to shed light on your true intent in posting this. > First, in the gospels, did Christ walk up to people, grab them from what > they were doing (aside from the apostles) and start witnessing to them > or isn't the case more like Jesus could hardly walk anywhere because the > crowds of people following Him were so great that He often had to teach > from boats that were anchored just off shore? Well, that's the way the Bible tells the story, no? Great PR, that book. > In the book of Acts, did Paul or Peter ever force anyone to listen to > them in the way you're implying? In any case, what makes you think Christians today act anything like Jesus and the early Christians? Just because the bible says that that's the way it was for them 1) doesn't mean that it was, and 2) doesn't have anything to do with the way Christians have behaved on the whole since then. > Hopefully you're shaking you're head violently, saying, "No, I realize that's > simply free speech" which is good of you to agree like that. And it's good of you to tell others what I must be doing. I wasn't talking about that sort of proselytizing in the first place, and neither was the original author I was replying to (Deepak Sabnis replying to Tim Maroney on the very issue I am still discussing). > What you > want to complain about (not just this, but mainly this) are the people > who attack in airports, who pass out tracts with a vengence and are > characterized by an agressiveness and a basic lack of concern for > individual's rights. But the problem is that this is by no means the > picture that Christ paints for witnessing nor is it by any means the > best way to get controversial info around. Yet it is the prevalent way for it to occur. > Let me give an example. When Galileo was trying to tell people that the > earth wasn't the center of the universe, they didn't want to listen to > him. I'm sure he tried to force himself on a few people, but he > probably quite quickly realized that that did no good. So he started to > sit back and just wait for opportunities where people brought up the > topic. Someone might say, "Gee, what a beautiful sunrise" and Galileo > would probably jump on the opportunity and respond, "Well actually the > sun's not rising. Believe it or not the sun is actually standing > still." He'd continue seemingly forcing his opinion on this unwitting > victim until the victim could get away from this apparent madman. What actually happened was that he wrote his theories and the church didn't want ANYONE to get the chance to hear so he was branded a heretic. I don't think he had much to try out the technique that would seem to be one of your own creation. > Galileo might continue to try bringing up the topic as often as possible > always looking for opportunities to discuss his beliefs and challenge > the beliefs of others, using any situation he could manage. In > Galileo's situation, he was forced by the church to recant this theory, > on his knees and he was not allowed to talk about it anymore. But while > he did talk, what was he doing? It's clear you assume he was foisting the way some Christians now do. Remember what happens when you assume. > If you say Galileo was proselytyzing just like those Christians do then > this world is in big trouble. If someone who believes that they have an > answer to a question or problem that is of some significance and they > aren't even allowed to mention it in public, then where will that get > us? The big question is did Galileo force people to listen to him? The big question is where you get your ideas from. The Galileo YOU describe was indeed proselytizing "just like those Christians". Big difference between seeking to lure people into one's own group's belief system obnoxiously and manipulatively, and simply presenting one's views to those who will voluntarily listen. The church was the group that listened to Galileo, and we know what their response was. > I think a useful way of looking at the question is that it wasn't Galileo > that forced people to listen, people chose to listen because the > question was disturbing. Proselytization with a basis of harrassment, deception, subterfuge, and manipulation, does not give people a CHOICE to listen. > Some Christians today might actually force you to try to listen to them. > I don't disagree with you that that is wrong. But to say that anyone > who wants to discuss something they feel is going wrong in the world is > disregarding human rights is ridiculous. That wasn't what I was talking about. And the fact that you are trying to make it seem that it WAS what I talking about is typical of the manipulative trickery present in the proselytizing I *was* talkig about. > Were the people protesting the > Apartheid in South Africa disregarding human rights by having a rally > on our gym steps? I ate lunch there and I heard what they were saying > and I didn't really want too (I was trying to study for a test and I > didn't know about the impending rally). Those same protestors slept in > front of one of our libraries for a few weeks. I had to walk over them > and supposedly make a decision in favor of the regents by using the > library, but is that o.k.? Civil disobedience involving movements for human rights often utilizes deliberate attempts to attract people's attention with the very knowledge that it is wrong and that they are breaking the law/social convention in doing it. Are you equating drawing people's attention to YOUR personal belief system with drawing people's attention to real plight of human beings. I have my doubts about the methods of the protesters, but at least they are addressing a real human concern and not just somebody's belief system. I know you may think it's something more, but others sure don't. > What about the air traffic controllers > walking out on strike? People had flights to catch. Their rights were > impinged upon but I don't see you complaining about that. Gee, I didn't know I was SUPPOSED to complain about everything wrong with the world directly to you! > The big problem with this question is people's opinions are less often > based upon the actual premises of the issue (i.e. what constitutes over > zealousness) rather then what is the problem at hand. Protestors might > get called radicals or zealots but no one ever complains that they are > making people listen to their opinion. That's what they get applauded > for. Martin Luther King Jr. tried to do exactly that; bring issues to > the light. But why wasn't he called a proselytyzer? He was called a lot worse. But again, we're dealing with the difference between drawing attention to maltreatment of human beings as opposed to drawing attention to your personal belief system that you'd like to gather up some more followers for. > It's mainly > because most people finally came to the conclusion that he was right and > if it's right or if you feel that it's worth protesting over than it's > o.k. to break a few human rights. But if it's Christianity and you > don't want to hear about how you and God are not on the best of terms > and that Christ claims to be the only way to God (here I go > proselytizing. Am I making you listen here?) then it's confining, > obnoxious, over-zealous, and an infringement of human rights. If it's Christianity and I don't want to hear YOUR PERSONAL UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION about me and the god you believe in, then it's "confining". Just as confining as if we were talking about something substantive, like human suffering or real world concerns. Except that we're not. > Haven't you ever been in a conversation or been reading an article and > heard someone make some blaring error and wanted to jump in and correct > it? No, that's never ever happend to me before. :-) > I agree that the desire to jump in should be modified by the level > of assurance you have in the validity of your information and the level > of its acceptedness (I couldn't have answered someone's argument with a > controversial alternative, it would be an argument, not a correction) ... And the applicability of speaking up in the forum (e.g., Is it a discussion forum like the net of somebody's private life? I wouldn't be obliged to listen to you or reply to you if you called me on the phone and started spouting drivel.) > but as in Galileo's case, what's so bad about correction? I agree that > I don't want every bozo who flunked high school physics to come up to me > and tell me that the earth is really flat, but I would rather suffer a > couple bozo's than miss one Galileo. Assuming Galileo discussed his theories in the way you describe. (He didn't, but it seems to make your argument better to assert that he did.) > Especially when it's a Galileo named Jesus Christ. Jesus was a Galileo? Besides we're not talking about the actions of Jesus as purported in a book. We're talking about the way certain Christians act today. > This may sound odd, but would you have let Christ proselytize you? Not if he acted like a modern Christian proselytizer. > If you were just standing on the street and you heard > him speaking outside, would you have yelled for him to shut up? If he was harrassing or disturbing other people, I might call the cops. > Don't worry, I'm not looking for grounds for blasphemy, I'm really interested > in why someone who has such faith in the human mind wants to shut it off > to public access. You have a warped sense of the difference between free speech and harrassment. Answer the issue I was talking about, not the issue you'd like to make people think I was talking about. >>"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day >> to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human >> being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings > An excellent quote, I've never heard it before. I agree with it whole > heartedly, but we would disagree as to what it means to be yourself. > The Bible says something similar, "Do not be conformed to this world, > but be transformed by the renewing of your mind that you may prove what > the will of God is; that which is good, acceptable and perfect." > (Romans 12:2) It's quotes like that, and belief systems like yours, that make Cummings' quote all the more relevant. Fighting against those who would seek to mold into their image of what a human being should be is indeed a tought fight. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr