brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/17/84)
[]
One of Yiri Ben-David's main themes is that Christianity is fundamentally
anti-Torah and that its anti-Torah posture is likely to lead many to follow
the "contra-messiah" when he appears. Those who erroneously believe that
Y'shua came to free mankind from the yoke of Torah will likely see no
ideological conflict with acceptance of "the man of lawlessness [torah-
lessness]" II Thess. 2:3.
I would like to approach the problem of explaining this concept from a
more intuitive and non-scholarly perspective. I have been a Christian
for the past 10 years, most of it spent with various non-denominational
Evangelical groups. For a long time now I have felt that there is some
organic problem with Christianity. Christianity has a kind of *character
defect* which stems from a misunderstanding of the place of Law in the
New Testament writings. I would like to explain what I mean by Christ-
ianity's *character defect* and point out some of the effects of its
anti-Torah posture. My statements are directed to Christians. My
intention is not to make unwarranted broadside attacks, to give fuel
to the unlearned, or to ridicule (not that I see anything wrong with
ridicule, I just don't think it is appropriate for this article). All
are free to comment but please refrain from unsolicited hostilities
directed at Christians.
First of all let me say that I am making distinction between Christians
and Christianity. What I mean is that I believe that there are Christians
who are not themselves deceived, who are in fact good people living accord-
ing to Torah, even though this is not their stated purpose. With respect
to Torah observance, the scriptures teach that it is the *doing* of
Torah which is important, not so much the *talking* about it. Rather
I am addressing myself to that body of tradition, beliefs, interpretations
of scripture, known to the world as "Christianity". I am further limiting
my discussion to that aspect of Christianity which deals with the "Law",
that is, the Torah, and the effects of the misunderstanding concerning the
place of the Torah which pervades Christian tradition. I am not going to
attempt to prove that the traditional beliefs are incorrect. Instead I
will simply point them out and explain their effect. I am directing my
statements toward those who hold to these traditions, and further, to
those who claim that these traditions are biblically based. Subsequent
discussion, therefore, assumes that the reader claims to believe the
"Old Testament", as well as the "New Testament" writings.
Let's begin with an analysis of a passage from the book called "Acts of
the Apostles". I quote from the New International Version chapter 21
verses 17-24:
---
"When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. The next
day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were
present. Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among
the Gentiles through his ministry.
"When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: 'You see,
brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are
zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the
Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them
not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What
shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we
tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these
men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that
they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no
truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in
obedience to the law.'"
---
This passage would seem to demonstrate unequivocally that the early
disciples believed in keeping the law of Moses, the Torah. If Paul
had any disagreement with the last sentence, then if he were a man
of character, he would have vehemently disagreed with it. If Paul
believed that keeping the law has no place in the life of the believer,
as Christian tradition has it, then he should have jumped up in outrage
and said, "Hey!! Wait a minute! We are not under the law. The death
and resurrection of Jesus has set us free from these dead traditions
so that we can serve in the newness of the Spirit!! You guys here
in Jerusalem are in error and you need to repent from these dangerous
legalistic tendencies." Instead, the account has it that he went
along with the plan.
So why do we hear in Sunday sermon after Sunday sermon that Jesus set
us free from the binding authority of Torah? Why are we continually
reminded that keeping the law will not get you into heaven (often with
the strong implication that it is useless or unnecessary to keep the
law)? Why do so many people assume that Paul did not continue to keep
the law after his experience on the road to Damascus? The answer is
two-fold. First, there are passages in Paul's writing concerning "law"
which are difficult to understand. Passages in Romans, Galations,
Ephesians are interpreted to mean that the law has been set aside in
the plan of God. It is no longer necessary to observe the commandments
of Moses because Jesus Christ has "abolished the ordinances with his flesh",
"set us free from the law of sin and death". Jesus is "the end of the law
for them that believe". Paul also makes statements that seem to say
that Kashrut is no longer valid and observance of holy days is now
irrelevant.
Secondly, Christianity *DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT PAUL WAS A MAN OF CHARACTER*.
The problem is that there are statements in Paul's writing which lead
many Christians to the not-consciously-acknowledged conclusion that Paul
had a duplicitous nature. Two examples (paraphrased from memory) should
suffice:
"To the Greeks I became as a Greek and to the Jews I became as a Jew
in order that I might win them to Christ"
"I would have you be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves"
In other words, Christians would view Paul's acceptance of the plan
of the elders as a way of deceiving the Jews into believing that he
himself was Torah-observant, when in fact (according to Christian tradition)
he was not, in order that he might "win them to Christ". My purpose
here is not to thoroughly document this phenomenon, but only to introduce
it. I think that if Christian readers are honest they will recognize
the sort of thing I am talking about.
The implications of this are actually quite staggering and far-reaching
into the very guts of Christendom. Christianity accepts the writings
of Paul. In fact, Paul is recognized as one of the great heros of
Christianity -- the founder of the Gentile church, the super-evangelist
who can claim more converts and more influence on the ideological direction
of the Church than anyone else. Paul is the ultimate role model for
every starry-eyed convert out to win the world for Jesus Christ. He
is the most quoted, most looked up to, most emulated of all the early
believers. AND YET HE IS UNIVERSALLY BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN A LIAR. I
submit that Christian tradition has created a non-existant Paul: a
Torah-apostate double-dealer who believed that the only valid thing to do is
win converts to Christianity, and who felt that a certain amount of
duplicity toward this end is entirely acceptable and even meritorious.
Perhaps you think that this overstated. My conclusions
are based on the experience of countless sermons, bible-studies,
Christian media and active evangelical work. Maybe I just happened
to be in the wrong denomination? Maybe I should have read Dr. X's
20 volume, ultra-scholarly commentary on the epistles? I don't think
so. Those who claim to be well-informed are just as confused as anyone
else with respect to the Law question. The opinions expressed in this
newsgroup haven't succeeded in changing my perception of the *character
defect* problem.
So Christianity denies the yolk of Torah, believing that the yolk of
Jesus has replaced it, and it sees no problem with a duplicitous
Paul. How does this affect the actions of a Christian? What impact
does this way of thinking have on the world with which the Christian
interacts? And finally, what are the implications for the future?
First, let me provide one example from the past which will serve to
illustrate the effect of this false thinking.
Consider the case of Martin Luther. When Luther first broke with the
Catholic Church he made overtures to the Jews, lightening their persecution,
because he believed the explanation for Jewish rejection of Jesus lay
in oppressive RC policies. After a few years, when it became clear
to him that Jews still resisted conversion efforts, Luther became viscerally
anti-Jewish. I requote random Lutherisms from tracts written in
his later years (these first appeared in my article a few months ago
called "Christian Persecution of Jews"):
"Jews are poisoners, ritual murderers, usurers ... they are
parasites on Christian society ... they are worse than devils ...
it is harder to convert them than Satan himself ... they are
doomed to hell. They are, in truth, the anti-Christ.
Their synagogues should be destroyed and their books seized ...
they should be forced to work with their hands ... better still
they should be expelled by the princes from their territories"
Martin Luther
I want to point out here the duplicitous capriciousness of Luther's
actions. First, consider his motive in lightening the oppression
of the Jews. His aim, his only aim, was to win the Jews to Christ.
Luther's misunderstanding of the character of Paul would lead him
to think that this is, in itself, the most virtuous motive that anyone
could possibly have. HE DIDN'T LIGHTEN THE OPPRESSION BECAUSE THE
OPPRESSION WAS WRONG. This is a very important point and central
to my thesis. Luther's actions, because he did not accept the binding
authority of Torah, were not based on questions of right and wrong.
His action was duplicitous. Can you see that?
This point is so important that it deserves another paragraph. Contrast
Luther with a Man of Character. The Man of Character is guided by
principle: a code, or set of laws, by which he makes judgement. The
Man of Character, on seeing the oppression of the Jews, on seeing that
the Jews were law-abiding and no fault could be found in them, would have
been outraged at such an injustice FOR ITS OWN SAKE. That is, without
grinding his own ax, without considering any possible advantage or
disadvantage, the Man of Character loves Justice, FOR ITS OWN SAKE,
and seeks to exalt Justice, according to right principle, at every opportunity.
Contrast Luther with King David, a man after God's own heart. David,
a righteous man, would have been moved with anger on seeing the plight
of a wrongly oppressed group of people. And the oppression ALONE would
have moved him to fight for the Jews. To lift the oppression for any
other reason, no matter how noble-sounding, would be unthinkable. The
Man of Character simply says, "Hey, these people are oppressed! It is
WRONG for them to be oppressed. How can I give sleep to my eyes while
this oppression is going on right under my own nose, when I have the
power to do something about it?
The second thing that I want to point out is the maddening capriciousness
of Luther's actions. What did Luther do when he lightened the oppression
of the Jews? Well, in a Just system of government, officially sanctioned
oppression is reserved for criminals. By lifting oppression, Luther is
acknowledging the legitimacy of Jews. How did he make this judgement?
By Torah? By something concrete, a code written down that all can understand
and so use to predict the actions of one who follows that code? If so,
why did he later change his mind? Did the code change? Can we respect
such a code that is based on the whim and caprice of the codifier? How
can Luther explain his actions? How can ANYONE explain Luther's actions?
When I submitted my "Christian Persecution of Jews" article last summer
which included Luther's statements, many Christians responded by Email.
I found the responses disgusting. NOT ONE CHRISTIAN GAVE A DAMN ABOUT
THE INJUSTICES I DESCRIBED. Without exception, the responses were limited
to "Those people weren't really Christians" or "Why did you bring this up?
What will the unbelievers think?" or "I'm getting tired of hearing all that
stuff in the past". One prominent contributor to the net offerred the
following, "Luther was a sword-evangelist, i.e. 'Repent or Die'. The
concept of individual soul liberty didn't evolve until later". How
does that explain anything? It even seems to suggest that Luther's actions
were justifiable!
Christian, get your head out of the clouds for a moment
and put yourself in the place of a Jew under Luther. You are elated
that your oppression has been lifted, though you have been TRAINED to be
somewhat wary of these Yahoo Goyim who seem to make up the rules as they
go along. And, sure enough, after a few years, without any REAL explanation
at all, the oppression returns worse than ever. Why? What crime was
committed? What transgression is being punished? Or, as Jesus put it,
"Which of you convicts me of sin?"
Can't you see the horrible injustice of this? Doesn't your blood get hot
just thinking about it? How can God possibly give license to a system
of government which carries on like that? I will submit that he didn't,
that he heard the years and years of the earnest prayers of the oppressed
and had mercy on them by establishing a more secularly-oriented government
that the wrongfully oppressed could participate in. When you start making
noise about a "Christian America" is it any wonder that Jews provide such
stiff opposition? It takes more than a hand-wave to explain the last two
thousand years of Church history. The evidence suggests that there is
something organically wrong with Christianity itself, and not just a few
individuals who went off the deep end.
Christianity is a sort of lobotomy; a cerebrum detached
from its soul, the Torah; floating free from restraint or purpose; imagining
all sorts of pleasant sounding thoughts, platitudes; having only a secondary
or accidental concern for Justice. Christianity rejects the definition
of sin and yet claims to be able to identify sin. This leads to all sorts
of bizarre nonsense such as we see in this newsgroup, for example. What
does it mean to repent from sin? How do you define sin? How can you judge
right and wrong? Rather, how can you objectively explain it? Where is
your standard for all to see so that they know what you are talking about?
How can you expect to carry on rational public-policy discussions with
the sort of *pick-and-choose* approach that so many use: "Well, we get our
values from the Ten Commandments". "Oh, I see. Do you keep the Sabbath?"
"Uh. Well, Paul said we don't have to keep that one." And so on. Does
noone see the absurdity of this? You don't even realize that the ten
commandments were given to Jews, NOT Goys. You have no way of communicating
your own agenda. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
The future? Well, Christians are at least as susceptible to buzz-phrases
as anyone else. If someone is able to speak the jargon, then he can be
accepted as a Christian so long as he doesn't do anything too outrageous.
At first. And people who are as deceived as the guy who saw nothing wrong
with Martin Luther's actions won't have any objection at all! All the
"man of lawlessness" has to do is explain how he is "winning the world
for Jesus" and many Christians will welcome him openly, TOTALLY UNCONSCIOUS
OF ANY ATTROCITIES COMMITTED ALONG THE WAY. Why? Because they deny Torah
and have adopted false values in its place. Just like Martin Luther.
And just like many Christians who contribute to this net.
--
David Brunson
"Which of you convicts me of sin?"gkm@hou2b.UUCP (G.MCNEES) (11/21/84)
It is unfortunate that the very basics of Christianity are not taught in many of our churches today. Had they been, this article by Ken would not have been writen. The foundation of the law is the ten commandments. If these commandments were obeyed, practically all of the bickering on this network would vanish. Nine of the ten commandments are specifically regiven in the New Testament. Either exactly or even extended. For example, "Thou shall not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Another example: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor... , but I say unto you: Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.; ... ." Ken does not understand the Apostle Paul, but I don't have the time to explain the scriptures he refers to right now. Needless to say, many Christians have done many terrible things, as did Luther. However, Kens reference to King David who committed adultery, lied, murdered, etc. seem not to help his argument. The one commandment, keeping the sabbeth, not plainly regiven in the NT is nevertheless fulfilled in the Christians life, since we have entered into true sabbeth rest. However, that is another extensive study. Christians are born as babes and need to grow up on a proper diet- the milk of the word. One of the first things they need to be taught is that their minds must be completely renewed. Gary McNees
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/19/85)
[Go ahead, read this flame; you've earned it, Tim] Ahem. In article <249@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >>>They share more than a "label". When part of the belief system itself >>>GLORIFIES the rightness of the believers and their RIGHT to "correct" >>>the behavior of others around them, that's more than just sharing a >>>label. And that's my point. [Rich Rosen] >>Rich, if you think that every sect and denomination of christianity believes >>in a right to force everyone into line with their particular morality, then >>you either don't what you're talking about or you don't care. Quote me some >>NT scripture to justify your point. [me] >Yes, Charles, virtually all Christian sects DO believe that. The only >exceptions are those churches that believe in universal salvation. I would >expect you, a Christian, to be aware of the doctrine in the Gospels that God >has the right to force everyone to follow his particular opinion on morals, >and even to torture those who refuse. Virtually all Christian churches >believe in this right. [Tim] No mainline protestant church has as one of its aims the establishment of "Christian" morality as the sole basis of law. I can't speak for the rest. I won't even attempt to explain doctrine of salvation, since Tim has demonstrated that he is not ready to receive my words on the subject (and I suspect that anyone who would listen has enough sense not to read this article). Volumes and volumes have been written on the subject. I suggest Tim might want to read some Reinhold Niebuhr, or some other protestant thelogian. >When it comes down to the rights of HUMANS to do this, nothing in the New >Testament comments either way. At all. Can you cite any scripture which >shows clearly that people do NOT have the right to impose Christian morality >on unbelievers? THe NT does not concern itself with rights; it concerns itself with duty. Now I suppose I might find some scripture to quote on my side, but I doubt it; christians in Paul's time were not in a position to dictate public morality. On the other hand, I would argue that Jesus' invective against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees indicates that a certain tolerance of other's actions. Also, consider the Pericope of the Adulteress (commonly placed in John); Jesus refuses to condemn the woman EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS CLEARLY SINNED. And she was SUPPOSED to be an adherent of the religion which prescribed that law! >Since the Old Testament is crammed full of "good" people >serving God by killing and persecuting unbelievers, and the New Testament >contains no scriptures that contradict this, and Christians don't have the >moderating rabbinical interpretations of the OT, then, yes, it is safe to >say that imposing your beliefs on others is a inherent part of Christianity. Totaly wrong. OT law is certainly not binding upon me, since I am not a Jew; the same is, of course, true for the overwhelming majority of christians. The fact that you, Tim, should make such an argument indicates to me the hopelessness of me trying to explain what I believe to be a more correct position to you. However.... >Allow me to point out that until this century (that's nineteen centuries if >you're counting) almost all Christian countries had laws against >non-Christians holding public office; Christian sexual morality was written >into law; particularly deviant heretics were put in jail or executed by >Catholics and Protestants alike; and so on. Christianity is and always has >been a religion that practices the harrassment of unbelievers; and if you >disagree with these historical facts, it is you who are ignorant or >uncaring, not Rich. I know all this; in fact, when it comes to burning heretics, I would venture a guess that I know more than you do, Tim. I'll even agree that Christianity has a long history of persecuting non-believers. That doesn't mean that all of Christianity today (or even in the past) would advocate such practices. It doesn't mean that such practices can be theologically justified, even in Christianity. And I might point out that it was also JEWISH sexual morality which was written into law. But I don't expect you to listen, Tim, because you've already decided that christianity is evil. So I won't waste any further time arguimg. You should be proud to be only the second person to be removed from this group by my kill file. (No, Rich, you aren't #1; I haven't dealt with YOU yet...) Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/20/85)
From mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Mon Feb 18 23:43:18 1985: > [Go ahead, read this flame; you've earned it, Tim] Don't you think "tantrum" would have been a more appropriate term? By the way, I was not amused by your "followup-to" line, which attempted to prevent me from responding in net.religion. Your motivations are as transparent as usual, jerk. > > > Rich, if you think that every sect and denomination of christianity > > > believes in a right to force everyone into line with their particular > > > morality, then you either don't what you're talking about or you don't > > > care. Quote me some NT scripture to justify your point. [Wingate] > > Yes, Charles, virtually all Christian sects DO believe that. The only > > exceptions are those churches that believe in universal salvation. I > > would expect you, a Christian, to be aware of the doctrine in the > > Gospels that God has the right to force everyone to follow his > > particular opinion on morals, and even to torture those who refuse. > > Virtually all Christian churches believe in this right. [Tim] > No mainline protestant church has as one of its aims the establishment of > "Christian" morality as the sole basis of law. I can't speak for the rest. Note that word "sole". Almost slips right by you, doesn't it? Almost. Nice try, Chuck. Clearly mainline Protestant denominations do believe in basing some laws upon "Christian morality", even if not all. > I won't even attempt to explain doctrine of salvation, since Tim has > demonstrated that he is not ready to receive my words on the subject (and I > suspect that anyone who would listen has enough sense not to read this > article). Volumes and volumes have been written on the subject. I suggest > Tim might want to read some Reinhold Niebuhr, or some other protestant > thelogian. Oh, well, if volumes and volumes have been written on the subject, then I guess that proves my position false. Right. You may not believe this, Charley, but I have read books on Christian theology, as I have read books on every other major religion and many minor ones. (The ones on Christianity were the biggest time-wasters of the lot, and I have no intention of wasting any more time on them when I could be doing something constructive -- like finding out what the heck Sikhism is....) I am familiar with the usual rationalizations on the subject. The most prevalent one is that Hell is voluntary. God supposedly does not send people to Hell at all; they send themselves by refusing to bend to his will. Mm-hm. Let's try the following Gospel passages on the subject of Hell to see which they support: voluntarism, or the position that damnation to Hell is something that gets done to you. Mat. 11:23 "And as for you, Capernaum, did you want to be exalted as high as heaven? You shall be thrown down to hell." Mat. 18:9 "... it is better for you to enter into life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be thrown into the hell of fire." Mat. 18:34-35 "And in his anger the master handed him over to the torturers till he should pay all his debt. And that is how my heavenly Father will deal with you...." Mat. 22:13 "Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot and throw him out into the dark, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth.'" Mat. 24:51 "The master will cut him off and send him to the same fate as the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth." Mat. 25:30 "As for this good-for-nothing servant, throw him out into the dark, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth." Mat. 25:32,41 "[The Son of Man] will separate men one from another as the shepherd separates sheep from goats.... Next he will say to those on his left hand, 'Go away from me, with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" This includes an excerpt from every major passage on Hell in Matthew (except the story of the foolish virgins). They are unanimous in describing damnation as something that God does to people. So much for the voluntarism rationalization. It's amazing, how willing many Christians are to ignore what their own scriptures say in favor of something they made up that they find more palatable. > > When it comes down to the rights of HUMANS to do this, nothing in the > > New Testament comments either way. At all. Can you cite any scripture > > which shows clearly that people do NOT have the right to impose > > Christian morality on unbelievers? > > THe NT does not concern itself with rights; it concerns itself with > duty. Now I suppose I might find some scripture to quote on my side, > but I doubt it; christians in Paul's time were not in a position to > dictate public morality. You want us to provide NT scripture to prove our position, but you don't have to provide any to prove yours. That's fair. You put the burden of proof right where it belongs. ("Where's that, Uncle Timmy?" "Why, on the other side, of course!") > On the other hand, I would argue that Jesus' invective against the hypocrisy > of the Pharisees indicates that a certain tolerance of other's actions. > Also, consider the Pericope of the Adulteress (commonly placed in John); > Jesus refuses to condemn the woman EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS CLEARLY SINNED. And > she was SUPPOSED to be an adherent of the religion which prescribed that > law! An anti-Semitic tirade ("Pharisee" is synonymous with "Jew", modern Judaism having come straight from the Pharisees) indicates tolerance should be given to others' actions? Mind running that one by me again? As for the story about the adulteress, all you have shown is a contradiction in Jesus' behavior. He says not to judge, all the while claiming that certain specific groups of people (Jews, pagans, tax collectors) are horrible and evil and deserve eternal torture. Not only that, he says they should not be treated well even in this life! See Mat. 18:17: "... if he refuses to listen to the community, treat him like a pagan or a tax collector." > > Since the Old Testament is crammed full of "good" people serving God by > > killing and persecuting unbelievers, and the New Testament contains no > > scriptures that contradict this, and Christians don't have the > > moderating rabbinical interpretations of the OT, then, yes, it is safe > > to say that imposing your beliefs on others is a inherent part of > > Christianity. > > Totaly wrong. OT law is certainly not binding upon me, since I am not > a Jew; the same is, of course, true for the overwhelming majority of > christians. The fact that you, Tim, should make such an argument > indicates to me the hopelessness of me trying to explain what I believe > to be a more correct position to you. However.... Please tell me where you find in my message any reference to the Mosaic law or any implication that Christians are bound by it. You couldn't answer my point, so you changed it to something you could handle. The fact is that virtually all Protestant sects hold that the Old Testament prophets who personally ordered these slaughters were among the most virtuous of men. > > Allow me to point out that until this century (that's nineteen > > centuries if you're counting) almost all Christian countries had laws > > against non-Christians holding public office; Christian sexual morality > > was written into law; particularly deviant heretics were put in jail or > > executed by Catholics and Protestants alike; and so on. Christianity > > is and always has been a religion that practices the harrassment of > > unbelievers; and if you disagree with these historical facts, it is you > > who are ignorant or uncaring, not Rich. > > I know all this; in fact, when it comes to burning heretics, I would > venture a guess that I know more than you do, Tim. I'll even agree > that Christianity has a long history of persecuting non-believers. > > That doesn't mean that all of Christianity today (or even in the past) > would advocate such practices. My guess is that if you really knew much about it, you would have said "hanging" rather than "burning", since that was by far the more common method of execution. And no, not all Christians would advocate this imposition. However, every mainstream Christian church today has in its recent (the last 200 years or so) past periods when such practices were openly advocated by the church hierarchy. Furthermore, many such churches still exist, such as the sects associated with the TV shows the 700 Club, the Jim Bakker Show (formerly PTL Club), and the Old Time Gospel Hour (Falwell's show). These sects are all large enough to have revenues far in excess of ten million dollars a year each. And the most that any other fundamentalist will say against the shows in public is that they are suspicious of the shows' fund-raising practices. Mainstream imposition of morality is alive and well. > It doesn't mean that such practices can be theologically justified, > even in Christianity. Obviously they were given theological justifications by the churches that practiced them. You seem to be implying some absolute standard by which one can determine exactly what is or is not scripturally justified; if there were any such, there would be only one Christian sect. You have no greater claim to scriptural correctness than the Christians who gave theological justifications for imposing their morality. I should note that you have cited no scripture at all to support your position. > And I might point out that it was also JEWISH sexual morality which was > written into law. You might, but so what? What difference would that make? And why did you put "Jewish" in all capitals? > But I don't expect you to listen, Tim, because you've already decided > that christianity is evil. So I won't waste any further time arguimg. Yet more fun with double standards. The mere fact that I have an opinion on the subject means I am not worth talking to. Of course, the fact that Charley has already decided that Christianity is good couldn't possibly have biased him the way he claims my opinion has biased me. Certainly not. After all, he's right and I'm wrong. Who ever heard of someone within a religion being willing to rationalize to justify that religion? > You should be proud to be only the second person to be removed from > this group by my kill file. (No, Rich, you aren't #1; I haven't dealt > with YOU yet...) Why should I be proud? I am somewhat embarrassed for you, since your attitude is so transparent. I showed your shoddy rationalizations for what they are one too many times, so you're taking your ball and going home. Why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and count as loud as you can so you won't have to hear what I'm saying? -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/21/85)
Charley, It is necessary to take a long view when looking at the past actions of Christians. You will find interesting discrepancies. For instance, these days, there are very few Christians around who condone the burning of non-christians as an act done out of obedience to God. These days, most Christians feel that the people who commited such atrocities ``in the name of Christ'' were, at best, mistaken and at worst evil. However, this is a relatively late development. Over the course of history the evidence is clear that a great many Christians plainly felt that it was their duty to commit what are now condemnable acts. Worse, for all the ``official'' pronouncements to the contrary, there are still a lot of people who call themselves Christian and who advocate the persecution of various other faiths. The mentality of the witch burners is alive and well in Ontario. . . and other places as well. By the time I was 12, I had run across it, and been strapped and ``had the devil beaten out of me'' by some very well meaning people who truly thought that this was what God wanted them to do with pantheists. Since they ran the school I was attending at the time there was little that I could do (or at least that I thought I could do) except take the weekly strappings in stride -- until I left that school. How much effort would it take to organise these people back into killing people whose beliefs they found offensive? At the time I thought that very little effort would be required. And I wonder how much resistence they would meet from their neighbours. Historically, Christianity has been used as a wonderful vehicle for people to justify the particular groups that they use to vent their hatred and as a focus for their fears. From my perspective, whether this is ``correct'' or not is irrelevant -- any document that out and outs says that one shall not ``suffer a witch to live'' is very, very dangerous. Anybody who decides to kill me can use that particular quote as a fruitful starting ground. Is the word of those who do not believe that God actually meant this line of John (so why is it there?) going to prevail over those who read it and interpret it to literally declare a religious open season on witches? If so, why? In talking to a good many Christians on the issue I have found that a surprising number of them think that there either ``are no real witches today'' or that anyone who professes to be a witch is in need of psychiatric help, because ``one could not seriously believe this''. Involuntary committal may be better than burning, but I wonder. Is the primary reason that Christians have given up witch burning that they think that either there never were witches or that, if there were, they have killed all of them off? Better not invite them to Pan Pagan Festival then... I worry about this a lot. What do *you* think will keep a return of the killing of heretics from occurring? Laura Creighton (pagan heretic) utzoo!laura
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/21/85)
>>>Rich, if you think that every sect and denomination of christianity believes >>>in a right to force everyone into line with their particular morality, then >>>you either don't what you're talking about or you don't care. Quote me some >>>NT scripture to justify your point. [CharlEY Wingate] >>Yes, Charles, virtually all Christian sects DO believe that. The only >>exceptions are those churches that believe in universal salvation. I would >>expect you, a Christian, to be aware of the doctrine in the Gospels that God >>has the right to force everyone to follow his particular opinion on morals, >>and even to torture those who refuse. Virtually all Christian churches >>believe in this right. When it comes down to the rights of HUMANS to do this, >>nothing in the New Testament comments either way. At all. Can you cite any >>scripture which shows clearly that people do NOT have the right to impose >>Christian morality on unbelievers? [TIM MARONEY] > THe NT does not concern itself with rights; it concerns itself with duty. > Now I suppose I might find some scripture to quote on my side, but I doubt > it; christians in Paul's time were not in a position to dictate public > morality. [CHARLEY WINGATE] But, alas, during most of history since then they have been, and they have done so. As Tim mentioned, laws were in force prohibiting non-Christians from any number of actions. But even today, in a supposedly democratic non-religiously-controlled state, the public mindset stigmatizes those who are not "good Christians", thus debasing in one swipe both non-Christians AND anyone within the Christian community who doesn't adhere to what any given group may perceive as a proper sense of "duty". > On the other hand, I would argue that Jesus' invective against the hypocrisy > of the Pharisees indicates that a certain tolerance of other's actions. > Also, consider the Pericope of the Adulteress (commonly placed in John); > Jesus refuses to condemn the woman EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS CLEARLY SINNED. And > she was SUPPOSED to be an adherent of the religion which prescribed that law! In reading such passages in terms of today's world, who are the Pharisees if not the church itself. If Jesus (as depicted in the Bible) were to appear today, would his invective not be directed straight at the same churches which proclaim their "rightness" in his name? >>Allow me to point out that until this century (that's nineteen centuries if >>you're counting) almost all Christian countries had laws against >>non-Christians holding public office; Christian sexual morality was written >>into law; particularly deviant heretics were put in jail or executed by >>Catholics and Protestants alike; and so on. Christianity is and always has >>been a religion that practices the harrassment of unbelievers; and if you >>disagree with these historical facts, it is you who are ignorant or >>uncaring, not Rich. [TIM] > I know all this; in fact, when it comes to burning heretics, I would venture > a guess that I know more than you do, Tim. I'll even agree that Christianity > has a long history of persecuting non-believers. [CHARLEY] (I'm noting the current date and time!!! There is a god, and there are miracles!) > That doesn't mean that all of Christianity today (or even in the past) would > advocate such practices. Please explain what precisely has CHANGED resulting in the Christian mainstream no longer advocating such practices. > It doesn't mean that such practices can be theologically justified, even in > Christianity. The practices have been justified theologically, and doubtless will continue to be justified in that way. > And I might point out that it was also JEWISH sexual morality which was > written into law. Yeah, that's always bugged me. Earlier in your article, in response to Tim's comments about the Old Testament, you claimed that as a Christian (not a Jew) you were not obligated to follow the laws of the "Old Testament" (they weren't applicable to Christians). Why then, are laws like the ones you describe above somehow arbitrarily codified as societal law? > But I don't expect you to listen, Tim, because you've already decided that > christianity is evil. So I won't waste any further time arguimg. > You should be proud to be only the second person to be removed from this > group by my kill file. (No, Rich, you aren't #1; I haven't dealt with YOU > yet...) Somehow, I don't feel either honored or defamed by this. I *do* resent the fact that people DO choose to simply delete EVERYTHING that ANY particular given individual has to say using a "kill file". It speaks ill of one's acceptance of what other people have to say, and one's willingness to listen to those who disagree with you. This belongs in net.religion.christian, where discussion of Christian issues takes place. (By the way, I find your tactic of using the Followup-to line to reroute any rebuttal to your arguments into net.flame to be rude and offensive.) -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (02/24/85)
In article <5077@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >Is the primary reason that Christians have given up witch >burning that they think that either there never were witches or that, if >there were, they have killed all of them off? In Gyn/Ecology by Mary Daly a clear line of evolution is shown from the burning of millions of women in Europe, through the female mutilations of the 19th Century, up to the lobotomies and shock treatments of today. In all my reading of net.women and net.books, I have never seen mention of this work. Reading this book is like reading about the holocaust--if you believe that what you are reading is true, then the only sane reaction is outrage. -- Richard Mateosian {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/25/85)
In the interests of readability, Laura's article follows my response. First, I must comment that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is NOT found in the New Testament, as far as I can tell; the style of it tends to indicate Torah origin. Now, some may want to argue the point, but in the two traditions of Christianity I was brought up in (Reformed and Anglican) we do not take any Torah law as being a priori binding upon christians. Furthermore, the story of Jesus and the adulteress indicates to me that one should not go around wantonly applying the Torah, or even "Christian Law", as a pretext for rape, murder, and the like. As I've tried to argue, it is immoral for christians to run around trying to force the entirety of what they view to be the moral law on everyone. Some parts of the moral law, such as prohibitions against murder, obviously have a place in the civil law. Prohibitions against blasphemy, just as obviously, do not. One can conclude too much from the history of Christianity. To a large extent, the barbarism of the medieval church when judged by modern standards is a reflection of the general improvement in moral standards in the whole of Western civilization. I might add that in other regions, there has not been the same improvement-- not that this should be construed as justification. Modern history has shown, also, that apparently civilized nations are capable of tremendous evil; Laura's fears are not unfounded. For those of you who are not aware of the fact: as Laura says, there are in fact witches, although the word in its common use is almost completely misleading. Several important female fantasy writers are witches; Charles Williams, the (often incomprehensible) christian fantasist, was a member of the Golden Dawn. I'll pass on the question as to whether they are in need of psychiatric help; after all, there are those who think that christians are all in need of same. I really don't know what to do, frankly; and these people represent a threat to my kind as well, although obviously not to the same extent. It's just that I don't know how I'm supposed to influence them when they are in power. After all, I'm one of those milktoast Episcopalians, who allow DANCING and DRINKING in church (not to mention liturgical clowning). And, sad to say, the complex positions of the average Episcopalian don't play well in the news media; the characature of a preacher which is Jerry Falwell is infinitely more telegenic. I've also noticed that people seem to be afraid of real liberty; patriotic talk about the Land of the Free is fine, but when it comes to the real thing, people would rather have the government writing laws against it. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I'm just a poor confused theologian who has seen his share of abuse out of life. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Article follows: >It is necessary to take a long view when looking at the past actions >of Christians. You will find interesting discrepancies. For instance, >these days, there are very few Christians around who condone the >burning of non-christians as an act done out of obedience to God. >These days, most Christians feel that the people who commited such >atrocities ``in the name of Christ'' were, at best, mistaken and >at worst evil. > >However, this is a relatively late development. Over the course of >history the evidence is clear that a great many Christians plainly >felt that it was their duty to commit what are now condemnable acts. > >Worse, for all the ``official'' pronouncements to the contrary, there >are still a lot of people who call themselves Christian and who >advocate the persecution of various other faiths. The mentality >of the witch burners is alive and well in Ontario. . . and other >places as well. By the time I was 12, I had run across it, and >been strapped and ``had the devil beaten out of me'' by some >very well meaning people who truly thought that this was what God >wanted them to do with pantheists. Since they ran the school I >was attending at the time there was little that I could do (or >at least that I thought I could do) except take the weekly >strappings in stride -- until I left that school. > >How much effort would it take to organise these people back into >killing people whose beliefs they found offensive? At the time >I thought that very little effort would be required. And I wonder >how much resistence they would meet from their neighbours. Historically, >Christianity has been used as a wonderful vehicle for people to >justify the particular groups that they use to vent their hatred and as >a focus for their fears. From my perspective, whether this is ``correct'' >or not is irrelevant -- any document that out and outs says that one >shall not ``suffer a witch to live'' is very, very dangerous. Anybody >who decides to kill me can use that particular quote as a fruitful >starting ground. > >Is the word of those who do not believe that God actually meant this >line of John (so why is it there?) going to prevail over those who >read it and interpret it to literally declare a religious open season >on witches? If so, why? In talking to a good many Christians on the >issue I have found that a surprising number of them think that there >either ``are no real witches today'' or that anyone who professes to be >a witch is in need of psychiatric help, because ``one could not seriously >believe this''. Involuntary committal may be better than burning, but I >wonder. Is the primary reason that Christians have given up witch >burning that they think that either there never were witches or that, if >there were, they have killed all of them off? Better not invite them to >Pan Pagan Festival then... > >I worry about this a lot. What do *you* think will keep a return of >the killing of heretics from occurring? > >Laura Creighton (pagan heretic) >utzoo!laura
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/26/85)
Excuse me. It is Exodus 22:18 which is ``Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.''. John is full of criticisms & condemnations for ``The Jews''. Either way I got it -- I wouldn't renounce my Jewish friends either... Interesting the things that you transpose when you are young! Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/26/85)
> > In Gyn/Ecology by Mary Daly a clear line of evolution is shown from the > burning of millions of women in Europe, through the female mutilations of > the 19th Century, up to the lobotomies and shock treatments of today. > > Richard Mateosian > {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA I have never heard of this book or author, but I am interested because of what you didn't say here. MILLIONS of women were burned as witches or whatever in Europe? Female mutilations; is this like foot-binding or is there more? Are you saying lobotomies and shock treatment are used to torture (for pleasure or control) women? I really am interested in more detail. If my slightly slanted questions received affirmative answers, I would like to know what evidence (FACTS) the author gives. It seems a cover-up of this proportion would be near impossible [:-/-)]. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
david@terak.UUCP (David Jayakaran) (02/27/85)
[] > For instance, these days, there are very few Christians around who > condone the burning of non-christians as an act done out of obedience > to God. Burning of non-christians? Where? When? Can I watch, please :-) See below. > Worse, for all the ``official'' pronouncements to the contrary, there > are still a lot of people who call themselves Christian and who > advocate the persecution of various other faiths. I would call into question their "christianity". Nobody is a Christian just because they say they are. Jesus Himself made that very clear in Matthew 7:20-23, Luke 13:25-27. It's whether they live according to the principles of Jesus Christ. Please do not classify me with the people who conducted the Inquisition and the crusades. Christians were those who were stoned, hung, drawn and quartered, boiled, burned and fed to the lions (and THEY were the "heretics"). Oh! if only people would read some church history *and* their Bibles before making such statements...... > These days, most Christians feel that the people who commited > such atrocities ``in the name of Christ'' were, at best, mistaken > and at worst evil. Right, and they weren't Christians either, unless they repented for their atrocities... > The mentality of the witch burners is alive and well in Ontario. . . > and other places as well. By the time I was 12, I had run across it, > and been strapped and ``had the devil beaten out of me'' by some > very well meaning people who truly thought that this was what God > wanted them to do with pantheists. Since they ran the school I > was attending at the time there was little that I could do (or > at least that I thought I could do) except take the weekly > strappings in stride -- until I left that school. What happened to you was pretty unfortunate but is there any Biblical basis for saying that what they did to you was Christian? I know hindus in India who do EXACTLY the same thing. You haven't even stated that those people called themselves Christians. Am I to assume this? > How much effort would it take to organise these people back into > killing people whose beliefs they found offensive? At the time > I thought that very little effort would be required. And I wonder > how much resistence they would meet from their neighbours. Not much, I'm sure. Hitler started his campaign from a quasi-religious platform, so-called "christianity". By your standards Hitler was a christian. How about the Klan? Of course, you are entitled to your opinion... > Historically, Christianity has been used as a wonderful vehicle for people to > justify the particular groups that they use to vent their hatred and as > a focus for their fears. Christianity isn't the vehicle. Historically, PEOPLE have twisted what the Bible says out of context to suit whatever they want to do. Such people are talked about in II Peter 3:16. Please don't attribute to the Word of God the perversions of the people misusing it. Again, please refer to Matthew 7:20-23 and Luke 13:25-27. > From my perspective, whether this is ``correct'' or not is irrelevant -- > any document that out and outs says that one shall not ``suffer a witch to > live'' is very, very dangerous. Anybody who decides to kill me can use that > particular quote as a fruitful starting ground. Yes, they could. They are not Christian either. Christianity is discipleship to Jesus Christ. Jesus said "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that despitefully use you, and persecute you." Matthew 7:45. If they are not doing this, don't call them Christian. > Is the word of those who do not believe that God actually meant this > line of John (so why is it there?) going to prevail over those who > read it and interpret it to literally declare a religious open season > on witches? If so, why? Why is what where? Book, chapter, verse and author (again), please? > In talking to a good many Christians on the issue I have found that a > surprising number of them think that there either ``are no real witches > today'' or that anyone who professes to be a witch is in need of psychiatric > help, because ``one could not seriously believe this''. Tell that to Doreen Irvine (author of "Freed From Witchcraft"). It would be interesting to see her reaction. > Involuntary committal may be better than burning, but I wonder. Is the > primary reason that Christians have given up witch burning that they think > that either there never were witches or that, if there were, they have killed > all of them off? Better not invite them to Pan Pagan Festival then... Christians never gave up witch burning. They never did it in the first place. If you will take the time to do some research into the Salem witch burnings, you will learn that the actual witches got off scot free. It was innocent, law abiding, citizens (women) who were victims of the mob hysteria. Open your eyes and look around you. "Witch burning" has been going on all along, under various names. Try "world war", "holocaust", "religous wars", "liberation theology", "ideological wars", etc., etc., etc. > I worry about this a lot. What do *you* think will keep a return of > the killing of heretics from occurring? Laura Creighton (pagan heretic) Honey, you better believe it's coming. It may shock you who will be called the heretic. Not you, but people like me. So rest easy, it'll pass ya by. Come quickly Lord Jesus. -- David uucp: ...{decvax,hao,ihnp4,seismo}!noao!terak!david phone: [602] 998-4800 us mail: Terak Corporation, 14151 N 76th street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Jesus said unto him, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes unto the Father but by me. (John 14 : 6)
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (02/27/85)
> > > > In Gyn/Ecology by Mary Daly a clear line of evolution is shown from the > > burning of millions of women in Europe, through the female mutilations of > > the 19th Century, up to the lobotomies and shock treatments of today. > > > > Richard Mateosian > > {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA > > I have never heard of this book or author, but I am interested because of > what you didn't say here. MILLIONS of women were burned as witches or > whatever in Europe? Female mutilations; is this like foot-binding or is > there more? Are you saying lobotomies and shock treatment are used to > torture (for pleasure or control) women? I really am interested in more > detail. If my slightly slanted questions received affirmative answers, I > would like to know what evidence (FACTS) the author gives. It seems a > cover-up of this proportion would be near impossible [:-/-)]. > I am assuming that what is referred to here is the various means exercised by male-dominated social heirarchies to discourage or control women through the years. The Malleus Mallifactorum (sp ?), the "Hammer of Witches", is one of the most misogynous books i have ever read. It is obvious tha the authors hated and feared women and did everything in their power to keep women from having any power in society. On a modern level, it seems that psychiatrists have become the new witch-hunters. It is much easier to put women away than men, for example. For an excellent book on the subject, I suggest Dr. Phyllis Chesler's "Women and Madness". You might find it a good introduction to the subject if you object to more overtly feminist books like Daly's "Gyn/Ecology". -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (02/27/85)
> > > > In Gyn/Ecology by Mary Daly a clear line of evolution is shown from the > > burning of millions of women in Europe, through the female mutilations of > > the 19th Century, up to the lobotomies and shock treatments of today. > > > > Richard Mateosian > > {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA > > I have never heard of this book or author, but I am interested because of > what you didn't say here. MILLIONS of women were burned as witches or > whatever in Europe? Female mutilations; is this like foot-binding or is > there more? Are you saying lobotomies and shock treatment are used to > torture (for pleasure or control) women? I really am interested in more > detail. If my slightly slanted questions received affirmative answers, I > would like to know what evidence (FACTS) the author gives. It seems a > cover-up of this proportion would be near impossible [:-/-)]. > I'll also add that by female mutilations, people usually mean foot-binding, among other things, but the primary item is the clitorectomy, the removal of a girl's clitoris to greatly reduce her future pleasure in sex (don't want them to ahve any fun. now do we ?). This is still practiced in many African and Near Eastern cultures and is probably the most pervasive type of female mutilation still extant. In some places, the girl is made to sit in a cold stream all night and the clitoris is removed in the morning (when she is more or less numb) with a piece of broken glass; in other, so-called "civilised" societies, the girl is seized out of sleep by her female relatives and the doctor slashes her while she is only half-awake and cannot even protest (she has little choice). (My sources of information come largely through my college major, which was social and cultural anthropology) -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (02/28/85)
Charley,
Who are the real barbarians ? Those thumb screw turners of
the past or the baby scrapers (1.6M+/ year) of today ?
I don't think we can afford any chronological snobbery about
the ancients. We have changed the packaging but the product
is still the same.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/03/85)
>Christians never gave up witch burning. They never did it in the first >place. If you will take the time to do some research into the Salem witch >burnings, you will learn that the actual witches got off scot free. It was >innocent, law abiding, citizens (women) who were victims of the mob >hysteria. Salem isn't the only place in the world to harbour Christians, you know. Thousands of people were burned as witches throughout the Christian world. I have a certificate (authentic) that says I am not a witch, issued in Oudewater (Netherlands). Why do they issue such certificates? Because one of the tests of a witch was that s/he weighed less than a formula based on height dictated, and in many places the public weighmaster could be bribed to show that an unwanted person was as light as a feather on the scales. At Oudewater, the weighmaster was shown to be incorruptible and the Emperor gave a permanent certification for the Oudewater scales. Anyone shown there to be not a witch was free of suspicion for life. Your definition of Christian conforms to mine (essentially to live as Jesus proclaimed), but it sure lets out most of the people who have historically believed themselves to be Christian, and moral and upright and dutybound to ensure that whatever happened to some poor unfortunate body, the soul would go to heaven. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (03/04/85)
>: David > >: Laura > Nobody is a Christian > just because they say they are. This begs the question. As a non-Christian, then, how am I to tell who is a Christian and who isn't? If a person claims the title of "Christian", who is to judge whether or not he is? Is David the ultimate authority? Or, if we are to go to the Bible... the Devil cites Scripture, you know. > > The mentality of the witch burners is alive and well in Ontario. . . > > and other places as well. By the time I was 12, I had run across it, > > and been strapped and ``had the devil beaten out of me'' by some > > very well meaning people who truly thought that this was what God > > wanted them to do with pantheists. > What happened to you was pretty unfortunate but is there any Biblical basis > for saying that what they did to you was Christian? I'm afraid that there is Biblical basis, and Laura is not alone in her experience. "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off." "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." "Spare the rod and spoil the child." More subtly, one of my closest friends was driven out of school by the refusal of faculty and thesis advisor to believe that she was "academically serious" after she revealed her paganism. > Christians never gave up witch burning. They never did it in the first > place. If you will take the time to do some research into the Salem witch > burnings, you will learn that the actual witches got off scot free. > David Uhhh...the nine million or so European women who died in the Roman Catholic Inquisition were killed because they were suspected witches. The Roman Catholics of the 1100s to the 1500s were the only Christian church in Europe. When the Protestant movement arose in Germany and spread across the Continent and to Britain, it was the Calvinists (Presbyterians) of Scotland, also Christians, who devised some of the most bloody and brutal tortures and murders of suspected witches. The Malleus Maleficarum, the Hammer of Witches, was authored by Jesuit priests. There were no "actual witches" in Salem; the women who died were suspected witches, victims of a hoax by some hysterical adolescent girls. Whether or not the "actual witches" were ever killed, the fact remains that this is witch-burning. Nine women died at Salem; one man was crushed to death. As far as I'm concerned, if a person claims to be a Christian, he/she is. God may disagree, but since I have less data to go on, I cannot go around saying one man is a Christian and another is not; what standards have I? And if an inquisitor claims to burn witches, it doesn't matter if he kills old widows, three-year-old girls, or pregnant wives; he is a witch-burner. And if I claim to be a witch, if I stand up to be counted among the priestesses of the Mother Goddess, I may well be burned even today, because of the intolerance of some who claim to be Christian. And the person who lays a hand on me in the name of his deity will be cursed in the name of mine. --Ellen
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (03/04/85)
> I'll also add that by female mutilations, people usually mean foot-binding, > among other things, but the primary item is the clitorectomy, the removal > of a girl's clitoris to greatly reduce her future pleasure in sex (don't > want them to ahve any fun. now do we ?). This is still practiced in many > African and Near Eastern cultures and is probably the most pervasive type > of female mutilation still extant. > > jcpatilla > Does anyone know what reasons (excuses) such societies state for their practice of clitorectomy? I doubt that they actually claim that they do it in order to reduce the girl's future pleasure. In the U.S., large numbers of unnecessary hysterectomies have been performed under the name of "health". I'm always interested in how people justify their behavior. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/07/85)
> > I'll also add that by female mutilations, people usually mean foot-binding, > > among other things, but the primary item is the clitorectomy, the removal > > of a girl's clitoris to greatly reduce her future pleasure in sex (don't > > want them to ahve any fun. now do we ?). This is still practiced in many > > African and Near Eastern cultures and is probably the most pervasive type > > of female mutilation still extant. > > > > jcpatilla > > > > Does anyone know what reasons (excuses) such societies state for their > practice of clitorectomy? I doubt that they actually claim that they do > it in order to reduce the girl's future pleasure. In the U.S., large > numbers of unnecessary hysterectomies have been performed under the name > of "health". I'm always interested in how people justify their behavior. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) I have heard two excuses. The first is that it reduces the probability of adultery. Since this practice occurs in countries where the penalties for adultery are already severe (for the woman) one might think additional precautions were superfluous. However, the same culture that prescribes death for adultery is unlikely to draw the line at mutililation to prevent it. The second is not so much a justification as a defense; "This is our culture. It's none of your business." Of course, the same can be said for burning heretics or executing political prisoners. (Come to think of it, I think the same *has* been said for these practices.) "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan *Anyone who wants to claim these opinions is welcome to them.*
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/08/85)
In article <1038@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes: >> What happened to you was pretty unfortunate but is there any Biblical >> basis for saying that what they did to you was Christian? > > I'm afraid that there is Biblical basis, and Laura is not alone >in her experience. "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off." >"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." "Spare the rod and >spoil the child." More subtly, one of my closest friends was >driven out of school by the refusal of faculty and thesis >advisor to believe that she was "academically serious" after she >revealed her paganism. Biblical, maybe, but only under a very seriously deficient scheme of interpretation. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" comes from Exodus (Chap. 22 if I remember correctly); "Spare the rod" is Proverbs. Both of these, being OT, are not binding upon gentile christianity-- and besides, we are supposed to observe the SPIRIT of the law, which is mercy, not vengeance. As for "If thy hand offends thee", it most explicitly does NOT say "If thy neighbor's hand offends thee, cut it off"! The statement is with reference to one's own conduct. >> Christians never gave up witch burning. They never did it in the first >> place. If you will take the time to do some research into the Salem witch >> burnings, you will learn that the actual witches got off scot free. >> David > > Uhhh...the nine million or so European women who died in the >Roman Catholic Inquisition were killed because they were >suspected witches. The Roman Catholics of the 1100s to the >1500s were the only Christian church in Europe. When the >Protestant movement arose in Germany and spread across the >Continent and to Britain, it was the Calvinists (Presbyterians) >of Scotland, also Christians, who devised some of the most >bloody and brutal tortures and murders of suspected witches. >The Malleus Maleficarum, the Hammer of Witches, was authored by >Jesuit priests. 'Fraid she's right. Yet another entry in the heavy ledger of crimes committed in Jesus' name. > As far as I'm concerned, if a person claims to be a >Christian, he/she is. God may disagree, but since I have less >data to go on, I cannot go around saying one man is a Christian >and another is not; what standards have I? And if an >inquisitor claims to burn witches, it doesn't matter if he kills >old widows, three-year-old girls, or pregnant wives; he is a >witch-burner. > And if I claim to be a witch, if I stand up to be counted >among the priestesses of the Mother Goddess, I may well be >burned even today, because of the intolerance of some who claim >to be Christian. And the person who lays a hand on me in the >name of his deity will be cursed in the name of mine. So be it. Most likely his own deity will do the honors. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (03/08/85)
> Does anyone know what reasons (excuses) such societies state for their > practice of clitorectomy? I doubt that they actually claim that they do > it in order to reduce the girl's future pleasure. In the U.S., large > numbers of unnecessary hysterectomies have been performed under the name > of "health". I'm always interested in how people justify their behavior. > -- > Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) > aka Swazoo Koolak I am told that there was an article in "Ms." last year sometime, by a Eqyptian doctor who herself suffered a clitorectomy as a girl. This and the responding letters which confirm the practice are supposedly very interesting. If anyone can find these and summarize for the net, it would be greatly appreciated. jcpatilla -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/09/85)
Charley responded to Ellen's few quotes about witch-burning. His response to a much stronger argument (that the historical period described in the Old Testament has historically been and still is idolized and made a mainstay of Christian education) was activating an automatic censorship program to silence any more messages from the person who made the argument. In case any of you were out with flu, the point may be summarized as follows. The OT prophets who ordered atrocities as a commonplace are always portrayed as the best and wisest of men in Christian religious education. It is far from unthinkable that Christians could ever support a repeat of the prophets' behavior. In fact, the majority of the history of Christianity has been one in which that line was crossed over for the worse, and such atrocities are even now continuing. The abortion-clinic bombing evidence included references to the bombing under a code-word referring to an Old Testament military operation. The Phalangists in Lebanon are devoutly Christian and devoutly intent on killing all the Moslems they can get their hands on. The major Christian religious shows such as the 700 Club (which have millions of viewers) support the Phalangists. If Robertson ever interviews the Phalangist leader again, be sure to watch, it'll be fun. The name "Ireland" says it all, don't you think? Oh well, perhaps someone else would like to try to refute this. -=- 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!"
features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (03/14/85)
> > Uhhh...the nine million or so European women who died in the > >Roman Catholic Inquisition were killed because they were > >suspected witches. The Roman Catholics of the 1100s to the > >1500s were the only Christian church in Europe. When the > >Protestant movement arose in Germany and spread across the > >Continent and to Britain, it was the Calvinists (Presbyterians) > >of Scotland, also Christians, who devised some of the most > >bloody and brutal tortures and murders of suspected witches. > >The Malleus Maleficarum, the Hammer of Witches, was authored by > >Jesuit priests. > > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe _M_a_l_l_e_u_s _M_a_l_e_f_i_c_a_r_u_m was written by Kramer & Sprenger, who, if memory serves me, were Dominicans, not Jesuits. Of course, after the Reformation, the Protestants were quite zealous in "purging" their ranks of heretics, unbelievers, witches, and anyone whom they didn't care for. King James I of England (the one right after Queen Elizabeth I), the one of the KJV of the Bible, was a notorious witch-hunter, and many were the people executed on his command. -- aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features "Uh-oh, now the cat's out of the bag!" -- Prudence