rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/27/85)
>>Note that this "pattern" of random capitalization and quoting only evinced >>itself after Charley had made remarks about the difference between: >> Jewish intolerance and "christian" intolerance > As I explained (but Rich chose not to listen) the quotes around christian in > that sentence were intended to indicate that a large proportion of those > "christians" weren't christian in any significant sense. Right. I understood then and now. Thus, the Jews who engaged in what you called Jewish intolerance *were* in fact Jews (unlike the "christians" who weren't Christians, or is it christians?), representative of Judaism in a way that "christians" aren't truly representative of Christianity. According to your capitalization and enquoting scheme. >>>Notice, however, that the archbishop did not demand rules to prevent these >>>proselytizers from continuing in their practices. There seems to be a >>>problem in this newsgroup in distinguishing moral persuasion (what the >>>archbishop is doing) and moral coercion (writing "morality" into law). >>Here Charley praises the archbishop because he didn't demand "rules" for >>prevention of proselytization, he just expected some common courtesy and >>respect for other people's beliefs. Considering that the biggest single >>complaint about the evangelistic Christian right is their desire to legislate >>morality (*their* morality, of course), it is more than ironic that Charley >>claims there's a problem in this newsgroup regarding the ability to >>distinguish moral persuasion from moral coercion. > So join the fundamentalists, Rich, where you belong. Your ignorance of the > rest of Christendom is as vast as theirs, especially when you try to lump > the Protestant mainstream in with them. From your own private and public communication, Charles, indicating very clearly your opinions of Jews, homosexuals, etc., I'd say again (as I've said before) that it frightens me that a self-proclaimed "liberal Christian" like you, who claims to dissociate himself from Falwellism, has so much in common with that movement in terms of attitude. I don't do the lumping. The lumping is evidenced by the attitudes. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe -- "Which three books would *you* have taken?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo) (03/01/85)
Article follows: How can the intrinsic intolerance of Christianity be denied? The core of any strong proselytizing religion like Christianity or Islam is hatred. When a Christian goes to a non-Christian to convert him, he says, I hate your religion, I hate your culture, you must adopt my religion and culture. Judaism does not proselytize specifically because it accepts the existence of many cultures and religions. Everyone not just Jews has a portion in the world to come. Obviously, if some pagan is praying to an idol, he is not praying to God, but if that prayer is well-intentioned and sincere God may chose to listen. Judaism merely expects of non-Jews that they act decently. How is this intolerant? BTW, I hate agreeing with Rosen __________________________________ >>Note that this "pattern" of random capitalization and quoting only evinced >>itself after Charley had made remarks about the difference between: >> Jewish intolerance and "christian" intolerance > As I explained (but Rich chose not to listen) the quotes around christian in > that sentence were intended to indicate that a large proportion of those > "christians" weren't christian in any significant sense. Right. I understood then and now. Thus, the Jews who engaged in what you called Jewish intolerance *were* in fact Jews (unlike the "christians" who weren't Christians, or is it christians?), representative of Judaism in a way that "christians" aren't truly representative of Christianity. According to your capitalization and enquoting scheme. >>>Notice, however, that the archbishop did not demand rules to prevent these >>>proselytizers from continuing in their practices. There seems to be a >>>problem in this newsgroup in distinguishing moral persuasion (what the >>>archbishop is doing) and moral coercion (writing "morality" into law). >>Here Charley praises the archbishop because he didn't demand "rules" for >>prevention of proselytization, he just expected some common courtesy and >>respect for other people's beliefs. Considering that the biggest single >>complaint about the evangelistic Christian right is their desire to legislate >>morality (*their* morality, of course), it is more than ironic that Charley >>claims there's a problem in this newsgroup regarding the ability to >>distinguish moral persuasion from moral coercion. > So join the fundamentalists, Rich, where you belong. Your ignorance of the > rest of Christendom is as vast as theirs, especially when you try to lump > the Protestant mainstream in with them. >From your own private and public communication, Charles, indicating very clearly your opinions of Jews, homosexuals, etc., I'd say again (as I've said before) that it frightens me that a self-proclaimed "liberal Christian" like you, who claims to dissociate himself from Falwellism, has so much in common with that movement in terms of attitude. I don't do the lumping. The lumping is evidenced by the attitudes. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe -- "Which three books would *you* have taken?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/03/85)
> How can the intrinsic intolerance of Christianity be denied? The core > of any strong proselytizing religion like Christianity or Islam is > hatred. When a Christian goes to a non-Christian to convert him, he > says, I hate your religion, I hate your culture, you must adopt my > religion and culture. > > Judaism does not proselytize specifically because it accepts the > existence of many cultures and religions. Everyone not just Jews has a > portion in the world to come. Obviously, if some pagan is praying to an > idol, he is not praying to God, but if that prayer is well-intentioned > and sincere God may chose to listen. Judaism merely expects of non-Jews > that they act decently. How is this intolerant? > > BTW, I hate agreeing with Rosen [MARTILLO] Well, I don't "mind" agreeing with you, or your agreeing with me. However, you yourself are evidence (at times) that Jews are far from exempt from such intolerance. Your own diatribes on other Jews and their cultures do not exactly "accept the existence of many cultures". What I'm saying is that NO such divisive movement or belief system is free from such things. Regarding the last sentence in your first paragraph: > When a Christian goes to a non-Christian to convert him, he > says, I hate your religion, I hate your culture, you must adopt my > religion and culture. I don't think that many Christian evangelistic types realize this about their actions. They don't perceive it that way. However, I've noticed that many of those same people are all too quick to "see it that way" when others go to them (the evangelistic Christians) to make statements about THEIR beliefs. -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr