rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/13/85)
... than it is for some people to "see their own humps". >>But as Charley Wingate would say, "Are Eastern Orthodox childrens' minds so >>fragile that they need to be protected from proselytizers?" How ironic! >>Maybe the final solution is to let all the proselytizing churches proselytize >>themselves into oblivion, and leave the rest of us alone. [BILL PETER] > I entirely sympathize with the archbishop's complaint, and I might add that > members of non-evangelical denominations in the USA are also subjected to > such treatment. This kind of behavior can only imply that the Eastern > Orthodox (for example) are not to be considered christian-- hardly the way > one wins ecumenical friends. [CHARLIE WINGATE] Is Charlie saying that because the Orthodox Church has been a victim of proselytizing, it is therefore non-christian (since "Christians" are asking members of that church to "convert")? Or is he saying that because they reject such proselytizing they don't qualify as christian? It's difficult to decipher the intended meaning. (Note the use of the word _c_h_r_i_s_t_i_a_n with no capitalization. I'm confused as to what Charlie means when he says Christian, christian, and "christian" (the last is used when Christians (sp??) invoke intolerance by Charlie). > 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). This has got to be one of the single most twisted double standards I've ever seen in any newsgroup. (Charlie's own double standard regarding the "unseriousness" of the heterosexuality questionnaire came close.) -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen {ihnp4|harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/19/85)
In article <528@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich the Notorious) writes: >> I entirely sympathize with the archbishop's complaint, and I might add that >> members of non-evangelical denominations in the USA are also subjected to >> such treatment. This kind of behavior can only imply that the Eastern >> Orthodox (for example) are not to be considered christian-- hardly the way >> one wins ecumenical friends. [CHARLIE WINGATE] Rich, do you rad signatures? Haven't you noticed yet that it's CHARLEY? [Sorry folks; I just couldn't resist anymore] >Is Charlie saying that because the Orthodox Church has been a victim of >proselytizing, it is therefore non-christian (since "Christians" are asking >members of that church to "convert")? Or is he saying that because they >reject such proselytizing they don't qualify as christian? It's difficult to >decipher the intended meaning. (Note the use of the word christian with >no capitalization. I'm confused as to what Charlie means when he says >Christian, christian, and "christian" (the last is used when Christians >(sp??) invoke intolerance by Charlie). Perhaps I was a bit elliptical; I intended to say that denominations which take broad views about who is a christian (such as the mainline protestants and the various Eastern churches) tend to view proselytization of their members by other (almost universally fundamentalist, by the way) christian sects and denominations as a hostile act; it implies that they aren't really christians. As a side note, let me reveal a great secret: with one tiny exception, I do not capitalize "christian" in any systematic way. I vary it irregularly so as to stir up Rich Rosen; since he enjoys finding hidden meaning in my postings, I decided to make sure there was some there to be found. Sometimes I capitalize it or put it in quotes to indicate that I mean it sarcastically, but most of the time it's just for the heck of it. >> 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). > >This has got to be one of the single most twisted double standards I've ever >seen in any newsgroup. (Charlie's own double standard regarding the >"unseriousness" of the heterosexuality questionnaire came close.) What???????? Double standard for what? [Enter pronouncement mode] Ahem. The Kettle would like to make a statement concerning the Pot's recent allegations concerning said Kettle's color. He would merely like to ask if the Pot had passed in the vicinity of a mirror recently. [Exit pronouncement mode] Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe