rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/29/85)
> I take Jesus' statement that "You shall know them by their works" in a > very narrow fashion. It seems to me that he was talking in terms of > individuals, not groups. I therefore feel quite justified in rejecting the > Inquisitors, and even Martin Luther's antisemetism (but not his good > theology), without rejecting Christianity. > Now I realize that we all have thresholds at which we refuse to tolerate > an institution which associates itself with too much evil. My complaint is > that there seems to be a double-standard here; somehow the evils which > Christians have from time to time committed are more weighty than when the > same acts are done by non-religious groups. There also seems to be a bias > against the examination of the good that the various institutions have > brought forth. It seems to me that any reasonable comparison of, for > instance, Cambodia under Pol Pot and Medieval Europe is going to eventually > tilt in favor of the Europeans, given either my standards or those which > Rich Rosen has stated. > I therefore discount any "Your evil cancels out my evil" arguments, > such as the referenced article would have us agree to. Sorry, Charlie, the "referenced article" said nothing of the sort. What it did say was that the evils of non-religious despotism have little to do with other non-religious movements/ideals. It's erroneous (and manipulative) to try to simply lump to the two groups together just because they are BOTH *not* religion (esp. Christianity). However, the evils of religion (esp. Christianity) ARE in fact closely tied with the tenets of the religion itself: the element of superiority, of required gospel-spreading to "heathens", of imposing morality on other people. Those very evils---the pogroms, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Nazi anti-Semitism (argue if you will that it was not carried out from a very "Christian" perspective), and today's Moral (?) Majority (?)---are ROOTED in the model of so-called Christian thought. There *are* those Christians who have shirked such notions and have a much more rational bent on their place in the world (shared with others) and in a free society. Unfortunately, the more vocal, more active, and perhaps even the greater number of Christians still adhere to the mindset of Christian rightness and superiority. Listen to those who proclaim proudly "I cannot share the world with you. I cannot allow you to legitimize things I disapprove of. It's wrong because it's against the word of god." -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (01/31/85)
In article <409@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) writes: >However, the evils of religion (esp. Christianity) ARE in fact closely tied >with the tenets of the religion itself: the element of superiority, of >required gospel-spreading to "heathens", of imposing morality on other >people. Nowhere in the Gospels is it stated that we have an obligation to "impose morality" on people. >Those very evils---the pogroms, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Nazi >anti-Semitism (argue if you will that it was not carried out from a very >"Christian" perspective), My pleasure. Perhaps you are not aware of Nazism's consistent attempts to supress Christianity. Perhaps you have never been to Spielberg Prison in Brno, Czechoslovakia and seen the Nazi shrine. But to continue-- > and today's Moral (?) Majority (?)---are ROOTED >in the model of so-called Christian thought. There *are* those Christians >who have shirked such notions and have a much more rational bent on their >place in the world (shared with others) and in a free society. >Unfortunately, the more vocal, more active, and perhaps even the greater >number of Christians still adhere to the mindset of Christian rightness and >superiority. Listen to those who proclaim proudly "I cannot share the world >with you. I cannot allow you to legitimize things I disapprove of. It's >wrong because it's against the word of god." So-called is the right word; while one can certainly point at "christian" western Europe for examples of this kind intolerance, it is clearly not consistent with the gospels or even with St. Paul, upon whose shoulders blame is frequently placed. The appearance of similar behavior in other places indicates to me that it is an expression of a basic human tendency; ideology is the excuse, not the cause. The continuance of Jewish repression under the Soviets suggests to me that religion was only a minor factor in the pogroms, for instance. I should also point out that the period in which christianity was most relentlessly rationalistic, the late middle ages, also produced some of the worst repression and intolerance, and not just toward non-christians, either. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "It's always winter--" "and never Christmas!"
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/02/85)
In article <409@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen?) writes: > >Sorry, Charlie, the "referenced article" said nothing of the sort. >What it did say was that the evils of non-religious despotism have little to >do with other non-religious movements/ideals. It's erroneous (and >manipulative) to try to simply lump to the two groups together just because >they are BOTH *not* religion (esp. Christianity). But the evils of such systems *do* have much to do with the movements/ideals which generated them. The atrocities of Nazi Germany followed *directly* from the tenets of Naziism, and so forth. How is this any different than what you are claiming for religion? It is a *human* failing to try and force one's own ideas down other's throats. > >However, the evils of religion (esp. Christianity) ARE in fact closely tied >with the tenets of the religion itself: the element of superiority, of >required gospel-spreading to "heathens", of imposing morality on other people. > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr In view of what I said above, this sounds like an erroneous (and manipulative) point of view, lumping together different groups with different points of view just because they share the label 'Christian'. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/05/85)
> However, the evils of religion (esp. Christianity) ARE in fact closely tied > with the tenets of the religion itself: the element of superiority, of > required gospel-spreading to "heathens", of imposing morality on other people. > Those very evils---the pogroms, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Nazi > anti-Semitism (argue if you will that it was not carried out from a very > "Christian" perspective), and today's Moral (?) Majority (?)---are ROOTED > in the model of so-called Christian thought. There *are* those Christians who > have shirked such notions and have a much more rational bent on their place > in the world (shared with others) and in a free society. Unfortunately, the > more vocal, more active, and perhaps even the greater number of Christians > still adhere to the mindset of Christian rightness and superiority. Listen to > those who proclaim proudly "I cannot share the world with you. I cannot allow > you to legitimize things I disapprove of. It's wrong because it's against > the word of god." > -- > Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr AAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why do people keep on misunderstanding the idea behind evangelism? To know Jesus' Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour is to also know his love for you. Now, bear with me athiests, but in knowing God's love, which is beyond our understanding, yet is so great, one doesn't want to be selfish. So that's why one attempts to spread it around. Look if you love somebody enough, wouldn't you like to tell them where to get more love. Now, I know, not all Christians show the love that Christ showes; but, please although we will be known to the world by our works, don't throw all of Christianity out with the Moral Majority(?). Take a look at the writings of St. Francis of Assisi, for example.Or the work of World Vision. Christians are doing good work out their. It's just that we don't make much noise about it. A concerned evangelical with a social conscious, DAVE BROWN
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/05/85)
Sorry, guys but it's late and who can spell at 11:30.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) (02/05/85)
> In view of what I said above, this sounds like an erroneous (and > manipulative) point of view, lumping together different groups with > different points of view just because they share the label 'Christian'. > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) 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. -- When you're omniscient, everything's a tautology. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dinsdale Piranha) (02/07/85)
> Nowhere in the Gospels is it stated that we have an obligation to "impose > morality" on people. [WINGATE] Then why are you doing it? And why do you see justification in doing it? > The continuance of Jewish repression under the Soviets suggests to me that > religion was only a minor factor in the pogroms, for instance. Perhaps because of what someone else said in a previous article: communism and religion (in general) cannot co-exist, because they both have the same goals---complete control of mind and body. As I've said before, modern despotism is simply religious autocracy with a brand new cast. New "priests", new "parishes", new inquisitors. > I should also point out that the period in which christianity was most > relentlessly rationalistic, the late middle ages, also produced some of the > worst repression and intolerance, and not just toward non-christians, either. Then it was hardly "rationalistic", despite your simple assertion that it was. On what basis do you make such a contradictory assertion? -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen {ihnp4|harpo}!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/13/85)
In article <463@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> In view of what I said above, this sounds like an erroneous (and >> manipulative) point of view, lumping together different groups with >> different points of view just because they share the label 'Christian'. >> Sarima (Stanley Friesen) >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, 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 umcp-cs!mangoe
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/17/85)
> In article <463@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) 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, 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 umcp-cs!mangoe 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? 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. 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 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.