rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/18/84)
ARNDT: > Couldn't say it any better... TRANSLATION: Couldn't say anything of substance at all. > ... so let me quote: (What else is new?) > "Western culture is not pagan; nor is it Christian. It has been secularized. > Western man has 'come of age', passing through the stages of mythology, > theology, and metaphysics, reaching the maturity of science. The totem pole > has yielded to the temple which in turn has given way to the acme of human > progress, the laboratory. Resistance to Christianity comes not from the > deposed priests of Isis but from the guns of secularism. The Christian task > (more specifically the rational apologetic task) in the modern epoch is not > so much to produce a new SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES as it is to produce a SUMMA > CONTRA SECULARISMA. True. (So?) Arndt assumes (as usual) that this result described above shows something "wrong". I fail to see what it is that is wrong. Perhaps because there isn't anything wrong. Resistance to Christianity (assumed to be a "bad" thing) no longer comes from "heathens" who believe in other religions no more or less believable than Christianity, but from those who rationally outline where the holes and mis-/pre-conceptions are in Christian belief. The reason for the brouhaha is that, while the other religions which fizzled away had no more "ammunition" than Christianity to go on (and certainly fewer numbers in the selected Christian communities), now Christianity is "up against" something that DOES have real substantive "ammunition". > Secularism, . . . , is a POST-Christian phenomenon carrying in its baggage, > a CONSCIOUS rejection of the Christian world view. It supplants the Christian > consensus with its own structured view of reality. Less barbaric on the > surface than paganism, secularism adopts a benevolent paternalism toward the > not yet enlightened Christian who continues the practice of an anachronistic > faith. Wearing a benign mask, the secularist loudly proclaims his commitment > to religious tolerance on behalf of those weak-minded souls who still connot > bear to face a hostile or, worse, an indifferent univese, without the narcotic > effect of ecclesiastical opium. The purposefully negative rhetorical slant notwithstanding, the above does hold a bit of truth in it. To dismantle that rhetoric: "less barbaric ON THE SURFACE" = "not *really* less barbaric"; "benign MASK" = "not really benign". Just in case you missed the hidden intended meaning. The last sentence, of course, smacks of (inappropriate?) sarcasm. Nowhere does the author explain why it is only less barbaric "on the surface", why the benign nature of "benevolent paternalism" (funny, that describes Christian missionary tactics for hundreds of years!!) as being a "mask". So much for Arndt's learned sources of information. They're just manipulators. > The church is safe from vicious persecution > at the hands of the secularist, as educated people have finished with stake- > burning circuses and torture racks. I didn't think they had a chance to *start* with them. The religious believers had used them so often the machinery had been completely worn out. > No martyr's blood is shed in the secular West - so long as the church knows > her place and remains quietly at peace on her modern reservation. Let the > babes pray and sing and read their Bibles, continuing steadfast in their > intellectual retardation; the church's extinction will come not by sword or > pillory, but by the quiet death of irrelevance. But let the church step off > the reservation, let her penetrate once more the culture of the day and the > Janus-face of secularism will change from benign smile to savage snarl." > (From: CLASSICAL APOLOGETICS, R.C.Sproul,et al.,Zondervan,'84, > p.3-4) Again, agreed. Religion's extinction would come through "a quiet death of irrelevance", a realization of the fallacies inherent in the wishful thinking presumptive belief systems. What does this author mean by the church "stepping off the reservation"? Does it perhaps mean engaging in actions to preserve its own continued existence despite the deterioration of its power base---its community of believers---to realizations about the belief systems? Does it mean obscuring such realization by clouding minds with propagandistic noise about "how good it once was", "how good it will be", if you just believe and adhere (especially useful in times of social upheaval)? Does it mean denouncing such realization as blasphemous, the work of Satan, evil, dangerous, and encouraging secular/governmental authorities to "do something about it" (in THEIR self-interest!) before "it's too late!"? (For whom?) Religion's extinction WOULD come about through that quiet death of irrelevance. But like any bureaucratic system, it seeks to sustain itself (at almost any cost), resulting in the aforementioned actions. > Is this some of what is happening here on net.religion? Indeed in our > country? I do think so. Are we supposed to assume that this is a "bad" thing, too, Ken? > Wake up gang! There are a raft of non-Christians out there who are not happy > with secularism/rationalism. But the vast majority are, in fact, not happy with the notion of "status quo Christian morality", and know that such a morality (as many would hope to "bring back") is in fact dangerous to inidividuals who don't fit that Christian "norm". > Many of those on the net who oppose Christianity seek a secular salvation > in the form of a rational moral structure or a 'better' society through > science. "Better living through Science". Malcom Muggeridge says: > "Such lies believed! Never, surely, has there been credulity like it. > African witch doctors and makers of love potions must look with sick > envy at the impositions of our advertisers and psychiatrists, reflecting > that their clientele, though black savages, would never for an instant > countenance deception so gross and palpable. When people cease to believe > in God, G.K.Chesterton has pointed out, they do not then believe in > nothing, but - what is far more dangerous - in anything. The Christian > religion required us only to believe in certain specific dogma and > supernatural happenings like miracles; the religion of Science which has > succeeded it . . . bestows its imprimatur upon any proposition, however > nonsensical, which can be stated in terms of the requisite > statistical-scientific mumbo-jumbo. Thus a condition of moral, > intellectual, and spiritual confusion has been created in which not only > faith, but meaning itself has disappeared." As usual, Ken says (quotes), but fails to explain. Why has meaning disappeared in the absence of belief in god? Why is it that people believe in "anything" in the absence of belief in god? Because YOU believe that it's so? (More wishful thinking?) It's easy to quote what someone else says, but someone else having said something doesn't make it true. Since Ken can't explain why these statements from "authorities" are "true", I assume that it is because he either doesn't understand (just believes at face value) or else they're simply not true. > Blake, with great insight I believe, said: "Man must and will have religion" To quote a famous philosopher, "See?" > I get sick and tired of, "I think" and "Well, I think" and no one refers > to any of the large body of thinking done and recorded down through the > ages and going on in our time. It's the mark of NON-THINKERS!!!! Whereas quoting from the body of literature without analyzing or even understanding it represents "thinking". When was the last time Ken actually used the words "I think"? (Or even engaged in the action itself?) I think Ken speaks from jealousy and inability in the above paragraph. > And I'M raving???! Yes, you are. But it just wouldn't be the same if you weren't. -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr