[net.religion] Fragin' the Christians!

arndt@lymph.DEC (12/11/84)

           Or: Where are the grenades coming from?

Couldn't say it any better so let me quote:

"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.

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 church is safe from vicious persecution
at the hands of the secularist, as educated people have finished with stake-
burning circuses and torture racks.  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)

-------------------------------------
Is this some of what is happening here on net.religion?  Indeed in our country?

It's a good book for the rest of it too.  

Wake up gang!  There are a raft of non-Christians out there who are not happy
with secularism/rationalism.  You know, the kinds I mean are the ones who
DIDN'T sleep through their liberal arts courses.  Sometimes it seems as if it's
the Christians and the Lions (Rosens) on the net.  Or the space shots like 
Tim Maroney. -:  Or else it seems on the that the 'Lions' believe anyone
not a 'Lion' is a Christian and visa versa.
                  
We have here only two of over 200 competing world views.  Granted they are 
major world views. 

Much of the wrangling we are seeing here on the net is over the two very 
different views of man in Christianity and Secularism.  Enid Welsford in her
book THE FOOL (a study of the fool in literature) says:
  "To the child of the Renaissance man was essentially great, and nothing
   except his own inertia need hinder steady progress in scientific knowledge
   and complete attainment of earthly happiness.  To the medieval thinker, man
   was essentially vain, and it was only when he knew himself for the fool he
   was that he could become the lowly recipient of Divine Wisdom."

Ernst Cassirer writes that the concept of original sin was: 
   " . . . the common opponent against which all the different trends of the
    philosophy of the Enlightenment [joined] forces."                                                           

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."

No not everone on the net beleives everything sold in the 'scientific'
marketplace.  Primal scream, yogurt enemas, Carl 'billions & billions' Sagan,
etc.  But how are we to build a civilization on chaos in the marketplace?

Daniel Bell says:
  "The real problem of MODERNITY is the problem of belief."  He sees a 
breakdown of society along these lines.

Blake, with great insight I believe, said: "Man must and will have religion"

And finally:

"Even the endless chit-chat of our time is finally incapable of hiding the
fact that there is a hole at the heart of the scientific world view and of
any argument or character primarily determined by it.  To use the unfashionable
old idiom, man does have a profound hunger for wholeness and truth, even and
perhaps especially when such normative terms are held in contempt by the
reigning relativistic cultural climate.

Into that hole some idea, emotion, or object will be elevated, to stave off
the chaos of a centerless, incoherent existence.  Most often the center is
occupied by inordinate self-love, the tooth and claw egotism which when it
defends itself to itself in the assize of the heart (as it must) will
represent itself as 'ethical hedonism.'  For an increasing number of people
one of the mystery religions or cults occupies the center - Moon,Manson, etc."
       -Michael Aeschliman, University Bookman, Sum '84.

---------------------------------------------------

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!!!!

Some of you terds on net.religion actually think you have a right to an
opinion just because you can type.

And I'M raving???!

Keep chargin'

Ken Arndt
 
                                            

keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (12/15/84)

>Is this some of what is happening here on net.religion?  Indeed in our country?
I suppose.  It's ok with me.

>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"

I suggest: Speak for Thyself

>No not everone on the net beleives everything sold in the 'scientific'
>marketplace.  Primal scream, yogurt enemas, Carl 'billions & billions' Sagan,
>etc.  But how are we to build a civilization on chaos in the marketplace?

We don't have to 'build' a civilization on (in?) chaos, it only has to be
maintained.  In such a chaotic environment, 'systems' tend to 'co-agulate'
out of the fray.  'Gremlins' of some sort are required to interfere with
the normal operation of these systems so that they do not become large and
dominating.  At the same time, these gremlins must not become a system of
their own.  Many of our present market system(s) have grown out of this 
chaos because existing gremlins were unable to curb systems growth. 
We now have several large systems that are inclined to further growth
at no consideration for anyone or anything outside of their own 
particular system.  'Gremlins' that are able to pit these large systems
against each other, are now required in order to regain the 'chaos'
required for more complete freedom of thought and action.  At present
the religious community seems to be progressing fairly well in this area,
as there are many diverse lower-order systems that are keeping things
at least 'reasonably' chaotic.  However, in the political and commercial
communities, this opposite is true.  There are several higer-order systems
who's interests have major effects on surrounding lower-order systems.
Clearly gremlins that pit political systems against each other exist, but
this is undesirable, as they tend to have violent effects on the earth as
a whole.  Perhaps the recent trend of conflicts between commercial systems
and political systems is an effective solution.  Either way, these systems
don't last forever, and tend toward chaos eventually.  Personally, I think
this is healthy.  Perfect systems are for dreamers.

>Daniel Bell says:
>  "The real problem of MODERNITY is the problem of belief."  He sees a 
>breakdown of society along these lines.

I don't understand why so many people think we all have to believe the
same things.  That's something I certainly don't believe.

>Blake, with great insight I believe, said: "Man must and will have religion"

Perhaps, but if true, I'd say A religion not THE religion.

>"Even the endless chit-chat of our time is finally incapable of hiding the
>fact that there is a hole at the heart of the scientific world view and of
>any argument or character primarily determined by it.

That 'hole' is there because it is beyond the realm of science.  Science
has no heart, as it is a brain.  Religion is a heart (I suppose) and is
not dictated to by science. (or at least should not be)

>Into that hole some idea, emotion, or object will be elevated, to stave off
>the chaos of a centerless, incoherent existence.

For some that idea is called Christianity, others call it by other names.

>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!!!!

Perhaps it's the mark of thinkers who think for themselves, rather than
adopt the arbitrary thoughts of those who chose to express their thoughts
in words.

>Some of you terds on net.religion actually think you have a right to an
>opinion just because you can type.

>And I'M raving???!

Rave on, rave on...

>Ken Arndt
 
Keith Doyle
{ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
"You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think!"