sjs@u1100s.UUCP (Stan J. Switzer) (10/31/84)
< Have you accepted the BUG as your personal savior? >
/*
* I have set this article aside a while to make sure I will not regret
* having posted it. I may still regret it. However, it may not be as
* relevant now as it would have been earlier.
*/
Over the past several months I have noticed two interesting discussions
in net.religion and net.motss. In particular, I refer to the "church
discipline" and the "morality of homosexuality" discussions.
First, let me say that I believe that one belongs to a church because
one is aligned with the beliefs of the church. If you do not believe as
the church prescribes, go shopping. There are many churches and one might
just fit your needs (or, perhaps better, you can do your own thinking).
Let's assume that a church is very strongly opposed to drinking, and
yet a member is a drunkard. It is the church's responsibility to attempt
to help this man. If all efforts fail, then it is in the best
interests of both parties to "exclude him from fellowship."
Even if the man only occasionally drinks, but does so in a way that
reduces the church's credibility (such as, oh no, drinking in public!),
he should be rebuked, and if he does not repent, the church should kick
him out.
But for many Christians, there is a larger meaning to "church": the whole
family of believers. When one member of this family tries to represent
the whole family and presents a warped picture, it is the responsibility of
the "church" to reprimand this person. In certain instances, which I will
detail below, the failure of Christians to speak up against (or privately
to the person first) such an offender gives him implicit approval.
At the risk of drawing unintended flames, I will give an example.
Hitler claimed to represent Christians. Had more people challenged his
claim, tragedy might have been averted. This is just one of many
such chapters in the history of Christianity. The incident reflects
poorly on the "church" as a whole.
Now. On to the next problem: Christianity and Morality.
As I understand it, the Christian line goes as follows
- We are all sinners, and therefore damned.
- Christ died for those sins. (sacrificial lamb, etc.)
- To be saved, you "accept Christ" (whatever that means --
the Holy Spirit has something to do with this.)
- Otherwise, one is contemptable in God's eyes.
IN PARTICULAR, A HOMOSEXUAL WHO IS NOT SAVED IS NO MORE CONTEMPTABLE THAN
AN ATHEIST (or a Mormon, or a Jew, or any of a large number of beliefs which
do not buy this particular line on salvation.) A person's morality does
not make any difference until AFTER she is saved.
David Brunson, come on down. You are the next contestant on
"The Religion is Right."
As a Christian, you should try to bring sinners to salvation. You
should not persecute them. In your religion, a person's situation is
BINARY: [Saved/NotSaved]. It does not further your cause to
harass people because they sin. How can you "bear witness" to a
person you do not even treat as human (or employ, etc.).
Where does Brunson get off? God judges, and his judgment is binary.
Who is Brunson that his discrimination (old, and perhaps newer meaning) is
better than God's?
I take it as a very bad sign that no Christians have fulfilled their
RESPONSIBILITY to call Brunson to task. When Brunson speaks, he claims
to be representing the Christian viewpoint. If YOU do not rebuke him,
then I, and the rest of the free-thinking net will have to assume that
you approve of Brunson, and that he does, in fact, speak for you.
Now, if David wants to represent his point of view without dragging in
the whole of Christendom, that is his option. But then he can move from
net.religion(.christian) into net.flame where he belongs.
Take THIS as a challenge:
Speak up if you are a Christian and you do not
want me to assume that David Brunson speaks for you.
Or, if you DO agree with Brunson, go burn in net.flame.
Thank you.
P.S.: I accept your right to consider homosexuality, cohabitation, drinking,
watching TV, dancing, etc. immoral. I do not accept that you have any
right to legislate these beliefs or to discriminate based on them.
I also do not accept that Christianity has anything to say about the
morality of non-believers. Furthermore, it does not seem impossible
to me that a homosexual might just be a Christian too (however,
masochism IS a perversion).
P.P.S: Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Christians.
I'm just never seen with them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Switzer Now write 1000 times "I will not flame!"
ihnp4!u1100s!sjs in vi: "oI will not flame<esc>yy999p"aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/07/84)
From Stan Switzer (ihnp4!u1100s!sjs): > As I understand it, the Christian line goes as follows > - We are all sinners, and therefore damned. > - Christ died for those sins. (sacrificial lamb, etc.) > - To be saved, you "accept Christ" (whatever that means -- > the Holy Spirit has something to do with this.) > - Otherwise, one is contemptible in God's eyes. I prefer to look at it another way: Humans have chosen to break their relationship with God and exalt themselves. They need God's help to humble themselves, which humbling is necessary for a proper relationship with God (after all, we are, actually, less than God). God loves us so much that He came to earth so He could experience self-humbling and self-sacrifice to the fullest in order that He might then share with us His experience and enable us to humble ourselves and enter a relationship with God. Those who do not choose to accept this help, this relationship, will remain outside of it by their own choice; but, alas, they will regret it when they find themselves utterly alone after death, shut out from God's light and warmth -- and what will make it unutterably more painful is knowing that it's by their own choice! I don't see God as condemning people to hell, or contemning them, so much as merely being consistent with Himself; He chose to give us free will in the beginning, and so it will be at the end. > IN PARTICULAR, A HOMOSEXUAL WHO IS NOT SAVED IS NO MORE CONTEMPTIBLE THAN > AN ATHEIST (or a Mormon, or a Jew,...) ...or someone into any one of a long list of sins. > I take it as a very bad sign that no Christians have fulfilled their > RESPONSIBILITY to call Brunson to task. When Brunson speaks, he claims > to be representing the Christian viewpoint. If YOU do not rebuke him, > then I, and the rest of the free-thinking net will have to assume that > you approve of Brunson, and that he does, in fact, speak for you. I confess to having fallen down on the job somewhat (though I think I was on vacation during the time frame of some of Brunson's articles). I did mention in passing that I think Jesus, had He been an employer, would have hired a homosexual (though that homosexual might well have chosen to change as a result of working with Jesus). I would not be at all surprised if some of the "publicans and sinners" that the Pharisees denounced Jesus for associating with were homosexuals, who liked Jesus because He accepted them as human beings. In other words, I do indeed disagree with Brunson's denunciation of homosexuals. (This is partly because I have at times struggled with some homosexual feelings myself, though I've never acted on them; so I have at least a little inside information. Also I am casually acquainted with several gays, and they are not, as far as I can tell, rabidly bent on converting everyone to gaydom, contrary to some stereotypes. But even if they were, God loves them and asks us to be His representatives in communicating that love.) > Furthermore, it does not seem impossible to me that a homosexual might just > be a Christian too (however, masochism IS a perversion). Not at all impossible. Certainly many homosexuals, after becoming Christians, are enabled to become (happier) heterosexuals. But I recently saw a book (alas, I've forgotten the title & author) which was a series of letters from a homosexual Christian man to a pastor or some such person, wherein the gay discussed his struggles with his exclusively (at least initially) homosexual desires; the change is not always instantaneous. I assume your parenthetical note on masochism was intended to have a :-).
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/14/84)
> At the risk of drawing unintended flames, I will give an example. > Hitler claimed to represent Christians. Had more people challenged his > claim, tragedy might have been averted. This is just one of many > such chapters in the history of Christianity. The incident reflects > poorly on the "church" as a whole. I've seen this a number of times here, and I suppose it might be true. But would someone do me a favor, just once, and document the claim? > IN PARTICULAR, A HOMOSEXUAL WHO IS NOT SAVED IS NO MORE CONTEMPTABLE THAN > AN ATHEIST (or a Mormon, or a Jew, or any of a large number of beliefs which > do not buy this particular line on salvation.) A person's morality does > not make any difference until AFTER she is saved. Right, so why are you getting on David's back for some cooked-up concentration on homosexuals? He doesn't confine his articles to homosexuals, and you know it. > I take it as a very bad sign that no Christians have fulfilled their > RESPONSIBILITY to call Brunson to task. When Brunson speaks, he claims > to be representing the Christian viewpoint. If YOU do not rebuke him, > then I, and the rest of the free-thinking net will have to assume that > you approve of Brunson, and that he does, in fact, speak for you. > > Take THIS as a challenge: > Speak up if you are a Christian and you do not > want me to assume that David Brunson speaks for you. > > Or, if you DO agree with Brunson, go burn in net.flame. Ok. David Brunson, while not exactly expressing my point of view, does so closely enough that I will say, for the record, that he speaks for me. Free-thinking net, indeed. You return insults with that one, yourself. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (11/14/84)
>DuBois >Right, so why are you getting on David's back for some cooked-up >concentration on homosexuals? He doesn't confine his articles to >homosexuals, and you know it. This is another example of our fundamentalist niche lovingly embracing falsehood in the face of the facts before us. It was Brunson who first "cooked-up" his harangue, though it took him a while to pose it in the guise of "individual rights"--I think he started off with "dirty, weeny, little-boy kind of thing." Brunson's articles to the net consist of three broad categories: apologies for discrimination against gays, smarmy patronizing allusions to Jews, and Bible criticism. Is it any wonder that a serious Christian would feel acute embarassment at the content of his articles in the first two categories? -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/17/84)
[] >>DuBois >>Right, so why are you getting on David's back for some cooked-up >>concentration on homosexuals? He doesn't confine his articles to >>homosexuals, and you know it. > >This is another example of our fundamentalist niche lovingly embracing >falsehood in the face of the facts before us. It was Brunson who first >"cooked-up" his harangue, though it took him a while to pose it in the >guise of "individual rights"--I think he started off with "dirty, weeny, >little-boy kind of thing." Brunson's articles to the net consist of >three broad categories: apologies for discrimination against gays, smarmy >patronizing allusions to Jews, and Bible criticism. Is it any >wonder that a serious Christian would feel acute embarassment at the >content of his articles in the first two categories? I don't know what this is about since we didn't get DuBois' article here. My "harangue" started when someone accidently stumbled into net.religion soliciting opinions on "queer-bashers". The ensuing discussion was liberally spiced with "Gay Rights" rhetoric. Since I find this sort of drivel outrageous I thought I would have a little fun with it. At some point in the entertainment it dawned on me that some people actually believe that "tolerance" is valid as a universal principle -- a sort of supreme, irrefutable dogma suitable as a basis for public policy positions. The discussion then changed so as to explore this concept more fully. Unfortunately we have had to proceed at the level of the slower students (after all, these people are actually allowed to vote!) at the expense of those who raise valid points (I am thinking of Steve Bellovin and, very occasionally, Rich Rosen). If the slower students can admit that they are guided by learned value orientation and not Reason or Logic, then we can proceed to more interesting questions, such as, what values are appropriate for public policy decisions? How can they be objectified and properly understood by future generations of policy makers so as to prevent either religious or irreligious Yahoos from doing grotesque injustices? As for "smarmy patronizing allusions to Jews": I would like to see an example of such an allusion along with an analysis that demonstrates its "smarmy patronizing" nature. Please include a detailed summary of the relevant installment(s) of "Lou Grant". Some of us haven't seen them all. -- David Brunson It's not a pretty job, but *somebody* has to do it.
agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (11/20/84)
> At some point in the entertainment it dawned on me that > some people actually believe that "tolerance" is valid as a universal > principle -- a sort of supreme, irrefutable dogma suitable as a basis > for public policy positions. The discussion then changed so as to > explore this concept more fully. Unfortunately we have had to proceed > at the level of the slower students (after all, these people are actually > allowed to vote!) at the expense of those who raise valid points (I am > thinking of Steve Bellovin and, very occasionally, Rich Rosen). If the > slower students can admit that they are guided by learned value orientation > and not Reason or Logic, then we can proceed to more interesting questions, > such as, what values are appropriate for public policy decisions? How quaint. We dismiss certain people's opinions,because they are "learned value orientation". OK, Prof. Dave, explain to me where you got your values. They came to you through reason and logic? I kinda doubt this, it seems to me that it is infinitely more reasonable and logical to be tolerant of the other people in the world. You don't have to like them, but you should at least be tolerant of them. I sent out an article on this before, explaining what sorts of people should and shouldn't be tolerant of, ie people hwo are a menace to society or certain individuals should not be tolerated; those who, although possibly injuring themselves, do no harm others should be tolerated. I have no objection to you trying to help these people see they are hurting themselves, but please don't tel them they are unacceptable as human beings because they don't fit into your ideal human likeness. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-k!agz Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University --- "I'm OK, You're a CS Major" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------