ab3@stat-l (Rsk the Wombat) (05/26/84)
Hi. Ok, this is an attempt to move an ongoing discussion from net.singles to net.religion...let's see how it goes... Ok, Jeff, here's some responses: > In fact, anyone reading the New Testament will see that one of the main > emphases of Christ and Christianity is removing discord between people. > 'Tis a shame that many, believers as well as non-believers, have > forgotten that. Christ, yes...Christianity no. The Christ-character in the biblical myths certainly had a lot to say about being nice to one another, and said it pretty well. Just fine and dandy. Christianity has had a lot to say about non-tolerance of other faiths ("Believe what we believe or rot in hell" and, sometimes, "Believe what we believe or die") and in modern times, a lot to say that seems to me very negative about people's lifestyles. ("Don't have sex for fun. Don't drink. Don't read this. Don't watch that. Etc, ad infinatum) > It's curious, and ought to be a little disturbing to civil libertarians, that > in this day and age, it's the Christians who seem to be denied the right to > speak their beliefs. > > I'm not doing any arm-twisting, so why not just not let it bother you? Not denied; just told to shut up when intruding inappropriately. I'm sick of hearing our President refer to his god in his speeches; I'm sick of seeing public-funded nativity displays; I'm sick of reading "In god we trust" on our currency; and I'm sick of Christians' thinly-veiled attempts to inject theology into the classroom via creatonism. It's about time those of us that believe in the separation of church and state got good and mad about this, and stood up for *our* right not to be confronted with someone elses' religious beliefs at every turn. To paraphrase Lazarus Long: Religion is fine; but do it in private, and wash your hands afterwards. -- Rsk the Wombat UUCP: { allegra, decvax, ihnp4, harpo, teklabs, ucbvax } !pur-ee!rsk { cornell, eagle, hplabs, ittvax, lanl-a, ncrday } !purdue!rsk
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (05/26/84)
>> = Sargent > = Rsk the Wombat >> In fact, anyone reading the New Testament will see that one of the main >> emphases of Christ and Christianity is removing discord between people. >> 'Tis a shame that many, believers as well as non-believers, have >> forgotten that. > Christ, yes...Christianity no. The Christ-character in the biblical > myths certainly had a lot to say about being nice to one another, and said > it pretty well. Just fine and dandy. Christianity has had a lot to say > about non-tolerance of other faiths ("Believe what we believe or rot in > hell" and, sometimes, "Believe what we believe or die") and in modern > times, a lot to say that seems to me very negative about people's > lifestyles. ("Don't have sex for fun. Don't drink. Don't read this. > Don't watch that. Etc, ad infinatum) My strong suspicion is that a great deal of the corruption of the Christian message, its transmogrification from the message that you are loved and accepted irrespective of who you are or what you've done and that God can, wants to, and will (if you let Him) change you from the inside out into the image of His Son -- to the idea that one MUST believe (or claim to believe) a particular set of dogma, or to the idea that one must or must not perform certain actions (cleaning the outside of the cup but inside full of corruption like the Pharisees) -- came from the church organization being co-opted by those who were hungry for temporal power. Indeed, Constantine may well have done more harm than good by making Christianity the state religion. The medieval Catholic Church (from what little I know about it) seems to have had some similarity to the modern Soviet government; the popes and cardinals had it nice, just as the Politburo members have their dachas and their Black Sea vacations, while the ordinary people were and are in poverty and fear. Similarly, some modern legalists seem to wish to control every detail of people's lives by force. Christ, on the other hand, wants to change every detail of your life, yes; but He wants to bring you to the point where you voluntarily choose the optimal course for your life. I happen to believe that the optimal course involves some things which differ from what most people nowadays consider optimal, the prime example being that sex was designed not only for fun, but for the building of a deep communion between a man and a woman who are totally committed to each other, who therefore trust each other implicitly, and who can thus be totally free and open with each other physically, emotionally, spiritually -- that it is truly a means of becoming one, and the shared fun is part of that. (There's nothing wrong with having fun per se; it's making that your goal, or if you will, your god that is the error. Believe it or not, I am not of those who disapprove of having a few drinks with friends; I have done it myself within this very month; but centering one's life around that sort of activity is going too far.) If you wish to do something sub-optimal, that's your choice, and I won't say that you MUST not do that; I'll just say that it might be wiser, and better for you in the long run, if you didn't. And I believe that this is Christ's approach. (Incidentally, do not infer from the above that I never desire to have sex without bothering with the commitment of marriage. I'm human too, though it's not always obvious....) > To paraphrase Lazarus Long: > Religion is fine; but do it in private, and wash your hands afterwards. Wasn't that Pontius Pilate? [1/2 :-)] -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|decvax|harpo|ihnp4|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "...I've got to be where my spirit can run free..."
ab3@stat-l (Rsk the Wombat) (05/26/84)
Well put, Jeff; but--what's wrong with being (partially) a hedonist?
Outside of the obvious drain on one's finances, that is. :-)
(Oh...about Pontius Pilate: touche'!)
--
Rsk the Wombat
UUCP: { allegra, decvax, ihnp4, harpo, teklabs, ucbvax } !pur-ee!rsk
{ cornell, eagle, hplabs, ittvax, lanl-a, ncrday } !purdue!rskjejones@ea.UUCP (05/29/84)
#R:stat-l:-7300:ea:11300024:000:767 ea!jejones May 28 18:19:00 1984 /***** ea:net.religion / pucc-h!aeq / 12:30 am May 26, 1984 */ Christ, on the other hand, wants to change every detail of your life, yes; but He wants to bring you to the point where you voluntarily choose the optimal course for your life. /* ---------- */ Admittedly off the subject, but it connects with the problem of evil: this is exactly the way that many think that humans should have been created, if God is indeed good. One often sees this state denigrated by Christians who want to weasel out of the problem of evil as that of being a "mere automaton" (and thus for some reason not capable of "true" worship, love, etc., so that God creates humans that will mostly fry instead). So, why aren't humans created that way in the first place? James Jones
dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (05/29/84)
It IS appropriate for this discussion to be moved out of net.singles. But I simply cannot understand the fanaticism that "Ask the Wombat" manifests whenever Jeff Sargent (the most frequent "offender") brings up the role of Christianity in his life. These vituperative attacks against public expressions of personal belief outside of net.religion seem as wrong-headed to me as the behavior of the Inquisitors in the Middle Ages. Listen: Jeff Sargent seems to be a very religious person. As we've seen, his faith is more than the ordinary person's convenient Sunday-morning country-club--it permeates all of his postings, and at the very least, we can say that Jeff's news items are unique and give us a pretty good idea of what he's like. I find it refreshing to read someone so guileless, so willing to say what he feels, even as he recognizes that his opinions are outside the mainstream. One might take issue with some of the things he says, one might not believe what he believes, but it is absurd to simply say to him or anyone: "keep your religion private." It would make as much sense to say to Wombat that he should keep his obviously atheistic opinions to himself. One's belief system is intimately woven into one's presentation of self, and it would be a pretty boring world if that were otherwise. So, Wombat, if you don't like what Jeff says, you can always type 'n', or you can take issue with particular articles that he posts, either publically or privately. But don't ask someone to suppress his expression of opinions just because you don't agree with them. -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca
ab3@stat-l (Rsk the Wombat) (05/30/84)
Ok, Steve; first of all, it's "Rsk the Wombat", not "Ask the Wombat";
and secondly, as I've stated, I'm not an atheist, so quit calling me one.
Or I'll eat all the bark off your trees.
Thirdly, I see no reason whatsoever to keep *my* opinions to myself;
you obviously have no qualms about speaking up, why should I? I'm really
not being sarcastic here; I'm just wondering why I can't bitch and moan about
religious intrusion -- *if* someone else can bring it up in the first place.
Did that make sense?
--
Rsk the Wombat
UUCP: { allegra, decvax, ihnp4, harpo, teklabs, ucbvax } !pur-ee!rsk
{ cornell, eagle, hplabs, ittvax, lanl-a, ncrday } !purdue!rskdyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (06/01/84)
>Ok, Steve; first of all, it's "Rsk the Wombat", not "Ask the Wombat"; Oops. Corrected. I'll have to turn off my mental spelling checker. >and secondly, as I've stated, I'm not an atheist, so quit calling >me one. You misunderstand me (prob with reason)--my use of the phrase "obviously atheist" was just sarcasm referring to the issue at hand concerning Christianity. >Thirdly, I see no reason whatsoever to keep *my* opinions to myself; >you obviously have no qualms about speaking up, why should I? >I'm really not being sarcastic here; I'm just wondering why I can't >bitch and moan about religious intrusion -- *if* someone else can >bring it up in the first place. Did that make sense? I was expecting such a reply even as I was sending mine. I guess the issue comes down to this: USENET is a public forum where all sorts of opinions are offered. Thus, all things being equal, one likes to err on the side of freedom of speech. At the very least, I think it is better to say to someone "I don't agree with your point" than to say "Hey, keep your opinions to yourself (or out of this newsgroup.)" The first response is in the spirit of discussion and debate; the second serves no purpose at all except to alienate the other person and to close off discussion. In the case of Jeff Sargent, his early postings on the subject mentioned Christianity as a component of his mental and emotional condition regarding SO's-- it sure sounded relevant to me, since we were discussing Jeff Sargent. It all comes down to "appropriate behavior", something which is impossible to define or legislate, but the lack of which is pretty easy to spot. Evangelizing outside of 'net.religion' isn't appropriate behavior, but I don't think Jeff was doing that--merely saying what is true for oneself is always appropriate, don't you think? Now, you have every right to your opinions, and to express them as you wish, (as do I) but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be open to persuasive arguments for tolerance. My article wasn't the analog of yours to Jeff; I wasn't saying "stuff the religious intrusion bit", I was asking for you to listen to my arguments for tolerance--maybe this article expresses some points better. You are free to do with this what you will. -- /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA