[net.religion] Common Ground

rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/29/84)

> Without God, Christianity would be just another humanist
> religion.

This statement sort of implies that the tenets of humanism and Christianity
are virtually the same, except that while humanism proposes that the tenets
are formed by humans, Christianity claims that those same tenets were offered
by god. Christianity also seems to have evolved to the point where its
followers believe that these tenets from god are rules to live by, and have
conveyed that impression to non-Christians who reject the belief system on the
grounds that the authority from which those rules come is unfounded, unproven,
and fanciful.  If Christianity were that close to humanistic beliefs, it would
propose that the tenets from god were *warnings* on the nature of the world and
on our impulses (chemical?) to behave against our best (?) interest, not rules
to live by or be damned.

Many Christians would claim that it is the latter proposition that is true;
that by not obeying the "rules" we are condemned by god.  But we have heard
others come forth and say that the proscriptions in the bible are just warnings
about what would happen to us if we live our lives "sinfully".  It would seem
that this results in a somewhat different perspective on god; not the almighty
creator who will condemn us for disobeying his rules, but an all-knower who
offers us warnings on the nature of the world.  Perhaps it even implies a
non-omnipotent god:  god didn't choose to make the rules, and doesn't have the
power to change them (if god had this power and didn't exercise it to save
innocent people, according to some, god would be truly heinous and revolting
and unworthy of worship).

I tend to think that though many thinking Christians may believe that the
bible contains benevolent warnings from a benevolent god, the "fire and
brimstone" part of the religion remains intact and strong.  More importantly,
they deny the right of free choice (which they claim is an important part of
the whole religion---one "chooses" to "sin" or not).  It is every individual's
right to choose what path to follow, yet we hear how a whole society should
be modeled after the "laws" in the bible, with transgressions punishable under
civil law.  If we discount such imposition of rules as the ravings of a
fanatical few (instead of those of a "moral" "majority"), I think all the rest
of us would agree that the notion of "your rights end when they infringe on
another person's rights" is a repostulation of the so-called golden rule, and
that *this* is the fundamental basis for people getting together and forming a
society.  Imposition of other rules on top of this can evolve from this base
(no murder/assault/theft/etc., but rules on sexual practices, personal beliefs,
etc., that do not affect others have no place being regulated).

Geting back to the original statement, it would seem that Christianity has
much more in common with so-called "humanism" that it has in conflict with it,
provided one realizes that many warnings from the bible are a matter of
personal choice, and besides, who wrote those "rules" anyway?  People who
believed that homosexuality/promiscuity/eating of particular foods/behaving
in certain ways were "bad" for you and all of society wrote these things
down.  Remember, if it doesn't affect other people's lives, it's your choice,
and if it causes "the downfall of society"  (disintegration of the precious
family unit, alteration of moral perceptions), then maybe the society as a
whole wasn't built that well to begin with.
-- 
AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU.
						Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (05/30/84)

We have seen Christianity without Jesus.  It is called 19th century
imperialism.  White man's burden (saving a non-European from his barbaric
culture by turning him into a modern European) does not differ in concept
or in effect from pre-19th Christian expansionism (saving the infidel from
his false religion by turning him into a genuflecting Christian).

Both ideas are expressions of xenophobic hatred of other peoples' cultures
and religions.

I am not denying that the non-Europeans often were or are howling
savages (e.g. Iran) but Europeans have shown equal barbarism with more
technological competence in the 20th century.

-- 

                    Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo

         	 (An Equal Opportunity Offender)