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)