jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White) (03/20/84)
I think that the following comment from Jeff Sargent (posted to net.flame) would make an interesting topic of discussion: I broadcast my faith because it has helped me and people I know, so I believe it can help others. Why do you attack Christianity? What good do you expect to gain, or to help others gain, by attacking something which has done good for many people? Why do you bother attacking something which has been attacked many times, which received some of its worst attacks when it was still fledgling, and survived them all? Surely you see how futile that is. What profit does it give you (enjoyment, perhaps?) to wound Christians? There is a strange tendency for Christians to view themselves as martyrs that are struggling against the overwhelming forces of evil in the world, although I think that an objective look at the past 2,000 years of history would reveal that Christianity has done a lot more harm than good. Consider, for example, just exactly what things would be like if the Roman Catholic Church had managed to hang on to the awesome power that it enjoyed in the middle ages. Certainly you wouldn't be reading this article on a computer terminal. In fact, I doubt that any of us would be enjoying the fruits of science, because science as we know it would not exist; it would be considered heretical and its practitioners would be regularly burned at the stake! We would all be secure in the knowledge that the Earth was the center of the universe and that everything in the Bible was the literal truth. Yes sir, the answer to any question could be found right there in that one book. Why would we even need science? Everything that we need to know is in the Bible, and any observation that conflicts with Biblical knowledge is false by definition. So why do I attack Christianity? Because I don't think that it is necessary to have a belief system that is based on nothing more solid than a bunch of Hebrew myths, especially when that belief system is responsible for much unnecessary bloodshed (the Spanish Inquisition, the Holy Wars, etc.), and also responsible for setting back the social and scientific progress of mankind perhaps hundreds of years. Even though Christian institutions no longer have the power to burn dissenters, the forces of Christianity are still hard at work to promote their view no matter what the social or scientific cost. [1] By the way, I don't dispute the statement that Christianity has done some people some good. However, I do think that the same results could have been achieved in other ways that would ultimately be less destructive and divisive to mankind. Jon White [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw [1] A good example of this is "scientific" creationism. Here we have a group of people who so firmly believe the creation myth in the Bible that they want to bend science to fit their particular view. Never mind that once you allow a supernatural force into science, that science falls apart at the seams (if it's not falsifiable, it's not science!). Another example is our former Secretary of the Interior, James Watt (a born-again Christian). His basic attitude is that since we are in our final days, we might as well rape the land as much as possible. Such Christian philosophy I can do without! (Note to would-be flamers: I realize that there are Christians who disagree with Watt and creationism; I'm just trying to point out that religion and politics/science don't mix.)
kalm@ihuxw.UUCP (James ) (03/24/84)
> I think that an objective look at the past 2,000 years of history would reveal > that Christianity has done a lot more harm than good. Consider, for example, > just exactly what things would be like if the Roman Catholic Church had managed > to hang on to the awesome power that it enjoyed in the middle ages. Certainly > you wouldn't be reading this article on a computer terminal. In fact, I doubt > that any of us would be enjoying the fruits of science, because science as we > know it would not exist; it would be considered heretical and its practitioners > would be regularly burned at the stake! Sorry, I can't buy that! It was NOT Christianity but greed for money and power that caused the problems you speak of. And just because the Roman Catholic Church CALLED itself Christian doesn't mean you have to believe THAT, either! "Christian" means a follower of the teachings of one Jesus of Nazareth. > [1] A good example of this is "scientific" creationism. Here we have a group of > people who so firmly believe the creation myth in the Bible that they want to > bend science to fit their particular view. Here I agree with you. It's obvious. > Never mind that once you allow a > supernatural force into science, that science falls apart at the seams > (if it's not falsifiable, it's not science!). It would be wise to remember that many forces now known to be natural were once considered super-natural. I give these hints only to help you. This is not logic, just defintions of terms. ----------------------------------------------------- It would be nice if the submitters on the network would use less emotion and more logic when they are presenting their arguments. Most of the people on the net (whether pro or con anything) show a definite lack of the ability to engage in logical thought. (Especially net.flame, I guess that's what it's for). This wouldn't be so bad if some of them weren't supposed to "computer scientists". A bit of perusal of some of the software in this building points out the same problem. -- Jim Kalmadge IX 1c415 8-367-0475 (312) 979-0475 ihuxw!kalm
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/24/84)
===============
We would all be secure in the knowledge that the Earth was the center of the
universe and that everything in the Bible was the literal truth. Yes sir,
the answer to any question could be found right there in that one book. Why
would we even need science? Everything that we need to know is in the Bible,
and any observation that conflicts with Biblical knowledge is false by
definition.
===============
(The above based on the idea that the Catholic hegemony had continued to
the present).
Wasn't one of the precepts of the Church that the common people SHOULDN'T
read the Bible, because they might get ideas and question their priests?
Weren't Huss, Savonarola, Luther and such people dangerous to the church
for just that reason? The Church burned people, not just books; Hitler
was by no means the first to do both.
Sure, the Christian world would have no science now. But not all
Christians should be tarred with the same brush. The spirit of enquiry
nurtured by Islam in the early part of this millenium was the same spirit
that led to the Reformation: Think for yourself. Don't take the word
of the Book, whether it be the Bible or Aristotle. Look at Nature and
ponder. Don't believe -- even yourself.
Is the current balance of hardware technology vs. social technology
favourable to our continued existence? Could the two technologies
have evolved differently with respect to one another if the Romans
had been more successful in eliminating the fanatic monotheists?
Who knows?
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtjonw@azure.UUCP (03/25/84)
>> = White > = Kalmadge >> I think that an objective look at the past 2,000 years of history would >> reveal that Christianity has done a lot more harm than good. Consider, >> for example, just exactly what things would be like if the Roman >> Catholic Church had managed to hang on to the awesome power that it >> enjoyed in the middle ages. Certainly you wouldn't be reading this >> article on a computer terminal. In fact, I doubt that any of us would >> be enjoying the fruits of science, because science as we know it would >> not exist; it would be considered heretical and its practitioners would >> be regularly burned at the stake! > Sorry, I can't buy that! It was NOT Christianity but greed for money and > power that caused the problems you speak of. And just because the Roman > Catholic Church CALLED itself Christian doesn't mean you have to believe > THAT, either! "Christian" means a follower of the teachings of one Jesus of > Nazareth. Not this again! They weren't REAL Christians, right? There may possibly be a few million people who disagree with your statement, but they can speak for themselves. Now that you mention it, I'll be willing to bet there are millions of folks out there who don't believe that YOU are a REAL Christian (Mormons, for example). So what's a poor religious skeptic, like myself, to do? If someone claims to be a Christian, I have to believe them. Also, the problems I speak of may be partly due to greed, but they are also due to a fanatical belief in Biblical inerrancy. Any time that scientific study has conflicted with the Bible, there has been trouble. The main reason that science can get away with so much these days, is that organized religion has lost a great deal of its power and credibility. >> Never mind that once you allow a >> supernatural force into science, that science falls apart at the seams >> (if it's not falsifiable, it's not science!). > It would be wise to remember that many forces now known to be > natural were once considered super-natural. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I think that it is perfectly fine for science to study a phenomenon that may be considered supernatural in order to find a rational explanation, but I don't think that it is valid to fall back on a supernatural explanation and try to claim that it is science. If there is no way that a theory can be proven false, then it is not a scientific theory. > It would be nice if the submitters on the network would use less emotion and > more logic when they are presenting their arguments. > Most of the people on the net (whether pro or con anything) show a definite > lack of the ability to engage in logical thought. (Especially net.flame, I > guess that's what it's for). This wouldn't be so bad if some of them weren't > supposed to "computer scientists". A bit of perusal of some of the software > in this building points out the same problem. Since these comments are included in a rebuttal of my article, I guess I should take them personally. Although there may have been some emotion in my article, my argument certainly rested on firm, logical foundation. If you find my logic to be faulty, then perhaps you would be kind enough to point it out rather than presenting vague allegations. I really don't know where you get off sounding like you have a corner on rational thought! Jon White [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (03/27/84)
A quick response to one point in a Jon White article in net.flame (White's comments indented): > I don't believe there is enough historical evidence to establish that > Christ ever really existed... Remember, not only the Bible speaks of Jesus. During the first century A.D. or thereabouts, there lived a Jewish historian whose Romanized name was Flavius Josephus. Alas, I have not read his writings; but I recall seeing quotes from them, or at least references to them, wherein it was indicated that Josephus also wrote about Jesus, in a rather dry, historical manner, without religious overtones. No matter what you think of him, I'd say that there's good evidence that an unusual man, whose similarly Romanized name was Jesus, lived in Palestine in the time of the first Emperors. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Have you hugged your junk mail today?
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (03/27/84)
> = Jon White > There is a strange tendency for Christians to view themselves as martyrs > that are struggling against the overwhelming forces of evil in the world, > although I think that an objective look at the past 2,000 years of history > would reveal that Christianity has done a lot more harm than good. Well.... Christians, being imperfect in faith, sometimes suffer at least a tactical defeat in their struggle against evil. One author has pointed out that "The Spanish Inquisition and the witch hunts in early America are not the only times that the Devil has captured the very fortress of the church itself"; in other words, it wasn't Christ or Christianity that was doing the harm. > Consider, for example, > just exactly what things would be like if the Roman Catholic Church had > managed to hang on to the awesome power that it enjoyed in the middle ages. > .... I doubt that any of us would be enjoying the fruits of science, > because science as we know it would not exist; it would be considered > heretical and its practitioners would be regularly burned at the stake! The same author I quoted above (Doug Dickey) pointed out that because the Bible views the world as real and as orderly, science is possible. Other cultures (e.g. Asiatic), not having this view of the world, did not develop science as the predominantly Christian nations did. While it is true that the medieval Catholics impeded the progress of science, Christianity itself does not. > So why do I attack Christianity? Because I don't think that it is necessary > to have a belief system that is based on nothing more solid than a bunch of > Hebrew myths.... If it were based on nothing but Hebrew myths, it probably wouldn't be around. It is based on Jesus Christ. > By the way, I don't dispute the statement that Christianity has done some > people some good. However, I do think that the same results could have > been achieved in other ways that would ultimately be less destructive and > divisive to mankind. And how is the help that was done for me, individually, destructive and divisive to mankind? Not to mention that I don't believe that mere psychotherapy would have done me much good (I tried it). But Christ's love has helped me to healing and brought me to greater unity with other people--even some I've never seen. Christ has been good to me. I tend to agree with a song by Andrae Crouch which says: "If heaven never was promised to me...it's been worth just having the Lord in my life; living in a world of darkness, He brought me the light." -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Have you hugged your junk mail today?
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (03/27/84)
> = Jon White One point struck me in the article to which this is a followup: > ... what's a poor religious skeptic, like myself, to do? If someone > claims to be a Christian, I have to believe them. I would say that you might do well to apply the words of the Apostle John: "We know that we have come to know Him [Christ] if we obey His commands. The man who says, 'I know Him', but does not do what He commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys His word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in Him: Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did." [I John 2:3-6] Not to mention Jesus's words: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." [Matthew 7:15-20] In other words: If someone claims to be a Christian, see what effect that Christianity is having on his life: his actions, his words, the whole enchilada. You don't have to believe someone who labels himself as Christian just on his word alone (do you believe advertisements so simply?); rather, see if his life backs up his words. This is a tough challenge to Christians, one which I certainly don't meet perfectly; but I'm getting there. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Have you hugged your junk mail today?
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (03/27/84)
While not a supporter of Christianity in general, I dispute that it set man back by hundreds of years. The preservation of scholarly works by the church may very well have SAVED hundreds of years after the collapse of the civilized world. Azhrarn -- Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf Or just address to 'native of the night' and trust in the forces of evil.
hobs@iwlc6.UUCP (hobs) (03/28/84)
Jeff Sargant says that Josephus, a Jewish-Roman writer of the first century AD (or CE if you prefer), mentions Jesus. Sorry, Jeff, Josephus' JEWISH ANTIQUITIES, in its discussion of the Essenes, in passing mentions a small sect called Christians. However, there is considerable reason to believe that this was a later addition by some early (4th century) Christian editor. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!iwlc6!hobs (NOTE NEW SYSTEM & LOGIN)
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (03/29/84)
Josepheus is a curious fellow. His writings are carefully studied, and often cited, because he's often the only known source on a subject. On the other hand, there are many places where he's flat-out wrong, which casts considerable doubt on how much of the rest one can believe.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/30/84)
=============
While not a supporter of Christianity in general, I dispute that it set
man back by hundreds of years. The preservation of scholarly works by the
church may very well have SAVED hundreds of years after the collapse of
the civilized world.
Azhrarn
=============
Does this include the "saving" by fire of the great Library of Alexandria?
Just this one act of Christian vandalism might be accounted responsible
for setting civilization back several hundred years.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtcolonel@sunybcs.UUCP (George Sicherman) (04/02/84)
[I don't think, therefore ... ] We should think that the earth is the center of the universe? Well, it is! (I mean the population center, of course.)
neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (04/28/84)
************************************************************************** I can't resist that subject line any longer. It's just begging to be answered "Why not?" Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "Blame it on the Rolling Denelcor, Inc. Stones" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal