randals (03/09/83)
A couple of totally unrelated topics (maybe), but stuck together
so as to consume less disk space:
(1) So far, my experience with classic religions has been such that:
For any religion X, the paradigm of that religion separates
people into two groups: those that follow religion X
and agree to its principles, and those that don't follow
religion X. All members of religion X are instructed
to either: (1) put up with/ tolerate/ cope with people
that are not X, or (2) try to change them into becoming
members of religion X.
My question: is there a religion that you know of that doesn't
fit this category? Be honest with yourself... and me. Look hard.
(2) What is the real difference between "net.religion", and
"net.philosophy.flame"? Howcum anybody can say just about anything
on net.phil* and it's o.k., but on net.rel* people get cut to
pieces?
Reply to me, or the net. I will make no commitment to summarize (or not)
or redistribute the comments (or not).
Randal L. ("7777 days old today!") Schwartz
Tektronix Engineering Computing Systems
Wilsonville, Oregon, USA
UUCP: ...!{ucbvax or decvax}!teklabs!tekecs!randals (ignore return address)
CSNET: tekecs!randals @ tektronix
ARPA: tekecs!randals.tektronix @ rand-relayporges (03/13/83)
#R:tekecs:-60400:inmet:11600001:000:751
inmet!porges Mar 11 14:25:00 1983
I can't figure out what would count as a religion that neither
tries to tolerate others nor tries to convert them. If you mean a
religion that doesn't care at all what non-X's do, you might look at some
aspects of Judaism which assumes a higher moral standard for Jews than for
non-Jews -- not as a reccomendation, but, well, Jews are just SUPPOSED to
behave better ("chosen people" and all).
FLAME: This is also why it's legitimate in lefty political arguments
to criticize American-backed sins without having to answer people who say
"yeah, what about Afganistan?" Sure the Soviets are immoral -- the discussion
is whether WE should be that way too.
-- Don Porges
...harpo!inmet!porges
...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!porgessmb (03/15/83)
Don Porges has misstated the attitude of Judaism towards non-Jews. While it's true that orthodox Jewish theology sets different standards of behavior for Jews and non-Jews (Jews are bound by the full set of rules; non-Jews are only required to observe seven "self-evident" laws, such as not killing, not stealing, not tearing flesh off of living animals, and not worshipping idols (this latter being a fair chunk less self-evident than the others...)), it's not a matter of "Jews are better". Rather, it's a case of "if you want to play my game, you have to follow my rules". You can win games of chess and you can win games of tennis, but the rules and the strategies are quite different. Judaism does not claim that non-believers are denied salvation; rather, the belief is that whichever path you choose to follow, you must follow its rules. --Steve Bellovin
don (03/15/83)
This statement and question were made by Randal Schwartz:
So far, my experience with classic religions has been such that:
For any religion X, the paradigm of that religion separates
people into two groups: those that follow religion X
and agree to its principles, and those that don't follow
religion X. All members of religion X are instructed
to either: (1) put up with/ tolerate/ cope with people
that are not X, or (2) try to change them into becoming
members of religion X.
My question: is there a religion that you know of that doesn't
fit this category? Be honest with yourself... and me. Look hard.
About the only exception I can think of is Unitarian Universalism.
The basic principle of Unitarian Universalism is freedom of belief.
U.U.'s are not expected to assent to any particular creed or statement
of belief. Instead, they follow the principle that all persons have an
obligation to seek and to follow truth as they understand it.
A statement written by Dr. Donald Harrington is a reasonably accurate
expression of the views of most U.U.s:
Truth is not Christian or Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist. What is true
for one man is true for all men. Just as there is no such thing
as Christian medicine, or Jewish biology, or Hindu psychology, or
Buddhist sociology, so there is no such thing as sectarian truth.
Truth is universal, it is progressively discovered and formulated
by men of all faiths and philosophers and, when it is substantiated
it is the same for all men everywhere.
Unitarian Universalists generally feel that there is much to be learned
from all great faiths. The name originated from the 1961 merger of the
American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America,
which both began as liberal Christian churches, although both broadened
to include both "Christian" and "non-Christian" viewpoints and to make
freedom of belief their essential principle.
Don Winsor
University of Michigangreg (03/21/83)
#R:tekecs:-60400:zehntel:19200002:000:610 zehntel!greg Mar 20 18:15:00 1983 This response may surprise you, but Christianity meets the criteria you present. Jesus tells us not to tolerate, but to LOVE others. Likewise, we are not to try to force our beliefs upon others, we are to merely SHARE the good news (that we don't have to die - Jesus died for us) with those who have not heard and let the Holy Spirit do the rest. Unfortunately, in Christianity there is a tremendous disparity between theory and practice, perhaps more so than in any other religion. Fortunately, Christianity is not based upon Christians but upon Christ. Greg Boyd ...decvax!sytek!zehntel!greg