rah (02/08/83)
A few general philosophical points and a comment about Christian acts of mayhem and carnage. As should be obvious from our own experiences, calling something a given title does not make it that. I.e. I have seen many systems called "user friendly", of which very few really seemed to fit up to any reasonable definition of "user-friendliness." According to Christian teachings, one must have a personal conversion to Christianity, one cannot be born a Christian. (For political reasons, various churches have in the past few hundred years, asserted that they could "claim" infants for themselves in anticipation of that conversion) Thus, merely being born in a "Christian" country or family does not make one a "Christian." Further, merely claiming to have had a conversion without following the teachings of Jesus is not truly Christian. Remember that "Christianity" became a state religion of Europe, and was that way for a long time, even though a minority of the citizens would really be Christians according to the definition above. It is not surprising that many acts were committed by people invoking "Christianity", after all that was the only name they could invoke other than "infidel." Having said that, I readily admit that there are still a number of people who will pass the stricter definition of "Christian" who committed atrocities of which I am ashamed. However, I think the atrocities committed by the second, more restrictive group are far fewer than those imposed under Communism or some of the other modern rulers. Rich Hammond
aron (02/09/83)
Richard Hammond's response reminds me of the old discussion of whether or not the Soviet Union represents a "true" example of Communism. The argument really boils down to: if a pure form of X existed then X would be perfect. It is only because we have imperfect examples of X that X is associated with all this horrible murder and mayhem. Thus X is not to blaim for the murder and mayhem. Not very convincing. In any case it is irrelevant to my original argument. Someone claimed that Jeremiah's prophecy of a new Covenant between Israel and God refers to Christianity. I said it could not refer to Christianity because the historical reality of Christianity is far from the vision of this new Covenant that Jeremiah foresaw. In fact, we need only look around at the world around us to see that this new Covenant has not yet been established anywhere in this world. Perhaps someday a perfect X will come along, and man will indeed have God's law written on his heart and mind. In fact, the mystical view of Judaism is that our purpose in life is to bring that day closer. Until then, I will have no patience for those who claim to be perfect. I suspect that Jeremiah would not have much patience for them either. aron shtull-trauring
rah (02/09/83)
I think Aron didn't read my submission very carefully, for I explicitly said that; Having said that, I readily admit that there are still a number of people who will pass the stricter definition of "Christian" who committed atrocities of which I am ashamed. end quote. I was not claiming that Christians were perfect, I strongly believe in the doctrine that ALL persons have sinned and thus fall short of perfection, including Christians. I was, however, asserting that because a person is a gentile does not make him automatically a Christian, and that many of the atrocities committed by Europeans, even in the name of "Christianity," were not committed by Christians, that the problem was that the term "Christian" was associated with the state religion as well as with the actual teachings of Christ. I realize that this was / is somewhat tangent to Aron's comments about Jeremiah, but I couldn't let the statement go unchallenged. As far as Jeremiah goes, I suspect that he would have little patience with those who think that mankind's efforts will someday produce a utopia. He seems to say that it will take an act of God to change mankind. Rich Hammond
geo (02/12/83)
aron shtull-trauring says, in part, Probably more barbaric acts have been committed in the name of the Christian God, than for any other religion or ideology. I think that is debatable, but it is certainly right up their among the big ones. Cordially, Geo Swan, Integrated Studies, University of Waterloo
debray (02/12/83)
It's probably true that more people have been killed in the name of God (summing across religions and over time) than in the name of Reason and Science. Reason may, on occasion, have questioned the existence of God, but it has not - to the best of my memory - persecuted the devout. Poor Galileo! Science is open-minded enough to throw itself open to questioning and to change. It can tolerate nonbelievers without demanding a Jihad. If Science has created weapons of death, it is the forces of Unreason that have unleashed them upon mankind (remember Einstein et al.'s letter to Roosevelt about the A-Bomb?). I, a freethinker by temperament, a rationalist by belief and a scientist by profession, find that a source of deep satisfaction. saumya k. debray suny at stony brook <* flames may be addressed to : allegra!sbcs!debray : please try to flame rationally and be logical in your choice of expletives. *>