lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (03/25/85)
[]
It seems that every six months or so we play a little game on
net.religion called "bait the Christians." Someone who claims to be a
Christian makes some outrageous statement, or some hideous act of
violence has associations with Christian individuals or institutions.
The call goes out: "Every Christian had better repudiate this person or
that institution, or the whole world will take your silence as agreement
with the condemned." I'ld like to take this opportunity to stick my neck
into the game long enough to make one comment: count me out!
Surely Don Black must have horns and a tail. Does he beat his wife and
children? I'll bet he hides a Nazi uniform under his bed! Perhaps some
of his colleagues can testify to his mean spirit and insensitivity.
Unfortunately, *I* cannot verify any of these things. In fact, I am
going to assume (until I feel I have solid evidence to the contrary) that
Mr. Black is a nice guy who has serious questions, and will listen to
sincere answers. By the way, this is the same assumption I have made
about Rich Rosen, and I can't say that I have found greater reason to
credit Rosen's sincerity than Black's.
Does Don Black question the existence of Hitler's holocaust? Which of
you doubt that when Black has fairly examined the evidence he will
realize that six million Jews - fellow men and women created by God -
perished in the cruelest act of violence in the recorded history of the
world. Wait until he has proven himself to be intransigent and lacking
in the smallest amount of human compassion before pinning the swastika on
his coat. Does Black want to associate himself with the Identity
movement? I am not aware of any aspect of Identity theology with which I
concur, but I am not about to condemn all who quote from this theology on
the basis of an article in Time and Newsweek. If Mr. Black wishes to
associate himself with the Aryan Nations, the KKK, or any similarly
reprehensible group which breeds on intolerance and fear, let him be
roundly denounced, BUT *I* will hold my condemnation until Black
*himself* admits the link.
But, back to my original point. If Don Black (or Rich Rosen, or anyone
else) ultimately shows himself/herself to be thoroughly narrowminded,
intolerant and bigoted, don't hold your breath waiting for me to make any
obligatory denunciations. And don't waste your breath saying that Jeff
Gillette supports intolerance and prejudice because he hasn't denied it
loudly enough. I'm not interested in playing that game. Truth is God's
Truth, and Truth will win out with my comment or without it. This type
of argument from silence is not golden, it's yellow. And I have no
interest in cowering before it.
Jeffrey William Gillette duke!phs!lisa
The Divinity School
Duke Universitygarys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (03/26/85)
Jeff Gillette writes: > It seems that every six months or so we play a little game on > net.religion called "bait the Christians." Someone who claims to be a > Christian makes some outrageous statement, or some hideous act of > violence has associations with Christian individuals or institutions. > The call goes out: "Every Christian had better repudiate this person or > that institution, or the whole world will take your silence as agreement > with the condemned." I'd like to take this opportunity to stick my neck > into the game long enough to make one comment: count me out! Hear, hear! and Amen! It is not my responsibility to publicly denounce everyone I disagree with. I don't respond to everything on the net I disagree with; I don't respond to everything on the net I do agree with; I don't even read everything on the net. I have tried to make it clear in the past that I don't approve of everything which claims the name Christian; who says I have to provide an exhaustive and up-to-the-minute list of such things? If anyone wants my personal opinion on any specific issue, ask me personally and directly, and I will tell you. As if those making the "call" Jeff mentioned really wanted my opinion! > But, back to my original point. If Don Black (or Rich Rosen, or anyone > else) ultimately shows himself/herself to be thoroughly narrowminded, > intolerant and bigoted, don't hold your breath waiting for me to make any > obligatory denunciations. And don't waste your breath saying that Jeff > Gillette supports intolerance and prejudice because he hasn't denied it > loudly enough. I'm not interested in playing that game. Truth is God's > Truth, and Truth will win out with my comment or without it. This type > of argument from silence is not golden, it's yellow. And I have no > interest in cowering before it. Thank you, Jeff. I hope you saved a copy of your article for reposting six months from now. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/26/85)
> It seems that every six months or so we play a little game on > net.religion called "bait the Christians." Someone who claims to be a > Christian makes some outrageous statement, or some hideous act of > violence has associations with Christian individuals or institutions. > The call goes out: "Every Christian had better repudiate this person or > that institution, or the whole world will take your silence as agreement > with the condemned." I'ld like to take this opportunity to stick my neck > into the game long enough to make one comment: count me out! > > Surely Don Black must have horns and a tail. Does he beat his wife and > children? I'll bet he hides a Nazi uniform under his bed! Perhaps some > of his colleagues can testify to his mean spirit and insensitivity. > Unfortunately, *I* cannot verify any of these things. In fact, I am > going to assume (until I feel I have solid evidence to the contrary) that > Mr. Black is a nice guy who has serious questions, and will listen to > sincere answers. [GILLETTE] EITHER Black is a confirmed Nazi (based on his own pronouncements about Jews' place in his new Christian society and his repudiation of personal freedoms) or he is just an asshole making outrageous statements. The notion that he might be some guy with "legitimate" questions (Remember, he's not ASKING "Did the holocause occur?", he's claiming it didn't.) would be repugnant to any thinking person. > By the way, this is the same assumption I have made > about Rich Rosen, and I can't say that I have found greater reason to > credit Rosen's sincerity than Black's. Given what you offer above about what Black might be, I'm deeply touched by this statement. > Does Don Black question the existence of Hitler's holocaust? Which of > you doubt that when Black has fairly examined the evidence he will > realize that six million Jews - fellow men and women created by God - > perished in the cruelest act of violence in the recorded history of the > world. Wait until he has proven himself to be intransigent and lacking > in the smallest amount of human compassion before pinning the swastika on > his coat. Which of us? I will. Any examination of his source material (from known neo-fascist rightist publishing arms) makes it clear that 1) he has his "evidence", and 2) like those who provided him with that "evidence", he is not seeking proof, but setting up a no-win situation in which there cannot be proof because he wants people to believe his foregone conclusion. He has proven himself very plainly. (unless, of course, he's just a rabblerousing asshole) > Does Black want to associate himself with the Identity > movement? I am not aware of any aspect of Identity theology with which I > concur, but I am not about to condemn all who quote from this theology on > the basis of an article in Time and Newsweek. If Mr. Black wishes to > associate himself with the Aryan Nations, the KKK, or any similarly > reprehensible group which breeds on intolerance and fear, let him be > roundly denounced, BUT *I* will hold my condemnation until Black > *himself* admits the link. His link to Ernst Zundel, his reference to the Aryan Nations as "slightly far out" (from his perspective), both serve as admission of more than a "link". > But, back to my original point. If Don Black (or Rich Rosen, or anyone > else) ultimately shows himself/herself to be thoroughly narrowminded, > intolerant and bigoted, don't hold your breath waiting for me to make any > obligatory denunciations. And don't waste your breath saying that Jeff > Gillette supports intolerance and prejudice because he hasn't denied it > loudly enough. I'm not interested in playing that game. Truth is God's > Truth, and Truth will win out with my comment or without it. This type > of argument from silence is not golden, it's yellow. And I have no > interest in cowering before it. I'd say you do. As do, apparently the vast majority of Christians on this net. It's funny that only Wingate and Brown, the ones who have actually been tarred with the label "anti-Semite" at times, have chosen to perhaps "cleanse" themselves by denouncing Black, but even then only mildly so. The evidence as presented seems rather clear, but you'd rather wait till his kind firebombs someone's house before accepting what it is he's putting forth. Don't get me wrong. I say let him speak. Let his own words show him for the bigoted fool that he is. It will happen soon enough. -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (03/27/85)
[Jeff Gillette] > But, back to my original point. If Don Black (or Rich Rosen, or anyone > else) ultimately shows himself/herself to be thoroughly narrowminded, > intolerant and bigoted, don't hold your breath waiting for me to make any > obligatory denunciations. And don't waste your breath saying that Jeff > Gillette supports intolerance and prejudice because he hasn't denied it > loudly enough. I'm not interested in playing that game. Truth is God's > Truth, and Truth will win out with my comment or without it. This type > of argument from silence is not golden, it's yellow. And I have no > interest in cowering before it. > [Chuck Hedrick] >If this group were a deliberative body, the situation would be very >different. If someone suggested that my local church should adopt Identity >Christianity, then I would be obligated to do what I could to stop it. In >that context, it might well be that "silence gives consent". But we are not >a deliberative body. We are not making any decisions, and there is no >obligation for people to speak up when they see something that they disagree >with. Indeed this group would quickly become impractical if we heard from >everyone that considered a posting to be wrong or even immoral. I was saddened to read these two articles, because I have a great deal of respect for both Jeff and Chuck. We should of course look for "that of God in every person", including Don Black. And perhaps it is not neccessary for everyone to respond to every single outrageous posting in net.religion. But we have a moral obligation to oppose the dangerous bigotry that Don Black's postings reveal. Six million Jews, and millions of others, paid with their lives for the indifference of their Christian neighbors during the Twenties and Thirties when Nazism was on the rise. Had more good, upstanding men and women spoken out when it counted, that tragedy might not have happened. And contrary to the attitude that I detect in Chuck's and Jeff's postings, the obligation to speak out begins long before we ourselves must face the threat personally. Pastor Martin Niemoeller wrote that when they came for the Jews, he did nothing, because it wasn't his problem. And when they came for the Communists, he did nothing, because he didn't want to get involved. But when the Nazis came for him, he looked around for help, and there was no one left to help him. We would do well to heed his warning. As for the reality of the holocaust: Don, my father was there at the liberation of Dachau. He has told me of the appalling things he saw there with his own eyes. If you say the holocaust did not happen, you are calling him a liar. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
ptl@fluke.UUCP (Mike Andrews) (03/27/85)
Hi,
I second Jeff's posting. The Gifts of time and energy are so important
not to be wasted on people and philosophies whose only intent is to drain
the strength of Christians and cause dissension, pain, humiliation, and
in general do the work satan is so intent on himself. Anyone with genuine
questions, doubts, concerns, hurts is encouraged to post. What
Christian doesn't experience these in their own life, how could we
expect non-Christians not to? And I encourage Christians to pray for
those whose goal is ... why do you think they say what they do, only to
repeat and re-repeat themselves, then when that gets old find something
or someone else to attack. They obviously don't have Someone in
their lives that we do. PRAY for them, please. We are NO better than they
are, and we live with many of the same pains and hurts that they do, and sin is
sin - we are all sinners. All goodness within us is Him in us, not something
we dredged up ourselves. Christ IS in our lives!!! He IS the difference.
Show it, radiate Him.
God Bless you ALL and your families,
Mike Andrews
--
**** Ezekiel 37:1-14 ****
*** Ephesians 5:8-21 ***
{decvax,ihnp4}!uw-beaver! \
{sun,allegra}! >fluke!ptl
{ucbvax,hplabs}!lbl-csam! /rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (03/28/85)
OK Rich - How do we please you ?
If we denounce Mr. Black (Wingate and me),
we don't really really count 'cause we are
perhaps "cleansing" ourselves.
What do you want ? I said basically he was a vile Anti-Semite
(perhaps I was redundant ?).
Do I have to use obscenities to really, really make it more than
mild ??
I tend to believe that your mind is made up about Christians, christians
"christians", and CHRISTIANS.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (03/30/85)
> OK Rich - How do we please you ? > If we denounce Mr. Black (Wingate and me), > we don't really really count 'cause we are > perhaps "cleansing" ourselves. > What do you want ? I said basically he was a vile Anti-Semite > (perhaps I was redundant ?). > > Do I have to use obscenities to really, really make it more than > mild ?? The object isn't to please me. (If that's what you're doing, then it's certainly not worth it.) The object is to stand up and be counted as being against bigotry (the way I thought Christians were supposed to be) and against hate (ditto) as coming from people who engage in both AND CALL IT CHRISTIAN. He's one of you!!! Like it or not! The labels applied internally ("he's not an 'xxxx'") don't hold water when the world looks on. There are people who are beginning to believe that what he has to say is quite Christian. And his support (and support for his movements) are growing among---you guessed it---the most religious and devout Christians (or so they say) of all. Until Christians by the truckload stand up and say loudly "That is not what Christianity is about", it will BECOME what Christianity is ALL about in this country. As it became what Christianity was all about in times past. I can't stress that enough. I know both you and Wingate, the only ones who had all that much to say (up until that point), had been labelled anti-Semitic and it's more than reasonable to speculate that part of your reason to speak out was as an act of self-cleansing. I apologize for insinuating that that was the ONLY reason for your doing so. I recall a certain mailing I received from a Mr. Brown some years ago (from your site, or was it 'itm'?) and I recall a certain attempt at humor by a Marylander on this net. Seeds of anti-Semitism that are supposedly gone from modern Christian teaching still exist for many Christians deep down, as passed on through families, etc. and (as I said to Wingate in private mail) I don't pin blame for the conditioned beliefs a person retained, but I'd hope that even in people where such beliefs are still strong, there is a voice of reason that can help them overcome them, and see human beings as human beings. > I tend to believe that your mind is made up about Christians, christians > "christians", and CHRISTIANS. Those are Wingate's sublabellings, not mine. Yes, I have my prejudices, too, and among them is the notion that such Christians as I've described above either truly don't care or really are anti-Semitic (actually anti-everything non-Christian). I hope I am proven wrong, because our lives in effect depend on it. -- "Which three books would *you* have taken?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ir278@sdcc6.UUCP (Paul Anderson) (04/01/85)
I can't believe all you people! Arguing over what is or isn't "Christian". Many people hold that the Jews killed Jesus. He rose, right? It looks like he's about to get killed again, not by crucifiction, but by being forgotten. This Mr. Black, with whose history I am not entirely familiar, is just a man, like everyone else. People can acclaim what he says, people who call themselves "Christian", but that doesn't make what he says or does "Christian"...it just makes these people idolators. A "Christian" is a follower of Christ, right? So it doesn't matter what Black, Falwell, Hitler, etc. say: what Jesus teaches us is the "Christian" thing to do. And what he teaches isn't very difficult...keep the commandments (there are only 10, each can be summed up in a sentence, although they can be translated differently . . . i.e. "don't (thou shall not) steal" = "don't steal someone's dignity"), be honest, earnest, and nice to people, even if they aren't nice to you. People who call themselves "Christian" tend to violate these rules the most greatly... do you think Jesus likes that? You heard what he said about hypocrites. Stick with God. Be nice. Be charitable. Don't worry about people like Black, inquisitions, anti-semitism, these folks will get their chance to shape up, and you can help them, but if they don't, they'll get theirs...Jesus has already promised us (Revelations) that things will be rough, but it'll all come out for the better in the end. Paul Anderson ucbvax!decvax!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!ir278 "Two thousand years ago, one man suggested everybody be nice to each other for a change, and they nailed him to a tree." - Douglas Adams
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (04/01/85)
< Sevin > In article <771@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (alias Dr. Emmanuel Wu) writes: >> But, back to my original point. If Don Black (or Rich Rosen, or anyone >> else) ultimately shows himself/herself to be thoroughly narrowminded, >> intolerant and bigoted, don't hold your breath waiting for me to make any >> obligatory denunciations. And don't waste your breath saying that Jeff >> Gillette supports intolerance and prejudice because he hasn't denied it >> loudly enough. I'm not interested in playing that game. Truth is God's >> Truth, and Truth will win out with my comment or without it. This type >> of argument from silence is not golden, it's yellow. And I have no >> interest in cowering before it. > >I'd say you do. As do, apparently the vast majority of Christians on this >net. It's funny that only Wingate and Brown, the ones who have actually >been tarred with the label "anti-Semite" at times, have chosen to perhaps >"cleanse" themselves by denouncing Black, but even then only mildly so. >The evidence as presented seems rather clear, but you'd rather wait till >his kind firebombs someone's house before accepting what it is he's >putting forth. Don't get me wrong. I say let him speak. Let his own >words show him for the bigoted fool that he is. It will happen soon >enough. >-- >Otology recapitulates phonology. > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Rich, PLEASE come off your infinite superiority act. Your repeated articles have been effective in bringing Black to our attention. There is very little in the way of agreement with Black's "christianity" on this net, from Christian or non-Christian. You have done us all a service, even if you seem to feel compelled to go to extremes in your condemnation of our "hypocrisy". If I were Wingate or Brown, I would take personal offense at your claim that they are "cleansing themselves" by denouncing Black. That is very much putting words in their mouths (Of course, if you can pull out a quote where they use EXACTLY that phrasing themselves, I will yield you the point); I recall you complaining long and loud that we (I, anyway) were doing that to you. It may be hard for you to accept this, but Christians don't HAVE to believe just what you want us to believe, any more than you HAVE to believe what we want YOU to believe. Nor do we have to act on every injustice, and I doubt that you yourself act on every injustice you encounter. In fact, I KNOW that you don't, because you refuse to recognize some kinds of injustice. (For instance, the injustice inherent in your proclaimed desire to see Christianity extinguished from the face of the Earth.) Keep up the good work, but don't get cocky, and stop claiming that I'm a Nazi just because I didn't notice and immediately respond to one. Hutch
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/02/85)
> I can't believe all you people! Arguing over what is or > isn't "Christian". Many people hold that the Jews killed > Jesus. He rose, right? It looks like he's about to get > killed again, not by crucifiction, but by being forgotten. > > Stick with God. Be nice. Be charitable. Don't worry about people > like Black, inquisitions, anti-semitism, these folks will get their > chance to shape up, and you can help them, but if they don't, they'll > get theirs...Jesus has already promised us (Revelations) that things > will be rough, but it'll all come out for the better in the end. > > Paul Anderson > ucbvax!decvax!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!ir278 Sure. Don't worry. They'll get theirs. Or, more likely, if you wimp about and ignore them, they'll get yours. > "Two thousand years ago, one man suggested everybody > be nice to each other for a change, and they nailed > him to a tree." - Douglas Adams And then they named a religion after him and justified murder and torture in his name. While the "good, nice" people just said "ignore them, they'll get theirs..." -- "When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer. Superstition ain't the way." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/02/85)
Reply to Paul Anderson: There are 2 things of crucial importance to remember here. The first is that waiting for the non-Christians who call themselves Christian to get their just deserts from God someday isn't likely to be of much use to people who either do not believe in God, do not believe in a God who is going to give people their just deserts, or believe that God wants them to be active in stopping atrocities right here and now. The other thing to recall is that historically a lot of people have drawn conflicting ideas of ``what God wants from me'' from reading the same source -- the Bible. For instance, you talk of ``obeying the 10 commandments''. It is worth noting that Jews have a lot more (six hundred odd? I forget the exact number) commandments that they think the God wants them to follow. Other Christians have abandoned the 10 commandments and think that all God really wants them to do is to ``love God with their whole heart and love their neighbour as themselves''. Using this reasoning, they find that, in general, it is not a good thing to covet their neighbour's goods, but it is fine to covet them if you want to confiscate the wealth of rich people in order to pay for thing for deserving poor people. For them, loving their poor neighbours means taking thing away from their rich neighbours. The command ``to love'' is also frought with difficulties, as Soren Kierkegaard repeatedly pointed out. If I meet a random stranger, and do not feel any love for him, what then? I can, as a matter of course, treat him with respect, or even treat him as if I loved him -- perhaps faking the emotion well enough that he would not even know that I do not love him. But still I might find that i do not love him. If love is a gift from God, is there anything I can do but wait and see if I can receive this gift? if I am not receiving it, does it mean that I am sinning in not loving my neighbours? There are people who claim to love everyone, but whose love seems pretty watered down to me -- compared to the love that I feel for the people I say that I love. I actually do not think that it is possible to feel this sort of profound love for everyone. But what sort of love dis Jesus mean? Moreover, what sort of actions are compatible with love? Did Jesus love the money changers he whipped out of the temple? as he was doing the whipping? If I got out a whip and set into my neighbours I would find it very hypocritical to call that love. you see the difficulties? Right now, as far as i know, most people who call themselves Christians condemn certain actions which other people who called themselves Christians did as ``non-Christian''. No doubt those people would or do disagree. How can any Christian be sure that he is not practicing a false Christianity, despite having all the best intentions in the world? I have yet to find any acceptable solution. This question bothered Soren Kierkegaard a lot, but, by and large, I have not found that it has bothered other theologians and philosophers who have assumed that because they were sincere that they were also correctly understanding what God wants of them. This particular belief bothers me a great deal. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/04/85)
>>It's funny that only Wingate and Brown, the ones who have actually >>been tarred with the label "anti-Semite" at times, have chosen to perhaps >>"cleanse" themselves by denouncing Black, but even then only mildly so. >>The evidence as presented seems rather clear, but you'd rather wait till >>his kind firebombs someone's house before accepting what it is he's >>putting forth. Don't get me wrong. I say let him speak. Let his own >>words show him for the bigoted fool that he is. It will happen soon >>enough. > Rich, PLEASE come off your infinite superiority act. Your repeated articles > have been effective in bringing Black to our attention. There is very little > in the way of agreement with Black's "christianity" on this net, from > Christian or non-Christian. You have done us all a service, even if you > seem to feel compelled to go to extremes in your condemnation of our > "hypocrisy". Extremes? In defense against bigotry? I hardly consider my efforts "extremes". Funny, I've seen Spence arguing about the reasonableness of Nazism, I've seen Marchionni rationally debating religion with him, I've seen Wingate complain more about the fact that I label his inaction for what it is than complaining about Black, and as Bill Peter pointed out, I've also seen Bob Brown complain because Black's attitudes towards Jews made it harder to proselytize. Very little? You make me laugh. (Why is "hypocrisy" in quotes? And "infinite superiority"? Perhaps it seems that way when comparing saying something (anything) to saying nothing. > If I were Wingate or Brown, I would take personal offense at your claim > that they are "cleansing themselves" by denouncing Black. I publicly apologized for insinuating that that was the ONLY reason for doing so. But don't let facts interfere with your attack, Hutch. (You never do.) Continue... > It may be hard for you to accept this, but Christians don't HAVE to believe > just what you want us to believe, any more than you HAVE to believe what > we want YOU to believe. Nor do we have to act on every injustice, and I > doubt that you yourself act on every injustice you encounter. In fact, I > KNOW that you don't, because you refuse to recognize some kinds of injustice. > (For instance, the injustice inherent in your proclaimed desire to see > Christianity extinguished from the face of the Earth.) 1) But, according to you, you DO have to accept Christian tenets about love for fellow human beings, and act in a "Christian" manner. You're right, I have no right on this earth or anywhere else to DEMAND that you speak out, or that you act on "every injustice". The fact that THIS particular set of injustices means absolutely nothing to you is what appalls me. You call yourself Christians? You have the gall to then claim that Black is not a Christian? On what basis do you dissociate from him? You claim to care about fellow human beings, as put forth in your Christian doctrine. Your inaction now (presumably it would have been the same inaction you would have taken in 1930's Germany as well, had you been there) shows that that doctrine, when the rubber hits the road, is just so much hot air. And that's what I'm complaining about: for months we've been told "Don't believe that the Inquisition, the Crusades, the pogroms, the holocaust, were done by Christians! Real Christians and real Christianity would never let such things happen." And now we see, in fact, what the "true Christians" are doing: squat. 2) I'm not sure what injustice you are referring to at the end of your own paragraph up there. The only way I wish to see any irrational belief systems die is via natural causes: through people gradually realizing the erroneousness of such systems and discarding them, due to improved education and "enlightenment". Never have I ever even remotely proposed eradication or violent elimination of such beliefs. And I never will. As long as we're not talking about belief systems whose advocates realize the eventual demise of their constituency through the above events and who in turn seek to turnabout and foster the (if "necessary") violent elimination of those who WOULD perform such educating and enlightening. Which is EXACTLY what is happening right at this moment. And which must be stopped if we are to preserve human freedoms. -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (04/04/85)
In article <1988@sdcc6.UUCP> ir278@sdcc6.UUCP (Paul Anderson) writes: > > >I can't believe all you people! Arguing over what is or >isn't "Christian". Many people hold that the Jews killed >Jesus. He rose, right? It looks like he's about to get >killed again, not by crucifiction, but by being forgotten. Even though "many people hold" that the Jews killed Jesus, they remain wrong. The Romans killed Jesus, by crucifixion. The Jews had no law which permitted them to execute anyone for heresy. That is basically the charge which they levelled, and they cornered Pilate into using the default Roman mode of execution by threatening to riot. >This Mr. Black, with whose history I am not entirely familiar, >is just a man, like everyone else. People can acclaim what he says, >people who call themselves "Christian", but that doesn't make what >he says or does "Christian"...it just makes these people idolators. >A "Christian" is a follower of Christ, right? So it doesn't matter >what Black, Falwell, Hitler, etc. say: what Jesus teaches us is >the "Christian" thing to do. Non-Christians (at least on this net) are convinced that the claim to be Christian is sufficient, that the opinion of the political entity which is the body of Christians has no bearing on the matter. >And what he teaches isn't very difficult...keep the commandments >(there are only 10, each can be summed up in a sentence, although >they can be translated differently . . . i.e. "don't (thou shall not) >steal" = "don't steal someone's dignity"), be honest, earnest, and >nice to people, even if they aren't nice to you. People who call >themselves "Christian" tend to violate these rules the most greatly... >do you think Jesus likes that? You heard what he said about hypocrites. That's not all he taught. Being "nice" isn't necessarily loving someone, y'know. And we are commanded to love our brother (agapao, the kind of selfless love that was once translated as "charity" before that word got its bad connotations) as we love ourselves, and to love the Lord with all our heart, mind, and strength. Those are the only "summaries" which were made. So, is it "nice" to refuse to let a person, for whom you are responsible, go wandering the streets at night, looking for a party in which to get bombed? Not at all, it's very rude, but it may be LOVING to do so. (Yes, I know, there are limitations to this.) We are commanded to oppose evil, and to tell the truth, and to keep the Name of the Lord Holy. Those things are not consistent with allowing a person who is at best horribly ignorant and mislead, at worst demonic, to claim that lies are truth, that the Lord does evil, to profane His Name by associating lies with it. >Stick with God. Be nice. Be charitable. Don't worry about people >like Black, inquisitions, anti-semitism, these folks will get their >chance to shape up, and you can help them, but if they don't, they'll >get theirs...Jesus has already promised us (Revelations) that things >will be rough, but it'll all come out for the better in the end. But I HAVE to oppose them, and it IS sticking with God to do so! Sure, things will GET NASTY EVENTUALLY, but I am living NOW, and it is my duty to work against people like Black, against the shame of the methods of the inquisitions, against anti-semitism. Sure, they will get their chance to shape up. BUT! If I don't tell them they are wrong, then HOW will they know? God doesn't necessarily do a Damascus number on every living person who opposes His will! He gives us the great privelege to share in His work. >Paul Anderson >ucbvax!decvax!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!ir278 Hutch
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (04/04/85)
Laura,
You got a problem with terminology.
I'm not a Greek scholar but i can read W.E. Vines Dictionary
of New Testament words. You are badly confusing at least two
different kinds of love. Agape' and Philia. You can love some
one without having warm fuzzies inside. It has to do with
action not feelings (at least at first).
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/06/85)
I don't think that I have a problem with terminology. I can read Corinthians, and I am fairly certain that it is ``agape'' that Paul is talking about, and also fairly certaint hat I don't feel it towards my neighbours. Some neighbours I hate, and some I fear, and some I have scorn for, and many I am quite apathetic about. Mostly I go to the effort of trying to act respectful towards them anyway. This is not the same as having real respect, though... Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (04/09/85)
In article <5398@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >Reply to Paul Anderson: > > >The command ``to love'' is also frought with difficulties, as Soren Kierkegaard >repeatedly pointed out. If I meet a random stranger, and do not feel any >love for him, what then? I can, as a matter of course, treat him with >respect, or even treat him as if I loved him -- perhaps faking the emotion >well enough that he would not even know that I do not love him. But still >I might find that i do not love him. If love is a gift from God, is there >anything I can do but wait and see if I can receive this gift? if I am not >receiving it, does it mean that I am sinning in not loving my neighbours? > >There are people who claim to love everyone, but whose love seems pretty >watered down to me -- compared to the love that I feel for the people I >say that I love. I actually do not think that it is possible to feel this >sort of profound love for everyone. But what sort of love dis Jesus mean? >Moreover, what sort of actions are compatible with love? Did Jesus love >the money changers he whipped out of the temple? as he was doing the >whipping? If I got out a whip and set into my neighbours I would find it >very hypocritical to call that love. > The love that Christians are commanded to have on for another is not a feeling, not an emotion, but an action! The word love is the Greek word "Agape". This word always means action! Love is doing! Example: For God so loved the world He GAVE His Son... The concept here is action! Not a feeling or emotion! I am sure that most times God does not feel very good about us! But He loves us! When you love someone you always have their best interest at mind. The AGAPE love is unconditional, that is, not dependant on feelings or emotions! Even in the case of the money changers He was demonstrating His Love for His Father and them! Sometimes discipline is the best way to demonstrate ones love! Parents would agree? As a Christian, I can love those whom I would consider difficult to love, only with Gods help! (I'm sure others find me difficult to love) >you see the difficulties? Right now, as far as i know, most people who >call themselves Christians condemn certain actions which other people >who called themselves Christians did as ``non-Christian''. No doubt those >people would or do disagree. How can any Christian be sure that he is not >practicing a false Christianity, despite having all the best intentions in >the world? > >I have yet to find any acceptable solution. This question bothered Soren >Kierkegaard a lot, but, by and large, I have not found that it has bothered >other theologians and philosophers who have assumed that because they were >sincere that they were also correctly understanding what God wants of them. >This particular belief bothers me a great deal. > >Laura Creighton >utzoo!laura As Peter told the jailer, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved! To "believe" is to "act" accordingly! When one calls on Christ as Lord and Saviour, he is admitting the need for a saviour and making Christ and His teachings the center of his life and the motivating factor behind all actions.
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (05/09/85)
> Christ IS in our lives!!! He IS the difference. > Show it, radiate Him. Huh... with Strontium? ;-) Just a little humor to relieve the excruciating tension. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO Nasha Lutcha!
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (05/09/85)
Christ IS in our lives!!! He IS the difference.
Show it, radiate Him.
Uuuhhhh... with Strontium? ;-)
Just a little humor to relieve the excruciating tension.
--
UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith
ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO
Nasha Lutcha!