Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mayne@vsserv.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Christians abetting Satan? (Was: gulf crisis, spiritual help...) Message-ID: Date: 23 Sep 90 08:13:31 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: SCRI, Florida State University Lines: 79 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes: >Forgive me and my insistance on keeping this subject going. But this >thread has presented me an opportunity to express what I find most >distastful with in the general attitude of the Christian tradition. >Being apart of such an attitude is one of the prime reasons why >I went to a path other than Christianty. I very much feel that >this attitude causes hurt and separation between elements of God's own >Creation. I too find this attitude distasteful, though this is not the reason why I am not a Christian. I try to not form opinions on matters of fact on the basis of whether or not I find something pleasant, but whether or not there is any reason to suppose it true. For me Christianity fails not so much on the former as on the latter point. Actually I believe that the attitude of intolerance and exclusivity you decry is not a matter of individuals' bad attitudes, but the logical consequence of traditional Christian belief. If a person believes the obvious meaning of many passages of scripture, all the creeds and official statements of churches up to and in some cases including modern times, the "church fathers", or any of the other traditional sources for Christian belief they have no other alternative but to condemn other religions and corruptions of Christianity. I say that even though you or I might find the "corruptions" like acceptance of much of modern science, respect for other traditions, and so on to be improvements. If someone accepts as true the plain teaching of Christianity that it is the only true religion and anyone deviating from it will suffer eternal punishment, while believers enjoy eternal reward there is just no room for compromise. Under these assumptions no worldly benefit can compare with the benefits of this religion. Hence every possible means should be used to propagate it. Similarly no harm done in this world can compare to the loss of souls. The Inquisition was not an abberation. It made perfect sense. It was only within the past few centuries, with the decline of secular enfluence of traditional Christian values that the idea of freedom of religion has won many followers. So although I abhor the attitudes of the fundamentalists (and intolerant Catholics and others) I give them credit for more intellectual honesty than liberal Christians who water down their religion beyond all recognition yet cling to the name "Christian." Bertrand Russell, describing an attempt to redefine God so as to be acceptable to some modern intellectuals said "People are more unwilling to give up the *word* 'God' than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood." Similarly, most modern, rational, tolerant people who call themselves "Christian" are more unwilling to give up the name than what it has stood for for most of its history. This is a charge that can't so easily be made against bigots of the kind you were responding to. Hence I find myself in the uncomfortable position of appearing to defend what I, like you, find most distasteful. The comments of the moderator which you quoted, and which I leave below, distasteful as they are truely represent the Christian position. Rather than try to redefine it beyond all recognition I reject it outright. >Our moderator wrote: > >> While we would like to avoid making >>ultimate judgements against these people, when they are teaching what >>we believe to be errors, we have a responsibility to make clear our >>differences. Moderator: You might like to avoid making judgements, but your ideology forces you to do so. I will say, however, that most Christians are not as arbitrary and monstrous as they claim to believe their god to be. Postscript: Once when I made this same argument in conversation I was asked to define intellectual honesty, since I value it so much. Here is an attempt: Thinking through the logical consequences of your professed beliefs, and not shrinking from those consequences while still claiming to hold the beliefs. Yes, I find the logical consequences of Christianity both implausible and abhorent. Hence I forthrightly say that I am not a Christian. Bill Mayne Florida State University mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu