Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site sdcc7.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc7!li63sbi
From: li63sbi@sdcc7.UUCP (MATTHEW HUNT)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Use of net.religion for Christian messages
Message-ID: <1469@sdcc7.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 03:32:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc7.1469
Posted: Fri May 31 03:32:06 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 23:48:28 EDT
References: <395@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <1554@amdahl.UUCP> <994@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 133
Summary: Reply to Rich Rosen concerning historical uses of torture (Also, a defense of witnessing and open discussion)

In article <994@pyuxd.UUCP>, rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes:

By the way, this is Rick Frey, not Mathew Hunt.  I just borrow his
account (it's on another machine) when my machine (sdcc6) is over
loaded.
>
> Parasomnambulism, a new religion that's existed for thousands of years that I
> just made up, has as one of its tenets the obligation of all followers to
> persuade other people to become followers through torture.  Thus, by the logic
> above, as Christians feel that proselytizing is an important part of their
> beliefs, Parasomnambulists should (as these Christians would seem to) feel
> justified in engaging in their beliefs.  What's the difference?  Only one
> of degree.  The rights of individuals to their own privacy and beliefs is not
> (apparently) important to those who see spreading the "word" as paramount.
> As we've seen, certainly not all Christians do this, but those who do feel
> more than obligated to do so.  Human individual rights are unimportant to
> such people.
> 
Something that is not that great of a strategy is to attack a weak
argument and then make it sound like you've successfully countered an
important issue when all you've done is shown that one person's view
might be a little off in left field.  Let me start trying to restore the
dignity of witnessing and open discussions by looking at your comments
concerning human individual's rights.

First, in the gospels, did Christ walk up to people, grab them from what
they were doing (aside from the apostles) and start witnessing to them
or isn't the case more like Jesus could hardly walk anywhere because the
crowds of people following Him were so great that He often had to teach
from boats that were anchored just off shore?

In the book of Acts, did Paul or Peter ever force anyone to listen to
them in the way you're implying?  They stood on the street corners and
preached and if that's making people listen than you're going to have to
chuck freedom of speech.  When they were accused in court, they gave a
defense, but they were, in that situation, forced to account for
themselves.  In prison sure they sang, and maybe they were horrible, and
maybe they kept the guard up or maybe they bothered the other prisoners
but is that the type of proselityzing (sp??) you want to disallow?

Hopefully you're shaking you're head violently, saying, "No, I realize that's
simply free speech" which is good of you to agree like that.  What you
want to complain about (not just this, but mainly this) are the people
who attack in airports, who pass out tracts with a vengence and are
characterized by an agressiveness and a basic lack of concern for
individual's rights.  But the problem is that this is by no means the
picture that Christ paints for witnessing nor is it by any means the
best way to get controversial info around.

Let me give an example.  When Galileo was trying to tell people that the
earth wasn't the center of the universe, they didn't want to listen to
him.  I'm sure he tried to force himself on a few people, but he
probably quite quickly realized that that did no good.  So he started to
sit back and just wait for opportunities where people brought up the
topic.  Someone might say, "Gee, what a beautiful sunrise" and Galileo
would probably jump on the opportunity and respond, "Well actually the
sun's not rising.  Believe it or not the sun is actually standing
still."  He'd continue seemingly forcing his opinion on this unwitting
victim until the victim could get away from this apparent madman.
Galileo might continue to try bringing up the topic as often as possible
always looking for opportunities to discuss his beliefs and challenge
the beliefs of others, using any situation he could manage.  In
Galileo's situation, he was forced by the church to recant this theory,
on his knees and he was not allowed to talk about it anymore.  But while
he did talk, what was he doing?  

If you say Galileo was proselytyzing just like those Christians do then
this world is in big trouble.  If someone who believes that they have an
answer to a question or problem that is of some significance and they
aren't even allowed to mention it in public, then where will that get
us?  The big question is did Galileo force people to listen to him?  I
think a useful way of looking at the question is that it wasn't Galileo
that forced people to listen, people chose to listen because the
question was disturbing.  

Some Christians today might actually force you to try to listen to them.
I don't disagree with you that that is wrong.  But to say that anyone
who wants to discuss something they feel is going wrong in the world is
disregarding human rights is ridiculous.  Were the people protesting the
Apartheid in South Africa disregarding human rights by having a rally
on our gym steps?  I ate lunch there and I heard what they were saying
and I didn't really want too (I was trying to study for a test and I
didn't know about the impending rally).  Those same protestors slept in
front of one of our libraries for a few weeks.  I had to walk over them
and supposedly make a decision in favor of the regents by using the
library, but is that o.k.?  What about the air traffic controllers
walking out on strike?  People had flights to catch.  Their rights were
impinged upon but I don't see you complaining about that.

The big problem with this question is people's opinions are less often
based upon the actual premises of the issue (i.e. what constitutes over
zealousness) rather then what is the problem at hand.  Protestors might
get called radicals or zealots but no one ever complains that they are
making people listen to their opinion.  That's what they get applauded
for.  Martin Luther King Jr. tried to do exactly that; bring issues to
the light.  But why wasn't he called a proselytyzer?  It's mainly
because most people finally came to the conclusion that he was right and
if it's right or if you feel that it's worth protesting over than it's
o.k. to break a few human rights.  But if it's Christianity and you
don't want to hear about how you and God are not on the best of terms
and that Christ claims to be the only way to God (here I go
proselytizing. Am I making you listen here?) then it's confining,
obnoxious, over-zealous, and an infringement of human rights.

Haven't you ever been in a conversation or been reading an article and
heard someone make some blaring error and wanted to jump in and correct
it?  I agree that the desire to jump in should be modified by the level
of assurance you have in the validity of your information and the level
of its acceptedness (I couldn't have answered someone's argument with a
controversial alternative, it would be an argument, not a correction)
but as in Galileo's case, what's so bad about correction?  I agree that
I don't want every bozo who flunked high school physics to come up to me
and tell me that the earth is really flat, but I would rather suffer a
couple bozo's than miss one Galileo.  Especially when it's a Galileo
named Jesus Christ.  This may sound odd, but would you have let Christ
proselytize you?  If you were just standing on the street and you heard
him speaking outside, would you have yelled for him to shut up?  Don't
worry, I'm not looking for grounds for blasphemy, I'm really interested
in why someone who has such faith in the human mind wants to shut it off
to public access.

> "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
>  to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
>  being can fight and never stop fighting."  - e. e. cummings

An excellent quote, I've never heard it before.  I agree with it whole
heartedly, but we would disagree as to what it means to be yourself.
The Bible says something similar, "Do not be conformed to this world,
but be transformed by the renewing of your mind that you may prove what
the will of God is; that which is good, acceptable and perfect."
					  (Romans 12:2)

		Rick Frey	...ihnp4!sdcsvax!sdcc6