Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Use of net.religion for Christian messages
Message-ID: <1045@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 23:43:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1045
Posted: Mon Jun  3 23:43:42 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Jun-85 00:49:45 EDT
References: <395@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <1554@amdahl.UUCP> <994@pyuxd.UUCP> <1469@sdcc7.UUCP>
Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association
Lines: 233

>>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. [RICK FREY]

It would have been a courteous strategy of argument to have made reference
to what I was originally referring to.  Obviously it was not your intent
to use such a strategy.  I was addressing the original person's statements
regarding the foisting and imposing of notions onto others being perceived
as "rights".  If you don't like what I had to say about it, and how I related
it to things in general, you could offer some evidence of flawed logic in my
writing.  Your choosing not to do so would seem to shed light on your true
intent in posting this.

> 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?

Well, that's the way the Bible tells the story, no?  Great PR, that book.

> In the book of Acts, did Paul or Peter ever force anyone to listen to
> them in the way you're implying?

In any case, what makes you think Christians today act anything like Jesus
and the early Christians?  Just because the bible says that that's the way
it was for them 1) doesn't mean that it was, and 2) doesn't have anything
to do with the way Christians have behaved  on the whole since then.

> 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.

And it's good of you to tell others what I must be doing.  I wasn't talking
about that sort of proselytizing in the first place, and neither was the
original author I was replying to (Deepak Sabnis replying to Tim Maroney
on the very issue I am still discussing).

> 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.

Yet it is the prevalent way for it to occur.

> 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.

What actually happened was that he wrote his theories and the church didn't
want ANYONE to get the chance to hear so he was branded a heretic.  I don't
think he had much to try out the technique that would seem to be one of your
own creation.

> 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?  

It's clear you assume he was foisting the way some Christians now do.
Remember what happens when you assume.

> 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?

The big question is where you get your ideas from.  The Galileo YOU describe
was indeed proselytizing "just like those Christians".  Big difference between
seeking to lure people into one's own group's belief system obnoxiously and
manipulatively, and simply presenting one's views to those who will voluntarily
listen.  The church was the group that listened to Galileo, and we know what
their response was.

>  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.  

Proselytization with a basis of harrassment, deception, subterfuge, and
manipulation, does not give people a CHOICE to listen.

> 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.

That wasn't what I was talking about.  And the fact that you are trying to make
it seem that it WAS what I talking about is typical of the manipulative
trickery present in the proselytizing I *was* talkig about.

>  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.?

Civil disobedience involving movements for human rights often utilizes
deliberate attempts to attract people's attention with the very knowledge that
it is wrong and that they are breaking the law/social convention in doing it.
Are you equating drawing people's attention to YOUR personal belief system
with drawing people's attention to real plight of human beings.  I have my
doubts about the methods of the protesters, but at least they are addressing
a real human concern and not just somebody's belief system.  I know you may
think it's something more, but others sure don't.

> 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.

Gee, I didn't know I was SUPPOSED to complain about everything wrong with the
world directly to you!

> 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?

He was called a lot worse. But again, we're dealing with the difference between
drawing attention to maltreatment of human beings as opposed to drawing
attention to your personal belief system that you'd like to gather up some
more followers for.

>  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.

If it's Christianity and I don't want to hear YOUR PERSONAL UNSUBSTANTIATED
OPINION about me and the god you believe in, then it's "confining".  Just
as confining as if we were talking about something substantive, like
human suffering or real world concerns.  Except that we're not.

> 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?

No, that's never ever happend to me before.  :-)

> 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) ...

And the applicability of speaking up in the forum (e.g., Is it a discussion
forum like the net of somebody's private life?  I wouldn't be obliged to
listen to you or reply to you if you called me on the phone and started
spouting drivel.)

> 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.

Assuming Galileo discussed his theories in the way you describe.  (He
didn't, but it seems to make your argument better to assert that he did.)

>  Especially when it's a Galileo named Jesus Christ.

Jesus was a Galileo?  Besides we're not talking about the actions of Jesus
as purported in a book.  We're talking about the way certain Christians act
today.

> This may sound odd, but would you have let Christ proselytize you?

Not if he acted like a modern Christian proselytizer.

> If you were just standing on the street and you heard
> him speaking outside, would you have yelled for him to shut up?

If he was harrassing or disturbing other people, I might call the cops.

> 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.

You have a warped sense of the difference between free speech and harrassment.
Answer the issue I was talking about, not the issue you'd like to make people
think I was talking about.

>>"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)

It's quotes like that, and belief systems like yours, that make Cummings'
quote all the more relevant.  Fighting against those who would seek to mold
into their image of what a human being should be is indeed a tought fight.
-- 
"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
	Rich Rosen	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr