Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utai.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!utai!gkloker From: gkloker@utai.UUCP (Geoff Loker) Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles Subject: Re: Bigot or an anti-Christian? Message-ID: <1349@utai.UUCP> Date: Sat, 22-Feb-86 16:47:43 EST Article-I.D.: utai.1349 Posted: Sat Feb 22 16:47:43 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Feb-86 17:29:50 EST References: <255@birtch.UUCP> Reply-To: gkloker@utcsri.UUCP (Geoff Loker) Followup-To: net.religion Distribution: net Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Lines: 95 Summary: In article <9187@ucla-cs.ARPA> cs111olg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev) writes: >In article <283@tolerant.UUCP> kathy@tolerant.UUCP (Kathy Kister) writes: >>> > P.S. Is it just my warped perception or are ALL born-again >>> > and fundamentalist Christians either dumbshits or assholes? >>> It's just your warped perception. You're a bigot, Oleg. >>I agree ! ! ! ! ! > >I don't agree... Judging by the attitudes of born-again, fundamentalist (and >identity) Christians on this net, they are mostly either severely mis-guided, >or are terminally gullible, or are not very bright, or are overwhelmingly >offensive. . . You should realize that what you see (for the most part) on the network are the most outspoken and extremist Christians. (Being outspoken and holding extreme views often go hand in hand.) I gave up on net.religion.* a long time ago because the extreme views (on both sides) just didn't represent my more moderate views, and there didn't seem to be much room for moderates there. In my humble opinion, the same seems to be holding true for net.women -- much of what gets posted here is both outspoken and extreme. I have seen moderate subjects get twisted so quickly to one or the other extremes that the "moderate" poster winds up being flamed from both sides. Result? The ground in between the two extremes becomes a "no-person's land", and it can wind up looking like the net is populated by a bunch of rabid other-sex-haters. > >But I most disagree with "bigot". > You may not be a bigot, but your biases are definitely showing. >And yes, I *DO* dislike Christianity. Strongly dislike it. Any reason I should >not?! Christianity is responsible for [various nasties done in the name of Christianity] Admittedly, there has been a lot of bad done in the name of Religion (not just Christianity). It doesn't follow, though, that that bad is inherent in the religion it is done in the name of. If you look at just the bad that is done and none of the good, you're not being fair. Christianity has also been responsible for many relief efforts for places such as Ethiopia and India, in many cases long before there was much public awareness of any problem in those areas. Christianity is also responsible for a lot of hospitals and a lot of missions where "street people" are given a chance to get off the streets and back into society. Throughout the Dark Ages, Christianity was responsible for preserving knowledge and learning. Science was greatly advanced by Christians who wanted to discover how God had set up the universe (e.g. - Sir Isaac Newton). >..... Why SHOULD I like >people who worship a for-a-long-time dead man on a stick, who drink his blood >and eat his flesh, who feel guilty for being human and having a human body, >who deny themselves most pleasures in life in the name of their ephemeral "god" >in words while submerging in depravities in deeds. Who can follow such a >monstrous teaching in their right mind or in full honesty?! If that is how you view Christianity, your attitude towards it is perfectly understandable. I would abhor such a travesty as that. However, my view of Christianity is somewhat different from that. At the core of it is the teachings of "the dead man on a stick", who encouraged aiding the poor, the sick, the disabled. He taught peace, love, goodwill towards others -- not just friends, but even enemies. Not only did he teach these things, he lived them. And for that he was killed. The reason for the *symbolic* drinking of his blood and eating of his flesh is to keep reminding us of his teachings and his life, and to encourage us to follow his example. I won't say anything with regard to miracles, resurrection, and other such things that seem to offend many people -- those are things that you really have to come to your own conclusions about. As to the various "religious trappings" that you have from denomination to denomination, and even church to church, they vary widely and you shouldn't make any generalizations about Christianity based on those trappings. > Oleg Kiselev > ...{ WORLD }!ucla-cs!cs111olg I respect your right to your own opinion, but I wish you would present a fairer picture of both sides. If you will note the headers, I am redirecting any followup to net.religion, where this topic belongs. -- Geoff Loker Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Toronto, ON M5S 1A4 USENET: {ihnp4 decwrl utzoo uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!gkloker CSNET: gkloker@toronto ARPANET: gkloker.toronto@csnet-relay