Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jul 2002 20:04:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4378 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
<snip>
> is
> going to have some fruitcakes. And in her case, you can hardly blame her
> Christianity (unless there's something I don't know about her).
>
> > Those fun fellows who murder physicians who perform abortions.
>
> This, OTOH, is a totally fair example. I wonder why John only responded to
> Andrea Yates.
Again, fruitcakes who have no idea what God's word is about--they are not
Christians, they are religious fanatics--just 'cause they call themselves
Christians doesn't mean they really are. They could call themselves human
and I would have my doubts...
> > > Any number of Xtian Scientists or similar denominations forbidding medical
> > > care for children.
responded to in another thread elsewhere going on right now...
> John didn't respond to this one either.
>
> > What gets my undies in a bunch is when ignorant people group *all* Christians
> > together. Because one sorely misguided wacko such as Andrea Yates, who claims
> > to be a Christian offs all of her kids, that must mean that *ALL* Christians
> > are guilty of slaughtering innocents. It just doesn't wash, and it's
> > disingenuous to imply so.
>
> I agree. And I don't think that anyone was really doing that. Richard was
> pointing out that if you go back just a little bit, you can find pretty good
> examples of slaughter in every religion. I happen to think that any religion
> (or other social grouping) where the adherents feel persecuted and threatened
> is fairly likely to be naughty in large groups. Christianity did it earlier in
> history when it felt threatened. Islam may be doing the same now and for
> similar reasons.
>
> > 99.9% of all professed Christians would condemn her actions.
>
> But 99.9% of Muslims and atheists would too.
>
> > Contrast that to how extremist Muslims would condemn a terrorist
> > attack in the name of Jihad. There is a difference here.
>
> The biggest difference is that you specified _extremist_. I can point to
> _extremist_ Christians and say that a larger than .1% of them support the
> bombing of abortion clinics. Is there still a difference?
*Extremest* Christians are just that--extreme, they are *not* Christian. I
can point to 100% of the real Christians that I know (and I know many many
many Christians from all sorts of different denominations...) and not one of
them will even come remotely close to supporting the bombings.
> > > > > Etc.? Yeah, how about atheists? Interesting that you would omit the
> > > > biggest butchers of all-time...
>
> Um...like who?
>
> > Oh, but you are an American, and America is guilty of X and Y atrocities, so
> > that means YOU are guilty of X and Y atrocities...
>
> I think Dave disagrees with that stand. I might be the only one here who
> thinks that. We all have blood on our hands.
Guilt by association? If I did not stand idly by whilst my country was off
committing atrocities--If I was protesting, picketing, and writing letters,
am I pardoned from communal guilt? Would I actually have to pack up and
leave my country out of protest against the atrocities, or would it be
better for me to stay 'inside' the country, working within the system for
change for the good? I prefer the latter, and I would sleep at night
knowing I'm still doing what I could to affect change.
>
> Chris
Dave
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
