Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:30:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5158 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > > > Back up there, schoolboy.
> > >
> > > Easy there, zealot.
> >
> > :-) Mine was a wordplay on "Schuler". The dirty dealer meant no harm...
>
> Okay, I withdraw my sharp rejoinder. But I hasten to add that it may be
> unwise to engage in name-based wordplay if one's name is John.
In loo of that point I see if I can refrain.
>
> > > How about an alleged belief in Christ?
> >
> > Belief in *what exactly* about Christ? This is an extremely contentious issue
> > among Christians.
>
> Well, it would seem to me that a professed Xtian would have to believe, at
> least nominally, in the divinity of Christ as the Son o' God. Lots of
> people accept that Jesus the man existed. I do--I mean, why not? Muslims
> generally accept it, and so do Jews, if I recall correctly. But was he
> divine? That's another matter. Belief in the divinity of Jesus would
> appear central, but if I'm wrong, please correct me.
You are wrong. Maybe more on that later.
> Parenthetically, I seem to remember someone fairly highly placed in the
> history of the faith (Paul, perhaps?) acknowledging that if the Resurrection
> were false, then Xtianity on the whole would collapse. Ring a bell for anyone?
At this point it wouldn't matter. The resurrection is a faith-based event.
>
> > > Your willingness to lump athiests into one bunch is exactly illustrative
> > > of your bigotry
> >
> > Dave!! That is what *RM* did to Christianity, Jews, and Muslims! But all I
> > hear is that *I'm* the "shockingly bigotted" one, and it's coming from *him*!
>
> Actually, the way I read it, his post indicated an ironic turnabout by
> grouping the various religions in the same way that athiests were summarily
> grouped.
*I* am the one who ironically brought the atheists into the fray. *He* is a
hypocritical troll.
> Of course it's objectionable to homogenize a body of different
> people; that's the whole point! Richard's post also pointed out the problem
> of praying in glass churches: if one sees no problem in castingating a
> group on the basis of a tiny minority of its members, then one must be
> willing to condemn one's own group on the basis of a few of it's own members.
There is some serious disconnect here. I have been condemning a part of a
group, not the whole of a group (Islam). But in return I am getting my *whole*
group (Christianity) condemned for the actions of a few.
Everything regarding atheists is superfluous-- it is not even a part of the
discussion. I don't know why it's even a focus.
>
> > > I would venture to say that in the history of the world the blood on
> > > athiests' collective hands is a drop in the ocean compared to the blood on
> > > theists' hands. Truly religion elevates the character of man to its
> > > noblest stature!
> >
> > I doubt it, but I'm not sure I want to go there, or would see a point to it.
>
> The point, simply put, is to demonstrate that it's shockingly bigoted to
> accuse athiests in general of greater violence or bloodshed than their
> spiritually enlightened peers.
This was never my intention. I'm not talking about atheists. I only
tossed them into the fray because of RM's blanket group characterizations.
> Even if we lump Pol Pot and Hitler(1) and
> Stalin among "athiests," the number of dead at athiests' hands is still tiny
> compared to those killed by "theists(2)," since I flatly don't believe that
> every murder commited at those dictators' commands were carried out by
> athiests, even if they were carried out in the name of The State. The
> theists who committed those murders may have done so under duress, but they
> are then hardly innocent of the killings.
Even if it were possible to show ballpark body counts (which is impossible, and
therefore moot), and besides the fact that the number of deists through history
far outnumbered the atheists which skews statistics horribly, and besides the
fact that I couldn't care less about the issue, I'm not really sure what point
it would make.
>
> > But I think that you are wrong WRT your facetious religion statement. Many >>of
> > mankind's greatest literary (or whichever category you choose) achievements
> > were done in the name of religion.
>
> Speaking as a liberal arts major with a vested interest in this particular
> topic, I say "so what?"
Merely to point out that some of man's noblest endeavors *were* based on
religion. What was the point of your statement (which I've noticed you've
snipped)?
-John
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
