Subject:
|
Re: Why are christians persecuted? Or are they? (was Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Mar 2000 00:12:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1221 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Peter Callaway wrote:
> >
> > You really don't like Christians, do you?
>
> Hardly.
>
> I was speaking hypothetically, of course. I'm perfectly fine with anyone
> of any creed as long as that person doesn't get in the habit of violating my
> rights. Most christians don't. Heck, some of my best friends are christians
> <GD&R>.
>
> But the few that do spoil it for everyone else. Christians are NEVER going to
> live down the Spanish Inquisition, which is too bad, really, as it's not 100%
> representative of the conversion approach most christians use.
I don't think we'll ever live down the crusades either, but whilst they
represent dark periods in Christian (and human) history, they do serve as a
reminder of how people can get it all wrong. I say again, if you want to know
what Christianity is all about, look at the life of Jesus. We mere mortals
will stuff anything up given half a chance.
> > Freedom? <looking around in confusion> I don't see a ball and chain on my
> > ankle.
>
> Right, because you conform. Look into why the US founding fathers put so
> much thought into the separation of church and state. BTW, OZ isn't as
> free as the US. Not by a long shot. That you don't recognise your
> shackles is because you won't open your eyes to see. But I digress.
No, you raise a valid point. I conform because I choose to conform because I
have researched and believe that what I'm conforming to is right. I have made
the choice to conform to what I believe, that's about as free as it gets, and
part of religious freedom. That statement may seem like a bit of an oxymoron,
but conform is your word, not mine. I doubt you'd admit to being "chained" to
your own point of view, but that's the natural extension to the claim you've
made about me.
Australia is still tied to England, which has a history of problems with
church/state separation predating both our great nations, so it's no wonder
that we're not as "free" as the US. But Australia being less advanced in
church/state separation is not the same as me being "chained" to my beliefs.
> Theocracies in general have a terrible human rights record, although
> that's not just (or even mostly, nowadays... I think the church of Islam
> is the biggest contemporary sinner in that regard) a christian phenomenon.
Many attrocities have been performed in the name of God. I think Bill or
Marcus said "that doesn't show who God is, that just shows what we are". Sorry
if I've misquoted someone there, but this thread is over 300 posts, and I
can't remember where that post is in the tree.
> And even when the government is secular but influenced, things are often
> screwed up.
Very true. This is because a secular government will only pick out the parts
of the Bible which suit them, and try to apply them to a largely secular
population. Doing this is ill-advised and dangerous, as quite often the parts
selected are taken completely out of context, and if the population is largely
secular based, what reason do they have for accepting the word of the Bible,
particularly when taken out of context it can mean anything you want it to?
You've been accused in Lugnet of rampant snipping, so you know how easy it is
for people to be misquoted and for a meaning to be warped when taken out of
context.
> Just one example: It was illegal until recently to get a divorce if you were
> Irish. Talk about your state sponsored meddling into the power of contracts
> between consenting adults in order to legislate a particular moral view! That
> law was the direct result of untoward christian (Catholic) influence on
> government. There are lots of far worse examples.
Particuclarly if those two consenting adults don't hold with the Bible's
stance on divorce (However, if those two people got married in a church and
use the traditional vows "... in the presence of God .... forsaking all others
... 'till death do us part" they are breaking the contract)! But we still need
laws, otherwise murderers will start to claim discrimination because their
belief is that what they do is OK! I'm "drawing a long bow" here, but I think
it's a valid statement. So we're back at where do our laws come from, or more
to the point, what is the basis for our laws? What is right or wrong, and how
do we know this, and how do we decide what to legislate?
Christian influences on government has real problems succeeding, because non-
Christians will object to adhering to a set of "stupid" laws they
fundamentally don't agree with. Secular governments adopting Christian
principals, whilst admirable, is also difficult, for reasons stated above.
Secular governments adopting secular laws I believe will lead to anarchy or
tyrany. Controversial statement? You bet! So what do we do?
> Now, perfidiousness comes in all stripes and most governments are good
> at oppressing without needing a mantle of holiness to inspire them, so
> if you're reading into this a "leftist" bias on my part you're all wet.
> In fact to say that to be religious is to be rightist is all wet too.
I'm dry as a bone on this one. As far as my political persuasion goes I'm one
step to the right of left. I try to remain neutral and look for what's best,
not what's right or left.
> There are religious fanatics on both sides of the conventional one
> dimensional spectrum (which I reject, it's too simplistic... categorising of
> stances is at LEAST 2 dimensional), and there are anti religious fanatics too.
This was proven quite effectively during our recent referendum on becoming a
republic (your two-dimensional comment, that is). The survey's showed that
most people wanted to become a republic, so the Labor Party thought they had
it in the bag, and proceded to come up with a model of their design without
adequately consulting the population. The model they came up with was a
furphy, people voted accordingly, and we're still a Constitutional Monarchy.
They cried foul and blamed the Coalition of sabotaging their campaign, but the
fact is they were their own worst enemy. Too much one-dimensional thinking.
Politicians are renowned for it. 'Nuff said on that issue.
Pete Callaway
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
541 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
|
|
|
|
