Path: ultra.sonic.net!jupiter.dnai.com!out2.nntp.cais.net!in1.nntp.cais.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!newshub.csu.net!csulb.edu!gatech!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!aristos.demon.co.uk!sam From: Sam Dodsworth Newsgroups: alt.books.inklings,alt.books.cs-lewis,rec.arts.books.tolkien Subject: Re: A CIVILIZED POST-CHRISTIAN TIRADE, was: inklings discussion Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:27:51 +0100 Organization: Annexia Free Press Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <33D582B6.415D@unity.ncsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk [158.152.230.146] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.01 <7c0azr3XvpMr4dZzpifF$I+pPf> Lines: 123 Xref: ultra.sonic.net alt.books.inklings:80 alt.books.cs-lewis:8359 rec.arts.books.tolkien:32161 In article , Nick Cuce' writes > > >VOLUNTARY CHOICE?! when the emperor constantine converted rome, were the >people given a vote? i'm sure they were: convert or die. Er...actually, all he did was to stop persecuting Christians, legitimise the existing churches and create a single approved church hierachy. AFAIK pagans were quite free to continue being pagan... otherwise, how would Julian the Apostate have had the opportunity to be raised a pagan? >then i suppose >the new "civilized" empire asked the celts if they would kindly give up >their land and accept jesus in their hearts! I hate to disappoint you, but by Constantine's time it was several centuries since the (pagan) Romans had conquered any celts. Gaul and Britain were thoroughly Romanized and (archeological evidence suggests) hotbeds of Christianity. Meanwhile, the (pagan) Goths, Visigoths and Vandals, driven out of Asia by the (pagan) Huns were busy asking the the (Christian) Romans if they would kindly give up their land... >how about the turks during the crusades? the native americans? >african slaves? to christians, "voluntary choice" means "convert, or >we will force you"-->a mindset that existed only until a few short >years ago, when the world began its "experiment with post-christian >civilization". You are an idiot. Go and read some history. [much further idiocy snipped] > >and yet, history has shown us that christians are responsible for most of >the world's worst atrocities. > The Holocaust, Stalin's purges, the Roman sack of Jerusalem, the Armenian massacre, the Incas, the Toltecs...? >why? indeed for the same reason they use when accusing non-christians of >barbarism. christians have no sense of morality. from birth they are >trained to ignore their own instincts, to wipe clean the part of their >mind the rest of us use every day to determine right from wrong. > This is an argument that I might enjoy developing in a playful spirit if you didn't take it so seriously... >that part of their mind is replaced with a set of vague values from a >poorly-written and largely inaccurate historical document, which, over >two-thousand years of history, has been mistranslated and misinterpreted >a thousand different ways among a thousand and one different sects of >christianity, each with their own seperate agenda. > >the upshot of all this is that, in reality, a christian can do almost >anything he/she wants, regardless of whether it has anything to do >with the teachings of christ, provided it is at least done under the >pretense of serving god and/or doing his work. but because he/she is >still in name a christian, he/she keeps the right to hold himself/herself >up higher than the rest of the world, and to damn others' souls to hell >simply for not believing the world was created by a divine being in human >form some 6000 years ago. > The importance 4004 BC Creation is something of an urban myth. Apart from that, I'm in broad agreement with you. For some reason I find this fact distinctly embarassing. >but while christianity has been used to justify slavery, racism, and >genocide by everybody from george washington to adolf hitler (sorry, didn't >mean to kill the thread), "post-christians" have their own moral code, based >on reason and logic, tempered with tolerance and a respect for mankind. But not, apparently, actually looking at historical evidence. Since you show no tolerance for them, I take it that Christians don't fall within your definition of "mankind"? >we do not believe the world is inherently sinful, the simple and primitive >rules and commandments of a two-thousand-year old book are irrelevant to >us, our mistakes and the mistakes of mankind are our own responsibility >rather than the fault of some horny beast who lives under the earth, and >fear of divine retribution by an all-mighty and powerful god--impossible >to understand--does not cloud our judgment. > So Christians are slaves to a set of outdated rules while simultaneously twisting the Bible to mean whatever they want? I am impressed by your "reason and logic". >the world has made its greatest advances in the last half of this century >under the "post-christian" movement. together, we have liberated those >who for thousands of years had been oppressed by the white christian >patriarchy (women and minorities); Women are liberated? First I've heard of it. And if that's true then why do you use "mankind" to mean "humanity"? >brought peace to nations torn by >religious wars (whether between christians and jews, jews and muslims, >christians and muslims, or amongst christians themselves, i.e. catholics >and protestants); furthered mankind's exploration and knowledge of the >universe, and thus raised the standard of living for all (how else would >we able to talk like this?); An interesting definition of "all" here... >and brought about a new age of communication >and understanding to all people in all cultures, around the globe. > Presumably by the elimination of oppressive Christian-patriachal capital letters... >if your eyes cannot see all that we have done then you are blind. >YOU sir and your kind are the barbarians. WE are the seeds of civilization. > And your personal contribution to this is...? I take you for an Objectivist from the tone of your "arguments", but even Objectivists should be able to realise that there's more to building the future than wandering around being smug. Sam Dodsworth (sam@aristos.demon.co.uk) "I rather like the sex shop. What makes it more sexist than, say, the toy shop?" - Wildcat