NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/21828

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 4.0 KB

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21828 alt.messianic:3767
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!blaze.cs.jhu.edu!godel!arromdee
From: [e-mail] (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet news system)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 07:10:56 GMT
Lines: 71

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>Fine.  I read the Gospels and conclude that to be like Jesus I must destroy
>>things like he did to fig trees.  Thus the Crusaders were behaving in a
>>Christ-like manner.
>Did you really come to this conclusion?

Of course I came to this conclusion.  You don't think this is the _first_ time
I posted to this newsgroup mentioning the fig tree, do you?  (Or more
accurately, I conclude from the Gospels that to be like Jesus means one of
several different things, which aren't always consistent with one another, and
_one_ of those things _is_ to destroy things like Jesus destroyed a fig tree.)

You see, I don't pick and choose.

>>>There seems to be a notion that the fights that different
>>>Christian denominations have with one another were over the basic
>>>values of Jesus.
>>Of course, the fights were over other things _also_, but the disagreement over
>>the basic values of Jesus _did_ have _something_ to do with it.
>Such as?

I can't parse this.  What are you asking for examples of?

>>>after reading the Gospels, one gets an idea of what Jesus stood
>>>for...
>>>These values are not contested by any Christian denomination that
>>>I know of but are universally accepted because to deny them would
>>>deny the essence of who Jesus was.
>>These values were contested by many, such as the Crusaders and the
>>Inquisition.
>I rather doubt they were contested, but merely overlooked or
>ignored in persuit of some other goal.

Either the Inquisitors contested the values you mention, or by having
peculiar standards of mercy and such they contested what the values mean.  The
result is pretty much the same, as far as being able to tell who's a Christian:
I can't.

>>Many Christian denominations also accept these values, but disagree on what
>>they mean--exactly what does mercy or compassion _mean_?  Many Christians
>>do things in the name of mercy or compassion that other Christians think are
>>not merciful or compassionate.
>Hmm, here we go again with the self paralysis.  We just say that it's
>impossible to define XYZ because two people in the universe might have
>a difference of opinion of its meaning under certain circumstances.

It's not just a difference of opinion--it's that it's an important, big,
widespread difference of opinion.  It's one with millions of people on either
side.

>Random House Dictionary:
>Compassion - a deep feeling of sympathy for another persons suffering or
>misfortune.
>Mercy - 1 - Compassion shown towards an offender or enemy.
>        2 - A disposition to forgive or forbear.
>Now given the above definition, what problem do you see?

Well, for one, those definitions don't define sympathy, misfortune, or
offender, and again millions of people differ on what those mean.  ("offender"
is a particularly bad one).  The definitions also say nothing about actions,
so unless you believe that no actions are compassionate you've given me
incomplete definitions--and of course millions of people disagree on what
actions are compassionate, too.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee ([e-mail], [e-mail])