NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/21908

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-01 | 7.1 KB

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:21908 alt.messianic:3799 talk.religion.misc:24913
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic,talk.religion.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!blaze.cs.jhu.edu!jyusenkyou!arromdee
From: [e-mail] (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet news system)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:00:03 GMT
Lines: 122

"How can I tell who is a Christian?  You don't seem to agree on what a
Christian is."

"Oh.  a Christian is someone who follows the core beliefs of Jesus."

"Well, how can I tell if someone is following the core beliefs of Jesus?  You
don't seem to agree on what those are either."

"You can read the gospels.  People who follow what they say are following the
core beliefs of Jesus."

"Well, how can I tell if someone is following what the gospels say?  Not only
don't you agree on what the other stuff is, you don't agree on this one
either."

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?
>I guess the question is, did you read the action of Jesus's curse
>of the fig tree in context?  Both Matthew and Mark give similar
>but not identical accounts but both have an explanation of what
>Jesus was trying to show, i.e.  faith.  So your're right, don't
>pick and choose but look at the actions in their context and
>totalilty.

You seem to be missing something here.

Every time I ask how you can tell what something is, since Christians don't
seem to agree on it, you refer me to something else--and without fail, the
something else has had exactly the same problem.  This is another one.  Just
like you won't agree on "Christian", "core beliefs of Jesus", "what the
gospels say", you won't agree on this one either: different groups of
Christians will tell me that they "look at the actions in their context and
totality" and come up with different answers.  This response is no more useful
than any of the other ones!

Can you give me a _real_ answer, instead of "well, here's another one that we
also don't agree on"?

>>>>>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?
>Which basic values of Jesus have people fought over?

Well, I have no idea what the basic values of Jesus are (since when I take my
best guess you tell me I'm wrong).  So I suppose you must mean something like
"which things have people fought over that they _thought_ were basic values
of Jesus".  In which case, things like which church's doctrine is the correct
one, which religions should rule, whether Jesus should be worshipped at all,
that sort of thing.

>>>>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.
>Welcome to the human race, Ken.  People will always interpret any
>teaching in different ways.  Some people are honest and sincere,
>but just mistaken (I have been mistaken in my life many times, and
>most assuredly still am).  Others twist a teaching to suit their
>purpose and agenda.  This has nothing to do with Christianity per
>se and everything to do with humans.  If you disagree, please give
>examples of teachings which are in complete agreement by every
>human being.

It's hard to find teachings that everyone will agree on--it's possible to find
people who believe murder is right, or who believe the Earth is flat.  But I'm
not just arguing because there are one or two people who disagree--as you
correctly point out, you can't find someone _everyone_ agrees on.  I'm arguing
because there are _lots_ of people who disagree.  Although I can't give
examples of teachings which are in complete agreement among all human beings,
I certainly _can_ give examples of teachings which human beings are a lot
_closer_ to unanimity about, than Christianity.  Not everyone agrees that the
world is round--but maybe 99.9 percent do.  If 99.9% agreed on the definition
of Christianity, we would not be having this argument.

>>>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.
>Oh Ken, surely you know the difference between a noun and an
>adjective.  Does the definition of every noun have to include all
>the ways that it can be used as an adjective?  Yes, acts can be
>compassionate if they are based on a feeling of sympathy for
>another persons suffering or misfortune.  Now, did I really have
>to explain this?

Yes.  According to the definition that you just spelled out, a torturer who
is motivated by a sincere feeling of sympathy for someone's immortal soul is
being "compassionate".  That's why I wanted you to spell it out--I had a hunch
it would have some problems.  (Note that to feel sympathy for a person's
misfortune does not require the misfortune really be there.  Note also that
your definition does not require the act of compassion to be effective.)
--
"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])