NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/anthropo/1793

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-22 | 5.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!DIALix!tillage!gil
From: [e-mail] (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Cultural Appropriation and the New Age
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 04:58:31 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents
Lines: 110


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

 > I was referring to the collective "you", and the "challenge" I meant
 > is purely an intellectual, emotional and, if you will, spiritual one.
 > The beatings and punishment I abhor.

There are many paths, why according to Christians only Christianity
that others must be crusaded against so?

 > I hereby concede to Mr. Hardwick his point that Christianity has been
 > nothing but a massive evil throughout the entire continent of
 > Australia for the last two hundred years, and continues to be so.

Certainly far outweighing any good that might have come of it.

 > The latter.  Any Christian's job is to instruct, not to punish.

Perhaps you had better tell the rest of the Christians about it then.
That is, get your house in order first before you go off proselytising
and trying to convert other people to your beliefs.

 > Gil> You might also explain the incredible frequency of paedophilia
 > Gil> and child abuse in societies dominated by Christian practice,
 > Gil> simply not found at all in other societies who strive to keep
 > Gil> themselves free from such degradation and cruelty.
 >
 > I could make a go at it, but it appears (see below) that my opinion
 > doesn't count here.

Please do feel free anytime. I have no control whatever over what you
type into your computer for posting or mailing anywhere at all through
the Internet, and I therefore have no idea what you are raving on
about here.

 > Gil> What you are being asked to do, if you wish to participate in
 > Gil> this specialist forum of scholars, is to respect the evidence
 > Gil> presented to you and to proceed with your analysis and discussion
 > Gil> on that basis rather than wade in here accusing anyone of wanting
 > Gil> to persecute you.
 >
 > Is that what "Stuff you, pal!" means?

No, that refers to your persistent refusal to proceed with anything
more substantial than your religious prognostications, but whinge and
complain about your being muzzled instead. Interesting how you see no
problem whatever in mixing contexts and implying any sort of meaning
to another's discourse, whichever way appears most effective in having
blame cast on other people, while you apparently think that an image of
purity and sanctity holding fast against such sin will emanate instead
from your own good self.

Please do have a go at presenting some facts as soon as you are ready.
I have no idea whether your opinion counts here at all, until I see
something of substance. Others may well have different views, but I
neither speak for them, do I?

 > The original point was to clearly distinguish the "New Age" from
 > Christianity.  I gather that such analysis cannot be performed here.
 > I referred to flame wars in other newsgroups.  I didn't want one here
 > too.  And, in the eyes of humanity, I am no one at all.

Sorry, the original point was clearly complaining about New Agers
appropriating Christian "culture". We are still posting under that
same heading, in fact.

In the meantime, a drover's dog can distinguish one from the other,
and I expect like me would for good reason opt for the former.

 > I don't recall asking anyone to change the way they do things, to
 > suit my morality or anyone else's.  If I have, I apologize - a
 > newsgroup is an inappropriate forum for proselytizing.

Perhaps, as someone else suggested, tuning in to other different ways
of thinking about the world, and being a little less ready to jump to
the defence of your own belief system, would result in other people
responding to you in a more friendly and respectful manner, willing to
listen and appreciate what you have to say. But you might also be
aware that many of us have had the same stuff repeatedly shoved down
our throats ad nauseam, and are really very tired of it by now.

You may well fully believe that your own set of beliefs is the only
one possible, but I have just as much right to challange such a
conviction when it is presented to me. What gives you rights here
on the Internet to be denied me?

 > All of which, taken together, sounds to me like any question dealing
 > with Christianity, even as it pertains to anthropology, is not welcome
 > in this group unless it condemns Christianity as evil.  I thought I
 > did my best to be inoffensive, respectful, and in pursuit of
 > substantive arguments and informational commentary.  Since my best
 > efforts in that direction have provoked a negative response, further
 > interaction in this forum is pointless.  Goodbye.

Whatever sounds to you, as you wish. My only position, as I put it
repeatedly, is that Christianity is nowhere near so pure as Christians
attempt to make it out to be. If in the light of the well documented
events of history Christianity emerges as evil, I rest my case.

Reliable observations of Christian behaviour can be made by anyone,
and I would only suggest that a willingness to actually report them
honestly and fully (despite the considerable risk of punishment and
social ostracism for doing so) has arisen from a bitter experience
any reasonable and thoughtful person would not wish to see inflicted
upon their next generations.

If you don't like that, bad luck.

Gil