From: mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dislike of Christianity
Date: 11 Apr 92 03:22:47 GMT
Reply-To: mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <Apr.8.04.28.28.1992.27693@dumas.rutgers.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
>mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) writes:
>
>[[ many well-stated arguments deleted ]]

Thank you.

>>But you can compare the number of bad apples to the number of good
>>apples, and compare the expected results of different doctrines based
>>on an undertanding of human nature. On this score a body of doctrine
>>which considers all others evil and infinitely harmful does not come
>>out so well...
>
>I would like to summarize what I hear Bill saying.  We should evaluate
>a religious or social doctrine by the parts of it that can lead to
>harmful behavior; in the case of Christianity, the exclusiveness built
>in to the system can lead to hatred and oppression.  Though the system
>may include safeguards against its potential evil, these safeguards
>may fail.  Historically we have seen that this is so.  We can weigh
>the amount of good and evil to produce a judgement.

This summary is almost correct. We should look at all the parts, and
when there is a historical record we should look at that. We should
look at how the parts interact. Do the safegaurds actually work as
intended? We shouldn't look only at the parts which lead to harmful
behavior, put neither should we ignore or excuse them. Most importantly,
there is such a thing as relative goodness and badness. This isn't
absolute.

>Well said.  However, I still question the usefulness of regarding
>things in this way.  I maintain that no system will stand up under
>this scrutiny.  Though the arguments are valid, they lead to the
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>conclusion that everything-- every religion, every social system--
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>fails and should be disliked or rejected.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Consider further the example of democracy in the United States...

[Points out that though we have a reasonably good and successful
system there are flaws.]

If you accept the arguments as valid and are intellectually honest
then you must accept their consequences, where ever they lead.
Pointing out what you think are consequences is not a valid
argument against the validity of my the argument, which you just
admitted. Your error is in assuming that a standard of judgement
must be all or nothing, that if all fall short even in a slight
degree it is useless for making distinctions.  You couldn't like
American democracy and dislike Communism or Naziism. Or, since
according to Christians all sin (There on none righteous, no not one.)
you can't like Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Theresa and dislike Adolph Hitler
or Pol Pot.

I do not say that other religions, ideologies, or social systems are
perfect, but I do not dislike them all. I like American democracy,
though it is imperfect, precisely because it is harder to turn it into
corrupt purposes, though politicians, PACs, and interest groups certainly
succeed in doing that too often. Most ideologies, especially religions,
are less easily turned into evil than Christianity has historically shown
itself to be. In fact the only ideologies which have been arguably worse
than Christianity have been some secular or political quasi-religions.
Islam also has a bad record, especially in the modern world (e.g. "The
Islamic Republic" (Iran)), but its worst features are precisely those it
shares with Christianity. Historically, up until the last few centuries,
Jews and Christians were treated better in Islamic countries than either
Muslims or Jews were treated in Christian ones.

Your position is equivalent to saying I can't dislike Communism because
the standard by which I judge it, that in practice it has led to a lot
of evil, and that it has builtin doctrines which made this likely, almost
inevitable, given human nature, unless I also dislike democracy, because
neither is perfect. Need I say that I like the ideals wealth should be
distributed according to need, at least that no one should lack necessities
while others enjoy luxuries by exploiting them?

Your argument shows the usual Christian approach of seeing everything in
black and white, mostly black. (All of have sinned. All deserve Hell and it
is only by the grace of God that any are saved. Cotton Mather waxed poetic
about how loathesome everyone, even new born babies are in the sight of God.)
Or else it just shows the faulty reasoning of one trying to maintain an
unsupportable position.

Bill Mayne