From: loki@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Hitler and Christianity
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:25:47 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <bszu8q.m2p@wang.com > smayo@wang.com (Scott Mayo) writes:
 >cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
 >It's an odd thing. When evangelical Christians (that's me) push for more
 >attention to the Bible and so on, it is usually because that is a fairly
 >good defense against the sort of hated-filled additions people try to make
 >to the faith. You don't find justifications of pogroms in the Nicene
 >creed or New Testament. But, of course, if you do push for such attention,
 >you're dogmatic and rule (or book) bound. (And you can *always* find some kook
 >who can "prove" wild things from the Bible, so it isn't a sure tenchique
 >anyway.)

	It seems to me that for a divine revelation the bible is remarkably
inconsistent and open to finding whatever you want in it. This would suggest
to me either
	(1) It is not divine revelation
	(2) It is, but has been corrupted
	(3) It is revelation but by a deity with a sense of humour, or
desiring to make his followers THINK.

 >
 >The reason you see bigtime abuse of Christianity is not because it lends
 >itself especially to abuse. I can find abusable charactistics in *any*
 >philosophy. It is because so many folks are (or perhaps think they

	That does not answer Janis' point that Christianity (and Islam)
seems to have far more intolerant bigots than say Buddhism, Taoism, and
even Hinduism and Sikhism 
 >are, but let's not get into that) Christians, so if you can graft your own
 >twisted beliefs into the system, you can gain a big following. It happened
 >in the Middle ages and it seems to happen in America today. You'd be
 >surprised at the number of fundamentalists (using the old meaning of the
 >word) who are appalled at the politicalization of Christianity and
 >Christian-associated topics. But of course, the ones being appalled don't
 >have access to prime time TV, so they go unnoticed.

	They xould write letters to their archbishops/cardinals, and lobby
for official church condemnation of the lunatic fringe, and stronger
action by mainstream churches, They could ring up chat shows with the
nutacses on and call them lunatic nazis hiding behind the cross. Being
quietly and genteelly appalled is a classic example of "for evil to
triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing".
 >
	
 >>  Makes me think that the religion has to undergo a pretty thorough
 >>housecleaning to keep it from attracting hate-peddlers.  Just as with
 >>people, you can judge a church by the company it keeps, and some people
 >>who call themselves christians need to be broomed into the trashheap.
 >
 >I agree. It is perfectly valid to judge a church by its actions. It should
 >happen more often.

	No disagreement here. If these appalled old ashioned fundamentalists
just keep quiet they are supporting the lunatic fringe.
 >
 >However, there are some real flakes in the neo-pagan movement.
 >Not many, but that is because the neo-pagan movement itself is small
 >(compared to Christiandom.) I don't think you'd be happy if I made value
 >judgements about all of neo-paganism, based on a few oddballs who occasionally
 >fill my mailbox with incoherent thoughts (but don't usually post to
 >alt.pagan, it seems). And in fact I try not to do this.

	Thanks, I believe most of use try to be fair.
 >
 >I agree that some folks calling themselves Christians have no idea
 >what they are talking about. I don't think anything can be done about it,
 >either. Jesus saw the problem coming (look at the parable about the
 >weeds and the wheat) and offered no solution.

 >
 >And anything with a following as big as Christianity's is *going* to attract
 >people with an agenda, hate-filled people, and kooks. You see the same
 >phenomena in the US goverment. And in most places in history. Vultures go
 >where the most meat is. You can blame the meat if you like.

	Whic is perhaps why the churches should make it harder for the 
loonies to say it justifies their views.
 >
 >Some pagans have this odd view, that all of Christianity is like the
 >mainstream catholic church, where there is a central authority on earth
 >who gives folk like televangelists the go ahead to preach this or that
 >idea in the name of Christianity. 'Taint so, folks. It isn't even strictly
 >that way in the catholic church, as I understand it; it is not true at all
 >in the protestant churches. Most Christians I know are horrified by some
 >of what gets taught on the airwaves in the name of Jesus. But these preachers
 >are answerable to no one but their followers, and if those followers keep
 >sending money...
 >
	But they arevulnerable to adverse publicity and campaigning.
 >>I honestly think that christianity needs to undergo a long, hard period of
 >>self-reflection and examination to find out why bigots are so attracted
 >>to it.
 >
 >I think Christiandom need to do a *lot* of things. It is in no position to
 >rewrite its original creeds, but I for one don't think those creeds are the
 >problem.  A little clarification of what its creeds *are* would go a long way
 >(and that, originally, is what a fundamentlist was - someone who only
 >held the core creeds of Christianity. Boy is *that* term lost forever.)

	Clarifying the creeds has been a problem since before they were
written, and will continue to be a problem whatever yu do.
 >
 >>Blessings,
 >>Janis
 >Vaya con Dios,
 >Scott
 >--
 >These are only my opinions.  You should hear my convictions.
 >smayo@wang.com
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,soc.motss,rec.games.frp,alt.religion.emacs,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics