From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:38:13 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <l8l8ebINNcjn@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>
> Well said, well said. It is interesting to speculate on how Christianity
> became aligned with the conversion Devil. After all, conversion is evil, we
> do agree on that don't we? Assuming a creator of all humans, and assuming

Where did the idea of 'conversion is evil' come from - could someone elaborate?

>Yes, generally. I hesitate to unequivically agree due to not having 
>thought it out completely and being trounced on for missing the exception
>to the rule, the lurking netter leaping forth to remind me not so subtly.
>Of course I should be one to talk, since I do it all the time. . .
>
> that only that creator can be the judge, then no human can be in the position
> of judging whether another's beliefs are correct or not, unless that mortal
> judge is aligned with the Christian Devil. Ignoring the dogmatic case of

How about having direct revelation from the Creator that tells us how to
judge actions?

>Interesting point. My first name is "Daniel" which I recently learned
>means "God is my judge". It seemed intruiging to me how that sentence
>could subtly shift meaning depending on which words were stressed. Now,
>I take it to mean: Hey, "God" is my judge, not anyone else. . .

It could be a confession on the part of the parent (if the knew the 
meaning of the name) as to their beliefs.

> society judging a psychopathic mass killer, it should be clear that all
> beliefs are valid, after all they were created. There is only one who can
> judge another. Any human being who tries to force a single belief onto persons
> who hold unique beliefs is quite clearly aligned with the Christian Devil.

Some religions reveal fundamental and irreconcilable differences (e.g.,
some affirm one God, some many gods, and some all is God.)  Logically,
these three world views could all be wrong, but they could not all
be correct.  Could it be that the contradictions between the world religions
are only apparent rather than real?  Is this just man's inability to 
grasp the infinite reality of God?  The Eastern analogy often used
to illustrate this point is a group of blind men touching different
parts of the same elephant.  Thus they get different impressions depending
on where they are touching the elephant (i.e. different realities.)
However, Christian philosopher C. Stephen Evans, in his book Philosophy
of Religion, points out two weaknesses.  One, he points out a radical 
skepticism concerning our knowledge of God (i.e., no one can really
know God satisfactorily.)  The second is it does not account for the
exclusive claims made by Jesus Christ (Matt 7:13; John 14:6; Acts 4:12).
Jesus claims to be THE way, not A way.  Christianity's belief in the
incarnation (God entering the world in the person of Jesus Christ) 
is a direct and historical revelation of God.  Thus we believe this is
God's way and not our own.  This assertion does not imply that 
every feature of non-Christian religions is false.  In fact, all 
people have a witness of God via creation. [condensed from of "The Challenge
to Religous Pluralism" by Kenneth R. Samples, Christian Research Journal,
Summer 1990.]

> But, assuming that conversion is evil, how did Christianity get diverted onto
> this path? After all, Judaism is not a conversion religion. Why Christianity?

I believe one can convert to Judaism - requires circumcision on the part
of the male.  In fact, I think there are some laws governing this in the OT.
People convert to Judaism today - even from Christianity - how I'm not sure,
for 'leaving Christianity' forsakes the Savior (Jesus the Christ), it they
truly believed that anyway.

> If a system of beliefs is so good, so valuable, why is it necessary to
> force it onto non-believers? How did the salesman, the fisher of men, the

Forcing is not the attitude to be desired - compelling or presenting reasons
to believe is the approach - the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts the
world of sin, righteousness, and judgement.  We are to go and teach.

>Well, I'm no christian, much less a christian apologist, so someone else
>will have to take up that unenviable challenge.
>
> seller of free gifts become part of Christianity? I do have some ideas, as I'm
> sure you've suspected. I think part of it comes from Judaism. In Judaism, there
> is one tribal God for the chosen people or the tribe. This one God says that
> He is the only God for the chosen people, all other Gods are not the Gods of
> the chosen people. Now we see some problems already, but at least it is
> acceptable that other tribes will have other beliefs. In fact, it may actually
> be unacceptable for other tribes to believe in this one tribal God, unless
> they become part of the tribe, at their own initiative. Anyway, from this
> Jewish God of the Jews alone, we go to Christianity which now asserts that this
> one tribal God is the only valid God for all people, no matter what tribe they
> may belong to. And this in itself is not necessarily bad, but we can see how

Honestly, I think you summarized the OT and NT on this topic rather well.
I will note that the tribal God of the Jews (founder Abram, know now as
Abraham) was the Creator and not just one of these other gods.  If you 
noticed these other Gods often had idols of wood and metal, which can't
do anything - Jehovah (the Creator) was different, for he said he didn't
want anything like this.

>Indeed. As far as I know, judaism and its sect which became christianity
>was really the first religion to assert this: that there was one god above
>all the other gods.
>
> that would justify conversion of all non-believers and it quite conveniently
> explains why the Europeans felt they were better than all other non-Europeans
> and were justified in "discovering" the "New World" and populating it with
> "settlers" to work the "virgin" ground. Any native peoples were sub-human as
> they were pagans and could be viewed as "noble savages". These "savages" 
> could be used as slaves, as justified by the Bible, or they could be converted
> to Christianity on the belief that the more souls one converted to the cause,

I don't think there is any Biblical basis for increasing one's chance of
getting into heaven based on the number of converted souls.  In fact, Paul
in Galatians implies the glorying in the flesh (body count) of converts
wasn't right.  Jesus said of the leaders of the day that they searched far
and wide to make a convert, but in so doing they condemned the one they
found, because of their legalism, I believe.

>Very well put.
>
> the better one's chances of getting into Heaven. It should be quite clear
> that all this was the work of the Christian Devil. And the conversion work
> that continues today, in Africa and other places where people are too poor to
> afford maintaining their beliefs against the attack of missionaries. The only
> question is how was an entire religion sidetracked into alligence with the 
> Devil?

This assumption of 'conversion = evil' needs to be substantiated before 
this thought has any worth.

>I'm sure that in the greek testament there is an order to the effect
>of exhorting the faithful to "spread the good news". We shouldn't forget
>that religion has often been used for political ends and your example of
>the Europeans "discovering" the New World is a prime example.

One of the great passages of the Bible (some of Jesus' last words here on
this earth) is Matthew 28:18-20 - paraphrased - 'Go ye into all the world
make disciples and baptize and teach all I have taught you'

Agreed, religion has often been used wrongly.

>Dano

Sincerely,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |