From: skinner@sp60.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Dislike of Christianity
Date: 14 Apr 92 07:18:24 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) writes:

{The subject here is Bill's system for judging religions, ideologies,
and social systems.  I have complimented him for some very
well-reasoned arguments.}

>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.

I have said that I accept the arguments.  I can with all honesty, say
that I reject the premises, because it is obvious to me that the
conclusions which result are false (one such conclusion being
'democracy is a failure.')

>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.

If by 'all or nothing' you mean that I insist we apply this measure
equally to all systems, then I do not think I have erred.  However, I
think you mean that I am saying that a single bad apple spoils the
bushel.  No.  I am applying your system of weighing the good against
the evil.  And for all three of these, I find that the evil they have
produced outweighs the good.  Also, I find their potential to be
turned to tools of evil to be great, at least as great as that of
historical Christianity (which I will continue to distinguish from
true Christianity).

Let us remember what started this thread.  You insist that we must
judge Christianity based on how its historical components interacted,
or would most probably interact today.  You believe that in
Christianity, the potential to be turned to evil is too great.  To
point out what I see as the rediculousness of this conclusion, I argue
that our present democratic system has resulted in an evil and
potential for evil far greater than Christianity could ever produce.

But we like democracy.  In this we are agree.  For support we might
turn to the Constitution, with its system of checks and balances for
keeping bad influences from taking over.  To look only at failings
such as Watergate would lead to a different conclusion.  This would
not be fair.

Similarly we can like Christianity.  For support we turn to the four
gospels, as was suggested by the original poster.  Otherwise, how do
we know that we are looking at Christianity?  Indeed, I can claim to
be an atheist, but if I go about proclaiming there is one true god and
gather a following, does my movement deserve to be called atheism?

Similarly not all of what has been called "Christianity" has been
true.  How can we sort out the difference?  Turn to the books (the New
Testament).  During the Reformation people did just that and realized
that what they were being told was Christianity was not the real
thing.  We can sort it out ourselves in the same fashion.

>I do not say that other religions, ideologies, or social systems are
>perfect, but I do not dislike them all.

I am conjecturing that the measure you use, if applied consistently,
will likely lead you to dislike all present-day systems, because the
potential for evil is larger than the good in all of them.

>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.

'Harder' requires qualification.  Harder than what?  Even if this is
so, the harm from the failings of the last 50 years in U.S.  democracy
has been great loss of human life (Vietnam War estimates come in
around 2 million, for example).  Further, this system holds the threat
of unprecedented loss of life should nuclear 'defenses' ever be used.
I cannot imagine a greater evil in the present day, nor any good which
can outweigh it.  Please explain, then, how you can like democracy
with your system of weighing potential good versus evil.

>Your argument shows the usual Christian approach of seeing everything in
>black and white, mostly black. 

I admit that when I see the problems of hunger, war, corruption, etc.
in the world, I begin to see things as mostly black.  For me, this
makes obvious the need for outside help; left to ourselves, we mostly
succeed only in making a mess of things.

>(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.)

Is this your true reason for dislike of Christianity?  If so, please
be honest with us.  (I am referring to the first part.  I believe it
goes witout saying that one can not find many Christians who agree
with what you attribute to Mr. Mather.)

>Or else it just shows the faulty reasoning of one trying to maintain an
>unsupportable position.

Please be specific.  My attempt is follow your arguments exactly and
point out where the conclusions contradict.  If I am changing them,
please tell me, as you are more familiar with this system of judgement
that I am.

Gregg Skinner
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
g-skinner@uiuc.edu    |    "Patriotism is slavery."  (Count Leo Tolstoy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------