Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mit-athena!martillo
From: martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Christians converting Christians
Message-ID: <96@mit-athena.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 08:52:51 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-athe.96
Posted: Fri Mar  1 08:52:51 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 06:10:22 EST
References: <3297@umcp-cs.UUCP> <573@pyuxd.UUCP> <3583@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <596@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 62

Article follows:

How  can  the intrinsic intolerance of Christianity be denied?  The core
of any strong proselytizing  religion  like  Christianity  or  Islam  is
hatred.   When  a  Christian  goes to a non-Christian to convert him, he
says, I hate your religion, I hate  your  culture,  you  must  adopt  my
religion and culture.

Judaism  does  not  proselytize  specifically  because  it  accepts  the
existence of many cultures and religions.  Everyone not just Jews has  a
portion in the world to come.  Obviously, if some pagan is praying to an
idol, he is not praying to God, but if that prayer  is  well-intentioned
and sincere God may chose to listen.  Judaism merely expects of non-Jews
that they act decently.  How is this intolerant?

BTW, I hate agreeing with Rosen

__________________________________

>>Note that this "pattern" of random capitalization and quoting only evinced
>>itself after Charley had made remarks about the difference between:
>>	Jewish intolerance       and      "christian" intolerance

> As I explained (but Rich chose not to listen) the quotes around christian in
> that sentence were intended to indicate that a large proportion of those
> "christians" weren't christian in any significant sense.

Right.  I understood then and now.  Thus, the Jews who engaged in what you
called Jewish intolerance *were* in fact Jews (unlike the "christians" who
weren't Christians, or is it christians?), representative of Judaism in a
way that "christians" aren't truly representative of Christianity.  According
to your capitalization and enquoting scheme.

>>>Notice, however, that the archbishop did not demand rules to prevent these
>>>proselytizers from continuing in their practices.  There seems to be a 
>>>problem in this newsgroup in distinguishing moral persuasion (what the
>>>archbishop is doing) and moral coercion (writing "morality" into law).

>>Here Charley praises the archbishop because he didn't demand "rules" for
>>prevention of proselytization, he just expected some common courtesy and
>>respect for other people's beliefs.  Considering that the biggest single
>>complaint about the evangelistic Christian right is their desire to legislate
>>morality (*their* morality, of course), it is more than ironic that Charley
>>claims there's a problem in this newsgroup regarding the ability to
>>distinguish moral persuasion from moral coercion.

> So join the fundamentalists, Rich, where you belong.  Your ignorance of the
> rest of Christendom is as vast as theirs, especially when you try to lump
> the Protestant mainstream in with them.

>From your own private and public communication, Charles, indicating very
clearly your opinions of Jews, homosexuals, etc., I'd say again (as I've
said before) that it frightens me that a self-proclaimed "liberal Christian"
like you, who claims to dissociate himself from Falwellism, has so much in
common with that movement in terms of attitude.  I don't do the lumping.
The lumping is evidenced by the attitudes.
Charley Wingate    umcp-cs!mangoe
-- 
"Which three books would *you* have taken?"
				Rich Rosen	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr