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