>From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Discussing Christianity II >Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 13:08:39 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > >Well, the Christian writer wrote back, and I'm afraid I don't come off very >good in the eyes of one who "knows God." The dialogue follows: > >Enjoy, > >Peter > > > > Here's another example of the kind of mindless bigotry and hate we are > > seeing displayed by the "politically correct" towards anyone who > > embraces Christianity. Peter McWilliams is a cynical little man who > > obviously stays up all night looking for any way to bash Christians, not > > at all unlike those who mindlessly denigrate Jews, Blacks or Mexicans by > > painting them all with the same broad brush. > >I do not "mindlessly denigrate" "anyone who embraces Christianity" "painting >them all with the same brush." I mindfully and after much research >disapprove of a specific trait endemic in most "born-again" Christians. My >criticism of fundamentalist Christians (not all Christians) is their >hypocrisy and the harm they cause by wanting to punish other harshly for >their own personal failings. Jesus hated hypocrisy more than anything else. >The worst word he could call someone was "Hypocrite!" He reserved it mostly >for the Pharisees, those who spoke of their personal relationship with God >and forced others, by criminal law, to follow their rules. (Jesus was >eventually executed by them for "blasphemy," a consensual crime). The >Christian writer of this piece is a modern Pharisee, and just as >hypocritical. The hypocrisy is that he claims to follow the teachings of >Jesus, and yet does not. This e-mail is an example. I will explain this >point after you've had a chance to read a bit more of his Christian >rhetoric. > > > This is a man who > > obviously subscribes to the Ted Turner "Christianity is a religion for > > losers" philosophy, which means he is a man to avoid at all costs, and > > especially when it comes to business. If you want to get burned really > > bad, go into business with someone who subscribes to the same moral > > philosophy. > >What I said was that most fundamentalist Christians are clinically depressed >and should be receiving medical treatment rather than being taught their >torment is a blessing from God. I said nothing about "losers." Even if I >had, I don't see how it follows that would make me dishonest in business. >Ted Turner, I believe, has a very good reputation as a business man, even >among Christians. > > > > > These Christian bashers all make the same failed argument when they try > > to present their case: They always point to examples where alleged > > Christians failed to do the correct Christian thing, therefore, they > > conclude, Christianity is bogus. > >No, not that Christianity is bogus, but that the "sinning" Christian who >criticizes another is a hypocrite. > > > So in other words, the failure to > > follow the teachings of Jesus Christ by individuals claiming to be > > Christians makes the basis for Christianity -- Jesus' teachings -- void, > > worthless and invalid. In the final analysis, that is the basis for > > their argument, and it doesn't wash. > >That wasn't my argument against fundamentalist Christianity. My argument was >that what Jesus actually taught in the Gospels is, in most cases, >diametrically opposed to the teachings of fundamentalist Christianity. I use >Jesus to refute fundamentalist Christianity -- a reasonable approach, I >think. I don't mind if people choose to follow a religion that preaches >hate, prejudice, harsh punishment, and denial of physical pleasure, but why >say do they say they do it in the name of Jesus, who taught love, >acceptance, forgiveness, and enjoying each moment to the fullest? Again, >it's hypocritical. These people should call themselves what they are, >Paulites, for the follow the teachings of Paul, not Jesus. > > > > > Using that same argument, it can also be alleged that because American > > government is not adhering strictly to the rules and restrictions set > > forth by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, the Constitution is > > void, worthless and invalid as well. To carry McWilliams argument to > > it's silliest extreme, those who rob banks make laws against robbing > > banks invalid, just as those who commit murder make laws against > > committing murder invalid. > >I don't know what he's saying here. He must be speaking in tongues. > > > > > In truth, there is nothing in the Ten Commandments and other rules of > > behavior set forth in the Bible that most people will disagree with when > > asked how they feel about each one. > >Ten Commandments? Fine. "Other rules of behavior set forth in the Bible"? >Hardly. Owning slaves was acceptable, in both the Old and New Testament, as >long as you treated them well. Would most people agree? I think not. That a >wife is the property of her husband, like his cattle, and owes him >unquestioned obedience in all matters? As much as some men long for "the >good old days," this one wouldn't fly today, either. The list of Biblical >laws we abandoned long ago is long, indeed. > > > For example, most people will > > immediately agree that bearing false witness against another is never to > > be done. > >Agreed. > > > Most people will agree that stealing is wrong. > >Agreed. > > > Most people > > will agree that murder is wrong. > >Agreed. (But, then, how can Christians be so gung-ho for capital punishment, >especially when the government has wrongly convicted so many?) > > > Most people will agree that honoring > > ones parents is a good thing. > >If they deserve honoring, sure -- some do; some don't. But the "Biblical >law" on such matters is Leviticus 19:9: "If anyone curses his father or >mother, he must be put to death." I wonder how many of us would be around if >THAT Biblical law were man's law -- including the Christian writer of this >e-mail. > > > Few people will tell you that adultery is > > a harmless and victimless thing to do, > >Adultery is breaking an agreement, and therefore a subset of dishonesty, and >therefore wrong. What would the believer in Bible law do? Leviticus 19:10, >11: "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife of his >neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. If a >man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the >man and the woman must be put to death." This seems not only unduly harsh on >the adulterers, but also on their mates, killing their wives and such. We'll >discuss what Jesus said about adultery shortly. > > > and when confronted with the > > facts of unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease, most people will > > publicly and emphatically agree that sex between unmarried people is > > something to be avoided. > >This is what fundamentalists -- and other propagandists -- often do: make a >list one agrees with, then throw in a false one at the end, the one that is >to be "programmed in," when one is in the habit of saying, "Agreed." He >starts out with a list from the Ten Commandments, and then throws in "sex >between unmarried people is something to be avoided." The Ten Commandments >forbids adultery, not fornication. Jesus, in his only mention of sex, >recommended not marrying, that way when you had sex it would be just >fornication and not adultery and therefore you would not be breaking a >commandment. Jesus affirmed the Ten Commandments, and added only one to it: >"Love one another as I have loved you." The latter is the commandment most >often broken by fundamentalist Christians. Does this Christian writer sound >as though he loves me? Hardly. Now, back to sex. Not having sex because of >concerns about unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease is overkill -- like >tearing down your house to get rid of the mold (another Leviticus law). One >need only follow the first commandment of safe sex: "Use condoms." It is the >fundaments who object the strongest to sex education other that teaches >anything other than chastity until marriage. > > > > > Obviously, all of the above rules are broken every day by Christians and > > non-Christians alike, but does that invalidate the rules against that > > bad behavior? No, and this is where arguments like those presented by > > McWilliams fall into the realm of abject absurdity. > >I never said they did. I only said that those who profess to follow them and >do not are hypocrites. > > > > > Christianity is a goal. It is a pursuit of excellence. It is a desired > > destination for human conduct. Those who commit to be Christians > > consciously recognize and embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ. They > > aspire to live by those teachings. > >Ah, but who's interpretation of those teachings? > > > That doesn't mean they aren't going > > to screw up, but it does mean that they at least know the difference > > between right and wrong. > >No, it doesn't. It makes you BELIEVE you know the difference between right >and wrong, and BELIEVE it so strongly you are willing to put your fellow >human beings in jail who do not follow your beliefs. "Right" in society is >not physically harming the person or property of a nonconsenting other. >"Right" in personal life is not harming yourself. Everything else is >"suggested rules of behavior" made up by man, not God. > > > And when reminded of the duty they have to > > Jesus, they will most often do the right thing because of the commitment > > they have made. > >All right. Let's put this one -- and this Christian -- to the test. Let's >see if the writer of this missive will "do the right thing" by me. I will >now "remind" him of his "duty" in the words of Jesus himself. Let's see if >he honors his "commitment." > >A fundamental teaching of Jesus is this: until you have reached your own >personal level of perfection, you are not to judge others. He made it very >clear (Matthew 7:1-4): > >"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge >others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be >measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's >eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to >your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time >there is a plank in your own eye?" > >Luke (6:41-42) tells the same story, but quotes Jesus as using the H-word: > > "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no >attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, >`Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to >see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of >your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your >brother's eye." > >So before you criticize another, make sure your own house is in order first. > >But Jesus takes this even further when it comes to harming others as >punishment for their sins. When he saved the adulteress from being stoned, >he said, ""If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a >stone at her." (John 8:7) So if you've EVER sinned, you are not, by Jesus' >command, permitted to punish another for their transgressions. > >And yet what does this Christian writer do to me? He warns against going >into business with me or you will "get burned really bad." He compares me >with racists and anti-Semites, although I am neither. Later, as you shall >see, he calls me an "appalling little bigot." Stones, all, don't you think? >Judgments, certainly. So now that the Christian writer has been "reminded" >of what Jesus taught, let me quote the writer again: > > > And when reminded of the duty they have to > > Jesus, they will most often do the right thing because of the commitment > > they have made. > >I think the writer, then, owes me an apology for not treating me in a >Christ-ian manner. Now let's see if he lives up to his "commitment" and >apologizes. > > > > > In my fifty years on this earth, the only time I have ever witnessed > > someone go through a complete philosophical and behavior change was when > > they went through a religious conversion. > >Maybe that's because the writer only associates with the religiously >converted. > > > The cynics like McWilliams > > will say people don't change, and for the most part they are right, > >Again, putting words in my mouth. I have seen many people make magnificent >changes. The greatest transformations I have had were (a) when I had my >depression treated and (b) when I abandoned the notion of an external God >and an afterlife. And (a) had a lot to do with (b). > > > I have seen some pretty amazing -- and permanent -- personality changes > > in people who have accepted Jesus Christ into their lives, and everyone > > around them benefits. > >What was the percentage of these versus the percentage who "saw the light" >and then watched the light dim, along with their faith and commitment? >Antidepressants have a much better "cure" rate than Christianity. > > > > > So people like McWilliams will point out all the wrongs done in the name > > of Christianity, but have you ever noticed they never point out all the > > good things people have done in the name of Christianity? > >I don't recall pointing out "all the wrongs," although the list is >significant. Religion is like government -- yes, it does some good, but >wastes huge amounts of money just keeping the institutions going. >Individuals, were they to keep their money, could do so much more good. >People don't need to be threatened by hell to do heavenly works. People do >good for others because it makes the giver feel good. > > > McWilliams, > > like all the other Christian bashers, Jew bashers and race bashers, is > > just another appalling little bigot. > > > >I'll be waiting for that apology but, as the saying goes, I won't be holding >my holy breath. > >Enjoy, > >Peter > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: