Re: The "Who is God?" Tirade

Mark, Re:

> Nonsense it also it is not. Observations...that is more like it.

Hm.  The problem about your kind of arguing is that you are jumping from mere
observations to generalized conclusions way too quickly:  `Christmas and Easter
aren't celebrated in a genuinely Christian way, some Christians don't believe
in evolution theory, and some others (or maybe still the same) use the word
`truth' for purely theological statements, thus Christian belief is a lie.'
That's too simple, Mark, and it looks pretty much like agitation.

I only try to point out where your observations might be wrong and what
conclusions of yours don't seem to hold.  I hope that I do so in a reasonable
fashion, and I would highly appreciate if you also tried to leave all agitation
behind.  The tirade is over now, we are discussing the mess it has left
behind...

> And I also reserve the right to defend myself against a group whose stated
> purpose is to bring all mankind into the "fold,"

No one denies your right to defend yourself against unwanted Christianization.
But when defending yorself, you should be fair enough not also to attack the
majority of Christians who don't want to bother you with their beliefs at all.
You might be fighting against some of your local or national church officials
and fanatics, but there is no need to blame your `Xtianity' as a whole.

> Which they are doing at this very moment in this country, by inflicting their
> beliefs on us all as law.

I'm not very familiar with US domestic politics, but I guess that even fanatic
Christian lobbyists only want to make their moral values a general law, not
their beliefs.  So, again, don't over-generalize.

> In fact, the Xtian religion claims to be THE truth.

Wrong.  Like every religion, Christians try to find as much evidence as
possible to confirm that what they believe might be true.  But they know (and
often admit, even through the mouths of priests during church services) that
they will never be able to prove it.

Only fanatics claim to know the religious truth.

> You could also say that the word "God" came from "good" and "Devil" from
> "evil."

Etymology is a serious science that doesn't play games like this.  `God' and
`good' seem to be etymologically unrelated.  `Good' means `fitting well'
whereas `god' most likely means `he who is invoked'.  And it is sure that there
is no relationship between `devil' (Greek `diabolos') and `evil'.

What I told you about the word `gospel' was also a well-established result of
etymology.

> It's hard to believe (given the historical evidence I've seen, coupled with
> the attitude of the Pope when he speaks here) that the Xtians over there hold
> such varying views.

Hm, maybe you really wouldn't believe your eyes if you went to, e.g., the
Netherlands and saw how liberal religious teachings are in this country.  But
also in America, churches don't consist of fanatics only.  Watch out, and you
will find lots of reasonable Christians at the very place where you live.

As for the Pope:  No, he isn't the Catholic Church, and he also doesn't possess
the truth.  I admire John Paul II as one of the greatest social theologians in
history, but as a moral theologian (and I guess it is that facet you are
referring to) he tends to make some mistakes IMHO.  So, if some of the Pope's
teachings are unbearable for you, this again doesn't mean that the whole
Christianity is against you.

> I do know that Xtians inflicted their views upon my people American Indians),
> and killed the ones who wouldn't accept them...as well as killing a lot who
> did. How nice.

Again I must conclude from your words that I am an asshole because I am German
and once all Germans were Nazis...

No, you cannot take the history of a certain group as an evidence for what this
group is all about and how it will behave in the future.  Again, this would be
pure agitation.  Of course, members of groups with a `difficult' history have
to be a little more careful about how they act and what they say than others,
but their history alone doesn't make them evil, right?

> >You are completely wrong, perhaps because you have missed the word
> >`inevitable'.  No one tells you not to make use of your umbrella only
> >because the rain is God's will.  Quite the contrary, you are obliged to
> >avoid all unnecessary suffering, and to defend yourself and your family if
> >possible.  But once you have no chance to escape an evil, then - according
> >to the philosphy mentioned above - you should bear it with grace. 
> 
> "Turn the other cheek" is the philosophy of sheep.

Hm, sometimes I wonder whether you actually read what I have written.  Where in
the paragraph quoted above do I imply that turning the other cheek is the
correct philosophy whenever you encounter some suffering?

> I make no apology for being a predator; I was built that way. So were you. We
> were built to strive forward, in order to survive as a race. This much is
> obvious....

Agreed so far...

> so any denial of it is contra-survival, and therefore not the method the
> Creator intended.

I do not at all deny the necessity and the right to defend oneself against
natural or even human enemies.  The only thing I quoted from what I believe to
be the Christian answer to the question of suffering is that in case of
inevitable injustice, illness, or pain, you shouldn't complain but accept your
fate as it is.  If you cannot agree with that, then there are a lot of other
religions offering different answers...

> There is a divine plan. And it does not involve denying what humans are. In
> fact, denying that retards spiritual growth.

Agreed.  But where in Christianity do you find any evidence for denying human
nature?  Christian belief accepts humans as unities of body and soul, and of
course the needs of the body have to be satisfied as well as the needs of the
soul.  Only if both of them are contradictory, a moral solution has to be
found...

> Do you not find it strange that Xtians haven't progressed any on the spirital
> ladder in 2000 years?

Again, pure agitation.  Of course there has been a lot of spiritual progress
over the last 2000 years.  Take for example the great Christian mystics of the
Middle Ages, or the youth movement in today's churches with its many spiritual
prayers and songs.  Why do you think Catholics honour their Saints?  Because
they were extraordinal Christians who contributed to the church's spiritual
progress.

> Think about this: if I were to act according to those teachings, then I
> would still be miserable at my old job, unable to go to MSG to see The Who
> (this time of year...they'd have a heart attack), making life terrible for
> my family...secure in the belief that I would be "repaid" in the afterlife.

Mark, you must have completely misinterpreted something about Christian
beliefs.  Christian religiosity doesn't hamper at all your creativity and your
striving to get a better life than you already have.  The only thing you should
avoid is ruining your soul by becoming too greedy or too ambitious.

> And the odds are that had the Xtians not been wrestling with their faith,
> they would have gotten Hitler.

(I assume that you intended to write `would not'.)  Here you are doing
injustice to the practising Christians in Germany in the early 30's.  It wasn't
them who brought Hitler to power.  Of course, later on, Hitler fooled many
Christians for a while by making concessions to the churches, but after he
really had achieved absolute power, nothing at all was Christian about Hitler
and his politics.  Maybe you know that also a small but noticeable number of
Christians were imprisoned and killed by Nazis because of their resistance
based on their religious belief.

> How many wars and how many people have been killed in the name of Xtianity?
> How many more must die? Ask someone in Northern Ireland...

Again you are quoting history as an evidence for bad attitudes of today's
Christians...  And as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, this isn't a priori
a religious conflict but a nationalist one which unfortunately happens to have
a serious religious aspect due to a unlucky history.

> Since the government has the power to define illegal behavior, this argument
> has no meaning. Sorry.

If we are talking about modern democracies, then the government hasn't much
power to define anything - making laws is the task of parliaments.  This holds
true even in the US, where the president has some additional power instruments
due to the veto system.

Your statement is correct for dictatorships.

> Do you find it strange that the Xtians (at least over here) will not
> tolerate abortion but are for the death penalty? I do.

No, there is nothing strange about it because these are two totally different
things.  In the first case we are talking about killing an innocent human life
form whereas in the second one we are talking about severely punishing cruel
criminals with the aim of deterring others from copying them.

But you are generalizing too much and posing agitational questions.  While
abortion may become an important personal ethical question for some Christians
in distress, death penalty has nothing to do with religion at all - court
justice is a completely secular thing.  If some fanatics around you preach the
contrary, ignore them.

> I think you might be getting a bit specific here. I don't remember anything
> about "only while getting tortured" in there. I'd say what was meant by
> "turn the other cheek" was: "Take it and don't fight back. Vengence is
> mine..."  Now it appears (and I'm not accusing you of it, but the appearance
> is certainly there) that you are interpreting the Word.

Yes, I do.  And there is one good why I do so:  Jesus of Nazareth was a very
provocative preacher, and he often went to extremes in his speech just to make
differences clear.

Again, `turn the other cheek' is meant to discourage vengeance.  Vengeance is a
bad thing because it only spawns more aggression.  Almost in every case things
can be settled without taking vengeance, and the result of making peace is much
more desirable than continuing war.  `Turn the other cheek' only has to be
taken literally if you really have no possibility to defend yourself.

> That's got to be a dangerous thing to do...*I* wouldn't do it. I'm taking it
> all at its literal meaning.

You cannot take every part of the Bible at its literal meaning, because the
Bible does contain contradictions.  Sometimes you have to interpret, sometimes
it's wise to do so.  An organized Christian religion can try to help you with
that difficult task.

Still the Bible is a great collection of interesting and valuable books.  Have
you ever read the book Job, perhaps one of the greatest pieces of world
literature?  (Even Goethe stole some of its ideas for his `Faust'.)  I can only
recommend you to do so because it exactly covers the difficulties you and I
have with the question of inevitable suffering.

> A man's instinct tells him (for instance) that he should impregnate as many
> women as he can.

Correct.  He wants to spread his genes around in as great quantities as
possible, because he feels that his genetic heritage is superior to that of
other men.  That's nature.

But now comes society.  And since usually every society consists of about as
many women as men, it seems to be a good thing to get them together in pairs.