The Necessity for Christianity

Religions > Atheism > The Necessity for Christianity

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 10

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"ohoe"
Date:	13 Sep 2004 07:27:04 PM
Object:	The Necessity for Christianity

The Necessity for Christianity
Professor Paul Johnson
The Catholic novelist Evelyn Waugh, that superbly gifted but
curmudgeonly and occasionally malevolent writer, had a wickedly sharp
tongue, and sometimes behaved as though he loved to inflict pain by
his words. One day, a brave woman dared to ask him: 'Mr. Waugh, you
say such horrible things to people, I cannot believe you are really
religious. How can you behave as you do, and still remain a
Christian?'
He replied with grim sincerity: 'Madam, I may be all the things you
say. But believe me, were it not for my religion, I would scarcely be
a human being.'
Waugh was not, as it happens, saying anything extraordinary. He was
merely stating a fundamental truth, which applied just as well to
people much kinder than he was. It is a truth we can appreciate in
this terrible century of ours, where the process of
de-Christianisation has been followed, step by step, by a growth in
the scale and intensity of human depravity without precedent in
history. As Waugh was implying, without God, mankind quickly
degenerates into the sub-human. The point was elegantly made by
Francis Bacon 360 years ago in his essay 'On Atheism': 'They that deny
God, destroy man's nobility. For certainly, man is akin to the beasts
by his body. And if he be not akin to God by his spirit, he is a base
and ignoble creature.'
One of the most penetrating and sophisticated of modern theologians,
the Jesuit Father Karl Rahner, who died recently, reached exactly the
same conclusion by a complex and exhaustive theological inquiry, to
which he devoted his long life. He argued that, if the image of God
faded completely from our minds, so that all knowledge and perception
of the deity were lost and the very word 'God' became meaningless to
the race, we would slowly cease to be human. Of course we would retain
our intellectual capacity, our ability to make ever more complicated
machines. But by cutting the umbilical cord with God completely, our
source of ethic vitality would be gone. Morally, we would become
nothing better than a species of fantastically clever monkeys. Our
ultimate fate would, and must be, too horrible to contemplate.
The truth is that all of us are Jekyll and Hyde creatures, part saint,
part beast. The great strength of Christianity is that, while
insisting that man is made in the image of God, it accepts that there
is a radical flaw in the reproduction. From time to time, God's image
is reflected in man's face as in a hideous distorting mirror.
Theologians call this the doctrine of Original Sin. But this is merely
to rationalize what we can all observe but cannot explain.
Shakespeare, in his marvelous play Hamlet, in which he tried to pour
everything he knew of man's ambivalent nature, has his hero say: 'What
a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in
faculties! In form and moving, how express and admirable! In action,
how like an angel! In apprehension, how like a God!' And yet, he adds,
man is the quintessence of dust. Man can be, and often is, the most
destructive, cruel and malicious of creatures. When Dr. Samuel Johnson
was touring the Scottish Highlands with James Boswell, Lady Macleod of
Dunvegan Castle asked him if no man was naturally good. He replied:
'No madam, no more than a wolf!' Boswell: 'Nor no woman, Sir?'
Johnson: 'No, Sir!'
Dr. Johnson's listeners were shocked by his rigor, but what he meant
was obvious enough. We have a propensity to evil in our natures which
cannot be entirely corrected from our own resources. We need external
help to keep our dark side under control; and the most obvious way in
which that help manifests itself is by inducing fear. That is what the
psalmist meant when he wrote in Psalm 111: 'The fear of the Lord is
the beginning of wisdom'.
Dr. Johnson was speaking towards the end of the 18th century, that
fascinating age in which barbarism and rationality sat in uneasy
conjunction. For the first time, the century witnessed a continuous,
and cumulatively quite rapid decline, among the poorer classes, of
belief in Hell, in the literal sense of a place of eternal fire to
which the wicked were inevitably sent for sins committed on earth. In
his book The Decline of Hell (London 1964), Dr. D. P. Walker has
pointed out the marked correlation between the fading of popular
belief in Hell and the determination of the ruling class to keep down
crime by replacing fear of the next world by statutory punishments in
this. Thus as Hellfire sank down, the gallows arose from its ashes.
During the century, the number of statutory crimes carrying the death
penalty rose from 60 to about 200, and by its end included
appropriating stolen goods, killing or wounding cattle, destroying
growing trees, cutting down fences, damaging ponds, lock-gates and
sluices, stealing fish from private rivers and a variety of petty
theft.
With the revival of religious belief early in the 19th century, it
became possible to abolish many of these statutory capital sentences.
Indeed, the contraction of capital crime until it consisted solely of
murder and treason, which marked the Victorian age, was in fact
accompanied by a statistical fall in recorded offenses per head of the
population. This was made possible by the strong religious spirit
which prevailed in those decades: over 50,000 new churches were built
in England alone, and church attendance continued to rise until the
1880s.
What we have witnessed in the 20th century, and especially in the last
few decades, is an entirely new and sinister development. For while
the invisible sanction of religion has declined in most parts of the
globe-often rapidly and catastrophically-the visible sanctions of the
law have been systematically and deliberately liberalized, so that the
evil propensities of mankind have been checked by the fear neither of
divine nor human justice. The unwillingness of parents and schools to
instill fear of the Lord has been matched by a growing unwillingness
of the state to instill fear of the courts. The result has been a
growth in everyday crime on a scale never before experienced, and to
which the statistics provide no real yardstick-though all of us, as
individuals, are painfully aware of its magnitude. The prevalence of
crime, of unpunished crime, and especially of violent and unpunished
crime, has induced in many bewildered, law-abiding citizens a kind of
desperation, so that they are increasingly tempted to defend their
lives and property by violence and, in the absence of effective
law-enforcement, designate themselves judge, jury and executioner in
their own cause. Thus liberalism in the law produces not an increase
in civility but a reversion to the law of revenge, which, as Bacon
says, 'is a kind of wild justice'. He adds: 'The most tolerable sort
of revenge is for those wrongs there is no law to remedy.' 'Vengeance
is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord' (Romans 12:19). Yes: but what
happens when belief in the Lord's vengeance has faded, and men and
women hold the ability of society to avenge effectively on their
behalf in even greater contempt? Then, to use Dr. Johnson's
expression, the nature of the wolf arises in man; and wolf begets
wolf, and we move progressively towards that social breakdown so
graphically described by Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan, where there
is 'continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'.
It is important to grasp, however, that Christianity, as a form of
social control and a curb on man's propensity to evil, is not based on
fear of punishment alone, and indeed runs directly counter to the
notion of draconian punishment. There are Middle Eastern societies
today-Saudi Arabia, for instance-where crime is controlled by the
application of Islamic criminal law in all its primitive severity:
public executions and floggings for comparatively trivial offenses,
and the hideous business of judicial mutilation. That is not the
Christian way, and it never has been. For Christianity has its moral
theology rooted in Judaism, and Judaism diverged from the
characteristic Middle Eastern notion of retributive justice as early
as the Second Millenium B.C. If we compare the Hebrew law-codes
outlined in the books of Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers, with
other Middle Eastern law-codes of similar date-the laws of Hammurabi,
for instance, of the Mid-Assyrian law-code from ancient Ashur-we find
significant differences. Whereas these codes make the rights of
property paramount, the Hebrew emphasize the essential rights and
obligations of man, and their laws were framed with deliberate respect
for moral values. Again, whereas Assyrian and other codes lay down a
horrific system of punishments, including impalement, facial
mutilation, castration and flogging to death, Hebrew codes from the
start embrace the idea that the human person is entitled to respect,
being in God's image. Flogging was limited to forty strokes but
carried out 'before the face of the judge, lest, if he should exceed,
and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should
seem vile unto thee' (Deut. 25:3).
Christianity built upon the humanist structure of Judaism, and added
its own notions of mankind's dignity and responsibility. It provided a
much clearer vision of the afterlife, and how it was to be attained,
so that in its inducements to obey the moral law, which it made much
simpler and practical than the Mosaic one, it stressed the power of
hope as much as the power of fear. It was, too, universalistic in its
message and in its appeal; and, recognizing the infinite diversity of
men and women, it was endowed by its founder with a glittering variety
of insights and guidelines calculated to evoke responses from all
natures. It proved a matchless combination of spirituality and
dynamism. It offered answers to metaphysical questions, it provided
opportunities and frames of reference for the contemplative, the
mystic and the devout; but at the same time it was a relentless gospel
of work, and an appeal to achievement. Christianity provided the
essential matrix of Europe itself, as it merged from the Dark Ages;
and when Europe spread overseas, it carried Christianity with it in
its ships, so that the Western world order, as it emerged in the 19th
century, had its origins in Christianity and indeed until 1914 was
essentially Christian in its values and its codes of conduct.
I have not much doubt that future ages will regard the 19th century as
the apogee and culmination of the civilized and prosperous order which
Christianity created. It was marked almost everywhere by the spread of
regular law enforcement, equitable justice and the effective
protection of life, property and legitimate commerce. Piracy and
slavery were virtually ended. Living standards rose, often in
spectacular fashion, all over the world; standards of public health
and education were everywhere improved. Life became more precious, and
richer, and countless millions of people acquired access to privileges
and enjoyments hitherto confined to the rich. All this took place
within a Christian context, with Christianity spreading all over the
world, quite rapidly, and with the hope-expressed as late as 1910 in
the First World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh by the American
Methodist John Raleigh Mott-of 'the evangelizing of the world in one
generation'. Christian ethical notions underlay the structure of
public law wherever the Western world penetrated, and of international
law and commerce everywhere. Above all the 19th century saw the climax
of the philosophy of personal responsibility-the notion that each of
us is individually accountable for our actions before some ultimate
tribunal-which is the very essence of the Judeo-Christian spirit. It
was this doctrine of individual responsibility, resting on the notion
of the individual conscience, which created the 19th century world and
made it on the whole a prosperous and orderly place.
Then, in 1914, Europe committed suicide, and into this senseless
process of self-mutilation it eventually dragged the United States.
The world of the 19th century, with all its certitude's and
restraints, was gone, never to return. It was a European suicide; it
was also, in a sense, a suicide of Christianity. For on one side were
ranged Protestant Germany, Catholic Austria and Orthodox Bulgaria; on
the other were Protestant Britain, Catholic France and Italy, and
Orthodox Russia. European Christianity, supposedly based on a common
moral foundation, proved no more able than the network of marriage
relationships among the royal families to prevent Armageddon, or to
stop it degenerating into mutual genocide. All the participants
claimed they were fighting in the name of moral principle and
Christian justice.
Such episodes induce a mood of cynicism-even of hostility-towards
Christianity. There have always been those who have argued that
organized religion is a fraud and itself the progenitor of human
depravity. Wars have been fought not only between Christians, each
professing Christian aims, but specifically to advance Christian
purposes. The Crusades can be presented as the beginnings of European
aggressive colonialism, one of the great land-grabs of history. In the
18th century, at a time when Dr. Johnson saw religion as the sole
force capable of restraining the wolf in man, free-thinkers took quite
the opposite view. In the famous Philosophical Dictionary, published
in Paris in 1764, Voltaire defined religion as 'the enemy of man'.
The phenomenon of Christians fighting Christians, both sides waving
the Bible, poses perhaps insoluble problems of theodicy. It arose in
acute form during the American civil war, when the clergy of all
Christian denominations, on both North and South, argued vehemently
for the justice of their respective causes. President Lincoln had
reflected more deeply on the relationship between religion and
political justice than any other man of his time, perhaps of any time.
In one sense he had no doubt that God was on his side: it was because
of what he believed to be a divine sign that he issued the
Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. Yet he accepted an element of
inscrutability in Divine Providence . . . Lincoln recast these
thoughts into a famous passage of his Second Inaugural Address of
1865, and drew from his perplexity what is surely the correct answer:
that while Christian insights do not necessarily explain to us God's
purpose, Christian ethics teach us how to mitigate the evils of the
world which man's folly creates. We must therefore behave 'with malice
towards none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God
gives us to see the right'; and after the war, we must 'do all which
may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and
with all nations'.
I return then to Evelyn Waugh's point, which I believe applies equally
to nations as to individuals. Christianity cannot perfect man; cannot
even make man good; but can and does make man better than he would be
without it. Christianity cannot lead nations into collective wisdom
and charity; cannot avert war, civil or international; but it can and
does, if only episodically and imperfectly, impose some restraints on
the wickedness' of states and the ravages of warfare. I came across
the other day, a report by a British naval commander to the Admiralty
during the Dardanelles campaign of 1915, which at first raised a
smile: He wrote: 'We shelled the Turks from 9 to 11; and then, it
being Sunday, we held Divine Service'. At first thought it raises a
smile; but not on second thoughts. For if men are to shell their
fellow men in any case, is it not better that they should stand in the
presence of God afterwards, and pray for guidance and forgiveness, and
seek consolation in their anxieties and fears? I have no doubt at all
that it is. Again, when the Second World War broke out in 1939, Pope
Pius XII advised Catholics everywhere 'to fight with valor and
charity'. This struck many at the time and since as an inadequate
response to a world calamity. And personally I hold no brief for
Pius's conduct before and during the war. Yet such advice in itself is
not unchristian. If men must fight at all, it is better that they
fight with valor, and still more with charity, than without either;
better they should fight like Christians, than like mere animals
trapped in a pit together.
This brings me to my central point. For if the suicide of Europe in
1914 was conducted in what was still a Christian context, the world
which emerged from that war bore the first unmistakable signs of total
deChristianisation at a state level. For 1917 saw the birth, in
Russia, of the first atheist state dedicated to the destruction of
religion of all kinds and of Christianity in particular; and that evil
regime itself soon evoked, in response, others which repudiated all
the restraints of Christianity-and these anti-Christian regimes were
soon at each other's throats, like wild beasts, dragging what remained
of the civilized world into their arena of conflict.
What is so notable about the 20th century, and a principal cause-I
think the principal cause-of its horrors, is that great physical power
has been acquired by men who have no fear of God and who believe
themselves restrained by no absolute code of conduct. Lenin, who
devoted his life to violence, and who created the Soviet Union in his
own violent image, hated Christianity as a huge and ubiquitous enemy.
He wrote to Maxim Gorky (13 January 1913): 'There can be nothing more
abominable than religion'. He said he did not mind a corrupt and
sinful priest-such were easily beaten. But he hated and feared the
saints. The purer the religion, the more dangerous it was. A devoted
cleric, he argued, is far more influential than an egotistical and
immoral one. The clergy most in need of suppression were those who
expressed their solidarity with the workers and the peasants. It was
these he persecuted most ferociously. He insisted there was no such
thing as a Christian code of conduct; the only true guide to the
behavior of the individual and of the state was what he termed 'the
revolutionary conscience'-that is, the party line, dictated by himself
as, in his quasi- divine wisdom, he saw fit. Can we wonder then that
this monster murdered or starved to death five million of his own
countrymen, and that his successor, Stalin-who inherited his
mantle-dispatched a further 20 million?
Lenin was a disciple of Marx, who argued that it was the supposed
virtues of Christians-the humility, acceptance of suffering,
willingness to turn the other cheek-which made it most abominable in
his eyes. Adolf Hitler, Lenin's Doppelganger, was a disciple of
Friedrich Nietzsche, who argued that God was dead. He wrote in 1886:
'The greatest event of recent times-that "God is dead", that the
belief in the Christian God is no longer tenable-is beginning to cast
its first shadows over Europe'. Hitler was part of those shadows; for
he personified what Nietzsche, in this sense correctly, predicted
would fill the vacuum left by the decline in Christianity: the Will to
Power. Hitler was a new kind of Messiah, uninhibited by any religious
sanctions whatever and with an unappeasable appetite for controlling
mankind. Hitler hated Christianity with a passion which rivaled
Lenin's. Shortly after assuming power in 1933, he told Hermann
Rauschnig that he intended 'to stamp out Christianity root and
branch'. 'One is either a Christian or a German-you cannot be both',
he added. Christianity might be destroyed by force or 'left to rot
like a gangrenous limb'. The masses would never be Christian again:
'Never again. That tale is finished . . . but we can hasten matters.
The parsons will be made to dig their own graves. They will betray
their God to us'. In the Nazi party, he created a blasphemous parody
of Christianity, with racialism substituted for God, and German
'blood' for the blood of Christ. He had a Nazi creed, marriage
service, sacraments. In rejecting God, he gave substance to Fr
Rahner's notion that men without God would become mere clever animals.
For Hitler wanted to raise the brute in man. He said: 'I want a
powerful, masterly, cruel and fearless youth . . . The freedom and
dignity of the wild beast must shine from their eyes . . . that is how
I will root out a thousand years of human domestication'.
Can it be wondered that these two fearful regimes, created by men
dedicated to the destruction of Christian humanism and its ethics,
soon plunged the world into a yet more extensive and destructive
Armageddon, which cost 50 million lives and saw men resort to degrees
of savagery and wickedness never before practiced or even imagined.
Had the world ever before seen horrors like Auschwitz or the Gulag
Archipelago? Here were the first bitter fruits of a de-Christianized
world.
During the last 40 years, since the end of the Second World War, the
process of de- Christianisation has proceeded, for the great European
empires, which were shaped by Christian ethics, and in theory at
least, and often in practice, were based upon Christian ideals of
justice, tolerance and equality before the law, have been ruthlessly
dismantled or abandoned . . . As Christianity and the West have
retreated, totalitarianism in various forms, civil war in all its
manifestations, and international war in innumerable guises, have
rushed to fill the vacuum; and there has likewise been a reversion to
forms of barbarism and savagery, not excluding cannibalism. The cost
in human life has been enormous: so-called 'conventional wars' and
civil conflicts fought in Asia, Africa and Latin America have claimed
over 35 million lives in these four decades. Countless others have
died in prisons and camps, often under torture, or in the famines
engineered by human folly or even deliberately by human malevolence
over large parts of Africa, where the restraints of Christian
government have been removed.
I return again to the principle of Evelyn Waugh: that there is no
person or situation with Christianity, which cannot be rendered worse,
and usually far worse, without it. Take some examples. Until 1959, the
Cuban Republic was a broadly Christian country, with a corrupt and
occasionally vicious government, a complacent hierarchy, but huge
areas of personal freedom and one of the highest living standards in
Latin America-living standards that were increasing quite rapidly.
Today, Cuba is a de-Christianized Marxist totalitarian state. It has
an annual growth-rate, per capita, of minus 1.2 per cent. It has
become one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, with a national
income of less that $1,000 a head, worse off than neighboring Jamaica,
the Dominican Republic, Colombia and Mexico, on which it once looked
down. It has 150,000 political prisoners, many of whom have rotted in
gaol for nearly 25 years. With armed forces of 200,000 it has more men
under arms, in relation to population, than any other Latin-American
country, indeed than any other country in the world, with the
exception of Soviet Russia's other surrogate, Vietnam. And of the
Cuban people, between one-fifth and one-quarter live in exile.
Vietnam, now the most militaristic state on earth, fighting wars and
skirmishes round all its borders, is another example of
de-Christianisation. It was once under the protection of France, a
great Christian power, and in the south at least was partly or even
predominantly Christianized, being directly governed by Christian
sects. As in Cuba, there was corruption; and, under French rule, some
injustice. There was also a high degree of freedom, including the
freedom of religion; and rising prosperity. Christianity has now been
virtually eradicated, at least to all appearances; and other religions
such as Buddhism operate under the same restraints imposed by the
Soviets on Russian Orthodoxy. Again, a fifth of the population are in
exile; and the remainder live in this grim, totalitarian armed camp in
conditions of privation and servitude. In neighboring Cambodia, a
fifth of the population have been murdered, another quarter are
refugees, and the rest administered by the occupying Vietnamese armed
forces.
As one glances around a suffering world, many other examples spring
into view. Angola and Mozambique once formed the jewels in the
Portuguese Christian empire, an empire characterized by much poverty,
some oppression and corruption, but also by a multi-racial spirit and
Christian idealism, albeit in somewhat rudimentary form. Guerrilla
war, and a change of regime in Portugal, ended the empire; it has been
succeeded by Marxist states of a kind, by civil war in both cases,
continuous terrorist activity, the destruction of the infrastructure,
oppression on a scale unimaginable in the Portuguese era, a
progressive decline in living standards and, in many areas, famine and
starvation.
Further north is the tragic case of Uganda which, during its brief
efflorescence under Christian colonial rule, was perhaps the most
delightful country in Africa. Winston Churchill, who visited it in
1908, called it a 'paradise upon earth . . . a tropical garden . . . a
fairy-tale: you climb up a railway instead of a beanstalk, and at the
top is a wonderful new world.' Uganda had been Christianized by
Anglican and Catholic missionaries, who ended the cruelty of its pagan
and Moslem tyrants. It was given independence in 1963, fell victim to
the military regime of Idi Amin in 1971, and for the next eight years
endured one of the worst terrors in the bloody history of African
paganism. Amin was the Moslem son of a Lugbara witchwoman, and seems
to have practiced ritual cannibalism, murdering and dismembering one
of his wives, eating his son's heart and keeping select human members
in his refrigerator; he caused to be murdered 250,000 people, many of
whom he dispatched personally. The Obote regime which both preceded
and followed his was scarcely better, and Uganda is now a ruined
country, ravaged by civil war and haunted by ghosts.
Most pathetic case of all perhaps, is Ethiopia, the only African
country to retain its Christianity from Antiquity, the last monarchy
to fall victim to colonialism, the first to have its independence
restored: a strange, colorful, primitive and vulnerable survival from
the pre-modern world. There was considerable freedom, and some
progress, under the old Emperor Haile Selasse, who survived until
1974, when the Soviets caused him to be smothered to death, and
installed a puppet Marxist regime in his place. The worst that could
be said of the old Emperor's censorship is that he cut the death-scene
of King Duncan from performances of Macbeth; after his fall,
Shakespeare was not performed at all. Now, ten years later, Ethiopia
is stricken by civil and external wars and is enduring the worst
famine in its history, created at least in part by deliberate
decisions of its Marxist rulers-thus following the tradition of Lenin
and Stalin, who used the famine-weapon to destroy their internal
enemies. Soviet aircraft are employed to bomb the refugees from the
famine-stricken areas.
If Voltaire were alive today, surveying a world from much of which
Christianity has been forced to retreat, and observing the horrors,
both physical and ideological, which have rushed to fill the vacuum it
has left, I doubt if he would still maintain that 'religion is the
enemy of man'. Would he not, rather, be forced to conclude that true
religion, by which I mean Judeo-Christianity in all its normative
forms, is the friend of man, that with all its limitations as
practiced by fallible humanity, it is the only safety-net which keeps
us all from plunging into the abyss, and joining the beasts which tear
and rend each other below? Would he not now concede, if only in an
empirical sense, the necessity of Christianity? I think he would.
He might also note the remarkable, indeed unique, role of America in
the world scene. In 1835, long after Voltaire was dead, his compatriot
De Tocqueville had been struck by the extraordinary, and to him,
astounding, part played by religion in the Great Republic. In his book
Democracy in America, he wrote: 'In France I had almost always seen
the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses
diametrically opposed to each other: but in America I found that they
were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same
country'. He concluded: 'Religion . . . must be regarded as the
foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does
not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of free
institutions'.
I believe that De Toqueville's observation remains valid today, and
that religious voluntarism, which has shaped America more than any
other force, continues to underpin its democratic freedoms and its
republican institutions. Moreover, Christianity is not on the retreat
in America. In some respects it is undergoing a revival here, what I
like to call the Fourth Great Awakening. It finds religious expression
in the Moral Majority, political expression in the phenomenon of
Reaganism-for in America religion and politics are organically linked,
movements in one echoing and reflecting movements in the other. Just
as the strength of religion in America sustains and nurtures
democracy, so the vigorous spirit of American democracy continually
reinforces the people's religion. What distinguishes the current
revival is its popular, non-hierarchical nature. For the official
religious establishments, indulging in ever-more-extreme forms of
liberalism, through the National and World Council of Churches, have
provoked an angry, conservative reaction from the disenfranchised
rank-and-file. This has taken the form of a new and non-elitist
variety of ecumenicalism, a de facto unity which stretches across the
Protestant sects and into Catholicism, a popular ecumenicalism based
upon a common reassertion of traditional moral values and belief in
the salient articles of Christianity not as symbols but as plain
historical facts. It appeals to many non-practicing Christians, and
even non-Christians, who feel that the Judeo-Christian system of
ethics and morals is in peril, and in need of re-establishment- that,
in the last decades of this tragic century Christianity is indeed a
necessity.
One aspect of the American religious revival is the reassertion of
America's role as the city of refuge for the oppressed. America was
founded by persecuted sects, and continually reinforced by them. In
the 19th century, it took in four millions of oppressed Irish
Catholics, two million persecuted Jews from Russia and Rumania; and
countless millions of poor Christian peasants from east and central
and southern Europe. In the last two decades, it has received, and
enabled to live in tolerance and growing prosperity, many millions of
persecuted Catholics from Marxist Cuba and Indochina. In the 1980's,
as in the days of the Mayflower, the United States is the first and
obvious and often the only possible choice of anyone, anywhere in the
world, dislocated in the cause of religious freedom. I know of no more
positive and visible proof of the necessity of Christianity in the
world today than this American role as the last refuge of the
oppressed. So I end with Longfellow's lines, to my mind as true as
when he wrote them:
Sail on, O Union strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all its hopes for future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth08.html
.

User: "Peacenik"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	16 Sep 2004 01:03:58 PM

"ohoe" <oohoe@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:d0507f0b.0409131627.fb8758a@posting.google.com...

<snip>
What a load of garbage!
--
Peacenik
.

User: "johnebravo836"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	13 Sep 2004 09:28:19 PM

"ohoe" <oohoe@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:d0507f0b.0409131627.fb8758a@posting.google.com...

The Necessity for Christianity

Professor Paul Johnson

[snip]
I have to commend Ohoe on his or her remarkable resourcefulness in finding
one preposterous tirade after another to post. It's interesting to see the
extent to which Prof. Johnson reveals that he believes, deep down, that
Christianity is essentially motivated by irrational fear -- i.e., his fear
of what would happen if people didn't have the "best" God, namely, his God,
to reign them in. Of course, people like Prof. Johnson often seem to have
trouble remembering the utterly horrifying things that are done by religious
fanatics in the name of their religion, with their consciences completely at
ease, confident in the knowledge that they act with God's blessing and in
accordance with His Will. I'm sure he would be tempted to reply that that
only happens with "bad" religions, and not with "good" religions like his,
but, alas, the historical record just isn't terribly supportive of this
position. Sadly, facts are like that sometimes -- just incorrigible.
Really, in a essay that piles one absurdity on top of another with
breathtaking abandon, this is perhaps the funniest paragraph:

If Voltaire were alive today, surveying a world from much of which
Christianity has been forced to retreat, and observing the horrors,
both physical and ideological, which have rushed to fill the vacuum it
has left, I doubt if he would still maintain that 'religion is the
enemy of man'. Would he not, rather, be forced to conclude that true
religion, by which I mean Judeo-Christianity in all its normative
forms, is the friend of man, that with all its limitations as
practiced by fallible humanity, it is the only safety-net which keeps
us all from plunging into the abyss, and joining the beasts which tear
and rend each other below? Would he not now concede, if only in an
empirical sense, the necessity of Christianity? I think he would.

We can all be grateful that we now have Prof. Johnson's thoroughly
groundless fantasy about what Voltaire would think if he were alive today. I
look forward to Prof. Johnson's next essay, in which he reveals that if
Nietzsche were with us today, he would surely maintain that God is Alive and
Well.
.

User: "Rob Duncan"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	14 Sep 2004 01:05:01 AM

"johnebravo836" <johnebravo836@yahoo.com> wrote

We can all be grateful that we now have Prof. Johnson's thoroughly
groundless fantasy about what Voltaire would think if he were alive today.

look forward to Prof. Johnson's next essay, in which he reveals that if
Nietzsche were with us today, he would surely maintain that God is Alive

and

Well.

Are you implying that without religion mankind would be in *better* shape?
Really? Or are you just accusing Christianity? As an old jewish friend
once told me, everyone has a worm in their apple. Mankinds ideals may be
noble, but their behavior falls far short. Blaming the religion they try
and use to temper their true desires, is hardly logical. Its not the
religion, its the person. We are defective. G-d or no, we are ALL
defective.
Rob
.

User: "johnebravo836"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	14 Sep 2004 08:59:56 PM

"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:4qqdnbWq57WSF9vcRVn-jQ@gbronline.com...

"johnebravo836" <johnebravo836@yahoo.com> wrote

We can all be grateful that we now have Prof. Johnson's thoroughly
groundless fantasy about what Voltaire would think if he were alive

today.

look forward to Prof. Johnson's next essay, in which he reveals that if
Nietzsche were with us today, he would surely maintain that God is Alive

and

Well.

Are you implying that without religion mankind would be in *better* shape?

Did I say anything that implied that? It's a simple question of logic,
really.
The thesis of the original posted essay was, in short, something like:
(1) "People require some kind of religion (presumably Christianity) in order
for them to act morally".
The denial of that is
(2) "People do not require some kind of religion (presumably Christianity)
in order for them to act morally"
I'm assuming that the following fairly paraphrases your inquiry above:
(3) "People would act more morally (presumably that's what you meant by
'would be in better shape') without any religion".
It's a simple matter of logic to determine if (3) follows from (2).

Really? Or are you just accusing Christianity? As an old jewish friend
once told me, everyone has a worm in their apple. Mankinds ideals may be
noble, but their behavior falls far short. Blaming the religion they try
and use to temper their true desires, is hardly logical. Its not the
religion, its the person. We are defective. G-d or no, we are ALL
defective.

Rob

Whether religion morally "improves" people or actually makes them *worse*
are different questions.
In all seriousness, does anyone know if there is some theological
explanation for why referring to the Almighty by the name "G-d" is
considered to be inoffensive to He/She/It, although using "God" gravely
offends He/She/It? I've never understood that . . .
.

User: "Rob Duncan"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	15 Sep 2004 12:26:33 AM

"johnebravo836" <johnebravo836@yahoo.com> wrote

Whether religion morally "improves" people or actually makes them *worse*
are different questions.

In all seriousness, does anyone know if there is some theological
explanation for why referring to the Almighty by the name "G-d" is
considered to be inoffensive to He/She/It, although using "God" gravely
offends He/She/It? I've never understood that . . .

As far as I know Christianity simply teaches people how to live morally.
Their behavior is left up to themselves. They have free will, do they not?
Christianity is simply a moral code. True Christians live by it, fakes
distort it.
Dont blame the religion for what "people" do. People are inherently evil.
As ALL of history has taught us. True Christianity tempers peoples darker
desires.
Rob
.

User: "johnebravo836"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	15 Sep 2004 09:12:28 AM

"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:QrmdnaIpHdYRT9rcRVn-sQ@gbronline.com...

"johnebravo836" <johnebravo836@yahoo.com> wrote

Whether religion morally "improves" people or actually makes them

*worse*

are different questions.

In all seriousness, does anyone know if there is some theological
explanation for why referring to the Almighty by the name "G-d" is
considered to be inoffensive to He/She/It, although using "God" gravely
offends He/She/It? I've never understood that . . .

As far as I know Christianity simply teaches people how to live morally.

It provides, among other things, a moral perspective on the world. However,
it is not always clear, for every moral question one might face, exactly
what the "Christian" answer would be -- otherwise, there would never be any
disagreement about what the answer is, and clearly there sometimes is sharp
disagreement. Even where it *does* provide a clear answer, there might be
good reasons for taking issue with that answer. Moreover, Christianity does
much more than simply provide a moral code, I'm sure you would agree.

Their behavior is left up to themselves. They have free will, do they

not?
Actually, I think there are serious philosophical reasons for questioning
this, but for the purposes of the present discussion, I'm assuming we do,
yes.

Christianity is simply a moral code. True Christians live by it, fakes
distort it.

It's not quite this simple: there can be genuine disagreement about what the
"correct" "Christian" answer is at times, so even those who are perfectly
sincere and mean well can disagree. In addition, I'm sure you would not deny
that some people rationalize immoral conduct by pointing to Christianity (as
happens with all religions), and that is not necessarily done by them in
complete cynicism -- they may sincerely believe that their moral judgments
are sanctioned by Christian teachings.

Dont blame the religion for what "people" do.

Please understand me -- I certainly didn't blame all immoral behavior on
religion, nor did I say that, on balance, religion makes people decidedly
more immoral than they would be without it. I merely noted that it's not at
all uncommon for some people to believe that sdme immoral conduct they
engage in, and which would easily be seen as immoral by any decent person,
is in fact sanctioned by their religion. In *those* cases, religion actually
makes it *easier* for the person to engage in immoral behavior without
suffering the guilt or moral qualms that otherwise might inhibit the immoral
behavior.

People are inherently evil.
As ALL of history has taught us. True Christianity tempers peoples darker
desires.

Of course, the qualifier "true" is critical there -- and points to the
problem.
.

User: "GlennGlenn"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	15 Sep 2004 08:06:56 PM

In article <QrmdnaIpHdYRT9rcRVn-sQ@gbronline.com>, Rob Duncan
<robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:

Dont blame the religion for what "people" do. People are inherently evil.
As ALL of history has taught us. True Christianity tempers peoples darker
desires.

Hogwash. People invented religion and its ethereal "enforcers" (God�,
Jeebus, Ganesh...), and continue to mass-produce it. Any social good
or bad that comes from that product comes from the producers. GIGO, as
coders like to say. If "True Christianity" (whatever that means)
succeeds in anything, it does so at the whims of those who practice it.
Religion is one form of socialization. So is law. So is the economic
structure of a given society. And all of them serve at the whims of
the people who practice them.
All of them consist of air (often hot), and take on the shape of the
"container" that is the citizenry of a given society.
--
GlennGlenn -- aa#825 --

I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have taken
my wages in people.
� Quentin Crisp
.

User: "RaiinLover"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	15 Sep 2004 08:25:25 AM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:26:33 -0700, "Rob Duncan"
<robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:

"johnebravo836" <johnebravo836@yahoo.com> wrote

Whether religion morally "improves" people or actually makes them *worse*
are different questions.

In all seriousness, does anyone know if there is some theological
explanation for why referring to the Almighty by the name "G-d" is
considered to be inoffensive to He/She/It, although using "God" gravely
offends He/She/It? I've never understood that . . .

As far as I know Christianity simply teaches people how to live morally.
Their behavior is left up to themselves. They have free will, do they not?
Christianity is simply a moral code. True Christians live by it, fakes
distort it.

Dont blame the religion for what "people" do. People are inherently evil.
As ALL of history has taught us. True Christianity tempers peoples darker
desires.

So tell us, we all have the 'darker desires' you speak of, so what
keeps Buddhists and Mormons and Indiginous peoples and Muslims and
Atheists (yes, even Atheists) from acting out those dark desires?
By the way... people aren't inherently evil... we are inherently GOOD
and 99% of us know the good path and try to stay on it as often as we
can.
James, Seattle
.

User: "Rob Duncan"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	15 Sep 2004 07:19:09 PM

"RaiinLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:egggk096o9mk26t8l7u4tgfg267ra83otk@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:26:33 -0700, "Rob Duncan"
<robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:

"johnebravo836" <johnebravo836@yahoo.com> wrote

Whether religion morally "improves" people or actually makes them

*worse*

As far as I know Christianity simply teaches people how to live morally.
Their behavior is left up to themselves. They have free will, do they

not?

Christianity is simply a moral code. True Christians live by it, fakes
distort it.

Dont blame the religion for what "people" do. People are inherently

evil.

As ALL of history has taught us. True Christianity tempers peoples

darker

desires.

So tell us, we all have the 'darker desires' you speak of, so what
keeps Buddhists and Mormons and Indiginous peoples and Muslims and
Atheists (yes, even Atheists) from acting out those dark desires?

Good examples of religions that help people temper their darker desires!
Did I say Christianity was the only one usefull for this? Atheists are
usually people who have no need of religion in tempering their darker
desires. Usually. But there are examples where atheism allows evil to
fully engulf the psych and destroy the person from within.

By the way... people aren't inherently evil... we are inherently GOOD
and 99% of us know the good path and try to stay on it as often as we
can.

James, Seattle

No, James. You have a liberal and idealized concept of how people are.
That is to be commended, but it is wishfull thinking... and saddly, false.
I wish it were true, I would give my life to make it true. But, we ARENT
good. Im sorry. It takes a great amount of time, effort, study, and
devotion to divest ourselves of our selfish desires. For most of us, even
after all that effort, we take them to our grave with us. That is not bad,
simply... sad. It is the human condition, its an artifact of our desire to
survive. Looking out for numero uno. As I mentioned in a previous post, an
old jewish friend of mine said that "all apples have their worms."
We all fall short. Even you, even I, at my best, fall short.
Rob
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	15 Sep 2004 07:29:20 PM

"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:9IudnR7V9_2dQdXcRVn-vQ@gbronline.com...

"RaiinLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:egggk096o9mk26t8l7u4tgfg267ra83otk@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:26:33 -0700, "Rob Duncan"
<robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:

"johnebravo836" <johnebravo836@yahoo.com> wrote

Whether religion morally "improves" people or actually makes them

*worse*

are different questions.

In all seriousness, does anyone know if there is some theological
explanation for why referring to the Almighty by the name "G-d" is
considered to be inoffensive to He/She/It, although using "God"
gravely
offends He/She/It? I've never understood that . . .

As far as I know Christianity simply teaches people how to live morally.
Their behavior is left up to themselves. They have free will, do they

not?

Christianity is simply a moral code. True Christians live by it, fakes
distort it.

Dont blame the religion for what "people" do. People are inherently

evil.

As ALL of history has taught us. True Christianity tempers peoples

darker

desires.

So tell us, we all have the 'darker desires' you speak of, so what
keeps Buddhists and Mormons and Indiginous peoples and Muslims and
Atheists (yes, even Atheists) from acting out those dark desires?

Such as?

By the way... people aren't inherently evil... we are inherently GOOD
and 99% of us know the good path and try to stay on it as often as we
can.

James, Seattle

No, James. You have a liberal and idealized concept of how people are.
That is to be commended, but it is wishfull thinking... and saddly,
false.

In your opinion, of course.

I wish it were true, I would give my life to make it true. But, we ARENT
good.

See above.
Im sorry. It takes a great amount of time, effort, study, and

devotion to divest ourselves of our selfish desires. For most of us, even
after all that effort, we take them to our grave with us. That is not
bad,
simply... sad. It is the human condition, its an artifact of our desire
to
survive. Looking out for numero uno.

Obviously, you're not a parent.
As I mentioned in a previous post, an

old jewish friend of mine said that "all apples have their worms."

We all fall short. Even you, even I, at my best, fall short.

Please don't project your shortcomings on us, thank you.
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "Rob Duncan"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	16 Sep 2004 03:51:43 PM

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:2qs532F12qg95U1@uni-berlin.de...

"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:9IudnR7V9_2dQdXcRVn-vQ@gbronline.com...

"RaiinLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:egggk096o9mk26t8l7u4tgfg267ra83otk@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:26:33 -0700, "Rob Duncan"
<robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:

"johnebravo836" <johnebravo836@yahoo.com> wrote

Whether religion morally "improves" people or actually makes them

*worse*

are different questions.

In all seriousness, does anyone know if there is some theological
explanation for why referring to the Almighty by the name "G-d" is
considered to be inoffensive to He/She/It, although using "God"
gravely
offends He/She/It? I've never understood that . . .

As far as I know Christianity simply teaches people how to live
morally.
Their behavior is left up to themselves. They have free will, do they

not?

Christianity is simply a moral code. True Christians live by it, fakes
distort it.

Dont blame the religion for what "people" do. People are inherently

evil.

As ALL of history has taught us. True Christianity tempers peoples

darker

desires.

So tell us, we all have the 'darker desires' you speak of, so what
keeps Buddhists and Mormons and Indiginous peoples and Muslims and
Atheists (yes, even Atheists) from acting out those dark desires?

Such as?

By the way... people aren't inherently evil... we are inherently GOOD
and 99% of us know the good path and try to stay on it as often as we
can.

James, Seattle

No, James. You have a liberal and idealized concept of how people are.
That is to be commended, but it is wishfull thinking... and saddly,
false.

In your opinion, of course.

I wish it were true, I would give my life to make it true. But, we ARENT
good.

See above.

Im sorry. It takes a great amount of time, effort, study, and

devotion to divest ourselves of our selfish desires. For most of us,
even
after all that effort, we take them to our grave with us. That is not
bad,
simply... sad. It is the human condition, its an artifact of our desire
to
survive. Looking out for numero uno.

Obviously, you're not a parent.

As I mentioned in a previous post, an

old jewish friend of mine said that "all apples have their worms."

We all fall short. Even you, even I, at my best, fall short.

Please don't project your shortcomings on us, thank you.
--
__________
Robyn

Your ignorance betrays your age. If you were honest with yourself you would
have no problem understanding we arent "good". And I fear folks like you
who dont question their own motives. People like you blindly accept that
all their own desires are in the best interests of "others" when more often
its to suit yourself.
Rob
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	16 Sep 2004 04:16:24 PM

"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:-oWdnWclC-1_YdTcRVn-gA@gbronline.com...
snip

Your ignorance betrays your age.

Oh really? Perhaps you'd like to share with the class exactly how old you
seem to think I am.
If you were honest with yourself you would

have no problem understanding we arent "good".

And we're certainly not as evil as you seem to think we are either. If you
were honest with yourself, you'd realize that what you are doing here is
merely projecting your own fears and neurosis on others. I'm sorry that you
have so many obviously mental problems and issues.
And I fear folks like you

who dont question their own motives.

Please point out anything that proves that I don't question my own motives.
More projection on your part, no doubt.
People like you blindly accept that

all their own desires are in the best interests of "others" when more
often its to suit yourself.

Please provide evidence to back up this slanderous accusation, liar. I dare
you.
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "Rob Duncan"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	17 Sep 2004 03:48:14 AM

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:2que56F13rognU1@uni-berlin.de...

"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:-oWdnWclC-1_YdTcRVn-gA@gbronline.com...

snip

Your ignorance betrays your age.

Oh really? Perhaps you'd like to share with the class exactly how old you
seem to think I am.

Youre just a kid. 20's. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, kudos for being
here and participating. Even being wrong is better than being nothing at
all. Hell, who knows, maybe Im the wrong one, LOL.
Class? Are we in a "class?" ;^)

If you were honest with yourself you would

have no problem understanding we arent "good".

Thats just an argumentative posture attempting to defeat my position. Of
course I dont have any "fears or neurosis." But if it makes you feel better
to think I do, then by all means, think what you like.

I'm sorry that you have so many obviously mental problems and issues.

LOL. You dont have to be sorry. Im sure my "obvious mental problems" arent
your fault.

And I fear folks like you

who dont question their own motives.

Please point out anything that proves that I don't question my own
motives. More projection on your part, no doubt.

Darlin, Im pretty sure that ALL of us reading this thread can agree that
youve spent VERY little time examining the reasons you hold the opinions you
do. That is a thing that comes with age, experience, and self introspection.
You are idealistic, which is good, but it will, and I know youll hate it,
change with time. Experience with life will slowly eat away at your
idealism and replace it with realism. And realism is sad, and not an
idealistic place. Its where we finally come to terms with our own
shortcomings.
We ALL fall short. Im sorry, Im really, really sorry. I can think of some
of the worst things you could ever imagine... and the best of people wish
they could perform them, all the time. What you want is for US to dumb down
the word... "good." We cant do that for you sweetheart. We arent all
good. We are a lot of good, but we all have the bad. All of us. All of
us.
The shitholes who turned over the A-Bomb secrets didnt do it to spare the
world nuclear war, they did it for money, and to continue the arms race so
they and their compatriots could continue creating ever more destructive
bombs. The worlds full of *****/lies. But we believe the good (whether its
true or not) because were idealistic. Someday, that will leave you. And it
will be a bleak and lonely morning for you.

People like you blindly accept that

all their own desires are in the best interests of "others" when more
often its to suit yourself.

Please provide evidence to back up this slanderous accusation, liar. I
dare you.
--
__________
Robyn

Dont take this the wrong way... but I like your behavior. <cringe>
You think a lot of things. You think these things shouldnt be left up to
parents, but should actually be mandatorily taught to chilren in school,
against their own parents wishes. Need I say more?
Ill hand you one example. Just one. Please answer... If you dare...!
Does a parent have the right to teach his children that fags are gross and
disgusting? And does he have the right to demand the school make no
opposing viewpoint known?
Its simple really. Answer it.
Rob
.

User: "Therion Ware"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	17 Sep 2004 05:28:48 AM

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:48:14 -0700 in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Rob Duncan ("Rob Duncan"
<robduncan@gbronline.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:2que56F13rognU1@uni-berlin.de...

"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:-oWdnWclC-1_YdTcRVn-gA@gbronline.com...

snip

Your ignorance betrays your age.

Oh really? Perhaps you'd like to share with the class exactly how old you
seem to think I am.

"Who said that"?
"I hope you've brought enough for everyone".
And of course
"You're the worst class I've *ever* taught".
[snip]
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	17 Sep 2004 06:33:28 AM

"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:6uKdnR8__oZMOdfcRVn-sQ@gbronline.com...

"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:2que56F13rognU1@uni-berlin.de...

"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:-oWdnWclC-1_YdTcRVn-gA@gbronline.com...

snip

Your ignorance betrays your age.

Oh really? Perhaps you'd like to share with the class exactly how old
you seem to think I am.

Youre just a kid. 20's. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, kudos for
being here and participating. Even being wrong is better than being
nothing at all. Hell, who knows, maybe Im the wrong one, LOL.

LOL yourself. You're extremely amusing. I'm 43, married, with a 6 year old
daughter (who I need to get ready for school at the moment)

Class? Are we in a "class?" ;^)

Seems to me that you're the one behaving at though he should be in one. 9th
grade, perhaps?

If you were honest with yourself you would

have no problem understanding we arent "good".

Thats just an argumentative posture attempting to defeat my position. Of
course I dont have any "fears or neurosis."

At least you don't think you do, anyway. Or, you're just not admitting to
them, which is understandable. Coming to terms with ones problems can be
difficult.
But if it makes you feel better

to think I do, then by all means, think what you like.

Not that I need your permission, of course. You seem to want to think as
you like, right? Even though you're wrong.

I'm sorry that you have so many obviously mental problems and issues.

LOL. You dont have to be sorry. Im sure my "obvious mental problems"
arent your fault.

No, it probably has something to do with genetics or your upbringing.

And I fear folks like you

who dont question their own motives.

Please point out anything that proves that I don't question my own
motives. More projection on your part, no doubt.

Darlin, Im pretty sure that ALL of us reading this thread can agree that
youve spent VERY little time examining the reasons you hold the opinions
you do.

And I'm pretty sure that you don't know what the hell you're talking about
and are projecting. But that's okay. We see a lot of that here.

That is a thing that comes with age, experience, and self introspection.

LOL, what's really amusing is that I'm probably older than you are, as well
as being better educated (gotten through high school yet, darling?).

You are idealistic, which is good, but it will, and I know youll hate it,
change with time. Experience with life will slowly eat away at your
idealism and replace it with realism.

Been there, done that. Hate to break it to you, but your version of
"realism" doesn't jive with mine. That's okay. Perhaps when you grow up,
it will. Maybe you'll be less negative once you graduate from high school.
And realism is sad, and not an

idealistic place. Its where we finally come to terms with our own
shortcomings.

See above - Been there, done that.
Tell me, hon. Are you out of school yet? Actually held a job? Own a home?
Paid a mortgage? Get back to me when you've done all that and then we can
talk about "the real world".

We ALL fall short.

In YOUR opinion, of course.
And fall short of WHAT?
Im sorry, Im really, really sorry. I can think of some

of the worst things you could ever imagine... and the best of people wish
they could perform them, all the time. What you want is for US to dumb
down the word... "good."

Please tell me where I ever made this statement? Why are you putting words
in my mouth? Talk about arrogant.
We cant do that for you sweetheart. We arent all

good. We are a lot of good, but we all have the bad. All of us. All of
us.

The shitholes who turned over the A-Bomb secrets didnt do it to spare the
world nuclear war, they did it for money, and to continue the arms race so
they and their compatriots could continue creating ever more destructive
bombs. The worlds full of *****/lies. But we believe the good (whether
its true or not) because were idealistic. Someday, that will leave you.
And it will be a bleak and lonely morning for you.

Yeah, right; hon. I'm sure this will happen just because you say so.
Right.

People like you blindly accept that

all their own desires are in the best interests of "others" when more
often its to suit yourself.

Please provide evidence to back up this slanderous accusation, liar. I
dare you.

LOL - I see that you cowardly ignored this. How telling.

Again, please point out where I EVER made this statement or admit that
you're a liar. As I have already pointed out, I AM a parent myself.

Ill hand you one example. Just one. Please answer... If you dare...!

Oh please. You are so full of yourself, it's disgusting.

Does a parent have the right to teach his children that fags are gross and
disgusting?

Fags? Does the word "homosexual" bother you? I have a lot of gay friends and
don't use the word "fag". Personally, I wouldn't teach that to my own
daughter, but I'm sure that there are parents out there that would.
And does he have the right to demand the school make no

opposing viewpoint known?

Personally, I would say that he does not. However, I'm sure there are
parents out there that would definitely disagree.

Its simple really. Answer it.

Tell me, were you born such a ***** or did this attitude develop later in
life?
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "RainLover"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	17 Sep 2004 08:19:50 AM

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:33:28 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

You are idealistic, which is good, but it will, and I know youll hate it,
change with time. Experience with life will slowly eat away at your
idealism and replace it with realism.

idealistic place. Its where we finally come to terms with our own
shortcomings.

See above - Been there, done that.

Tell me, hon. Are you out of school yet? Actually held a job? Own a home?
Paid a mortgage? Get back to me when you've done all that and then we can
talk about "the real world".

And tell us, HON, when did *you* grow up? When do you plan on to stop
your condescending responses to others with different opinions from
your own?
At what point of your incredible amount of life and learning did you
develop this very annoying trait of being mean to people who disagree
with you? Why would you think that age or experience makes someone
better than someone else?
I've met plenty of older people... many have houses and kids and
masters and PhD's, yet they are some of the most ignorant, bigoted,
racist, homophobic assholes I've ever met.
I'm not saying THOSE apply to you, sweetheart, simply that just
because you have a mortgage and went to college doesn't make you
correct, nor does it give you the right to feel superior to anyone
else.
So, Hun, why not lay off the smug, holier-than-thou attitude of yours?
James, Seattle
.

User: "John Baker"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	17 Sep 2004 09:54:09 AM

"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:uholk0tbobitqsnatrskh022bl3ud2ndh7@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:33:28 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

You are idealistic, which is good, but it will, and I know youll hate
it,
change with time. Experience with life will slowly eat away at your
idealism and replace it with realism.

idealistic place. Its where we finally come to terms with our own
shortcomings.

See above - Been there, done that.

Tell me, hon. Are you out of school yet? Actually held a job? Own a
home?
Paid a mortgage? Get back to me when you've done all that and then we can
talk about "the real world".

And tell us, HON, when did *you* grow up? When do you plan on to stop
your condescending responses to others with different opinions from
your own?

At what point of your incredible amount of life and learning did you
develop this very annoying trait of being mean to people who disagree
with you? Why would you think that age or experience makes someone
better than someone else?

I've met plenty of older people... many have houses and kids and
masters and PhD's, yet they are some of the most ignorant, bigoted,
racist, homophobic assholes I've ever met.

I'm not saying THOSE apply to you, sweetheart, simply that just
because you have a mortgage and went to college doesn't make you
correct, nor does it give you the right to feel superior to anyone
else.

So, Hun, why not lay off the smug, holier-than-thou attitude of yours?

<stunned silence> Uh......oh....... and he was so young, too. Well, with
any luck, Robyn won't see this..... <G>

James, Seattle

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	17 Sep 2004 11:01:16 AM

"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:lUC2d.45259$787.13764@fe2.columbus.rr.com...

"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:uholk0tbobitqsnatrskh022bl3ud2ndh7@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:33:28 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

You are idealistic, which is good, but it will, and I know youll hate
it,
change with time. Experience with life will slowly eat away at your
idealism and replace it with realism.

Been there, done that. Hate to break it to you, but your version of
"realism" doesn't jive with mine. That's okay. Perhaps when you grow
up,
it will. Maybe you'll be less negative once you graduate from high
school.

And realism is sad, and not an

idealistic place. Its where we finally come to terms with our own
shortcomings.

See above - Been there, done that.

Tell me, hon. Are you out of school yet? Actually held a job? Own a
home?
Paid a mortgage? Get back to me when you've done all that and then we
can
talk about "the real world".

And tell us, HON, when did *you* grow up? When do you plan on to stop
your condescending responses to others with different opinions from
your own?

At what point of your incredible amount of life and learning did you
develop this very annoying trait of being mean to people who disagree
with you? Why would you think that age or experience makes someone
better than someone else?

I've met plenty of older people... many have houses and kids and
masters and PhD's, yet they are some of the most ignorant, bigoted,
racist, homophobic assholes I've ever met.

I'm not saying THOSE apply to you, sweetheart, simply that just
because you have a mortgage and went to college doesn't make you
correct, nor does it give you the right to feel superior to anyone
else.

So, Hun, why not lay off the smug, holier-than-thou attitude of yours?

<stunned silence> Uh......oh....... and he was so young, too. Well, with
any luck, Robyn won't see this..... <G>

I won't be seeing anything further from the obnoxious son-of-a-*****. Into
the bozo bin he went where I'm sure he'll be in good company ;)
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "RainLover"
Title: Re: The Necessity for Christianity	22 Sep 2004 08:15:50 PM

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:01:16 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: