Re: AIDS questions

From: dfsiemensjr@juno.com
Date: Fri Jan 07 2000 - 23:01:06 EST

  • Next message: glenn morton: "Re: AIDS questions"

    On Fri, 07 Jan 2000 19:12:55 -0500 Massie <mrlab@ix.netcom.com> writes:
    >
    > Excuse me but I can somehow remember scriptures about not judging
    > others. While we can and should judge actions we are commaned to
    > not
    > judge others. Somehow these kind of statements I hear from YEC's
    > such
    > as "your from the devil" cry out as judgemental.
    >
    > There is a big difference with saying " I believe your thinking is
    > wrong" and "I believe you are from the devil" My exprience with
    > them is
    > that passing condemation on those who disagree is part of the party
    > line.
    >
    >
    > Bert M

    Bert, are you trying to tell me that Paul was sinning when he upbraided
    the Corinthians as carnal (I Corinthians 3:1-3)? for tolerating
    fornication (5:1-7; 6:15-20)? for going to law (6:1-8)? when he jumped
    all over Peter (Galatians 2:11ff) and the Galatian legalists (3:)? Or was
    our Lord inconsistent in Matthew 23, to note but one passage?

    You quoted only part of Jesus' saying in Matthew 7. The condemnation is
    of a double standard, as reflected in the declension of the English
    adjective that I heard long ago:
    I'm tenacious. You're stubborn. He's pig-headed.

    I'll agree with you fully that assigning the works of God to Satan is
    perilous (see Matthew 12:24-30). But note a simple principle of
    recruitment: if I can persuade you that we are the beseiged minority
    defenders of the truth, that all others are opponents of God and
    righteousness, I've shortcircuited your thinking. If you don't succumb to
    this, then I portray you to my adherent dupes as demonic and your views
    to be avoided at all costs. This principle was clear in _1984_, where
    Orwell spelled out what he had observed in totalitarian states. It is
    widely practiced to produce tightkly knit groups.

    Let me note that it would be easier to raise money and gain adherents
    with fear than with reason. "Those damned scientists are trying to
    destroy us," will work far better than will, "We want to understand
    science, religion, ethics and their interactions." Hope will also work,
    though not as effectively as fear. Still, snake oil is easier to peddle
    than the truth.

    On a related matter, I'm concerned about Glenn's reading both sides.
    Doesn't he realize that that is unhuman? The operating manual for the
    race includes: There are two sides to every question, your side and the
    right side (unless, of course, you agree totally with me)? ;-)

    Dave



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 07 2000 - 23:06:33 EST