From: janice@mailinator.com   
      
   In article , laura@nospam.me says...   
      
   >Nevertheless, it has done so more by the sword than by more peaceful means.   
      
   Even the peaceful means have at times been underhanded.  In anthropology   
   class we were told of missionaries scaring tribal peoples into converting   
   by showing them paintings of hell at a point when they did not yet   
   understand the difference between paintings and photographs.   
      
   >> Actually, what we have is the New Testament, and if you get & study a   
   >> red-letter edition, you'll be surprised at how simple it all is.   
   >   
   >I realize how simple it is. The new testament is the foundation of the   
   >church we have here, and it teaches peace, forgiveness, and love. I don't   
   >have anything against that, except that it has become somehow stale and   
   >soulless, but that is another matter.   
      
   One problem with it is that it's too simplistic for the real world.   
   There are times when one has to take a stronger stand, if only because   
   most people don't abide by it.  For instance, beyond a point I think it   
   would be a big mistake for a battered woman to be completely peaceful,   
   loving and forgiving towards her brute of a partner.   
      
   >> The NT Christian ethic is actually based upon a loving and forgiving God,   
   >> who causes the sun to shine on *both* the good *and* the evil...   
   >>   
   >Yes. As I said, my beef is not so much with the christians who actually   
   >emulate Jesus, but rather with the more fundamentalist branches of   
   >christianity - specifically the born-again movement in the U.S.   
   >Judeo-Christians, I believe they call themselves.   
      
   Judeo-Christian is usually used to refer to Judaism and Christianity, as   
   in "the Judeo-Christian tradition."  It's basically a scholarly term   
   (unless it's been co-opted recently without my knowledge).  The   
   fundamentalists usually just refer to themselves as Christians, often   
   with the implication that they are they only true Christians because they   
   were "born again."  They may also speak of themselves in terms of their   
   particular sects, such as Pentacostals or Charismatics.  Some of those I   
   know personally call themselves Orthodox Presbyterians.   
      
   >They focus a lot on the   
   >old testament. Without them, the U.S. would have another president now. I am   
   >deeply concerned by their very effective grab for political power. A world   
   >with a single nuclear superpower is scary enough, but one where that   
   >superpower is also theocratic would be downright terrifying. We're not there   
   >yet, but care must be taken to not get there.   
      
   I have concerns about that too.   
      
   >I know that the vast majority of christians in the world are not extremist,   
   >just as the majority of muslims are not, but the extremist movements (or   
   >sects) are growing in strength. I wonder why that is, and whether it will   
   >reverse itself before causing irreversible harm. The passive majority never   
   >did matter as much as the highly active and vocal minority.   
      
   In the case of the Moslems, I think a lot of it is due to misplaced   
   politicism, that is, intense (and not altogether unjustified)   
   dissatisfaction with certain political and economic states of affairs   
   that's manifesting itself with religious extremism as a rallying point.   
      
   --   
      
   "I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."   
   --George W. Bush   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)