-Caveat Lector-
YnrChyldzWyld wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Carlene M. Wojahn wrote:
> >or even that of 135 years ago, you got to remember the differences in the cultures
> between the north and the south, and that culture includes their religion.
>
> How was the religion of the South different from that of the North?
The north, and particularly the northeast, was under the strong influence of
Unitarianism, whereas the South was primarily Calvinistic.... That's the short answer,
but the two philosophies are diametrically opposite to each other.
> What Roadsend explained is that when people start to use any religious
> treatise to support their views, one no longer has 'discussion' but
> prosyletizing...since one's religious beliefs all boil down to belief and
> faith, not facts.
Anyone who expresses "strong opinions" based on what they've learned (rather than pure
emotionalism) is expressing a thought based on their "religion," even if it is
atheism. In the discourse leading up to the present discussion, someone opined that
slavery was a "sin." However, when someone (such as I did) pointed out the *historical
fact* that the Southern people did not consider it a "sin" based on their understanding
of what is "sinful" as outlined in the Bible, that is NOT prosylitizing, but offering a
historical basis for various actions... These *facts* -- like all "facts" -- are
evididence to support a thesis, and not advocacy for any religion. Now, I am loathe to
get into a "religious debate" on this list, but the bible is set forth primarily as a
document (or documents) that claim to relate historical facts and offer some evidence
of their claims. Thus, when one reads the Washington Post or the New York times,
although the reported "history" may be hours old rather than hundreds of years, the
reader who accepts what is said, is doing so "by faith." Those who reject tabloid news
are rejecting it because they do not think the evidence supports the "news." Without
first-hand knowledge, both views are taken "by faith." So if it is reported that, for
instance, that U.S. warplanes bombed Iraq, the reader's expressions of belief or
disbelief do not consititute a "religious debate."
> I could argue for the establishment of some law based on what Buddha
> taught...but if other's do not follow Buddhism, my argument is meaningless, and if I
> insist on quoting tenets of Buddhism, I'm then on a soapbox, prosyletizing my
> PERSONAL beliefs/faith/superstition, and not DISCUSSING FACTS.
However, if you say that the VietNamese Buddist monks (during the 1960's) were
involved in a revolution against the Catholic French, and their self-inceneration was a
sign of their Buddist beliefs justified suicide as a tactic of revolution, you would
not be "on a soapbox, prosyletizing PERSONAL belief" but discussing facts -- as you
understood them, not having had the personal opportunity to discuss their purpose nor
intent to cook themselves in public -- which would at least imply some stronger motive
than a simple adult temper-tantrum.
> Now, I COULD discuss aspects of life in a Buddhist country, and compare
> how their political system and quality of life compare to, say, a Moslem or
> 'Christian' country...that would be discussing FACTS...but if the discussion
> degenerates into an argument about which religion is 'correct', then it's OT for this
> list...
But of course, that is precisely what has taken place in the past few days. At least I
haven't advocated that anyone "get saved" by accepting whatever religion that I adhere
to...
Hawk
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
