[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Facing The Challenge Web Site

[John Walton]

I wrote:

>> Except for the fact that it calls "anything to do with the occult" dangerous.
>> I find that offensive: In answer -- No, it's not. What *will* drive Christian
>> children to curiosity about other religions is the intolerant attitude shown
>> by many Christians (this site included) towards other religions, gay people,
>> and Harry Potter.
>> 
Koinonia replied:

> Why is it intolerant if a Christian believes that "anything to do with the
> occult" is dangerous?  The Bible is quite clear on that.

Because what Facing the Challenge (FC) calls "the occult" is actually a
religion. I don't see anyone calling Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or Islam
"dangerous" and then being labeled "tolerant".

Koinonia again:

> Why is it that if one is not willing to accept certain lifestyles, Harry
> Potter, or the occult, then they are intolerant.

Because that's what intolerance means:

>From Webster's: intolerance n. The quality of being intolerant; refusal to
allow to others the enjoyment of their opinions, chosen modes of worship,
and the like; want of patience and forbearance; illiberality; bigotry; as,
intolerance shown toward a religious sect.

Compare that with:

>From the Oxford English Dictionary: tolerate v. To bear without repugnance;
to allow intellectually, or in taste, sentiment, or principle; to put up
with.

>From the American Heritage Dictionary: tolerance n. The capacity for or the
practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

> However if one continually gives misinformation about Christianity, calls
> anyone and everyone a homophobe and can't understand why some people just
> don't like Harry Potter, then why is that person considered tolerant? Sounds
> pretty intolerant to me.

You appear to be setting up a strawman to knock down with your own arguments
here, as I certainly hope you're not referring to me in the above paragraph.
I understand why people don't like Harry Potter -- though I don't agree with
them. However, I respect their right to their own opinion, as I respect your
right to your opinion.

> Many religions offer so called *guilt-free, do whatever you want, you don't
> have to answer to anyone, just do it, you are your own god* type stuff and
> that can be attractive to many children and adults.
 
Which, of course, has ABSOLUTELY NO relationship to Paganism or "the
occult". You accuse others of "misinformation" yet you yourself appear to be
doing just that. The very HEART of Pagan teaching is the three-fold rule
(a.k.a., in other religions, karmic law), which states that the good you do
will come back to you three-fold, and the bad you do will also come back to
you three-fold. That's HARDLY "guilt-free, do whatever you want, you don't
have to answer to anyone, just do it, you are your own god" and I thoroughly
object and refute that statement in relationship to Paganism. With respect,
I have yet to come across any such religion, in fact.

> It is not intolerant to raise a child on what God has to say.

Again, you put words into my mouth. I fully respect and admire parents who
bring their children up in accordance with their own religious beliefs.
However, I begin to have qualms when those religious beliefs interfere with
their children having a meaningful childhood (not that not allowing HP is
stopping meaningful childhoods), and when the parent takes as read
information (or misinformation) from a religious-based source.

> Not every person who calls themselves a Christian *is* one.  You could have a
> discussion on exactly what a Christian is and get many different responses.
> For that reason I really don't like to lump anything and everything under
> Christianity.
> 
I'm not entirely sure how to "lump" something under Christianity, but what
you're saying sounds suspiciously like sectarianism -- which has led to
generations upon generations of bloodshed in Ireland.

Moreover, who decides who gets to be called a Christian? Are the Jews For
Jesus who continually paper the NY Subway Christians? How about Sun Myung
Moon? Or Christian Pagans, who worship the Trinity using Pagan rites? And
who *makes* that decision? With all due respect, I can't see that this
argument holds up.

In response to Lou_Selastic's original post, which said:

>>> Non-Christians would find it a good read too.
 
I wrote:

>> Really? As a non-Christian, I disagree. Much of what it uses for motivation
>> is based *only* and *solely* on the Bible. One example:

and Koinonia replied

> So?  If one believes the Bible to be the inspired Word of God with no errors
> than why should it not be what they base their opinion on or live by? Just
> because the Bible might contain things that you find offensive doesn't mean
> it's wrong. 

I was objecting to Lou's statement that non-Christians would find the
article "a good read", on the basis that it's rooted too deeply in Biblical
assertions and motivations to be of much use to non-Christians in my
opinion, particularly to those of non-Abrahamic religions.

> I have no problem believing that the Perfect Creator of All would have any
> problem seeing to it that His Word was passed down without error.

I do. Then again, with respect, I don't believe in a Perfect Creator of All.
Historically, and faith notwithstanding, when one looks at Biblical
translations and adaptations made throughout time, one sees discrepancies in
translation between a previous version and a subsequent version. I
unfortunately don't have to hand the quite excellent book about this which I
own, so cannot quote specifics. Indeed, I have completely forgotten the
author's name!

Looking the wide variety of Bible versions on the market, from the NIV to
the KJV...which one of these editions is "without error"?

I wrote:

>> Nor even whether one should allow two lines in the entire Bible (which is a
>> book with many inherent contradictions)

Koinonia replied:

> Not really.

Please explain to me then why eating pork and shellfish (forbidden in the
Old Testament) is acceptable, though homosexuality (also forbidden in the
Old Testament) is not. I've never found a satisfactory answer to that -- but
that doesn't mean I'm not willing to listen.

> Why should one be expected to accept what one considers to be wrong?

[snip]

> If someone believes there is a goddess than I respect the right of that person
> to believe that way but I'm not going to live by what that person believes in.

Calling another person's religion "wrong" is hardly respecting "the right of
that person to believe that way". Not to mention that IMO it's quite
offensive. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way; care to clarify?

> A person should be free to worship what they wish but that doesn't mean they
> have to accept the other belief system as being right.

Quite true. But if you want religious freedom you must also acknowledge the
other person's/religion's right to their own belief system.

> If I believe there to be only one God then why am I not allowed to believe
> that?     

Another straw man here. Nobody is saying that you are not allowed to believe
in one God or even your God.

> I have no problem with Focus on the Family.  What is wrong with someone or
> some group having a high set of morals and living their lives based on the
> Bible? 

Nothing at all. However, I personally feel that their view that
homosexuality is a disease that can be cured or prevented is ludicrous and
offensive.

"With, the right information, the right strategy and God's help, we can
prevent homosexuality."

(from http://www.family.org/fofmag/pp/a0010619.html)

> I still say Richard Abanes got a bum deal.  Part of the problem here
> is that Abanes is well versed on certain matters and goodness knows
> that's not a good thing for the opposing side.

Discussion of Richard Abanes is banned here. I apologise for mentioning his
name, though I did so only to show that the FC website is less polemical and
moralistic than he.

> Quite the contrary.  Those who warn others of the occult and other
> non-Christian religions have a very good knowledge and perception of what
> these religions are.

I must respectfully disagree, and would also disagree that one would need to
be "warned" of another religion.

In my experience, I have never come across a religiously anti-HP site which
had its facts about Paganism correct. Not one.

> Some people are very liberal, rabid, and unmoralistic. That is their choice.

Ahem. While I'm liberal and not moralistic, I would hardly classify myself
as rabid, and you do a disservice to yourself and to your argument by
equating Liberalism and rabies.

> As far as HP is concerned, as a Christian I do love the books but I also have
> no problem if some parents don't want their child to read these books.

Parents are perfectly entitled to allow their children to read whatever they
(the parents) decide. However, I lament that, often, particularly with
regard to HP, the parental decision is made without all the facts.

--John
____________________________________________

 "Do not thump the book of G'Quon.  It is disrespectful."
-- G'Kar, Babylon 5

John Walton || Not a Thumper || john at walton.vu
____________________________________________