TEEJ wrote:
There is a group, a radical extremist zealot group out there, demanding that everybody turn to their prehistoric and religious thinking, but I don't believe it's based in Christianity.
Ah, TEEJ, once again I think you must live in a really great place, because Christians who want to go back to Judaic law live right in my backyard (literally--they're across the street). And these are not cult members either. They LOVE the Old Testament and seem completely oblivious to the whole point that Christ came to fulfill prophecy and therefore, do away with a lot of Mosaic law. They're hellbent on bringing back the old ways. And I think you're right that they totally missed the point of what Christianity was supposed to be. But there are a LOT of them.
What I would say to you, Anne, is that I don't think you can look at modern day Christianity as a function of the Old Testament. That is the HISTORY of the church, but not the direction laid out in the New Testament. The time that passed in the Old Testament was plenty of time for man to screw everything up (and I do mean man
. All issues with Paul aside (and trust me, I have issues with him), I do think Christ is supposed to be the focal point of the book. He wasn't there when they chose the books of the New Testament, and Paul was interpreting what he saw in the life of Christ, not necessarily doing so correctly (or at least that's how I read it--which I realise is horribly radical and probably makes my grandparents writhe in their graves).
Look at me, talking about religion. This is so bizarre.
And Alcyone said:
Furthermore, on what basis are cultures not equal? On whether human rights are present or not (which seems to be the hot issues nowadays)? Human rights are a relatively recent phenomenon and I'm led to think their presence now partly obscures the collosal lack of human rights that has framed much of Western history (making it no different from history anywhere else, if we're framing it in those terms). But of course it's convinient to forget all the atrocities committed in so-called first world countries (especially ones that happen outside the aforementioned first world countries--the ones that the Enlightenment championed particularly). That way, we can point the finger and it can be some other culture that is less. Poor them, they don't know any better. Perhaps we should govern for them? That turned out well.
I don't think pointing out the flaws in other cultures is necessarily demonstrating a cultural bias that inherently says "my culture is superior to yours." I certainly wouldn't claim that, historically, Western society was more advanced in a lot of areas than the rest of the world. I WOULD claim that we've made a lot of strides, especially in the area of human rights, and on that basis I claim that CURRENT Western culture is a darn good place to be. I don't think we can necessarily make one culture superior to another, but I do think we can point to elements WITHIN a culture that are inferior. For example, I am a huge fan of some of the ideas of the matriarchal tribes in Africa. I am not, however, such a big fan of their religious practices. I am not a fan of Western society's preocupation with consumption, but I am a big fan of freedom of speech. Does that mean I think my culture is superior? It depends on your point of view. I certainly don't think it is superior because it exists, but I do think we have things to offer that aren't being offered currently in a lot of other cultures.
