rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/29/84)
>> 3. None of Christianity's *claims to uniqueness* (as cited >> in a quote from Jeff's article) are actually unique. With all the >> religions in the world, why not look for some underlying, unifying >> principle? [ALAN DRISCOLL] > Item #3 -- As I understand it, Christianity's claims to uniqueness go much > deeper than the few doctrinal points quoted from Jeff's article. [KEN EWING] That's just the point. All you have is just a series of "claims" to uniqueness involving different terminology and different precepts for the relationships between humans and a (defineable?) deity. You make statements like: "only in Christianity is God reaching down to reach *us*" (anthropocentrism?) or "only in Christianity did God take human form and...". THESE ARE JUST CLAIMS!!! You believe them to be true, for whatever reason. But the basis is just a series of claims WITHOUT REAL SUPPORTING EVIDENCE! The chronicles that Christians claim as historical fact (though they are sprinkled with real history) were concocted as advertising! If I appeared on television in a commercial for "NEW IMPROVED UBIZMATISM" with extra added VOOMSQUOLL and a new redeeming (and fabric softening) agent to make your life better, would you leap on the Ubizmo bandwagon? Doubtful. But that's exactly what the chronicles known as the gospels were designed to do. Advertise. Do you also believe the man on late night television who says: "No wait, there's more, you get these fabulous Gonzo knives"... (or "this fabulous afterlife" :-) ? > DEFINITIONS OF TERMS (for the following description): > > Religion -- A system of belief and practice dealing with God (defined below) > and Man (i.e.; all humans) and the relationship between them. Many people claim that their belief systems are religions yet they do not incorporate or even avow any notion of a deity. > God -- Any concept of Deity or Higher Power, seen as existing on some higher > plane and to which Man ascribes some kind of subservient role. Many religions describe deities that do not adhere to this model of the subservience of humans, but instead they portray a deity that is more like a life force of the universe (I've used the phrase "a consciousness of the universe", much as the illusion of self and mind results from the actions of the human brain.). > Heaven -- Any concept of Eternal Existence, especially in the context of > after death. This is not a generalized tenet amongst all religions. Given that you define your terms this way, it's no wonder Christianity is your religion of choice. > Most religions, as I understand them, seem to orient their doctrines and > practices around the following points: > -- Man is either a blank sheet or has some intrinsic goodness which, if > properly nurtured, will result in a heavenly reward of some kind. > -- By following the tenets of [Hinduinsm, Bhuddism, Islam, Spiritism, et al], > one can nurture and develop one's own intrinsic goodness or accumulate > a treasury of good works and eventually receive the heavenly reward. > -- The emphasis rests on the action of Man reaching upward toward God. > These, I believe, are the core tenets of most world religions. Again, there are religions that have little to do with afterlife or reward from a deity. As there are non-religions (by your definition of religion) that wonder why people expect there to be either a deity or an afterlife. > It is undeniable that many "Christians" describe Christianity in this way > (i.e.; "Folow the Ten Commandments, go to church, pray, live a good life, > and you'll go to heaven..."), but a person who seriously seeks the real > meaning of Christianity understands that this is not true. Historic > Christianity differs from other religions in the following way: > -- The nature of Man is fallen, making him(them) inherently unable to reach > up to God. Man is not a blank sheet, nor does he have any intrinsic > goodness that enables him to aspire to a heavenly status by his own > effort. (see NOTE) > -- The work necessary to bring Man to a heavenly reward has already been > done. It was accomplished by a substitutionary action, one person > doing the work on behalf of the entire human race. The work is completed, > requiring no other action on the part of Man to be effective. > Rejection of this completed work maintains a person in a state of > fallenness and emnity toward God. > -- The emphasis rests on the action of God reaching downward to Man. See above paragraphs. These are claims and nothing more, and they seem to be based on the preconceptions of the nature of god and religion that you describe above. (Doubtless this will be referred to by some Christians as one of my "attacks", perhaps even as a "personal attack". Note however that what I have done is to point out several facts about the nature of the claims being made.) > This, I believe, is the basic doctrinal difference that makes Christianity > unique among other religions. If you say that there are other religions > that teach these same things, then please make some references so that I > can check them out. Fine. Agreed that Christianity's tenets are different than the vast majority of world religions. That does little to make the claims it makes into facts. It would seem that since Christianity's tenets seem to fit your notions of the world ("man's" fallen nature and god's reaching out to "him"), then you choose to believe it. But the precepts you convey are no more an objective view of reality than the Christian tenets themselves! They may coalesce into a single picture depicting *your* world view, they may fit like a glove in conjunction with your preconceptions of the universe, but those are *just* YOUR preconceptions of the universe. Most people have no rational reason to believe that people are "fallen", or even that there is some sort of universal deity who originally pushed us causing us to fall ( :-). Yet many see things this way. > Item #4 -- How does one choose? My first response is to ask the question > "Are you really interested in finding out?" I have too often heard this > question as cheap cop-out for inaction by a person who didn't want anything > to do with religion in the first place. I will answer this point with a > quick illustration: > A small business owner decides he wants to get a small computer to help > with his business. He goes down to the local bookstore and buys a few > computer magazines to acquaint himself with what's available. Leafing > through the pages, he sees ad after ad for IBM, Commodore, Apollo, > DEC, Wang, etc., etc. Seeing the plethora of available products, each > claiming superiority, he throws up his hands in dismay and says, > "There's no way I can choose. There's so many and they all say they're > the best." He finally rejects the idea of buying a computer. > Is this fictitious businessman's conclusion valid? Positively not! > He certainly could find a computer -- if he really wanted to in the first > place. The businessman has another choice. Given that there are so many different computers available, and that many of them make unfounded claims and that none of them is completely satisfactory, he has the opportunity to construct a machine (from "scratch" as it were) from individual components to be the best computer for his needs. Now you may retort: I'm not talking about an electronics engineer or some hardware hacker, I'm talking about Joe Businessman. Why should he be expected to build his own machine when there are already packaged systems for people like him? Well, that's precisely the sort of sheepishness that people should be avoiding especially in areas like religion. There may be lots of fancy packaged religions with all sorts of preposterous claims, and maybe even with some positive tenets for living. But why can't a thinking human being extract the positive tenets for living from the wrapping paper and chrome and whitewall tires and aluminum siding and assorted frills that comprise the religion package? The religious analogy of a shepherd and a flock is all too accurate. Haven't we had enough of it? -- If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (09/04/84)
>> 3. None of Christianity's *claims to uniqueness* (as cited >> in a quote from Jeff's article) are actually unique. With all the >> religions in the world, why not look for some underlying, unifying >> principle? [ALAN DRISCOLL] > Item #3 -- As I understand it, Christianity's claims to uniqueness go much > deeper than the few doctrinal points quoted from Jeff's article. [KEN EWING] >>>That's just the point. All you have is just a series of "claims" to uniqueness >>>involving different terminology and different precepts for the relationships >>>between humans and a (defineable?) deity. You make statements like: "only >>>in Christianity is God reaching down to reach *us*" (anthropocentrism?) or >>>"only in Christianity did God take human form and...". THESE ARE JUST >>>CLAIMS!!! You believe them to be true, for whatever reason. But the basis >>>is just a series of claims WITHOUT REAL SUPPORTING EVIDENCE! The chronicles >>>that Christians claim as historical fact (though they are sprinkled with >>>real history) were concocted as advertising! If I appeared on television in >>>a commercial for "NEW IMPROVED UBIZMATISM" with extra added VOOMSQUOLL and a >>>new redeeming (and fabric softening) agent to make your life better, would you >>>leap on the Ubizmo bandwagon? Doubtful. But that's exactly what the >>>chronicles known as the gospels were designed to do. Advertise. Do you also >>>believe the man on late night television who says: "No wait, there's more, >>>you get these fabulous Gonzo knives"... (or "this fabulous afterlife" :-) ? [RICH ROSEN] Whether the differences between Christianity and other religions "are just claims" as opposed to being fact doesn't change the fact that these are significant differences. Determining whether these so-called claims are true or not is a personal decision which always requires a step of faith. If you are not ready to take that step before that, fine. I have, and it appears that many others on this network have also. [ME] I hope you're not waiting for proof before you choose. Even believing in nothing requires a step of faith, and you have no proof for that either. Whatever you do believe, it too required a step of faith. It's just a matter of choice and preferrence. I have my reasons for prefering Christianity over Buddhism, Hindduism, Toaism, Muslim and countless other religions. I've studied many of these other religions but dismissed them in favor of the teachings in the Bible, because I *believe* the Bible is God's Word. [ME] All these statements that you *throw out* because of lack of evidence are most often the basis for a person's faith in Christianity (or Christ Himself). Also, what REAL SUPPORTING EVIDENCE does any other religion have for its basis. Try as you may, you haven't changed the fact that this religion is based on a unique doctrine (The Bible). [ME] > DEFINITIONS OF TERMS (for the following description): > > Religion -- A system of belief and practice dealing with God (defined below) > and Man (i.e.; all humans) and the relationship between them. [KEN EWING] >>>Many people claim that their belief systems are religions yet they do not >>>incorporate or even avow any notion of a deity. True. But even Webster was allowed that mistake. > God -- Any concept of Deity or Higher Power, seen as existing on some higher > plane and to which Man ascribes some kind of subservient role. [KEN EWING] >>>Many religions describe deities that do not adhere to this model of >>>the subservience of humans, but instead they portray a deity that is more like >>>a life force of the universe (I've used the phrase "a consciousness of the >>>universe", much as the illusion of self and mind results from the actions of >>>the human brain.). [RICH ROSEN] Only half true. Not all religions concern themselves with, or even admit to the existance of, God. However, the points you bring out are well taken. [ME] > Heaven -- Any concept of Eternal Existence, especially in the context of > after death. [KEN EWING] >>>This is not a generalized tenet amongst all religions. Given that you define >>>your terms this way, it's no wonder Christianity is your religion of choice. I'm not sure about this. How about Nirvana (sort of an idealized eternity). It might not always be called "heaven" but I think there is almost always some sort of reward in the eternal sense. [ME] > Most religions, as I understand them, seem to orient their doctrines and > practices around the following points: > -- Man is either a blank sheet or has some intrinsic goodness which, if > properly nurtured, will result in a heavenly reward of some kind. > -- By following the tenets of [Hinduinsm, Bhuddism, Islam, Spiritism, et al], > one can nurture and develop one's own intrinsic goodness or accumulate > a treasury of good works and eventually receive the heavenly reward. > -- The emphasis rests on the action of Man reaching upward toward God. > These, I believe, are the core tenets of most world religions. [KEN EWING] I agree with all except the last statement. I don't disagree with it; it's just unclear what you're getting at. Man reaching up to God as opposed to God reaching down to us. Watch yourself here! I think I understand this, tell me if I'm wrong, man aspires to the great ideal by his deeds (by works) whereas God gives us His Grace freely. In both situations it is expected that we are set free. And Christianity is the second of these, whereas all others are the first. Is that right? The above statement can be misunderstood to mean that God comes to; you can't go to God. This is NOT a basis of Christianity. And I'm sure you can't mean it this way. [ME] > It is undeniable that many "Christians" describe Christianity in this way > (i.e.; "Folow the Ten Commandments, go to church, pray, live a good life, > and you'll go to heaven..."), but a person who seriously seeks the real > meaning of Christianity understands that this is not true. Historic > Christianity differs from other religions in the following way: > -- The nature of Man is fallen, making him(them) inherently unable to reach > up to God. Man is not a blank sheet, nor does he have any intrinsic > goodness that enables him to aspire to a heavenly status by his own > effort. (see NOTE) > -- The work necessary to bring Man to a heavenly reward has already been > done. It was accomplished by a substitutionary action, one person > doing the work on behalf of the entire human race. The work is completed, > requiring no other action on the part of Man to be effective. > Rejection of this completed work maintains a person in a state of > fallenness and emnity toward God. > -- The emphasis rests on the action of God reaching downward to Man. >>>See above paragraphs. These are claims and nothing more, and they seem to be >>>based on the preconceptions of the nature of god and religion that you >>>describe above. (Doubtless this will be referred to by some Christians as one >>>of my "attacks", perhaps even as a "personal attack". Note however that what >>>I have done is to point out several facts about the nature of the claims being >>>made.) [RICH ROSEN] All you have done is stated emphatically that you don't believe. I don't see how you have pointed out anything about the nature of Ken's claims. He just states the basic tenets of Christianity. It requires a step of faith to believe them. As I have said before, it requires a step of faith to believe anything. [ME] >>>Fine. Agreed that Christianity's tenets are different than the vast majority >>>of world religions. That does little to make the claims it makes into facts. >>>It would seem that since Christianity's tenets seem to fit your notions of the >>>world ("man's" fallen nature and god's reaching out to "him"), then you choose >>>to believe it. But the precepts you convey are no more an objective view of >>>reality than the Christian tenets themselves! They may coalesce into a >>>single picture depicting *your* world view, they may fit like a glove in >>>conjunction with your preconceptions of the universe, but those are *just* >>>YOUR preconceptions of the universe. Most people have no rational reason to >>>believe that people are "fallen", or even that there is some sort of universal >>>deity who originally pushed us causing us to fall ( :-). Yet many see things >>>this way. I don't agree with the fact that there is "no reason" to believe man is fallen (lots of negatives). I think the state of the world currently and historically is enough. But that is just a matter of opinion. One thing is for certain, if Christianity is wrong--we may never know; but if it is right--we will surely know by the second coming. AMEN julie harazduk ps the opinions above are not necessarily the opinions of my company.