rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (07/02/84)
A few remarks in reply to Mr. Parks >>1. Assume for a moment that there was no God. If that were true, then >> the concept of Divinity and God (or Gods) would still be invented >> by man, who needed this comfort. In fact, (almost) every separate >> branch of humanity has discovered its own different Gods, each as >> different from each other as the separate groups of man were from >> each other. IF THERE WAS NO GOD, THEN MAN WOULD INVENT HIM. We could put a different interpretation on the scenario. There really is one or more God or gods and that this "Universal" appearance in the many cultures of the world is the echo of something real. I think this is where the Bahais (sp ?) would jump in. Any Bahais on the net please correct me if I misrepresent you. >>2. There is no current-day objective proof for religion. There are >> communications, prayers, miracles, and healings, but these are all >> subjective and do not constitute proof to disbelievers. This one constantly comes up from nonTheists and Atheists. You tell me what degree and kind of proof would be acceptable. Usually, the tone of the Atheist proof request is belligerent to the point of "Hey God ! If you are real get your butt down here and show yourself - AND NOW !" Not many humans respond real well to that kind of "request" so I don't imagine Deity swallows that one well either. >>5. New religions are being started today, even as we watch. Remember >> Scientology, TM, Jim Jones' bunch of fun-loving Kool-Aiders, Moonies, >> Rosicrucians and so on. You may call them cults, but they call >> themselves religions. They can be investigates *today*, and I do not >> believe in the metaphysical claims of *any* of them. Their proponents >> do believe, and very strongly. If I told you I was a Martian that wouldn't make it so, would it ? I could dig up all the dirt on Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Atilla th Hun, etc and blame it all on Atheism (which Marxists and Commies are proud to claim) but that really doesn't bear much on your nonTheology or its essential correctness now does it ? >>6. There are technical inaccuracies in all holy books, including the >> Bible. (I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 >> where is is undeniably stated that the earth is immovable; Isaiah >> 40:21-22, Job 22:141, Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, Revelation 7:1, >> where it is implied that the earth is flat, and it is plain that the >> authors believe that the earth is flat). These indicate to me that >> the Bible (or any holy work) is not the sole single work of God, but >> was written by human beings and may be inaccurate. This idea is >> supported by the many translations of the Bible in existence. I do >> not say that the Bible couldn't have been divinely *inspired*, >> merely that it was written by human beings. You forgot "From the rising of the Sun, to the going down of the same the Lord's name shall be praised." We all know of course that the sun doesn't rise don't we ? :-) Seriously, you are focusing errors of Biblical cosmologists to avoid (it would seem ) the weightier matters. **Testimony** No proof possible ! ==> I have never been led astray following the teachings of the Bible. When I have analyzed my behavior after getting in trouble I have noticed a divergence between my way and the Bible way. >> Uri Geller was a fraud, Christ was not. This is a most peculiar statement ( and a tad inconsistent) from someone touting rationalism. You don't know Jesus, you doubt the reliabilty of the texts and the authors who wrote about Him yet you pass a value judgement on His character. BTW I happen to agree with you but for "reasons". Quotes are for RLR's sake :-) That's all for awhile "No mas! No mas!" - R Duran, 1980 ? Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga (404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (07/09/84)
#R:akgua:-86000:uokvax:8300060:000:1983 uokvax!emjej Jul 8 16:34:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.religion / akgua!rjb / 1:01 pm Jul 3, 1984 */ >>>5. New religions are being started today, even as we watch. Remember >>> Scientology, TM, Jim Jones' bunch of fun-loving Kool-Aiders, Moonies, >>> Rosicrucians and so on. You may call them cults, but they call >>> themselves religions. They can be investigates *today*, and I do not >>> believe in the metaphysical claims of *any* of them. Their proponents >>> do believe, and very strongly. > >If I told you I was a Martian that wouldn't make it so, would it ? >I could dig up all the dirt on Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Atilla >th Hun, etc and blame it all on Atheism (which Marxists and Commies >are proud to claim) but that really doesn't bear much on your >nonTheology or its essential correctness now does it ? No, but that misses the original poster's point. The credibility given to cults seems to increase with the age of the cult (and hence with the less chance of either verifying or disproving the claims and history thereof). >>> Uri Geller was a fraud, Christ was not. > >This is a most peculiar statement ( and a tad inconsistent) >from someone touting rationalism. You don't know Jesus, you >doubt the reliabilty of the texts and the authors who wrote >about Him yet you pass a value judgement on His character. >BTW I happen to agree with you but for "reasons". Quotes are >for RLR's sake :-) I rather thought that the >>>ed statement expressed the point of view of many Christians. The problem is simply that we can make the observations needed for a rational analysis of Uri Geller's claims, but we can't for those of Jesus, separated as we are from Him by two thousand years (roughly). What would you say to a group of Gellerites in 4000 A.D., who had *National Enquirer* as their holy book? (Gee, they could find fragments (if someone is preserving the acid-bearing paper) of the original English texts and everything!) /* ---------- */ James Jones