pmd@ihlpf.UUCP (04/05/84)
#R:cbscc:-217300:ihlpf:22600039:000:3946 ihlpf!dap1 Apr 4 14:43:00 1984 Paul, I am ready to question the passage which the "critics were not ready to respond to". Just what is this "non-rational" means you keep talking about? Why is "non-rational != irrational"? What does it mean to talk about the "inconsistency of artistic expression"? I understand perfectly what it means to talk about it being inconsistent for an all loving God to slaughter innocent children, but the "inconsistency of artistic expression"??? I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Precisely which statements are you referring to which are inconsistent? Perhaps as soon as you define your terms more precisely, your critics will be able to answer you. As far as Jeff Sargent's ex-atheist friend goes, the same kind of changes have come about in people's lives through many, many other religions and atheism too for that matter. If, as Jeff's friend suggests, SOMETHING must be at work here, why doesn't he believe that SOMETHING is at work when somebody converts to Hinduism? And why is his SOMETHING better that the Hindu's SOMETHING? Finally, you argue that you should not be asked to write out all the logically conclusive arguments in books like those by C.S. Lewis. Why not? You're too busy to summarize the books but we're not too busy too read them through in their entirety? If such potent arguments exist, I would assume that you would have put them up on the net. Are you only giving us the poorer arguments in these books or what? And have you read the myriad books on Hare Krishna? If not, then I suggest that your example discussion between yourself and an atheist could have also taken place between yourself and a Hare Krishna with the roles reversed. Why is it reasonable for a critic of Hare Krishna to take this stand but not a critic of Christianity? Are we obligated to read all the major theological treatises of the world before we make a final decision on which one best represents reality? Have YOU done this? Have YOU read the Talmud, the Torah, the Book of the Dead? If not, what right do you have to claim that the religions based on these books is wrong? As far as the Bible representing itself, little credence if any is given to a suspect's claim of "I didn't do it". The very most that might be said for this is the look in the person's face when he says it. This hardly applies to the Bible. Do you give credence to the greek myths because they are stated as fact? If not, then why the Bible? Finally, the argument that because a 2000 year old book claims that so and so said such and such and if I don't believe it, then it is a contradiction to believe anything in the book - this is really pretty weak, don't you think so? If somebody says the moon is made of green cheese and the earth is spinning on its axis, is it contradictory to claim that the first statement is foolish but still believe the second? Paul, are these the strong arguments which are contained in the books you mentioned? If so, you're right, I don't want to bother reading them. If not, then please print some of the convincing arguments from these books since you appear to feel that they are so full of them. Finally, as far as why people tend to "attack" Christianity, I don't see how you can advance arguments such as these and then claim that your critics are attacking you unfairly because they haven't read C.S. Lewis. Maybe you are getting scorched because people are tired of hearing about all the remarkable "proofs" of God and his goodness without seeing them. You're right, I haven't read them, but I have seen many Christians put forth what they consider to be the more potent arguments in them and if they're that weak, why waste my time? You say you're too busy, but you're still writing articles. All I ask is that you bring forth the GOOD arguments instead of the BAD ones. That shouldn't waste any more time than you are wasting right now. Darrell Plank BTL-IH ihlpf!dap1