[net.religion] a pot purri

sher@rochester.UUCP (06/19/83)

From: David.Sher
I intend in this letter to deal with various things.  First of all my
call for people to explain how they decided whether a person was a
coreligionist went unanswerred.  Maybe if I reword it someone will feed
my curiosity.   Most of the readers of this news group are members of
some religion.  If you are a member of religion X then how do the
relevant authorities in religion X decide who their coreligionists are?
I think the answers to this question will show some interesting
patterns (if I get any).

About my flame "Christ the Antichrist".  I got two responses.  I
thought it would upset people and promote discussion.  Well I was
wrong.  Anyway I will respond to Paul Dubuc and the questions he
raised.  First the origins of my concept of the adversary.  The Jewish
religion lacks any concept of Devil or Hell.  This I believe is a
result of Judaism's strict monotheism.  We tend to ascribe all
supernatural phenomena to God or agents of God.  An example of this is
death.  In Jewish folklore death is done by the Angel of Death who is
an Angel who acts at God's command.  So then whence the adversary from
the book of Job.  Obviously he must be an angel of some sort.  Since he
is not human and has supernatural powers then he must be an angent of
God.   Note that he asks for divine dispensation before doing a job on
Job.  This is the adversary I was thinking of.  There are various
folktales where demons must follow the exact strictures of the Bible as
well.  

Note that in my article the fact that Jesus' teachings are correct and
good is irrelevant.  The important thing is that people with weak
constitutions can take advantage of these teachings to justify
themselves.  I am not willing to try and prove this.  

Anyway this argument is somewhat off the point.  The point I was trying
to make is that even if the ressurection happened it proves nothing.
There are an infinity of scenarios where christ was ressurected but the
religion that developed around him is totally off-base.  This is one of
them.  

About Blasphemy if christ is as you imply he hardly can be hurt by
petty insults.  What would upset him is if I drew people from him with
my logic.  But since there was little response to my article I think
this is not the case.  Anyway for various reasons I could not accept
Christianity in any case.  (if I broadcast my reasons it might hurt
someone).  So if you are right my fate is sealed and I might as well go
out and commit a few murders as well.  (see what I mean about giving
weak minded people an excuse)

About the lack of substance in my article, Paul do you often broadcast
your opinion of substance free articles?  Why?

In answer to your question of whom the article was convincing to: Me,
who else's opinion is important to me?

-David the blasphemer Sher (hey that rhymes)
sher@rochester
seismo!rochester!sher

mark@hp-kirk.UUCP (06/30/83)

#R:rocheste:-199100:hp-kirk:14100007:000:286
hp-kirk!mark    Jun 23 08:34:00 1983

One thing that this of all groups does not need is articles that are intended
to upset people and promote discussion!
                                        Death Rowe
                                        hp-pcd!hp-cvd!mark
                                        Corvallis, Oregon