bob@itm.UUCP (06/15/83)
All to often, debates on the topic of existence stray from
their course, becoming instead, Christianity on trial. This
debate is no exception; and I think it is safe to assume that
many of you do not consider Christianity a serious option- I
use serious, here, in opposition to laughable. Is it not the
duty of a public discussion to embrace all options, discussing
them openly before one is cast aside as deficient? Is the case
then closed on Christianity? Mr. Maroney became irritated when
Scripture was quoted to him, but atleast a source was cited.
Christians believe their stand to be an historical one. If Mr.
Maroney does not believe this, what are his reasons? And
relegating the entire affair to a position of psychological
immaturity is not a reason, but an assumption, and a rather
bold-faced one at that.
But why do people-professionals included, no matter what
their area of concentration-when confronting philosophical or
theological questions, lean on their own understanding, their
own creative theories, rather then cite the experts? Throughout
these debates, I have seen many excellent imaginations, but few
good readers; and the wealth of sources is tremendous. Afterall,
are we the experts? Are we the linguists, the archeologists,
the philosophers, the theologians? Is our originality so intent,
that we can postulate a theory that has not been previously
dealt with? I think not.
So let's do away with so much original imput and quote some
sources, for it is not a question of the existence of evidence,
but whether or not the evidence is acceptable; that gut feeling
telling you of truth. Christians describe it as faith-a hope in
things unseen. It has existed for centuries, and despite the
goodness or badness of Christianity, has remained pure in many
individuals, even to the point of costing them their lives.
Why not read about it; why not discuss the Christian source
material, and the material on the alternatives, from random
chance to Zoroastrianism. Who knows, the spark of faith may
ignite somewhere; and Heaven help us, what would any of you do
then?
Suggested Reading:
Ayn Rand:
For the New Intellectual
The Virtue Of Selfishness
Bertrand Russell:
Why I Am Not A Christian
C. S. Lewis:
The Problem Of Pain
The Abolition Of Man
Mere Christianity
Francis Schaeffer:
Escape From Reason
The God Who Is There
He Is There And He Is Not Silent
Hans Kung:
Does God Exist? An Answer For Today
J.C.G.bch@unc.UUCP (06/15/83)
Well, at least its out. Bob at itm is now telling me not to think for
myself but to believe "experts." (Since when is Ayn Rand an expert on
Christianity?) Come on!
(1) The commentary of experts is only as good as their source documents.
As a (nominal) Christian who has serious reservations about certain
aspects of the "traditional" historical basis for the faith I am
still working on the source documents (the synoptic gospels.) I
can only deal with later commentary on the basis of what I find here.
(2) My experts are very unlikely to be the same as your experts. If,
for example, I quote an classicist to the effect that the earliest
documents of Christianity (proto-Mark) do not include mention of
either the resurrection or the nativity, but stop at the discovery
of the opened tomb, what does this do to your experts.
(3) Religion is ultimately a personal experience. No number of experts
can convince you into believing unless you have sifted through your
own feelings and impressions. Analytical and intellectual abilities
are as much gifts from god as any other. To deny them is as much
a denial of the faith as any other.
If people start sending out historical treatises based on quotations from
Ayn Rand, I have this 'n' key on my terminal....
Byron Howes
UNC - Chapel Hill
P.S. Railing against Tim Maroney's style does not constitute a refutation
of the substance of his arguments. The fact remains that using
self-referential logic to justify your version of Christianity turns
some of us very much away and does no credit to your beliefs. If
your objective is to spread the good news then (from my point of view)
you aren't doing very well in this environment.
Tim is not the Anti-Christ, he's merely an occasionally direct and
sometimes abrasive person.tim@unc.UUCP (06/20/83)
Is that the best you can do, Bob? I ask you to submit something
in your own words, representing your own thoughts, instead of just
quoting the Bible at me. You respond by writing, in your own words, a
plea for less original thought and discussion on the group. Sigh.
More seriously, you do bring up a good point. I would like to see
more book reviews, quotes from various holy books (provided that the
quote is not used just as a justification for unfounded insults, like
your Bible quotes, Bob), and so on. Soon, I hope to get back to C. S.
Lewis' book "Mere Christianity" and post a review of it. In addition,
I may at some future date begin posting excerpts from the writings of
my own favorite religious thinker, the much-maligned Aleister Crowley.
Such things broaden all our bases. Anyone having something
interesting to contribute along these lines is hereby exhorted to
share it with all of us.
However, we shouldn't mistake the role of authority. An argument
must stand or fall wholly on its own merits. The fact that it comes
from a respected person does not in itself increase its intrinsic
worth. This, since you asked, is why I objected to the Bible quotes
you threw. In themselves, they said nothing except that you were too
much a coward to insult me in your own words. There are many
interesting things in the Bible you could quote if you really want to
enrich the group; that is what I am interested in.
Tim Maroney