mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/09/86)
M. Terribile writes: >> ... All of Christianity rests on a >> single point: the Resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead after >> a brutal crucifixion, there is no point whatsoever in Christianity.... And Mike Huybensz replies: >Very seldom will I speak in favor of Christianity, but the above is downright >stupid. While the resurrection might be a key point of christian theology, >it has nothing to do with Christian morality (some of which even I value.) Well, that simply isn't true. In the Letter of James it says right out that the works are the evidence of faith. The faith is the source for the morality. If you throw away the fiath and just keep the morality you have something entirely different. It should be noted that the ressurection centrality is an important feature of the Acts. The morality problems argued out there wouldn't be compelling at all were it not for their cause in the bringing together of these different groups through preaching of the ressurection. THe notion persisted, finding explicit recognition in a number of early reformation hymns. In _Christe ist Erstanden_ we have the line "If Christ were not arisen, then death were still our prison." >Ideas like turning the other cheek, etc. may not be original to Christianity, >and are far too often overshadowed by obnoxious teachings. But I consider >the moral teaching to be the point of Christianity, and preoccupation with >belief in Jesus and "the life to come" to be dross. (That's because of my >scientific materialist viewpoint, which doesn't believe in the latter two.) That kind of reasoning is a crock. What your saying is that from your perspective, you want to throw out of Christianity the part which is inconvenient to your way of thinking. Two and a half millenia of Christians beg to differe with you on that point. C. Wingate
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (09/09/86)
za56@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) says: >Still no evidence, I see, for the ressurection. When I first heard >about the supposed ressurection, I couldn't believe people actually >believed this stuff. And then, when I read the Bible, I was shocked >how LITTLE evidence there was for his ressurection..."Well, after >3 days, he rose from the grave, said "hi" to his apostles, and >wandered off to a town from which he was borne off into heaven... >interesting...You'd think that after being ressurected, he'd wander >around a bit, so people would have real EVIDENCE that he was God's >son, but the only people who saw Jesus reborn in the Bible are >the apostles, a coupla women, and thats about it....a whole lotta >eyewitnesses isn't that....kinda ridiculous, if you ask me. You can find a whole lot more eyewitnesses in the Book of Mormon, an entire kingdom worth of them since Christ spend the intervening 3 days on the American continent teaching the people who lived over here. No flames please, you asked for eyewitnesses. I'm simply providing some. -- \"\t\f1A\h'+1m'\f4\(mo\h'+1m'\f1the\h'+1m'\f4\(es\t\f1\c _______________________________________________________________________ Terry Grevstad Network Research Corporation ihnp4!nrcvax!terry {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel Rives) (09/10/86)
In article <3342@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >M. Terribile writes: >>> ... All of Christianity rests on a >>> single point: the Resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead after >>> a brutal crucifixion, there is no point whatsoever in Christianity.... > >And Mike Huybensz replies: >>Very seldom will I speak in favor of Christianity, but the above is downright >>stupid. While the resurrection might be a key point of christian theology, >>it has nothing to do with Christian morality (some of which even I value.) > >Well, that simply isn't true. In the Letter of James it says right out that >the works are the evidence of faith. The faith is the source for the >morality. If you throw away the fiath and just keep the morality you have >something entirely different. > I fail to see that Charley has managed to disprove anything of Mike's statement. The logic here is quite disjointed. As I read it, he has made the following assertions: 1. The works are a result of faith. 2. The morality is a result of faith. 3. With out faith, the morality is not the same (as what?). Assuming that "the works" includes "the resurrection", Charley's assertions say nothing about the connection between "the resurrection" and "the morality". -- Joel Rives USENET: gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr BITNET: gatech!gitvm1!cc100jr "Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!" << Buckaroo Banzai >>
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel Rives) (09/10/86)
In article <3342@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >M. Terribile writes: >>> ... All of Christianity rests on a >>> single point: the Resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead after >>> a brutal crucifixion, there is no point whatsoever in Christianity.... > >And Mike Huybensz replies: >>Very seldom will I speak in favor of Christianity, but the above is downright >>stupid. While the resurrection might be a key point of christian theology, >>it has nothing to do with Christian morality (some of which even I value.) > [First paragraph here] > >It should be noted that the ressurection centrality is an important feature >of the Acts. The morality problems argued out there wouldn't be compelling >at all were it not for their cause in the bringing together of these >different groups through preaching of the ressurection. THe notion >persisted, finding explicit recognition in a number of early reformation >hymns. In _Christe ist Erstanden_ we have the line "If Christ were not >arisen, then death were still our prison." > It is rather difficult to determine exactly what you are trying to say here. Could you, perhaps, state this again? -- Joel Rives USENET: gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr BITNET: gatech!gitvm1!cc100jr "Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!" << Buckaroo Banzai >>
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel Rives) (09/10/86)
In article <3342@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >And Mike Huybensz replies: > [Earlier text deleted] > >>Ideas like turning the other cheek, etc. may not be original to Christianity, >>and are far too often overshadowed by obnoxious teachings. But I consider >>the moral teaching to be the point of Christianity, and preoccupation with >>belief in Jesus and "the life to come" to be dross. (That's because of my >>scientific materialist viewpoint, which doesn't believe in the latter two.) > >That kind of reasoning is a crock. What your saying is that from your >perspective, you want to throw out of Christianity the part which is >inconvenient to your way of thinking. Two and a half millenia of Christians >beg to differe with you on that point. > The form of reasoning that Mike exhibits in his paragraph is far more substantial than the reasoning that you have presented in your rebuttal. As I read his statements, Mike has said nothing about throwing anything out of Christianity. He does suggest that, perhaps, some of the moral concepts of Christianity are borrowed from other cultures. That is another matter. Mike goes on to present his "personal" opinion about some of the teachings of Christianity. He prefaced the entire article with a statement that clearly denotes him as not being a Christian. However, as he goes on to mention, Mike is openminded enough to be receptive to ideas that may develop out of Christianity that have merit in his life. Now, I must ask you. Exactly what "point" are "two and a half millenia of Christians" eager to differ with Mike on? Furthermore, who appointed you as spokesperson for those "two and a half millenia of Christians"? -- Joel Rives USENET: gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr BITNET: gatech!gitvm1!cc100jr "Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!" << Buckaroo Banzai >>
pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (09/10/86)
In article <1133@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <1500@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: >> ... All of Christianity rests on a >> single point: the Resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead after >> a brutal crucifixion, there is no point whatsoever in Christianity.... > >Very seldom will I speak in favor of Christianity, but the above is downright >stupid. While the resurrection might be a key point of christian theology, >it has nothing to do with Christian morality (some of which even I value.) > >Ideas like turning the other cheek, etc. may not be original to Christianity, >and are far too often overshadowed by obnoxious teachings. But I consider >the moral teaching to be the point of Christianity, and preoccupation with >belief in Jesus and "the life to come" to be dross. (That's because of my >scientific materialist viewpoint, which doesn't believe in the latter two.) > >Even fundamentalists should recognize morality as one of the points of >Christianity. Sure, 'morality' is *a* point of Christianity. However, *your* opinion of what is important about Christianity is far less important than *Christ's* opinion! Take a look at what Christ (Jesus) had to say, and you'll find that he was much more preoccupied with his death/resurrection/you-can-only-meet- God-thru-Me/your-relationship-with-God-is-what-counts message than with anything having to do with what we call 'morality'. If you choose to reject Christ, or reject his message, that's your decision to make. But to try to water down the bible until it looks like every other religion out there is to do a grave injustice. There is only one unique thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other religions: Jesus. No other religion has a central human figure ('prophet', whatever you want to call it) who claimed to *be* God. Everything else about Christianity, including the true value of Jesus' death and resurrection, stems from that one thing: either Jesus was who he claimed to be, or he wasn't. If he wasn't, then the Bible is just a pile of mostly-correct teachings (wrong at least in the case of who Jesus was), and we can all follow any 'moral'/religious code we feel like without looking back. If Jesus was/is God, then a lot of things automatically follow, and Christianity is something to be reckoned with. (My intent here is not to discuss all that again, just to say that Christianity isn't Christianity without Christ!). Pete (a random-reader of hot topics) -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hplabs!hpdsd,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/10/86)
In article <3342@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > And Mike Huybensz replies: > >While the resurrection might be a key point of christian theology, > >it has nothing to do with Christian morality (some of which even I value.) > > Well, that simply isn't true. In the Letter of James it says right out that > the works are the evidence of faith. The faith is the source for the > morality. If you throw away the fiath and just keep the morality you have > something entirely different. First off, the Letter of James is not the resurrection. But I'll let that slip, since I can see you're upset. :-) Second, what are my works, if I am not a believer? How can they be evidence of faith? This contradicts the Letter of James. Third, once again you are trying to explain morality with theology: I see no reason to nail the two together other than Christian vested interests in the historical status quo. > >Ideas like turning the other cheek, etc. may not be original to Christianity, > >and are far too often overshadowed by obnoxious teachings. But I consider > >the moral teaching to be the point of Christianity, and preoccupation with > >belief in Jesus and "the life to come" to be dross. (That's because of my > >scientific materialist viewpoint, which doesn't believe in the latter two.) > > That kind of reasoning is a crock. What your saying is that from your > perspective, you want to throw out of Christianity the part which is > inconvenient to your way of thinking. Two and a half millenia of Christians > beg to differe with you on that point. Two (and a half?) millenia of Christians have not been able to produce a convincing justification for their theological ideas. However, some of their moral ideas seem good to me. The notion that you take the whole thing or nothing is the real crock. The Jews could have used that argument against the early Christians (and probably did) and so could the Catholics against any other schismatic sects (from which most protestant demoninations evolved.) Do you agree with my original point that there is something of value in Christianity even if you don't believe in the resurrection? (I wonder if some Unitarians would agree.) -- Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a case brimming with such poetical emotion?" Chancellor: "Distinctly." From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
kiki@isieng.UUCP (09/10/86)
In article <3342@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >M. Terribile writes: >>> ... All of Christianity rests on a >>> single point: the Resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead after >>> a brutal crucifixion, there is no point whatsoever in Christianity.... > >And Mike Huybensz replies: >>Very seldom will I speak in favor of Christianity, but the above is downright >>stupid. While the resurrection might be a key point of christian theology, >>it has nothing to do with Christian morality (some of which even I value.) > >Well, that simply isn't true. In the Letter of James it says right out that >the works are the evidence of faith... > Paul in Corinthians writes "If Christ be not risen, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." Why does the Christian faith rely so heavily on the resurrection? There are three main reasons why this is true. (Romans 1:1-17 is a section of scripture that substantiates my thoughts.) First, the story of Jesus was predicted before Jesus was on earth. The prophets talked about his birth, life, death, and resurrection as signs to prove that Jesus was the son of God. If Jesus didn't fulfill these prophesies, it would be clear that Jesus was not God. Second, Jesus combined in himself the nature of God and man. He came through the genealogy of David, but his resurrection demonstrated that he was God. Thus he closes the gap between man and God. Third (and to me most crucial), when Jesus was resurrected He sent the comforter--the Holy Spirit--which definitely plays a great impact on Christian morality and faith. That, by the ways, is also what makes Christianity unique from any other faith. The Holy Spirit is the Lord's way of bringing man into a unique relationship with Himself, that through their very lives and personalities He imparts His own nature and life to others and touches and changes them. "I have come to give life and to give it abundantly" Kiki
jho@ihlpa.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (09/11/86)
> There is only one unique > thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other > religions: Jesus. No other religion has a central human figure ('prophet', > whatever you want to call it) who claimed to *be* God. Everything else > about Christianity, including the true value of Jesus' death and resurrection, > stems from that one thing: either Jesus was who he claimed to be, or he > wasn't... I don't find this claim unusual. The Roman Emperor Caligula made similar claims. He also claimed be a god. I think that neither you nor I can prove that he was not a god.
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Ma-Ma-Ma-Max Ma-Ma-Max Headroom) (09/12/86)
> There is only one unique > thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other > religions: Jesus. No other religion has a central human figure ('prophet', > whatever you want to call it) who claimed to *be* God. Everything else > about Christianity, including the true value of Jesus' death and resurrection, > stems from that one thing: either Jesus was who he claimed to be, or he > wasn't... Aw, c'mon! Every Pharaoh of Egypt was a human/god, and proclaimed it quite loudly! And they had as much *substantiated* evidence to back it up as anyone else. ========================================= "What are we going to do?" "Me, I'm examining the major Western religions. I'm looking for something that's soft on morality, generous with holidays, and has a short initiation period." Scott J. Berry ihnp4!hou2g!scott
see1@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Ellen Seebacher) (09/12/86)
In article <3342@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >... Two and a half millennia of Christians beg to differ with you... Two and a half? What year IS this? :-) Rip van Winkle
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Whatever I'm calling myself this week) (09/12/86)
>> There is only one unique >> thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other >> religions: Jesus. No other religion has a central human figure ('prophet', >> whatever you want to call it) who claimed to *be* God. Everything else >> about Christianity, including the true value of Jesus' death and resurrection, >> stems from that one thing: either Jesus was who he claimed to be, or he >> wasn't... > Aw, c'mon! Every Pharaoh of Egypt was a human/god, and proclaimed it > quite loudly! And they had as much *substantiated* evidence to back > it up as anyone else. This reminds me (lately EVERYTHING reminds me of something else) of the joke about the atheist who winds up in heaven because she led a good life, and apparently THAT was all that any deity of the benevolent variety would care about in "rewarding" and "punishing" people. So she witnessed people of all religions enjoying the pleasures of heaven. (Even humanists & Ubizmatists...) But this person found a wall, beyond which he heard a lot of noise. When she approached the wall to look over it and see what was going on, she was told that she must not do this, because "on the other side are the Christians, and they think they're the only ones up here; it wouldn't be heaven for them were it otherwise". The moral being that a lot of Christians declare themselves and their religion to be unique, often using this as "proof" of its veracity. Surely it IS unique in the sense that it names a unique set of deities/entities/aspects, uses a unique set of books, etc. (Actually, of course, there's a lot of overlap there with other religions, so the uniqueness idea actually goes bye-bye there too.) But to claim that "Christianity is the one and only religion that... [INSERT PET 'UNIQUENESS' HERE]" winds up being 1) wrong, 2) erroneously used as "proof" of the correctness of the beliefs. It's really quite amusing to see people do this sometimes. -- "If you see this boy", said the ballerina, "do not---I repeat, do not---attempt to reason with him." Rich Rosen bellcore!pyuxd!rlr
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/12/86)
In article <222@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: > Sure, 'morality' is *a* point of Christianity. However, *your* opinion of > what is important about Christianity is far less important than *Christ's* > opinion! Take a look at what Christ (Jesus) had to say, and you'll find that > he was much more preoccupied with his death/resurrection/you-can-only-meet- > God-thru-Me/your-relationship-with-God-is-what-counts message than with > anything having to do with what we call 'morality'. We don't know Christ's opinion. Because he's dead, and all we have are self-serving, revisionist reports written long after his death by lunatics like Paul. As Tim Maroney pointed out, much more is written about JC's moral teachings than about theological BS like godhood and resurrection. > If you choose to reject Christ, or reject his message, that's your decision > to make. But to try to water down the bible until it looks like every other > religion out there is to do a grave injustice. It does look like every other religion out there. > There is only one unique > thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other > religions: Jesus. See? You admit it yourself. > If he wasn't [god], then the Bible is just a pile of mostly-correct teachings > (wrong at least in the case of who Jesus was), and we can all follow any > 'moral'/religious code we feel like without looking back. Exactly my point. I happen to like a bunch of Christian moral teachings (and dislike some others.) -- Writing with conviction is no substitute for writing with a rational argument. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
jim@randvax.UUCP (Jim Gillogly) (09/13/86)
In article <222@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: > There is only one unique >thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other >religions: Jesus. No other religion has a central human figure ('prophet', >whatever you want to call it) who claimed to *be* God. > (etc.) > If he wasn't, then the Bible is just a pile of mostly-correct teachings >(wrong at least in the case of who Jesus was), and we can all follow any >'moral'/religious code we feel like without looking back. If Jesus was/is God, >then a lot of things automatically follow, and Christianity is something >to be reckoned with. Firstly, the claim is not all that unique. Although Joseph Smith (founder of the L.D.S. (Mormon) church) didn't claim to be God at the time, it was clear that he was scheduled to become one after his martyrdom. The accepted theory was that he and the rest of the faithful would end up as gods of their own worlds, accompanied by their wives. Although I can't lay a hand on them, I imagine that there are a number of people in institutions who claim to be God. Secondly, even if that were a unique point it wouldn't be important. The fact that somebody claims something doesn't make it so, as Ubizmatists have been trying to demonstrate to the unbelievers all along. The whole point of the Ubizmatist movement is that any unsubstantiated claim has equal weight. So the point is not what Jesus *claimed* to be, but rather what he *proved* to be. I'm not arguing the latter point, but rather pointing out that the former is a non-issue and can't be a meaningful distinction among religions. Now if you want to argue that Christianity is distinguished by being the only *true* religion, I'd say that's an important distinction. Jim Gillogly HASA, U[Spam] division {decvax, sdcrdcf}!randvax!jim jim@rand-unix.arpa -- Jim Gillogly {decvax, sdcrdcf}!randvax!jim jim@rand-unix.arpa
pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (09/15/86)
In article <1146@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <222@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >> Sure, 'morality' is *a* point of Christianity. However, *your* opinion of >> what is important about Christianity is far less important than *Christ's* >> opinion! Take a look at what Christ (Jesus) had to say, and you'll find that >> he was much more preoccupied with his death/resurrection/you-can-only-meet- >> God-thru-Me/your-relationship-with-God-is-what-counts message than with >> anything having to do with what we call 'morality'. > >We don't know Christ's opinion. Because he's dead, and all we have are ^^^^^^^ we know what He *said*. Does that not count? > [flame] reports written long after his death by [flame]. >As Tim Maroney pointed out, much more is written about JC's >moral teachings than about theological BS like godhood and resurrection. Is it quantity of analytical BS you want? Rather strange. I'm happily willing to ignore what others wrote/write about Jesus... look at what HE *said* and did. >> If you choose to reject Christ, or reject his message, that's your decision >> to make. But to try to water down the bible until it looks like every other >> religion out there is to do a grave injustice. > >It does look like every other religion out there. Really? Why do you then admit... >> There is only one unique >> thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other >> religions: Jesus. >See? You admit it yourself. As do you. I'm glad we agree that Jesus is unique, which makes Christianity unique! (:-) I know I'm jumping to conclusions... I'm sure I haven't convinced you of much...) >> If he wasn't [god], then the Bible is just a pile of mostly-correct teachings >> (wrong at least in the case of who Jesus was), and we can all follow any >> 'moral'/religious code we feel like without looking back. >Exactly my point. I happen to like a bunch of Christian moral teachings >(and dislike some others.) But you've missed my point. What you like may be *moral* teachings, but they aren't at all unique to Christianity, as has been pointed out by others. The things in the Bible that look like everyday moral teachings are just that until they are accompanied by the means to achieve them through a relationship with Jesus. All religions based on a moral law (including the law of the old testament) fall apart eventually, because we are incapable of following a moral law perfectly. Jesus uniquely acts as the bridge/ambassador/certificate or whatever-you-want-to-call-it that allows us to have a relationship with God without being required to achieve moral perfection first. I think a lot of Christians are *very* confused on this point, which obviously confuses everybody else out there. To listen to Falwell, etc, you need to be morally perfect before (or immediately after) you become a Christian. That's *wrong*. The purpose of moral teachings ('the Law' as its put in the bible) is not to give us a bunch of rules that we should try to live by. The purpose of the Law is to show us that it is *impossible* for us to achieve moral perfection under our own strength/willpower/etc -- we can't get to heaven on our own power. Enough for now. Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hplabs!hpdsd,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (09/16/86)
> There is only one unique > thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other > religions: Jesus. No other religion has a central human figure ('prophet', > whatever you want to call it) who claimed to *be* God. This remark is just silly. What do you think an *avatar* is? And much of Hindu thought is based on the concept of an avatar. When you make statements like this, you make intelligent people see your religion as being composed of either uneducated people (if you really haven't studied what you're talking about,) fools (if you have been told but it just hasn't penetrated,) or liars (if you know but just don't care.) It doesn't do your cause any good to be seen as any of the three. Perhaps you should educate yourself in comparative religion before you try to make any brilliant statements on the subject. -- Sue Brezden (HASA member) ihnp4!drutx!slb 1C33, x83829 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When you got nothin', you got nothin' to lose. You're invisible now, you got no secrets to conceal. -Bob Dylan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
daveb@pogo.UUCP (Dave Butler) (09/18/86)
In article <222@octopus.UUCP> Pete Holzman writes: >There is only one unique >thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other >religions: Jesus. No other religion has a central human figure ('prophet', >whatever you want to call it) who claimed to *be* God. Sorry to burst your bubble Pete, but Vishnu came to earth several times. One of his most important manefestations was Krishna (also called Lord of Lust), who, on the day of his birth, went out to do battle with a major demon and vanquished her. This battle was fought in huge ampitheater valley and a hundred thousand worriors witnessed the fight (Much more impressive numbers than the couple of hundred witnesses to Jesus' resurection). Every one of the soldiers saw the fight as clearly as if they were ten feet away (It's a miracle!!). Not only that, but Krishna could not be mistaken for merely human if he weren't in disguissed. He was tall, beatiful, "black as a lotus", had 4 arms, and could speak from the moment of his birth. The Bible may have been "inspired" by God, but Krishna gave us the _Bagavad_Gita_ in person. If you don't buy this and think its a bunch of cowflop, then stop and think for a moment, and maybe you'll understand why hindus (and many other people) think the same about christianity. Enjoyed this Immensely, Dave Butler Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life.
sher@rochester.UUCP (09/18/86)
In article <223@octopus.UUCP] pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes:
]a moral law perfectly. Jesus uniquely acts as the bridge/ambassador/certificate
]or whatever-you-want-to-call-it that allows us to have a relationship with God
]without being required to achieve moral perfection first.
]
]Pete
]
]--
] OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises
] OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
] OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hplabs!hpdsd,pyramid}!octopus!pete
]___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
Hmmm thats funny. Somehow I've managed to have a personal relationship
with God (He speaks, I listen or fail to but ...) without dealing with
intermediaries. (Guess I must be morally perfect then :-) Of course
there is nothing wrong with going through an intermediary. But I doubt
it is necessary. Of course being christian is a handicap in that
regard.
--
-David Sher
sher@rochester
{allegra,seismo}!rochester!shermagore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) (09/19/86)
In article <232@dione.rice.EDU> scorpion@titan.UUCP (Vernon Lee) writes: >In article <3571@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za56@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes: >>>What kind of Sunday School was *that* ?? All of Christianity rests on a >>>single point: the Resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead after >>>a brutal crucifixion, there is no point whatsoever in Christianity. > >Why does the resurrection imply god is worth worshipping? Someday science The power of Cristianity is *IF* you are *WILLING* and are *earnest/diligent*-(as in good honest try) you will find God: Luke11:10, Jeremiah 29:19... etc. God will convince you Psalm 16:7, John 14:16-17, John 15:26 ... etc. I mean if God convinced you wouldn't you worship him ????? If God led you to read the Bible to know Him more wouldn't you? He said he didn't make understanding easy: 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 .... etc. So keep an open mind while you look. [munch munch] > >scorpion (Vernon Lee) >HASA, 5th column # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
pete@octopus.UUCP (09/19/86)
In article <2741@pogo.UUCP> daveb@pogo.UUCP (Dave Butler) writes: >In article <222@octopus.UUCP> Pete Holzman writes: >>There is only one unique >>thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other >>religions: Jesus. No other religion has a central human figure ('prophet', >>whatever you want to call it) who claimed to *be* God. > >Sorry to burst your bubble Pete, but Vishnu came to earth several times. One >of his most important manefestations was Krishna (also called Lord of Lust), >[interesting story of a miraculous battle...] > >Not only that, but Krishna could not be mistaken for merely human if he >weren't in disguissed. He was tall, beatiful, "black as a lotus", had 4 arms, >and could speak from the moment of his birth. The Bible may have been >"inspired" by God, but Krishna gave us the _Bagavad_Gita_ in person. If you >don't buy this and think its a bunch of cowflop, then stop and think for a >moment, and maybe you'll understand why hindus (and many other people) think >the same about christianity. Dave, I'll admit up front that I'm personally no expert on comparative religions. However, I think your example is rather poor: From the description you gave, Krishna was in no way fully human. In fact, he even needed a disguise to *look* human. I didn't say it very well, I guess: Jesus claimed to be fully God *and* fully human simultaneously, and provided evidence to that effect. There's lots of interesting followup questions of course. I probably won't get involved (I don't have lots of time-- this is fun, but my family needs to get more of my time! Oh well...) -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hplabs!hpdsd,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (09/19/86)
[I've sent followup to talk.religion.misc; I hope that's ok and appropriate!] In article <1309@drutx.UUCP> slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) writes: >> (I wrote...) There is only one unique >> thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other >> religions: Jesus. No other religion has a central human figure ('prophet', >> whatever you want to call it) who claimed to *be* God. > >This remark is just silly. What do you think an *avatar* is? >And much of Hindu thought is based on the concept of an avatar. [see below for important statement regarding my qualifications in this discussion] However, I find it hard to include the Hindu idea of 'God' here, since as far as I can tell, being 'God' is nothing unique: Self (atman) is the same as Ultimate Reality (Brahman), and Brahman is the supreme Lord (Isvara). In other words, we *all* are God, according to Hinduism (if we can only achieve the true knowledge). I'll admit: I didn't make my statement very carefully. In any case, Jesus' *claims* as to who he is aren't really important in and of themselves, except that he thought it was important that we decide whether his claims were true, and then act on that decision. >When you make statements like this, you make intelligent people >see your religion as being composed of either uneducated people >(if you really haven't studied what you're talking about,) that's me... >fools (if you have been told but it just hasn't penetrated,) or liars >(if you know but just don't care.) It doesn't do your cause any >good to be seen as any of the three. > >Perhaps you should educate yourself in comparative religion >before you try to make any brilliant statements on the subject. Sorry. I am *not* well educated in comparative religion. I have read some pretty good books talking about Christianity vs. <whatever> in very general terms, but haven't gone into it in great detail. Due to my lack of detailed background knowledge, I didn't qualify my statement very carefully... I guess it goes to show that general statements about complicated subjects may contain some truth, but they also allow for lots of misinterpretation! I'll try to stick to more well-defined in assertions in the future! (And just so I can continue in this discussion, I went and read 50 pages on Hinduism in a pretty good comparative religions book...I hope that doesn't suddenly make me a fool or a liar! :-)) Maybe we can now move on to more central issues. Like, is there really any hope of truly becoming one with God via any religion other than Christianity? (including Science). Or... if we are to assume there is no God, then is there any hope that humanity will improve itself? Is there evidence that we are 'improving' our lot as a species in the long run? Is there anything new under the sun (new == real change for the better as people, not new==new and better gadgets available to the rich of the world). >-- > Sue Brezden -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hplabs!hpdsd,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
kiki@isieng.UUCP (09/19/86)
In article <2741@pogo.UUCP> daveb@pogo.UUCP (Dave Butler) writes: >In article <222@octopus.UUCP> Pete Holzman writes: > >>There is only one unique >>thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other >>religions: Jesus. No other religion has a central human figure ('prophet', >>whatever you want to call it) who claimed to *be* God. > >Sorry to burst your bubble Pete, but Vishnu came to earth several times. One >of his most important manefestations was Krishna (also called Lord of Lust), >who, on the day of his birth, went out to do battle with a major demon and >vanquished her... He was tall, beautiful, "black as a lotus", had 4 arms, >and could speak from the moment of his birth. The Bible may have been >"inspired" by God, but Krishna gave us the _Bagavad_Gita_ in person. If you >don't buy this and think its a bunch of cowflop, then stop and think for a >moment, and maybe you'll understand why hindus (and many other people) think >the same about christianity. Thank God that we have been given minds so that we can rationally evaluate what truth and fact is. Just because a large number of people believe something or have "tons of faith" doesn't make something true. If you're flying an airplane and you put a cactus in the pilot's see and believe with all your heart that the cactus will fly the plane, it ain't gonna fly the plane. If you don't put a pilot up there, the cactus won't make a difference no matter how strongly you may believe in it. If there's a God, it doesn't matter how many people believe it or have faith in something as God; if it's not God, it ain't gonna fly! Jesus was probably the most remembered character in human history. More books have been written, more songs sung, more paintings painted, more great drama written than any other figure in the past. Have you ever wondered why? Why doesn't he fade into the past like others? Several books in the Bible were written by men who were eye witnesses to Jesus' life. They wrote not about some mystic, bizarre creature; they wrote about a man who once lived on earth and lived and breathed just like we do. These men knew Jesus intimately; they slept and ate with Him and followed Him. When Jesus was on earth he expressed the thoughts of God in human words. John wrote in chapter 20, verses 30-31: Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God and that believeing you may have life in his name. Nothing mystic and bizarre about that. John talks about Jesus giving "light" which is knowledge, understanding, truth. The Bible teaches man to use his mind, to pursue knowledge. We can pursue all kinds of knowledge--art, science, health, literature, politics, etc.--but if we don't know the knowledge that is written in the Bible, we can never understand what is really happening. So what is it that you "buy", Dave? A creature with four arms? Vishnu? The greek gods? Buddha? We are constantly put in situations where we need to make rational choices. If we didn't make intelligent choices, think of where we'd be now. Or think of where we'd be if *everyone* made intelligent choices! > > Enjoyed this Immensely, > Dave Butler > Me Too! Kiki Herbst > > Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life. "If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself"--Jesus Christ (John 7:17)
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel Rives) (09/19/86)
In article <223@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >In article <1146@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> >>We don't know Christ's opinion. Because he's dead, and all we have are > ^^^^^^^ we know what He *said*. Does that not count? You seem to have totally missed the point here Pete. What Mike stated (excuse me for paraphrasing you Mike) was that we don't know Jesus's opinion because we don't know what he said. The only evidence that Jesus even said anything worth noting is in the New Testament and that is hearsay at best. Because the bible says that Jesus said one thing or another does not prove anything of the sort. This sort of falacy seems to crop up over and over. Let me present to you an example of your own approach using another religion. According to the Baghavad Gita, the God Krishna came to earth in the form of a man (sound familiar?). This God/Man came to be the chariot driver for Prince Arjuna at a time when Arjuna was at civil war with another who challenged Arjuna's right to the throne. Much of the body of the Gita is in the form of conversation between Arjuna and the God become man. Now, I may claim this writing to be the gospel and every word of it the absolute truth - much as CHristians do with their book. Are you going to believe me when I tell you everything in this book is fact? Why not? It says it right there in the Bhagavad Gita - the word of God. >>> to make. But to try to water down the bible until it looks like every other >>> religion out there is to do a grave injustice. >> >>It does look like every other religion out there. > >Really? Why do you then admit... > >>> There is only one unique >>> thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other >>> religions: Jesus. > >>See? You admit it yourself. > >As do you. I'm glad we agree that Jesus is unique, which makes Christianity >unique! (:-) I know I'm jumping to conclusions... I'm sure I haven't convinced >you of much...) > Every religion has a founder. So what? That certainly makes each religion unique. This form of uniqueness is hardly notable. -- Joel Rives gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr { * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ ^ }-------{ * } There is no place to seek the mind; It is like the footprints of the birds in the sky. { * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }--------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }
daveh@tekcrl.UUCP (Dave Hatcher) (10/01/86)
>From: pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) Subject: Re: one more time... (who claims to be God and Human?) >Maybe we can now move on to more central issues. Like, is there really any >hope of truly becoming one with God via any religion other than Christianity? >OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises The idea of becoming one with God is a very interesting question, and is the central point of all the contemporary religions. If you study them from the bottom line perspective of what their salvation is, you will find it is the same for all religions. Including Christianity. To me it seems that the bottom line has two parts. The first part is a complete giving of one's self to God. And the second is that the way for an abandonment to God is through the medium of *LOVE*. Now if you want to argue which path is correct and which one isn't, somehow always ends up in an argument about *FORM*. And arguments about *FORM* somehow has ways of dividing people from each other..and from..God. You just can not argue *FORM* and keep *LOVE* in your heart. Dave Hatcher
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (10/02/86)
In article <1018@rti-sel.UUCP>, wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: > who denies the resurrection as a Christian. Whether that Christian > truly believes s/he is a Christian or not is beside the point, because I think the same mastermind must be in charge of brainwashing all American students. Did it ever occur to anyone that something might be true (or false) even if no one believes it to be true (or false)? If your right arm gets amputated, does believing real sincerely that it didn't happen change the facts? Christianity makes certain statements about the universe (and beyond). These statements are either true or false. If it is true that anyone outside of Christ will go to Hell, they are going there whether they believe it or not. It is simple kindness for Christians to try and warn their neighbors before it happens. Wake up! HASA and SASA especially! You guys are supposed to be finding out what's really true! I am sick and tired of relative truth. Let's show why Christianity is false, or why it is true. But let's not have this "whatever works for you" drivel. Remember, somebody might be right! -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>
devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (10/02/86)
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >In article <1500@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes: > >>What kind of Sunday School was *that* ?? All of Christianity rests on a >>single point: the Resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead after >>a brutal crucifixion, there is no point whatsoever in Christianity. ... > >No. What you mean to say is: I, Mark Terribile, reject any Christian >who denies the resurrection as a Christian. Whether that Christian >truly believes s/he is a Christian or not is beside the point, because >I happen to have a direct line to the truth. And people who do not >accept my definition of Christianity are deluding themselves. > For nearly two millenia the Christian faith has understood that there are certain basic dogmas which define what it means to be a Christian. Belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ is one of these. For you to assert that one can be a Christian and deny the concept of the resurrection is very bold and, I'm afraid to say, quite wrong. The resurrection is not some obscure and secondary teaching within Christianity; it is the very foundation of the Christian faith. >This kind of judgementalism and denial of the truth and wisdom in >other approaches to living a good life are exactly the things that >drive a large number of Americans out of the organized churches. A Christian doesn't deny that other religions can offer some measure of good to society. You can live a "good life" in the human sense as part of another religion. But if you deny that Christ is the Son of God, that His death was an attoning sacrifice for sin, that he rose from the dead as evidence of His ultimate power over death, don't call yourself a Christian. You're no more a Christian than a Hindu who denies these things. >They've certainly turned me off to the idea of affiliating with >any existing Christian denomination, in spite of the fact that I'm >very concerned with the importance of fellowship, community action, >and the search for religious meaning in my life. That's an interesting statement because many "mainline" denominations would affirm the things you are saying. There are ministers in the PCUSA church, for instance, that deny the divinity of Christ and the bodily resurrection. >Consequently, I >am considering the Unitarian Universalist Church in my search for >truth: an organization that accepts ANYONE who is interested in >talking about religious issues, in fellowship, and in people being >supportive of each other. To me, that's what religion should really be >all about, not this literalist argument over dogma and the contents of >a document that has been twisted and altered for nonreligious reasons >over a span of 20 centuries. > That's what you think religion is all about. That sounds a little to wishy-washy for me. I want to be a part of a group that knows where it is going and is willing to help others find the way. Christianity is a religion that has a foundation outside the mere imaginations of men. As it has been said of the Jews, so it is true also of Christians, we are a people of the Book. Unitarian Universalists are most certainly not Christians, but I guess that's what you are looking for. You appears as if you have made up your mind about who Jesus Chrsit is and you don't want any part of it. That's OK, just don't tell Christians what Christianity is. >After a few months of reading net.religion.christian, I have to say I >have little interest in what's said in that group any more. So I've >unsubscribed to that group and resubscribed to net.religion, a group >that maybe will be a little more congenial to my hard-won beliefs. > >Geez, does this mean I'm an honorary member of HASA? :-) > > -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly I'll send this to net.religion so you'll see it. -- Tom Albrecht "Reformata, semper reformanda"
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (10/06/86)
In article <232@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >In article <1018@rti-sel.UUCP>, wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >> who denies the resurrection as a Christian. Whether that Christian >> truly believes s/he is a Christian or not is beside the point, because > >I think the same mastermind must be in charge of brainwashing all >American students. I'm not a student: I'm a 40-year-old man who has been thinking about these issues most of my life. >Did it ever occur to anyone that something might >be true (or false) even if no one believes it to be true (or false)? >If your right arm gets amputated, does believing real sincerely that >it didn't happen change the facts? Christianity makes certain statements >about the universe (and beyond). These statements are either true or >false. If it is true that anyone outside of Christ will go to Hell, they >are going there whether they believe it or not. It is simple kindness >for Christians to try and warn their neighbors before it happens. My comment was about Christian fundamentalists who deny the Christianity of all those who in some sense accept the truth of what Christ said but don't buy into the whole mystical enchilada of the Resurrection, Christ's divinity, and the literal interpretation of the Bible. What you people don't seem to realize is that this describes A LOT of people who describe themselves as Christian. And many of these people resent your absolute definition of what Christianity is all about. What arrogance. I reject your concept of a vengeful God who would commit innocents to eternal torment, I reject literal interpretations of the Bible, I reject the notion that humanity is fundamentally flawed. Yes, I've read the Bible; it contains wisdom, but so do the texts of the other great religions of the world. I have no use for a 'God' who would damn me for living a good and moral life outside the confines of the Christian personality cult. > Wake up! HASA and SASA especially! You guys are supposed to be >finding out what's really true! I am sick and tired of relative truth. >Let's show why Christianity is false, or why it is true. But let's not >have this "whatever works for you" drivel. > >Remember, somebody might be right! Whatever works for you, Stuart. I mean it. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (10/06/86)
In article <2722@burdvax.UUCP> devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) writes: >For nearly two millenia the Christian faith has understood that there are >certain basic dogmas which define what it means to be a Christian. Belief >in the bodily resurrection of Christ is one of these. For you >to assert that one can be a Christian and deny the concept of the >resurrection is very bold and, I'm afraid to say, quite wrong. ... Then why do you later say: >>They've certainly turned me off to the idea of affiliating with >>any existing Christian denomination, in spite of the fact that I'm >>very concerned with the importance of fellowship, community action, >>and the search for religious meaning in my life. > >That's an interesting statement because many "mainline" denominations would >affirm the things you are saying. There are ministers in the PCUSA church, >for instance, that deny the divinity of Christ and the bodily resurrection. There are two possibilities: either you're saying you CAN be a Christian and deny the resurrection, or that many 'mainline' denominations are not truly Christian. The former seems contradictory, the latter seems arrogant to me. What I said was NOT bold: many members of Christian churches would agree with me. Check, for example, the statements of belief in the book "Religion In America" by Leo Rosten (I think I've got the name and title right). >Unitarian Universalists are most certainly not Christians, but I guess >that's what you are looking for. You appears as if you have made up your >mind about who Jesus Chrsit is and you don't want any part of it. That's >OK, just don't tell Christians what Christianity is. I spent eight years in Catholic grade school, four years in Catholic high school, and a year at a Catholic college with religion and theology courses mandatory every semester. I was raised in a denomination that claims to be Christian (whether you want to admit that Catholics are Christians or not is a different matter). My understanding of what Christ and Christianity are about is based on knowledge, not ignorance. I do not reject the good things Christ said and did: I reject the mystery aspects of the Christian religion just as I reject the mystery aspects of other religions. The Bible is a set of writings that have been misinterpreted and mistranslated over the past 4000 years, and I see no reason to assume all of its authors over that period were directly inspired by a divine principle. There are many other motives for writing a religious tract: I can think of politics, for one thing. And why shouldn't I tell Christians or anyone else what I think Christianity is? I thought talk.religion.misc was a place for the free exchange of ideas on religion. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
thain@magic.UUCP (10/06/86)
Stuart Gathman is under the mistaken impression that clouding the discussion with non-sequter reasoning takes the place of good old thinking. Perhaps he is right. After all he provides the perfect example of a person screaming so loudly about what they "know" is right that they can't even hear themselves think. In article <232@BMS-AT.UUCP>, stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: > In article <1018@rti-sel.UUCP>, wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: > I think the same mastermind must be in charge of brainwashing all > American students. O.K., I confess. By the use of designer drugs and heathan sacrifical practices we have enslaved all the American students into believing that soon Oleg will lead them on a religious jihad so that they may turn forever away the Big Daddy/Junior/Spook concept and erect statues to their favorite talking animal out of whatever they're little minds concoct. This is the true purpose of HASA. We are winning! > Did it ever occur to anyone that something might > be true (or false) even if no one believes it to be true (or false)? > If your right arm gets amputated, does believing real sincerely that > it didn't happen change the facts? Christianity makes certain statements > about the universe (and beyond). These statements are either true or > false. If it is true that anyone outside of Christ will go to Hell, they > are going there whether they believe it or not. It is simple kindness > for Christians to try and warn their neighbors before it happens. O.K., you've warned me. I have been amply warned in my lifetime. I still feel that it's a crock of horsehocky, but I acknowlage that I've been warned. NOW Stuart, now that you've done your duty as your God commanded, you can leave me alone. There are other ways to come to terms with the universe, despite how you might feel about it. I feel as a public service to you however, that I should warn you about believing the purveyors of Organized Religion. They have always at the upper levels of adminstration mixed politics within they're religious doctrines so beware of they're "truths". Also, beware of those who would interpet your Biblical passages for you, as they have been known to use the word of God to justify unjust actions. Beware those who use the Bible to support moralizations wich God spake not about. Open your ears, look with your eyes, search your feelings. expand your religious horizons despite what others may tell you. There. Now I've warned you. > Wake up! HASA and SASA especially! You guys are supposed to be > finding out what's really true! I am sick and tired of relative truth. > Let's show why Christianity is false, or why it is true. But let's not > have this "whatever works for you" drivel. Numerous times arguments have been presented in this forum for why Christianity bites the big one. All the supporters have done is howled about how they're being picked on, screaming that one must be liberal with Biblical interpertations but stingy to accord the same liberalness to evidence posted by non-Christians. This "whatever works for you drivel" seems to be a damn sight better than, " well, *we're* right and your wrong because we have said so and we have God on our side!" attitude which has developed. Tell me Stuart, what is so "right' about Christianity? Why should I become one? > Remember, somebody might be right! Yes, a scary thought, don't you agree? Of course, the possiblity exists that perhaps we're both right, or even both wrong! Happy Trails, Glenn Proud member, HASA "S" Division Commander thain@src.DEC.COM ( JOIN NOW! All HASA members recieve the following!)* 1) 15% off all Whale oil Balms 2) Aura Colors altered while you wait! 3) Seven Sacred Monkees from the Secret Ancient Crypts handtowel sets 4) The Best of HASA - only $9.99! And.....if you order now.....you will recieve an autographed picture of Mel Torme singing, " The Devil Went Down to Georgia!" * Offer void. Refund satisfied if not gaurenteed.
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (10/07/86)
From: devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht): >For nearly two millenia the Christian faith has understood that there are >certain basic dogmas which define what it means to be a Christian. Belief >in the bodily resurrection of Christ is one of these. For you >to assert that one can be a Christian and deny the concept of the >resurrection is very bold and, I'm afraid to say, quite wrong. The >resurrection is not some obscure and secondary teaching within >Christianity; it is the very foundation of the Christian faith. >[...] >A Christian doesn't deny that other religions can offer some measure of >good to society. You can live a "good life" in the human sense as part >of another religion. But if you deny that Christ is the Son of God, that >His death was an attoning sacrifice for sin, that he rose from the dead as >evidence of His ultimate power over death, don't call yourself a Christian. >You're no more a Christian than a Hindu who denies these things. And you, sir, are presumptuous. Not even the Pope has been able to dictate "The" definition of Christianity for the last 400 years. Your definition is a common one; it is accepted by many, perhaps most, Christians. But not all, by any means. There is no official body in all the world with the authority to define what a Christian is. Didn't you hear about the Reformation? :-) >>They've certainly turned me off to the idea of affiliating with >>any existing Christian denomination, in spite of the fact that I'm >>very concerned with the importance of fellowship, community action, >>and the search for religious meaning in my life. [Bill Ingogly] > >That's an interesting statement because many "mainline" denominations would >affirm the things you are saying. There are ministers in the PCUSA church, >for instance, that deny the divinity of Christ and the bodily resurrection. Glad to see you admit it. In light of this, by what right do you assert authority to tell us what THE definition of Christian is? >Unitarian Universalists are most certainly not Christians, but I guess >that's what you are looking for. You appears as if you have made up your >mind about who Jesus Chrsit is and you don't want any part of it. That's >OK, just don't tell Christians what Christianity is. I love it. A little more of this kind of insult, and you'll have liberal Christians lining up to join HASA in droves :-). - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
gnome@oliveb.UUCP (Gary) (10/08/86)
> > > Stuart Gathman is under the mistaken impression that clouding the > discussion with non-sequter reasoning takes the place of good old thinking. > Perhaps he is right. After all he provides the perfect example of a person > screaming so loudly about what they "know" is right that they can't even > hear themselves think. > ...Are these attributes right??... > In article <232@BMS-AT.UUCP>, stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes: >> In article <1018@rti-sel.UUCP>, wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: ... >> If it is true that anyone outside of Christ will go to Hell, they >> are going there whether they believe it or not. It is simple kindness >> for Christians to try and warn their neighbors before it happens. Yeh, right, and then do your damndest to make sure it happens... >> Wake up! HASA and SASA especially! You guys are supposed to be >> finding out what's really true! I am sick and tired of relative truth. >> Let's show why Christianity is false, or why it is true. But let's not >> have this "whatever works for you" drivel. Gee, your religion "works for you"! Therefore it, also, is drivel. > This "whatever works for you drivel" seems to be a damn > sight better than, " well, *we're* right and your wrong because we have said > so and we have God on our side!" attitude which has developed. > > Tell me Stuart, what is so "right' about Christianity? Why should I become > one? > >> Remember, somebody might be right! > > Yes, a scary thought, don't you agree? Of course, the possiblity exists > that perhaps we're both right, or even both wrong! > > Happy Trails, > Glenn > Proud member, HASA > "S" Division Commander ... > And.....if you order now.....you will recieve an autographed picture of > Mel Torme singing, " The Devil Went Down to Georgia!" The Devil went down to Georgia... and started his own religious network. It had satellites and 800 numbers. It had music and faith healing. Why, he even thought he'd run for president. But there were too many people who saw him as a fool, no matter which bible he thumped. So he gave up the political path, and all the heavy journalistic scrutiny that goes with it, and went back into the mire of other fools with satellites and tax-deductible phone-in lines. And all the time, his followers kept wondering why they felt as though the universe was laughing behind their backs... Gary HASA H-Division (Heathen Helpful and Happy) "Someday, I'd like to write-down all of mankind's misunderstandings about the world around them, put it all in a hardcover book, and leave copies of it in every hotel room -- Oh! Somebody beat me to it!"
devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (10/08/86)
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: > >There are two possibilities: either you're saying you CAN be a >Christian and deny the resurrection, or that many 'mainline' >denominations are not truly Christian. The former seems contradictory, >the latter seems arrogant to me. What I said was NOT bold: many >members of Christian churches would agree with me. Check, for example, >the statements of belief in the book "Religion In America" by Leo >Rosten (I think I've got the name and title right). > What I would assert is that one cannot be a Christian and still deny the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is just not an option. The resurrection is CENTRAL to the Christian faith. Those churches that deny the resurrection, the divinity of Christ and a whole host of other core doctrines have no business claiming the label of "Christian". As far as I know, the teaching standards of the PCUSA still hold to the orthodox positions of the Christian faith. However, there is still sufficient "latitude" within that group so that individuals who deny the core truths of Christianity can be ordained ministers. I simply suggested that you might feel comfortable in one of these liberal churches. >>Unitarian Universalists are most certainly not Christians, but I guess >>that's what you are looking for. You appears as if you have made up your >>mind about who Jesus Chrsit is and you don't want any part of it. That's >>OK, just don't tell Christians what Christianity is. > >I spent eight years in Catholic grade school, four years in Catholic >high school, and a year at a Catholic college with religion and >theology courses mandatory every semester. I was raised in a >denomination that claims to be Christian (whether you want to admit >that Catholics are Christians or not is a different matter). My >understanding of what Christ and Christianity are about is based on >knowledge, not ignorance. I do not reject the good things Christ said >and did: I reject the mystery aspects of the Christian religion just >as I reject the mystery aspects of other religions. The Bible is a >set of writings that have been misinterpreted and mistranslated over >the past 4000 years, and I see no reason to assume all of its authors >over that period were directly inspired by a divine principle. There >are many other motives for writing a religious tract: I can think of >politics, for one thing. And why shouldn't I tell Christians or anyone >else what I think Christianity is? I thought talk.religion.misc was a >place for the free exchange of ideas on religion. > > -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly I would suggest that your understanding of Christianity is flawed. If you read the NT, the writings of the church fathers and conservative, contemporary authors such as Charles Hodge or Francis Shaeffer you will get a more accurate perspective on Christianity. If you reject Christianity because you reject supernaturalism, then say so. I appreciate your perspectives on Christianity. My only suggestion was that you not define Christianity according to what YOU THINK it should be, only what its adherents declare it to be. -- Tom Albrecht "Reformata, semper reformanda"
strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stephen D. Stricklen) (10/08/86)
# That's an interesting statement because many "mainline" denominations would # affirm the things you are saying. There are ministers in the PCUSA church, # for instance, that deny the divinity of Christ and the bodily resurrection. # # #Consequently, I # #am considering the Unitarian Universalist Church in my search for # #truth: an organization that accepts ANYONE who is interested in # #talking about religious issues, in fellowship, and in people being # #supportive of each other. To me, that's what religion should really be # #all about, not this literalist argument over dogma and the contents of # #a document that has been twisted and altered for nonreligious reasons # #over a span of 20 centuries. # # # # That's what you think religion is all about. That sounds a little to # wishy-washy for me. I want to be a part of a group that knows where it is # going and is willing to help others find the way. Christianity is a # religion that has a foundation outside the mere imaginations of men. As it # has been said of the Jews, so it is true also of Christians, we are a # people of the Book. I find the above comments quite bigoted. Religious and belief systems are extremely personal things. My church (a Unitarian Universalist congregation) believes that one's religious beliefs are so important in life that no one and no institution may be allowed to dictate them. We know exactly where we are going and we have many ways (not just one!) to help individuals find their path through life and their own personal truth. # # Unitarian Universalists are most certainly not Christians, but I guess # that's what you are looking for. You appears as if you have made up your # mind about who Jesus Chrsit is and you don't want any part of it. That's # OK, just don't tell Christians what Christianity is. # I am sure there are at least as many definitions of "Christian" and "Christianity" as there are religious denominations. Some Unitarian Universalists consider themselves Christian, just as some consider themselves Deists or atheists. Most of us, however, want no part of getting caught up in labels such as these. As for Jesus, we spend much of our church year studying his teachings. We believe him to be one of the greatest prophets to have ever lived. However, we believe him to be one of many, many persons whose religious writings and teachings can offer us guidance and fresh viewpoints of the world and universe about us. Steve Stricklen AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!ihlpa!strickln
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (10/10/86)
In article <1030@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >I spent eight years in Catholic grade school, four years in Catholic >high school, and a year at a Catholic college with religion and >theology courses mandatory every semester. Ha! That's the best one I've heard in a long time, .. this guy is claiming they have "Catholics" in North Carolina?? Give me a break! :-) :-) :-) :-) Seriously, I'd like to see the complete works of the "beliefs, cosmologies, and life plans of the "Hasaites" and "Sashaites". I'm really not interested in how "smart, intellectual, and honest" they are, just what the brain-set is. How bout it guys/women, we all know about what these "Xians" (actually a secret Chinese paramilitary group) believe, but what are YOUR individual global concepts. Come on "'fess up"! +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (10/10/86)
Tom Albrecht and Willaim Ingogly are debating the question: What is the defn of a Christian. It seems logical to me, based on both the entomology of the word, and on the most basic of Christian beliefs that, in a nutshell: A person who really believes that Jesus Christ is God is a Christian. One who does not, is not. One piece of data to throw into the fray is that in 1979, only 47% of Dutch Catholics thought that Christ is the Son of God. Add to this that Catholics are more dogmatic than other Christians on the whole (especially in Europe) and that the percentage above was decreasing, and you now can see stmts like 'There are X number of Christians in the world' in a new light. Al Algustyniak (1) Not Quite a Heresy Trial, TIME, 24 Dec, 1979, p.83
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (10/11/86)
In article <3071@sdcrdcf.UUCP> alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) writes: >Tom Albrecht and Willaim Ingogly are debating the question: What is the > defn of a Christian. >It seems logical to me, based on both the entomology of the word, and on >the most basic of Christian beliefs that, in a nutshell: > A person who really believes that Jesus Christ is God is > a Christian. One who does not, is not. >One piece of data to throw into the fray is that in 1979, only 47% >of Dutch Catholics thought that Christ is the Son of God. Based on the above, I might conclude that 53% of Dutch Catholics are not Christians, whereas many Hindus are. This seems too much at variance with normal usage, if so. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.
devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (10/13/86)
gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith) writes: >In article <3071@sdcrdcf.UUCP> alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) writes: > >>It seems logical to me, based on both the entomology of the word, and on >>the most basic of Christian beliefs that, in a nutshell: > >> A person who really believes that Jesus Christ is God is >> a Christian. One who does not, is not. > >>One piece of data to throw into the fray is that in 1979, only 47% >>of Dutch Catholics thought that Christ is the Son of God. > > Based on the above, I might conclude that 53% of Dutch Catholics >are not Christians, whereas many Hindus are. This seems too much at ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!? >variance with normal usage, if so. > >ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 I don't know any Hindus who could, in good faith, acknowledge as being true the statements in the Apostle's Creed. Hindus might believe that Jesus Christ was a good teacher, as many other religions do, but would have difficulty declaring that He is the only-begotten Son of God whose death was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of His people and is the ONLY way to the Father. They might find Jesus' declaration that "no man comes to the Father except by me" to be a little arrogant and bigoted. -- Tom Albrecht
devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (10/13/86)
strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stephen D. Stricklen) writes: [I said] ># ># That's what you think religion is all about. That sounds a little to ># wishy-washy for me. I want to be a part of a group that knows where it is ># going and is willing to help others find the way. Christianity is a ># religion that has a foundation outside the mere imaginations of men. As it ># has been said of the Jews, so it is true also of Christians, we are a ># people of the Book. > >I find the above comments quite bigoted. Religious and belief systems are >extremely personal things. My church (a Unitarian Universalist congregation) >believes that one's religious beliefs are so important in life that no one >and no institution may be allowed to dictate them. We know exactly where >we are going and we have many ways (not just one!) to help individuals find >their path through life and their own personal truth. > ># ># Unitarian Universalists are most certainly not Christians, ... > >I am sure there are at least as many definitions of "Christian" and >"Christianity" as there are religious denominations. Some Unitarian >Universalists consider themselves Christian, just as some consider themselves >Deists or atheists. Most of us, however, want no part of getting caught up >in labels such as these. As for Jesus, we spend much of our church year >studying his teachings. We believe him to be one of the greatest prophets >to have ever lived. However, we believe him to be one of many, many >persons whose religious writings and teachings can offer us guidance and >fresh viewpoints of the world and universe about us. > >Steve Stricklen First of all, I apologize and ask forgiveness of all those Unitarian Universalists who believe that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity and who also believe that He died as a sacrifice for our sins and rose bodily from the grave as evidence of His power over death and hell. I didn't mean to argue that all UUs were not Christians. My point should have been that the doctrinal formulations of the UU denomination, as I understand them, deny the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and all that goes with it. Secondly, I will continue to assert that the only correct definition of who is a Christian and what constitutes a Christian denomination is the Bible. Any group which claims to be Christian, but which refuses to use the Bible as sole authority over matters of faith and practice cannot be considered in the mainstream of Christianity. Jesus Christ, the Word of God, gave us His written word as a guidebook for the life of the church. Jesus prayed for the peace and purity of His church, but peace can only come about when members are willing to subject their every thought and action to the light of His Word. You may think this position bigoted. That is your privilege. Centuries of Christians have died for this belief. I stand with those faithful martyrs who believed that the truth of the Bible was worth dying for. The main problem with the Christian church today is that it is too willing to compromise on the truth. When denomination after denomination throw out the Bible as the objective standard we see the effects: a church that no longer knows what it believes. It's OK to believe (or deny) anything and be a Christian. Well I don't buy it. I think that there is an objective standard for faith and practice, I believe that it has been faithfully maintained for the church and I believe in the Spirit who guides the church in all truth. -- Tom Albrecht "Reformata, semper reformanda"
gary@ethos.UUCP (Gary J. Smith) (10/14/86)
In article <3071@sdcrdcf.UUCP> alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) writes: >It seems logical to me, based on both the entomology of the word, and on >the most basic of Christian beliefs that, in a nutshell: > > A person who really believes that Jesus Christ is God is > a Christian. One who does not, is not. I think most Christians would disagree with (as is evident in the statistics you offered), just as the tradition of the Church tends to disagree with you. The debates and decisions of the early Councils were trying to get at this very question, and they did not find it as simple and straightforward as you--they wound up formulating a subtle and complicated statement where they affirm that believing "Jesus Christ is God" is not enough. You must also believe he is man. Gary J. Smith {ihnp4,mcnc,duke}!ethos!gary ==================================================================== 5802 Garrett Rd, Durham, NC 27707 voice: 919-493-9575 data: 489-6496 -- Gary J. Smith {ihnp4,mcnc,duke}!ethos!gary ==================================================================== 5802 Garrett Rd, Durham, NC 27707 voice: 919-493-9575 data: 489-6496
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (10/14/86)
In article <2735@burdvax.UUCP> devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) writes: >What I would assert is that one cannot be a Christian and still deny the >historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is just not an >option. The resurrection is CENTRAL to the Christian faith. Those >churches that deny the resurrection, the divinity of Christ and a whole >host of other core doctrines have no business claiming the label of >"Christian". Well, this still seems to me to be YOUR opinion; whether everyone who says s/he's a Christian would agree with you remains to be seen. I have no idea whether what you're saying is a minority or majority opinion in the set of all churches that claim to be Christian, or in some subset of those churches. IF someone can show to me that a clear majority of people who call themselves Christians believe this, I'll accept it as a majority opinion and agree that people who don't tow the line probably shouldn't be calling themselves Christian. >... I simply suggested >that you might feel comfortable in one of these liberal churches. I agree. >I would suggest that your understanding of Christianity is flawed. If you >read the NT, the writings of the church fathers and conservative, >contemporary authors such as Charles Hodge or Francis Shaeffer you will >get a more accurate perspective on Christianity. If you reject >Christianity because you reject supernaturalism, then say so. Again, the claim that such a perspective would be more accurate is your claim. I would agree that my perspective might be more complete if I read some of these authors (I have read the NT, by the way), but I still believe that there's far from a consensus on these things among those who call themselves Christian. And if you say you're Christian and someone else isn't while that person is claiming s/he's Christian and you're not, who should I believe? I don't reject Christianity or supernaturalism out of hand: I simply don't know what the Ultimate Truth is, or whether an Ultimate Truth exists, or even if it makes any sense to ask such a question. That's what agnosticism is about (at least my brand of it). I consider myself in many ways a religious person and certainly a moral person, but I see my life more in terms of defining my own theology as I go along. And this is a lifelong process: I don't think ANY book or prophet is going to give me all the answers to my living a moral and satisfying life. Christ died for me, but so did everyone else in history who paid a great price for peace and the well-being of his fellow human beings. That's my perspective on Christianity; that's my perspective on ALL religions. I respect anyone for his beliefs if they help him to be a better person. That includes HASA members as well as Christians. :-) -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (10/14/86)
In article <2755@burdvax.UUCP> devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) writes: [...] >Secondly, I will continue to assert that the only correct definition of who >is a Christian and what constitutes a Christian denomination is the >Bible. Any group which claims to be Christian, but which refuses to use the >Bible as sole authority over matters of faith and practice cannot be >considered in the mainstream of Christianity. If there is a sole authority over matters of faith, ie the Bible, then there is no faith. I believe faith cancels out doubt, and without doubt there is no faith. As soon as one accepts the Bible without doubt as the sole authority over matters of faith, one's faith evaporates. Faith about something which is certain is vacuous. The same must be true of the other side. If one totally rejects the Bible and thereby rejects faith, then one loses all doubt and becomes just as intolerant as his opposite. >Jesus Christ, the Word of >God, gave us His written word as a guidebook for the life of the church. This statement reminds me of a type of picture I always saw at Sunday school. In the picture, which is always being held on the lap of my elderly Sunday school teacher (who always wore a black, gray, or dark blue dress), Jesus is standing in a cloud of angel hair, hands outstretched, backed by beams of benevolent golden light from heaven, and a teenage boy WASP and a younger girl WASP with perfect skin, teeth, and hair, are kneeling in prayer at his feet, looking up to him with smiles of contentment. My Sunday school teacher would hold up the picture and smile and say, "This is what God has for us." I always felt guilty at that moment, because no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't cast out of my thoughts the desire to go home and play baseball instead. >Jesus prayed for the peace and purity of His church, but peace can only >come about when members are willing to subject their every thought and >action to the light of His Word. I'm going home to play baseball instead. Marty Smith