mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/19/86)
Mike Huybensz writes: >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 opposed to self-serving, revisionist reports written even longer after the fact by lunatics like Tim Maroney? [Note: this isn't necessarily meant to indicate my opinion of Tim.] It should be pointed out that this is invariably the problem with written historical reports of any antiquity. Anything where you cannot find originals in the hand of what is most likely that of the author, the fabrication problem exists. The distortion or outright lying problem is always difficult to avoid. In this case, there is practically no reporter which had a lack of bias on the subject. Therefore the whole notion of making assertions on the historicity of the NT is rather silly. > As Tim Maroney pointed out, much more is written about JC's >moral teachings than about theological BS like godhood and resurrection. THis is a silly way to judge the importance of things. WHat is most written on is what is *least* certain and *most* controversial. Important, fundamental subjects generally see the *least* exposure. >> 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.) Funny, you seemed to have changed your tune. This statement leads directly to the statement that "Morality is not a fundamental aspect of Christianity". Mike also seems to be agreeing to the assertion that agnostic and atheistic moral philosophies are essentially like christianity too. Suddenly, the religious as a philosophical category seems to be evaporating. Time to rmgroup? C. Wingate