djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (03/06/91)
In article <Feb.28.03.24.36.1991.9618@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >In article <Feb.25.09.42.07.1991.1959@athos.rutgers.edu> johnb@searchtech.com (John Baldwin) writes: >I was refering to the fact that the vast majority of the human family is >*not* Christian and, as such, would dissagree with the idea that there are >"compelling" reasons for "having" to be a Christian. In this respect I >think I can speak for the rest of the human race... Tell me, Jeff, do you honestly believe that "the vast majority of the human family" has ever had the opportunity to have the evidence (whatever that may be -- a separate discussion, below) for Christianity placed before them? I would observe that, for example, in the most populous country in the world, China, this is almost certainly *not* the case. Ditto in many other non-European countries. Thus, while you can indeed speak for "the rest of the human race," you are speaking not for their informed decision, but for their ignorance. (Note: I mean "ignorance" in the literal sense of "non-knowledge," not in a sense of condemnation toward non-Christians; in this sense, someone who's examined the evidence and made a non-Christian decision is *NOT* ignorant.) > Unfortunately there are MANY different opinions on the idea of a god >(or gods) and what he/she/they require/want from us. Yours is only one >among many. There is no evidence to support any of them... they are >all based on faith and, as such, each is as legitamite a view as yours. With this last I will not argue (though the temptation to correct your spelling is almost overpowering). I am in complete agreement with you that an informed and considered decision for some other faith (including atheism) is completely legitimate, and I even believe that there's some basis in Christianity for believing this. Where I disagree with you here is that "There is no evidence to support any of them." *ALL* the world's major religions have evidence to support them -- with the necessary exception of atheism, whose lack of evidence is notorious but irrelevant given the equally-notorious difficulty of logically demonstrating the nonexistence of *anything*. There is no *proof*, in the coldly logical sense, for any of them. Including, I confess, Christianity. >>The rational Christian has found evidence what has "demanded a verdict," >>i.e. evidence so compelling and difficult to honestly refute that this >>person finds he or she MUST become a Christian. >I would be interested in hearing this "evidence" as I spent 22 years as >a practicing Christian and found no such evidence myself. John, I think, misunderstands the phrase "evidence which demands a verdict." What that phrase means is that there is sufficient evidence for Christianity -- evidence ranging from the eyewitness reports eventually written up as the four Gospels, to the various personal testimonies over the past 1900+ years -- that anyone confronted by it must, in good conscience, make *some* decision concerning its validity: reach a verdict. It does *not* mean that the verdict necessarily must be "Christianity is true." If you actually spent 22 years as a practicing Christian, Jeff, I suspect that you must have seen a fair passel of this evidence: and clearly you *have* reached a verdict. >...many (perhaps most) people become Christian for two reasons. One: >they are raised Christian and believe it as firmly as they would >believe the earth is flat if they were taught all their life that it >was so. Unfortunately true; and this is, imho, the *worst* possible reason for being a Christian. Such people are _practicing_ Christians but not, imho, truly _believing_ Christians: there is no true faith if you have not subjected your beliefs to critical thought. Or so I believe, after a great deal of critical thought:*) >Two: fear of the unknown. Particularly, the fear of death. >Christianity (among many other religions) offers a method by which a >person can obtain personal imortality. This is a very appealing idea >and one which a person who fears death would cling to quite readily. You know, this is also probably true: there are some who come to Christianity for precisely this reason. But your list of reasons is hardly complete: and, I might add, this reasons equally drives people away from Christianity, for, in this sense, Christianity is hardly a very comforting religion. Christianity tells us that we are all in dire risk of something far worse than death, i.e., Hell, and (in an important sense) gives us no absolute guarantees that we are saved from it. St Paul, for example, points out that you must "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." We are told over and over that we must not be too certain that we are saved, for "many are called but few are chosen," and "many who say [to Jesus] 'Lord, Lord,'" on the Day of Judgement will be told to go to Hell... literally. Other religions -- especially the so-called "New Age" philosophies -- give far more promising promises, for far less work. The most important reason to be a Christian, and one which you ignore (why?), is that, having examined the evidence for it and many other views of the world, Christianity seems to us to be most likely to be _true_, or likely to be the most true. >Yes. We've seen how dangerous this sense of "urgency" can be, haven't >we? The Spaniards smashed the heads of Indian babies against the rocks >so their souls would be saved before their parents could lead them away >from truth of Christianity. Yes, they did. Does this mean we should condemn all Spaniards? All whites? All men? Most Christians will tell you that that was _not_ a Christian action, but an action falsely justified by appeal to Christianity. Some, like myself, who prefer not to pass judgement on others, will concede the possibility that the Conquistadores were acting in good faith -- but will hasten to add that if they *were*, they were stupidly misunderstanding their faith. Atheists designed a bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima. Obviously atheism is evil, right? You are attempting to argue for guilt-by-association. >Why not? Apparently your god does just that... That's silly. Our God died to prevent it. Would you do as much? Would your blind Universe? >"I don't have to fight, to prove I'm right. I don't need to be >forgiven..." > -The Who "We've got to be strong, men, and follow a path again. We've got to have faith in something bigger..." -The Who
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (03/09/91)
In article <Mar.5.23.08.34.1991.22760@athos.rutgers.edu> djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: >In article <Feb.28.03.24.36.1991.9618@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >>In article <Feb.25.09.42.07.1991.1959@athos.rutgers.edu> johnb@searchtech.com (John Baldwin) writes: > >Tell me, Jeff, do you honestly believe that "the vast majority of the human >family" has ever had the opportunity to have the evidence (whatever that may be >-- a separate discussion, below) for Christianity placed before them? I would >observe that, for example, in the most populous country in the world, China, >this is almost certainly *not* the case. Ditto in many other non-European >countries. This is a very curious argument indeed! You have opened up a can of worms for me here. This is, in fact, one of the first problems I started having with Christianity. If people have never had to oportunity to hear the word of God, they cannot be saved. If they are not saved, they, of course, get sent to hell for all eternity. Is this fair and just? Is this kind? I was told that God wrote on the hearts of men the "truth" so that even if they did not have access to information about Christianity they were still held accountable for their rejection of Christ. This, of course, is a little flimsy sicne anything remotely resembling Christianity has not been found anywhere missionaries had not previously taken it. Strict monotheism, in fact, is a relative rarity before the advent of Judaism. So one must assume that if this is true, God didn't make the truth very clear when he wrote it on our hearts... Besides, missionaries HAVE been to China (some actualy came and spoke at our church when I was little). Unforunatly Buddhism is acceptant of all beliefs and religions as long as they don't involve the maltreatment of other people. Its difficult to convince a Buddhist to abandon this open, tollerant belief system and take up the banner of Christianity as the one true religion with the one true god... >There is no *proof*, in the coldly logical sense, for any of them. Including, I >confess, Christianity. > >If you actually spent 22 years as a practicing Christian, Jeff, I suspect that >you must have seen a fair passel of this evidence: and clearly you *have* >reached a verdict. Yes, that Christianity, along with all other organized religions, are fictions produced by men. >>...many (perhaps most) people become Christian for two reasons. One: >>they are raised Christian and believe it as firmly as they would >>believe the earth is flat if they were taught all their life that it >>was so. > >Unfortunately true; and this is, imho, the *worst* possible reason for being a >Christian. Such people are _practicing_ Christians but not, imho, truly >_believing_ Christians: there is no true faith if you have not subjected your >beliefs to critical thought. Or so I believe, after a great deal of critical >thought:*) Just as a side note: If they are not truely believing Christians, what is their fate in the afterlife? Just curious. >>Two: fear of the unknown. Particularly, the fear of death. >>Christianity (among many other religions) offers a method by which a >>person can obtain personal imortality. This is a very appealing idea >>and one which a person who fears death would cling to quite readily. >You know, this is also probably true: there are some who come to Christianity >for precisely this reason. But your list of reasons is hardly complete: and, >I might add, this reasons equally drives people away from Christianity, for, in >this sense, Christianity is hardly a very comforting religion. Christianity >tells us that we are all in dire risk of something far worse than death, i.e., >Hell, and (in an important sense) gives us no absolute guarantees that we are >saved from it. St Paul, for example, points out that you must "work out your >own salvation with fear and trembling." We are told over and over that we must >not be too certain that we are saved, for "many are called but few are chosen," >and "many who say [to Jesus] 'Lord, Lord,'" on the Day of Judgement will be told >to go to Hell... literally. And people criticize me for saying that Christianity is based on fear... Many of my Christian friends spend many hours abosrbed in their obsession with their salvation. "Am I REALY saved? How can I know?" etc... For some its a real hang up. For me its a sad commentary on the human condition. >The most important reason to be a Christian, and one which you ignore (why?), is >that, having examined the evidence for it and many other views of the world, >Christianity seems to us to be most likely to be _true_, or likely to be the >most true. I don't mention this because its baloney. There is no more evidence to suggest the truth of Christianity than there is to suggest the truth of Buddhism or Islam etc... You were raised in a society or setting that probably saturated you with Christian norms, and you internalized them. If you were raised in China, you'd probably be a Buddhis, if you were raised in Iran, you almost certanily be an Islamic. >>Yes. We've seen how dangerous this sense of "urgency" can be, haven't >>we? The Spaniards smashed the heads of Indian babies against the rocks >>so their souls would be saved before their parents could lead them away >>from truth of Christianity. > >Yes, they did. Does this mean we should condemn all Spaniards? All whites? >All men? No, but we must certainly examine the ease at which they were able to justify their actions using the Bible... did they not accomplish their objective? The infants DID go to heaven, right? If the Spaniards asked for forgiveness and were sincere in their conviction, they were forgiven and went to heaven too, right? Mission accomplished... >Atheists designed a bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima. Obviously atheism is evil, >right? You are attempting to argue for guilt-by-association. The major difference here, of course, is that they were not working under the banner of athiesm... they were working for the govornment. Further they were not all athiests and finaly, they realized the potenetial that nuclear power had to destroy, and all the scientists signed a letter asking the president NOT to use this new power for the destruction of human life. We all know, however, that the administration paid it little heed. >>Why not? Apparently your god does just that... > >That's silly. Our God died to prevent it. Would you do as much? Would your >blind Universe? If your god were so eager to prevent people from going to hell, he wouldn't have created hell in the first place. My "blind Universe" feels no need to punish those of you who don't believe in it... Jeff Lindborg
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (03/12/91)
In article <Mar.9.00.51.41.1991.22940@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >In article <Mar.5.23.08.34.1991.22760@athos.rutgers.edu> djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: >If people have never had to oportunity to hear the word of >God, they cannot be saved. Says who? Can you cite a Biblical reference to this? You've listened to some very intolerant people who profess Christianity: that doesn't mean they speak for Christ, or even for all Christians. There are many Christians who don't believe what you wrote above, and many ways in which they understand the fate of those who "never had an opportunity." >Unforunatly Buddhism is acceptant of all beliefs and >religions as long as they don't involve the maltreatment of other people. Yes: and missionaries in India had a similar problem. . . They would tell Hindus "Jesus is God," and the Hindus would stare at them like they were crazy. "Well, of course he is," the more articulate would say, "but who isn't?" >Yes, that Christianity, along with all other organized religions, are fictions >produced by men. So is atheism. So is agnosticism. So is science. All are attempts by people to understand the Universe in which we live. None of them are completely congruent with reality (and to those Christians who say theirs is, I ask you: is *your* understanding of God really perfect? I doubt it), and, to the extent that they aren't, they're fictions produced by men *and* *women*. (Christianity is often accused of sexism. It's nice to know that you humanists aren't any better.) >Just as a side note: If they are not truely believing Christians, what is their >fate in the afterlife? Just curious. How should I know? I'm not God. >And people criticize me for saying that Christianity is based on fear... Not me. Not anyone who really understands the meaning of the phrase "God-fearing." >>The most important reason to be a Christian, and one which you ignore (why?), is >>that, having examined the evidence for it and many other views of the world, >>Christianity seems to us to be most likely to be _true_, or likely to be the >>most true. > >I don't mention this because its baloney. Here I have to take strong exception. Up to now, you've been reasonably civil, if a bit pushy and hostile. (I may be defending my beliefs, but I haven't made fun of yours.) At this point, however, you have become rude and arrogant. You are, in effect, calling me a liar, and taking it upon yourself to decide what is going on (and has gone on in the past) in *my* head and heart. In fact, I was not raised in a Church; I came to my beliefs through long and often difficult searching of my soul. For you to trivialize this as baloney is beyond what the pale of civilized discussion. As a Christian, I am compelled to forgive you. However, there's nothing to stop me from telling you what a schmuck you're being. >There is no more evidence to suggest >the truth of Christianity than there is to suggest the truth of Buddhism or >Islam etc... There is no proof, as I said elsewhere, of any of them. I looked at the various ToEs (Theories of Everything) around, decided that science was good but insufficient, and worked for a long time to decide what would best explain what science doesn't *and* *can't* -- not because "it's beyond what we can determine now," but because it is outside the realm of science. For example: science, by its nature, is interested in how the Universe works. It cannot, for that very reason, explain why there *is* a Universe. Explanations such as the Big Bang -- which is clearly the best model of the early Universe around -- only defer the question. We come to a problem related to the Aristotelian question of the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover, and however many causes-and-effects sciences defers the question by, it still reamins and must remain incomplete. One option is to be satisfied with that state of affairs. Another is to look at the other models and see if they are satisfactory. Christianity, for me, was. I suggest that most honest Christians would be willing to look at evidence that Christianity was not true. So far, a lot of evidence has surfaced to change the details of some collateral beliefs; but no actual evidence *against* any of the core beliefs of Christianity has surfaced -- or is likely to. The core beliefs of Christianity have little to do with the physical world, beyond how we should behave in it. >If you were raised in China, you'd probably be a Buddhis, if you were raised in >Iran, you almost certanily be an Islamic. What is an Islamic? Do you mean a Moslem? How quaint. It's almost like calling them Mohammedans, I do believe. Yes, I might be those things. But I wasn't, so it isn't at all relevant. The world is that which is the case, not something you make up as a what-if. >No, but we must certainly examine the ease at which they were able to justify >their actions using the Bible... did they not accomplish their objective? The >infants DID go to heaven, right? If the Spaniards asked for forgiveness and >were sincere in their conviction, they were forgiven and went to heaven too, >right? Mission accomplished... The following is an attempt to understand their point of view, not mine or God's. If the Conquistadores didn't believe they were doing wrong, they wouldn't confess and ask forgiveness at all. (If it was wrong anyway -- which *I* certainly believe it was -- then what happened to them after death is between God and them; I don't judge, and I'm glad I don't have to.) If they realized later it was wrong, then forgiveness would involve genuinely abjuring what they'd done, never doing it again, and doing some rather severe form of penance, given the severity of the crime. If they realized at the time it was wrong, they can't just confess and be forgiven. Forgiveness involves genuinely accepting the wrongness of your actions, taking the consequences upon yourself as best you can in this life, trying your damnedest not to do it again, and so on. It isn't just "I'm sorry," and up to Heaven you go. >>Atheists designed a bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima. Obviously atheism is evil, >>right? You are attempting to argue for guilt-by-association. > >The major difference here, of course, is that they were not working under the >banner of athiesm... they were working for the govornment. Fine: "All governments are evil." Same difference. You can't judge a philosophy or a religion by the worst that comes of it; terrible things come from all such. What matters is the *best* that comes from it. That is a measure of how far that religion or philosophy *can* take a person if applied well. >>That's silly. Our God died to prevent it. Would you do as much? Would your >>blind Universe? >If your god were so eager to prevent people from going to hell, he wouldn't have >created hell in the first place. My "blind Universe" feels no need to punish >those of you who don't believe in it... Who said God created Hell? Hell, in the opinion of *this* believer, is not a created *place* at all, but a condition in which the soul cuts itself off completely from God. There may be a "plane" where such souls exist; if so, it may be created by God, to give them a place to exist. Or it may be that complete isolation from God, the source of all existence, is equal to nonexistence. I do not know. All I can really say on the subject is that some paths in life lead or seem to lead toward an infinite good, and some lead away from it. Christianity seems to me to be the path which leads directly *to* it. What is the fate of those who follow other paths, and especially those that seem to be heading in the same general direction, is not for me or any other Christian to say. Some, in the arrogance that is natural to us fallen beings, and possibly out of a desire to feel smug in having chosen the Only Path[*], feel free in saying that those other paths lead to this place they call Hell. I do not know this much; much of the Bible is prophetic imagery that I don't feel arrogant enough to explain, though I make some attempts to understand it for myself. Dan'l Danehy-Oakes [*]Christianity is clearly *NOT* the Only Path. In fact, it is not even the Best Path. The Best Path was lost to us when we Fell.
mib@churchy.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (03/13/91)
In article <Mar.12.04.29.11.1991.1804@athos.rutgers.edu> djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
As a Christian, I am compelled to forgive you. However, there's nothing
to stop me from telling you what a schmuck you're being.
I realize that the above quote is rather removed from its original
context, and I don't intend to attack Mr DanehyOakes, but I think its
a good jumping off point for something I've been thinking about
recently:
What is loving enemies all about? What is forgiveness all about?
When someone says "I am compelled to forgive", what does that mean?
From my normal context, to love someone is to wish them the best. It
is to seek to understand and be with them. Loving an abstracted
person halfway across the globe is simply not possible. Well-wishing
is certainly possible. The parable of the "Good Samaritan" makes it
clear that our neighbor is the person who needs us now. But the
Pharisee who did nothing to help but rush past didn't exhibit any
love. It was the outcast that was loving. And that love consisted in
taking care of the hurt person. Just simple care.
Is it possible to love someone while accusing them of willful
dishonesty? I've had mail from people recently telling me that I'm
lying deliberately but they love me anyway. Is that really
meaningful? Is it really love? This odd phrase "love the sinner,
hate the sin" is quite non-biblical. It also seems at odds with
John 8:1-16. Seems to me that Jesus loves the sinner and all but
disregards the sin. How better to kill sin than to spend time on
forgiveness instead!
I'm inclined to suspect that for many of us "loving enemies" and
"forgiveness" have become duties. And, as soon as they become irksome
duties, to be done regretfully, they cease to be love or forgiveness,
but instead empty words, devoid of meaning, and indicative of nothing
more than ritualistic obedience to a bothersome law. But just that
kind of thing is what Jesus died to stop. Surely love of enemies
means something different than that!
I've discovered that when I pray for the ability to love my enemies,
to forgive those who have harmed me, I begin to desire it in reality
as well as in words. But the discipline of not pretending to love
when I really don't has helped tremendously. I'd rather pray to be
able to love, admitting my inability to love, than use the word
without any real love behind it.
-mib
[I don't see why you think it is impossible to love (in your sense of
wishing well) a person who lies deliberately. Lying is one of the
easiest ways of disrupting personal relationships, and I suspect a
number of the "enemies" we are called on to love are in fact guilty of
this. It seems to me that the problem is not that what they claim to
be doing is impossible, but that it is inappropriate in the given
situation. I.e. forgiving you for deliberately lying is bound to be
offensive if you aren't actually lying. This of course leaves you
feeling that they are accusing you falsely, thus providing you your
own opportunity to be offensive by forgiving them. Somehow a group of
Christians ought to be able to find a way out of this. Perhaps we
could find a way of loving people without being quite so sure we know
what offenses we are forgiving them for... --clh]djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (03/14/91)
In article <Mar.13.03.25.38.1991.11681@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@churchy.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: >Concerning my rather odd statement to Mr Lindborg: > As a Christian, I am compelled to forgive you. However, there's nothing > to stop me from telling you what a schmuck you're being. >What is loving enemies all about? What is forgiveness all about? >When someone says "I am compelled to forgive", what does that mean? In my case, it was meant quite literally. I am *compelled* to forgive: not required, by some rule, but compelled by my own earnest desire to emulate Christ. "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." Oddly, in private e-mail, btw, it has become quite clear that this was literally true: Mr Lindborg did *not* intend his remarks to be as offensive as I found them, and I rather hope that the exchange will end in friendship. When we do our best to live the law of Love, good things result. >From my normal context, to love someone is to wish them the best. It >is to seek to understand and be with them. Loving an abstracted >person halfway across the globe is simply not possible. Au contraire, I believe that it is not only possible but necessary. It is, however, only possible when you make the effort (and it can be immense) to de-abstract that person, as it were. It is not possible to love a person next to you, if you see them abstractly. This is, in fact, one of the best definitions I have ever heard of a sociopath: one who sees his/her fellow humans as abstractions rather than people. KUWAIT: First there is a country, then there is no country, then there is. The Roach