[soc.religion.christian] Open mind vs. Empty mind

tbvanbelle@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Terry Van Belle) (07/24/89)

In article <Jul.21.04.01.02.1989.2149@athos.rutgers.edu> perryc@forceps.sun.com (Perry Cross) writes:

>	I'm not sure what "New Agers" advocate, but the idea that we
>	must throw off the yoke of Christianity has its merits.  Much
>	good has been accomplished by the use of the bible to guide
>	one's life.  Christ was a good man, and I would hazard a guess
>	that most of his followers were good.  But many of the basic tenets
>	are rather cynical.

Well, that's pretty much what the New Agers advocate.  If you want people who
agree with you, talk.religion.newage is for you.  If you want to debate this,
I'll do my best to come up with a Christian apology.

>	Original sin is a destructive concept.  We are born with a clean
>	slate, and its up to us to keep it clean.

While a newborn baby has not had the opportunity to covet his neighbor's wife
or take the name of the Lord in vain, etc... these seem to me more due to the
fact that a newborn baby cannot do much of anything.  He/she may still have the
desire to rebel, just not the chance. 

Incidentally, how clean is your slate to date?  Do you really think it is
realistic to expect us not to sin, or even not to sin much?  

						  That the bible teaches
>	us different is an indication that its authors may have had
>	ulterior motives.

That's quite a serious charge.  What sort of 'ulterior motives' are you
suggesting?  Pesonal gain?  Induction of mass guilt for fun and profit?

			  Further, at some point man has to come to
>	grips with live on this planet.  Dreaming of a wonderful life
>	after death detracts from the issues that face us today.

You're absolutely correct.  Paul's letter to the Thessalonians deals with
precisely this matter.  I have not only hope, but also responsibility to my
fellow man, both fundamental doctrines of Christianity. 
In practical terms, the Christian's belief in an ultimate good allows him to
avoid becoming jaded, cynical, opportunistic.
In any case I find it a bit naiive to throw out a belief system just because it
could be misinterpreted.

>	Another problem is the apparent binary nature of the creed.  The
>	doctrine would be better served if belief in God were optional.
>	After all, there may be other explanations for man's existence
>	and people shouldn't be excluded on this point.

It occurs to me that a fundamental error in your ideas might be that you are
under the impression that Christians, like you, are inventing and modifying a
religion to suit our beliefs as to what our behaviour should be.  If you would
like to debate this, fine, but in the meantime please realize not all of us
agree with you.

>	It might be a good think piece to try and come up with ways
>	that the bible is anti-human and find alternatives.  The bible
>	would probably better serve man if it were a living document.

Eh?  What's with this bible serving man?  A good scientist doesn't modify 
her data to fit her ideas of what the results should be.  A good king doesn't
coerce his advisors to tell him only the things he wants to hear.  So it is
with the bible.

>	Of course some may think I'm suggesting change for its own
>	sake; that I'm bored with the same old scripture.  That would
>	be missing the point.

You are attempting to change the color of the sun because you do not like it.

>	A more up-to-date version of creation, less reliance on the rath	
>	of God, miracles, etc. might bring more people into re-evaluating
>	and hopefully improving their secular existence.  Also, a
>	socratic approach might be more helpful in internalizing the
>	basic concepts.  Too much of the bible is anecdotal. 

Then you would be injecting your own personal biases into history and
attempting to call it fact.  The bible is what it is.  I'm sorry if it's not
your favourite colour.

>	Society is becoming more sophisticated, and hence are religion
>	needs to keep pace.  Fundementalists are an example of those
>	who place too much emphasis on the book, its facts, and historical
>	context, and often fail to grasp the message.  Taking the bible
>	verbatim is a disservice to Christ's efforts.  It was a good
>	starting point, but it may be running out of steam.

'New' is not synonymous with 'better', and 'sophisticated' is not synonymous
with 'true.'  I agree with you that the message of the bible is paramount, but
your reforms seem to me a step backward.

>	I know these ideas may be a bit radical, and I'm by no means
>	a theologian, but it would be nice if there was a more modern,
>	cohesive document that incorporated an eclectic philosophy in
>	a more challenging format.

So write a book.  Just don't call it the bible.  We already got one of those.

Terry Van Belle
tbvanbelle@watcgl.Waterloo.edu