Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Cutting Away at Tolerance Message-ID: Date: 6 Mar 91 04:08:37 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Lines: 132 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >In article 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