Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: A first cut at Tolerance Message-ID: Date: 28 Feb 91 08:24:39 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Washington Computer Science Lines: 111 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article johnb@searchtech.com (John Baldwin) writes: >In article > lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >In article > geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) writes: >GA> A problem for sure. Just remember that not all of us are like that. >GA> Some of us simply find the evidence for the Biblical record and for >GA> Christianity compelling, and have therefore surrendered in faith to >GA> Jesus. > >JL> Unfortunately most of the human family would tend to disagree with you on >JL> that one, me included. Which is fine except you believe that all the >JL> people who do not see the truth the same way you do are going to spend >JL> eternity in torment and pain. I can't beleive this does not taint your >JL> view of those who do not prescribe to your religion... regardless of >JL> how much you insist you 'love' them. >it seems a bit presumptuous to speak for the rest of the >human race... and even if a multitude of others have a poor >opinion of someone, does that necessarily make the opinion >accurate? 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... >Eternal condemnation (or 'damnation') is NOT something to feel smug >about, `knowing that those who don't believe as you do will be punished >for their failure to believe.' [I speak Ab Absurdum here.] I never implyed you felt "smug"... if you have a complex, this is something you'll have to work out on your own. >Eternal condemnation is like a natural disaster. A person who sees >such a disaster heading his or her way rarely feels smug or gloats >when neighbors and friends are unaware. Instead, they usually feel >an urgency to warn them, if given enough time! Of course the correlation between what you believe will happen to us when we die an a natural disaster is slim at best. But I'll work with your analogy. >Imagine being in the Southwest U.S. and hearing a tornado heading >your way, while hosting a party. None of your guests have ever >experienced a tornado; neither have you, but you are from that >area, and none of your guests are. You might reasonably be expected >to warn those guests with a sense of urgency: "Get into the cellar, quick!" yes, and how will you feel if they reject your advice? Be honest... you would think they were fools, wouldn't you? And in this little scenario they would be. Would you not feel they were somehow less intelligent then yourself? Of course... they are rejecting your wise advice and in doing so and dooming themselves. 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. >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. I believe 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. 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. >It should be no surprise >then that rational Christians would feel such a sense of urgency with >respect to the issue of salvation (going to heaven vs. going to hell.) 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. While their actions were reprehensible, you must admit that, according to you, they achieved their purpose. >When you have every reason to believe that someone is going to perish >unless you tell them something, it is most emphatically NOT being >very loving to keep silent. Worse yet, to gloat or feel smug! Again, no one suggested you were gloating or feeling smug. Any problems you have with this are your own making... >we can't just sit idly by and watch people perish. Why not? Apparently your god does just that... >John Baldwin Jeff Lindborg "I don't have to fight, to prove I'm right. I don't need to be forgiven..." -The Who [I haven't said much about this debate, because the justification of Christianity is clearly an acceptable subject for this group. However I have to say that this discussion is going in a direction that isn't likely to accomplish much. It's a replay of what has been happening in talk.religion.misc repeatedly. I'm not necessarily going to prohibit followups, but I'd like to ask people to think carefully whether they really expect to accomplish anything useful. --clh]