From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad:tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!dadla-b!hutch
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: Re: Jesus the non-divine teacher - (nf)
Article-I.D.: dadla-b.410
Posted: Mon Apr  4 11:48:54 1983
Received: Wed Apr  6 01:55:45 1983
References: zehntel.942

AAARGH!

(Better?  Well, wait a while and they might go away)

For the hopefully last time, I am not trying to impose anything on any of
you.  I merely want to request that before you parade your opinions, that
you check to see that they make minimal sense, or we end up with these
relatively fruitless discussions about peripheral issues.

Remember that horribly long article I posted about information systems?
Remember that section on belief systems?  Perhaps I didn't make this very
clear, but it was intended to point out that belief systems DO have rules
for rejecting things as being invalid, untrue, or inconsistent with the
known information in the system.  I avoided trying to suggest a basic
operating belief system for various reasons: space, necessity, and the
notion that people could probably use their own intellect and reason to
identify which of their inf. systems are beliefs and which are knowledge,
and which are in between.

When I present the contradictions between Christian view of Christ and
Islamic views, I present them from the basis of an historian, and it is
unreasonable to try to refute that basis by attacking my own beliefs,
since they are not central to the issue of historic accuracy and the
reliability of the document.  You might just as well say that because
Barbara Cartland wrote about Queen Elizabeth 1 (I don't know if she has)
that her fictionalized history was "equally valid".

Come on, folks, if you think my beliefs are wrong, you are free to say so,
but don't try to pretend that you can refute my historical analysis on
that basis alone.  At least try to address the issue, which in this
case was the reliability of the documents, with something more factual than
the opinion that "anyone is entitled to believe anything" and that the
"bible is not literally accurate" without any qualification of the latter
assertion.

What a wonderful way to start a monday ( <- sarcasm)

Hutch