Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Religious Test
Message-ID: <673@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Dec-83 17:19:54 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.673
Posted: Mon Dec 12 17:19:54 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Dec-83 01:42:43 EST
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
Lines: 56


	I would like to conduct a short experiment which, I think, will prove
of some value to all those using this newsgroup.  Please respond to the
following questions:

>> "If I proved that Christ was the Son of God, would you consider Him?"    <<
>> "If I proved the Bible to be a reliable document, would you believe it?" <<

	Now, STOP!  Try very hard to objectively step back and examine the
thoughts in your head.  What are you thinking?  Are you agreeable?  *IF*
someone could actually prove it, would you readily accept it?  Or does the
statement invoke a violent negative reaction?

	POSITIVE:  If you are agreeable to the statements, then we need more of
your type on the net.  You are probably willing to rationally discuss any type
of religion on its own merits, and make a decision based on clear thinking.

	NEGATIVE:  If, however, your response was an emotional, violent, NO!,
perhaps you had better re-examine the reasons for your hatred against
Christianity.  If, after all, you cannot be moved by logical arguments, then
what is your own "faith" based upon?

	I used Christianity in my test questions as it is the religion that
seems to invoke the most passion in netland (and elsewhere, I've found).  I
think about any controversial subject could be used.  The point remains the
same; are you willing to hear out a rational argument.  

	In the morality debate (which seems to have fizzled out due to lack
of interest), I recieved some "hate mail", in which the authors, I think,
fell into the second catagory.  They seemed to present the "immovable object"
approach in that they weren't *really* interested in what I had to say, but
only to tell me that I was "obviously" wrong.  If, for any of the "hate mail"
authors, I am mistaken, I apologise..

	I am not asking for responses to the questions, but only wanted to
present them so others reading the net might obtain a better understanding of
themselves and their beliefs.

	The responses to this article, I suspect, will fall into several
catagories:

	1) The (my) truth is like this, stupid, but you'll never accept it
	2) You are an idiot to believe that anything religious can be proven
	3) No one ever has (or ever will) prove it to me
	4) !#$%^&*    (no real statement, just likes to hear himself speak)
	5) Prove it
	6) Attaboy, Dave

	Now, I fully expect to recieve a number of #1's, #2's, and #3's.  I
will probably get one (maybe two) #4's, a couple of #5's, and no #6's.  I 
am interested in #5 answers.  

	-- For your consideration
	-- Dave Norris
	-- ..!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david