Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Vomiting on net.religion
Message-ID: <1575@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Dec-83 12:40:28 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1575
Posted: Tue Dec 20 12:40:28 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Dec-83 12:55:11 EST
References: <697@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 78

Response to Dave Norris: (from one who does not agree with him)

	Dave, you have missed the point entirely. I think I know what
is wrong, but I could be mistaken. I believe that you think you are
doing the "Christians versus the atheists" debate. This is the
debate that you can get into if you argue with Lew Mammel or Rich
Rosen, but not with Tim Maroney or me. We find your question sideways.
I sent you mail, but Tim posted this:

	 I am going to assume that what he meant by the first question
	 is "... would you accept his role as the greatest human being
	 ever and as the savior of mankind?"  (If this isn't what you
	 meant, I apologize, but encourage you to be less ambiguous in
	 the future.)

Which is a pretty clear indication of where the problem lies. I have no
problem in accepting that you might prove the existance of a historical
Jesus, for instance, but the next question is: So What? What you have
to prove is that Christianity has the exclusive claim to truth.  In other 
words, you have to prove that other religions are wrong, or otherwise I am
perfectly free to say, "Yes, Christianity is True, and it is great for
you, but not so great for me, so life goes on as usual...".

It also might help if you found a way to defend your method of proof.
I realise that this one is harder. For instance, if you decided to use
Descartes' proof for the existance of God, I would be perfectly within
my rights to claim that the whole foundation of logic (including the
principle of sufficient cause) is a product of the evil genius.
Whoops! the proof just falls flat.

The one thing that you cannot escape is that if you prove the Old
Testament correct, then you have proved the existance of a God that
does horrible things to his people and the enemies of his people. There
are those of us who find these actions morally inexcusable in a being
with absolute power. (This business of setting the plagues upon the
Egyptians, for instance. How about just making them sleep for 4 days
and wake up with no memory of the Israelites? Tell Moses to get his
people moving over those 4 days. This business of hardening Pharoah's
heart so that you can send catastrophe to his people is not morally
acceptable to me.)

If your vision of hell-fire for the damned is correct then I know what
I have got coming. What you fail to realise is that I find more moral
satisfaction in defying such a monster than in worshiping him. I do not
know what you expect us to do. I can tell you that I will take every
opportunity to mention from Hell (I assume that the monster will know
what is going on in Hell as well as Heaven and on Earth) that I lived
with more moral sensibilities than did the tyrant from upstairs. I have
lots of enemies, all of whom are more dangerous to me than I can be to
any omnipotent god, but I would rather forgive them and understand where
they are coming from than punish them. And I would never consign
anything to everlasting hell-fire and damnation.

This is what I find repugnant about Christianity -- the guy who is
running the show and the Christians who try to emulate him. Now if you
were able to present a Christianity where all the atrocities that have
been historically committed by the God are now believed to be mistakes
or lies (or for symbolic effect only) presented by the Biblical
authors, and where the motivation for living in a moral fashion is not
terror of hell-fire, then you are going to get a Christianity which is
worth a new look. But I am not holding my breath.

Re your bengal tiger: By this argument, there should be no Christian
martyrs, right? Suppose I said "renounce Christianity or I will feed
you to the tigers? Should I assume that you would renounce
Christianity? Why should you assume that Tim is less committed to his
religion that the martyrs were to Christianity?

What you have just done is what Gary Samuelson did -- you have decided
that you are going to be open monded, but also select who you are
willing to talk to. Certain people are out of bounds because you either
dislike them or their whole argument. By my standards, this is blatant
hypocrasy, and it matters not if you feel that Tim is guilty of the
same offence. 

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura