Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1exp 11/4/83; site ihuxq.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!duke!mcnc!amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) From: amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Catching up Message-ID: <444@ihuxq.UUCP> Date: Wed, 28-Dec-83 10:35:09 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxq.444 Posted: Wed Dec 28 10:35:09 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Dec-83 01:20:31 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 84 Greetings, gentlebeings-- As a new subscriber to net.religion, I have a few miscellaneous shots to get off. David Norris says: >> Christianity, whether one accepts it or not, tells us that >> in the end we will all end up eternally blessed or forever >> damned in hell. Now, these are serious consequences. If >> any man thought that his life would not be affected IF SUCH >> A PROPOSITION COULD BE PROVEN, he would have to be a fool. >> Non-Christians would agree with me, I think. This sounds to me like a version of Pascal's wager, that one should have faith because, if God exists, one shall then be saved, whereas if God does not exist, one hasn't really lost anything. (This always reminds me of the then Pope's comment on hearing of the death of Cardinal Richelieu: "If there is a God, the Cardinal will have much to answer for. If there is not a God, then he lived a successful life.) The answer to this is that God knows our motivations, and is not going to be fooled. Anyway, the operative statement here is "IF SUCH A PROPOSITION COULD BE PROVEN" to which the only real comment is "well, it can't". I fully agree with Daniel Glasser's comment that "Christians, in general, don't know the first thing about Judaism." Several years ago, I had an office mate, a fervent evangelical Christian, who had never heard of the Talmud (of course, he had only vaguely heard of Augustine of Hippo, and had never dreamt of actually sitting down and reading the CONFESSIONS or THE CITY OF GOD.) I tried to explain to him what Judaism was all about (in case you are interested, I am a fairly liberal Catholic with a Jewish mother and the equivalent of a masters in theology), and not only was he unaware of what Judaism taught, he was not really interested. Laura, what is Descartes' proof of the existence of God? I am familiar with the Aristotelian proofs that Thomas Aquinas used, but not Descartes. And yes, the O.T. God is certainly not very nice, and some Christian interpretations are almost impossible to stomach, such as the Calvinist doctrine of Double Predestination, which says that God sends people to hell just for the fun of it. Aydin Edguer begs the question "What is truth?" Arguing "that a religion is correct due to its great reliability in prediction and in its records of past history" is not only "not a logically acceptable method" but also leads to the unanswerable question (asked by Laura Creighton) so what? Even if (say) the Bible is as historically reliable as the average history text (and anyone who has had history past the high school level will know what to say about that), what does that prove about the religious truth of biblically based religions? BTW, Aydin, your example of "If the Bible is God's (and I use the term loosely) word then it is true that God created mankind. argue: evolution. answer: you can't because to do so would violate assumption one" is not very good. Evolution may easily be seen as the way that God created mankind. Teilhard de Chardin, for an obvious example, vehemently argued so. Which brings me to Paul Dubuc and creationism. Most of what I had to say to him I said privately (I was the one who recommended SCIENTISTS CONFRONT CREATIONISM, ed. by Laura Godfrey, which I also recommend to anyone else interested in the subject), but I do want to make one comment. The reason that most people who attack creationism "concentrate on the more popular `biblical' creationists like Morris, and Gish from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)" is because, as he points out, they are the "most visible and influential of the creationists". Winston Churchill, when he attacked fascism in the 1930's and 1940's, did not waste his time on the principal British fascist, Sir Oswald Mosely, but went after the "big fish", Hitler and Mussolini. It was largely the people from the ICR who got through those laws in Arkansas and Louisiana mandating the teaching of creationism in the public schools. (I have written an essay on precisely this subject that I will gladly send to anyone who is interested. It is one part of a larger work that is still in progress.) I do have more to say--I will be addressing Larry West seperately-- but this has gone on long enough. John Hobson AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, IL (312) 979-7293 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2 P.S. Mr. Moroney, Sir, please send me a copy of your article explaining Thelemism.