Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mark
From: mark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Answers for Larry W.
Message-ID: <3440@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Jan-84 15:09:20 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3440
Posted: Mon Jan  2 15:09:20 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Jan-84 15:09:20 EST
References: <719@ssc-vax.UUCP>, <1604@utcsstat.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 45

from utcsstat!laura:

> What I cannot understand is why people would prefer to not view the horrible
> aspects of their religion and keep a 'good-bits' verison which they consider
> the real religion as opposed to rejecting the whole thing outright. 

but they still NEED a religion.  if they reject one they must find or create
another.  i suspect that most people would find it easier to modify an
existing (and familiar) one than construct a new one from whole cloth.
thus churches tend to reproduce themselves.

> I get the impression that it is the Christian attitude that it is better that
> they be lousy Christians than not-Christians.  . . .  Is there any reason 
> why bad Christians are better than non-Christians that i have missed? 

it depends on your point of view.  if you want a good church then lousy
christians are a nuisance at best.  if you look not at the goodness of 
churches but just their existence then things may be different.  if everyone
were thoughtful and cared to examine their beliefs closely then "good"
churches would prosper, but of course most people don't behave this way.
a church must have followers, and it is useful to have many of them, since
they will do such things as getting more followers, and giving the church
financial and physical security.  these things do not depend on the 
theological quality of the church-goers, and so it is better to have
many lousy christians than few good ones (and given what i said above,
that is the choice).  there may well be churches which prefer non-christians
to lousy ones, but they will tend to be small, and perhaps short-lived,
churches.

i am not saying that church leaders deliberately plan how to get the most
converts and the most money.  it is not necessary, and probably not
desirable, that they do so.  those churches which are good convert makers,
for whatever reasons, will tend to expand, while the others flourish
briefly and disappear.

if you detect a strong flavour of darwinism in the above, it is no
coincidence.  any collection of entities which must struggle for survival
and which modify or reproduce themselves will inevitably display
natural selection and evolution.  theology is a survival mechanism for
churches just as head hair is for humans.   neither is very important.


				mARK bLOORE
				univ of toronto
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!mark