Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!grunwald
From: grunwald@uiuccsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: response to anti-religious flame - (nf)
Message-ID: <6481@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Mar-84 22:35:03 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.6481
Posted: Fri Mar 30 22:35:03 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Mar-84 09:53:07 EST
Lines: 25

#R:pucc-h:-58300:uiuccsb:7600097:000:1142
uiuccsb!grunwald    Mar 30 11:45:00 1984

re: exsistance of God

   The question that I have always had with the acceptance of Christianity
has not been the existance of a god per se, but the fact that the selection
of a god is highly dependent on cultural conditioning.

   I imagine that many of our "born again" friends (types I and II) would
be rather good Hindus, Muslims, Toaists, etc -- all depending on the region
in which they were born.

   To advocate one religion over any other then, seems to be more nationalism/
culturalism/regionalism than anything else.

   That's why I've always had a soft spot in my heart for people who do not
belong to any church and yet have a religion (e.g. their own "way of life"
which is the literal translation of religion). It is easier to be true to
yourself and to what you feel to be moral/just/correct, and it does not carry
the heavy load of guilt and anguish that so many religions force on you. That
doesn't mean you act in an unmoral way, it just means that you don't get
bent out of shape because of some petty little thing (e.g. talking a walk
in the woods instead of going to some church -- the finest thing to do in
my mind).