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!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Why attack Christianty...
Message-ID: <45@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Apr-84 14:31:17 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.45
Posted: Mon Apr  9 14:31:17 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Apr-84 04:51:52 EST
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
Lines: 69

[@]
Jan Wolter:

> It is a mistake to attack Christianity wholesale, because there is much
> variation in belief and doctrine among Christians.

I think you will find that Christian churches agree on much more than they
disagree on (this from a local Episcopal priest, who should know his business).

> Historically, Christianity has tended to be anti-life.  In the extreme,
> all the joys and beauties of life are rejected as sinful.

Please provide Scriptural references which show that Christianity is anti-life
and all the joys and beauties of life are sinful.

> We have seen
> pious Christians who claim it is sinful to dance, laugh, love, or sing.

Have "we", now? :-)  I know one Christian who believes it is sinful to
dance (I don't).  As far as I know, he never impressed that belief on
anyone.  I have never met a Christian who believed it was sinful to laugh or
to sing (although the Church of Christ, I think, does not believe in using
musical instruments.  But then singing 100 year old songs to organ music
doesn't do a lot to uplift me, either...)  

But I take the strongest objection to "love."  What kind of love?  If you mean
certain sexual acts, then I will join in and state that I believe them sinful.
If any "Christian" tells you that love is sinful, ask him what two commandments
his Lord emphasized above all others.

> It has been called a sin to heal the sick or to study the natural sciences.

The gospels indicate that Jesus did not take such a dim view of healing.  And
Paul tells us to be "wise as serpents".

> Compounding this is the denial of man's goodness.  We are born sinful, and
> no number of good acts can redeem us.  Only submission to Christ can redeem
> us, and most of us will fail in that and be punished by eternal torment.
> Good acts are often viewed as irrelevant.

This is one of the main tenets of the Christian faith.  Why this "compounds"
the problem, I don't know.  The implication is that man is basically good
(the humanist position?), and that good acts are (or should be) of some value
in deciding one's fate in the afterlife.  From what little I know of history,
man doesn't put on a very good show for being basically "good".  An old maxim
tells us that you can see what is inside something by squeezing it.  Squeeze
an orange, you get orange juice; squeeze a Christian, and Christ should come
out.  So tell me:  are humans, on impulse, more likely to do good or evil?
1/2 hour in the rush hour gives me a ready answer.

> Less important than the above, there has been a tendency in Christianity
> to advocate twisted reasoning.  Partly in an attempt to reconcile the
> contents of a book which is thousands of years old with modern physics,
> and partly to prove faith correct (a weird concept), Christians have
> originated some of the most twisted, ill-founded logical arguments known
> to man (e.g. all proofs of the existence of God).  In a world where men
> badly need all the rationality they can muster, we don't need minds
> clouded by pious pseudo-rationality.

If you are not going to provide examples of this twisted reasoning :-(, then
at least provides references to works you have read which demonstrate this
twisted reasoning.  I would personally like to see your arguments against
any of C. S. Lewis' works.

I'm sorry, Jan, but many of your arguments against Christianity seem to be
against individuals and institutions.

	-- David Norris        :-)
	-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david