Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: Why am I an atheist ? - (nf)
Message-ID: <8300060@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Jul-84 17:34:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uokvax.8300060
Posted: Sun Jul  8 17:34:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jul-84 00:24:28 EDT
References: <860@akgua.UUCP>
Lines: 41
Nf-ID: #R:akgua:-86000:uokvax:8300060:000:1983
Nf-From: uokvax!emjej    Jul  8 16:34:00 1984

#R:akgua:-86000:uokvax:8300060:000:1983
uokvax!emjej    Jul  8 16:34:00 1984

/***** uokvax:net.religion / akgua!rjb /  1:01 pm  Jul  3, 1984 */
>>>5.  New religions are being started today, even as we watch.  Remember 
>>>     Scientology, TM, Jim Jones' bunch of fun-loving Kool-Aiders, Moonies,
>>>     Rosicrucians and so on.  You may call them cults, but they call 
>>>     themselves religions.  They can be investigates *today*, and I do not 
>>>     believe in the metaphysical claims of *any* of them.  Their proponents 
>>>     do believe, and very strongly.
>
>If I told you I was a Martian that wouldn't make it so, would it ?
>I could dig up all the dirt on Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Atilla
>th Hun, etc and blame it all on Atheism (which Marxists and Commies
>are proud to claim) but that really doesn't bear much on your
>nonTheology or its essential correctness now does it ?

No, but that misses the original poster's point. The credibility given to
cults seems to increase with the age of the cult (and hence with the less
chance of either verifying or disproving the claims and history thereof).
  
>>> Uri Geller was a fraud, Christ was not.
>
>This is a most peculiar statement ( and a tad inconsistent)
>from someone touting rationalism.  You don't know Jesus, you
>doubt the reliabilty of the texts and the authors who wrote
>about Him yet you pass a value judgement on His character.
>BTW I happen to agree with you but for "reasons". Quotes are
>for RLR's sake :-)

I rather thought that the >>>ed statement expressed the point of view
of many Christians. The problem is simply that we can make the
observations needed for a rational analysis of Uri Geller's claims, but
we can't for those of Jesus, separated as we are from Him by two thousand
years (roughly). What would you say to a group of Gellerites in 4000 A.D.,
who had *National Enquirer* as their holy book? (Gee, they could find
fragments (if someone is preserving the acid-bearing paper) of the original
English texts and everything!)
/* ---------- */

						James Jones