Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Alan vs. the One True Way [KEN EWING]
Message-ID: <1018@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Aug-84 10:13:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.1018
Posted: Wed Aug 29 10:13:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 02:20:49 EDT
References: <4011@tekecs.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 141

>>  3. None of Christianity's *claims to uniqueness* (as cited 
>>     in a quote from Jeff's article) are actually unique.  With all the 
>>     religions in the world, why not look for some underlying, unifying 
>>     principle?  [ALAN DRISCOLL]

> Item #3 -- As I understand it, Christianity's claims to uniqueness go much 
> deeper than the few doctrinal points quoted from Jeff's article. [KEN EWING]

That's just the point.  All you have is just a series of "claims" to uniqueness
involving different terminology and different precepts for the relationships
between humans and a (defineable?) deity.  You make statements like:  "only
in Christianity is God reaching down to reach *us*" (anthropocentrism?) or
"only in Christianity did God take human form and...".   THESE ARE JUST
CLAIMS!!!  You believe them to be true, for whatever reason.  But the basis
is just a series of claims WITHOUT REAL SUPPORTING EVIDENCE!  The chronicles
that Christians claim as historical fact (though they are sprinkled with
real history) were concocted as advertising!  If I appeared on television in
a commercial for "NEW IMPROVED UBIZMATISM" with extra added VOOMSQUOLL and a
new redeeming (and fabric softening) agent to make your life better, would you
leap on the Ubizmo bandwagon?  Doubtful.  But that's exactly what the
chronicles known as the gospels were designed to do.  Advertise.  Do you also
believe the man on late night television who says:  "No wait, there's more,
you get these fabulous Gonzo knives"...  (or "this fabulous afterlife" :-) ?

> DEFINITIONS OF TERMS (for the following description): 
> 
> Religion -- A system of belief and practice dealing with God (defined below) 
>             and Man (i.e.; all humans) and the relationship between them.  

Many people claim that their belief systems are religions yet they do not
incorporate or even avow any notion of a deity.

> God -- Any concept of Deity or Higher Power, seen as existing on some higher 
>             plane and to which Man ascribes some kind of subservient role.  

Many religions describe deities that do not adhere to this model of
the subservience of humans, but instead they portray a deity that is more like
a life force of the universe (I've used the phrase "a consciousness of the
universe", much as the illusion of self and mind results from the actions of
the human brain.).

> Heaven -- Any concept of Eternal Existence, especially in the context of 
>             after death.  

This is not a generalized tenet amongst all religions.  Given that you define
your terms this way, it's no wonder Christianity is your religion of choice.

> Most religions, as I understand them, seem to orient their doctrines and 
> practices around the following points: 
> -- Man is either a blank sheet or has some intrinsic goodness which, if 
>    properly nurtured, will result in a heavenly reward of some kind.  
> -- By following the tenets of [Hinduinsm, Bhuddism, Islam, Spiritism, et al],
>    one can nurture and develop one's own intrinsic goodness or accumulate 
>    a treasury of good works and eventually receive the heavenly reward.  
> -- The emphasis rests on the action of Man reaching upward toward God.  
> These, I believe, are the core tenets of most world religions.  

Again, there are religions that have little to do with afterlife or reward
from a deity.  As there are non-religions (by your definition of religion)
that wonder why people expect there to be either a deity or an afterlife.

> It is undeniable that many "Christians" describe Christianity in this way 
> (i.e.; "Folow the Ten Commandments, go to church, pray, live a good life, 
> and you'll go to heaven..."), but a person who seriously seeks the real 
> meaning of Christianity understands that this is not true.  Historic 
> Christianity differs from other religions in the following way: 
> -- The nature of Man is fallen, making him(them) inherently unable to reach 
>    up to God.  Man is not a blank sheet, nor does he have any intrinsic 
>    goodness that enables him to aspire to a heavenly status by his own 
>    effort. (see NOTE)
> -- The work necessary to bring Man to a heavenly reward has already been 
>    done.  It was accomplished by a substitutionary action, one person 
>    doing the work on behalf of the entire human race.  The work is completed, 
>    requiring no other action on the part of Man to be effective.  
>    Rejection of this completed work maintains a person in a state of 
>    fallenness and emnity toward God.  
> -- The emphasis rests on the action of God reaching downward to Man.  

See above paragraphs.  These are claims and nothing more, and they seem to be
based on the preconceptions of the nature of god and religion that you
describe above.  (Doubtless this will be referred to by some Christians as one
of my "attacks", perhaps even as a "personal attack".  Note however that what
I have done is to point out several facts about the nature of the claims being
made.)

> This, I believe, is the basic doctrinal difference that makes Christianity 
> unique among other religions.  If you say that there are other religions 
> that teach these same things, then please make some references so that I 
> can check them out.  

Fine.  Agreed that Christianity's tenets are different than the vast majority
of world religions.  That does little to make the claims it makes into facts.
It would seem that since Christianity's tenets seem to fit your notions of the
world ("man's" fallen nature and god's reaching out to "him"), then you choose
to believe it.  But the precepts you convey are no more an objective view of
reality than the Christian tenets themselves!  They may coalesce into a
single picture depicting *your* world view, they may fit like a glove in
conjunction with your preconceptions of the universe, but those are *just*
YOUR preconceptions of the universe.  Most people have no rational reason to
believe that people are "fallen", or even that there is some sort of universal
deity who originally pushed us causing us to fall ( :-).  Yet many see things
this way.

> Item #4 -- How does one choose?  My first response is to ask the question 
> "Are you really interested in finding out?"  I have too often heard this 
> question as cheap cop-out for inaction by a person who didn't want anything 
> to do with religion in the first place.  I will answer this point with a 
> quick illustration: 
>   A small business owner decides he wants to get a small computer to help 
>   with his business.  He goes down to the local bookstore and buys a few 
>   computer magazines to acquaint himself with what's available.  Leafing 
>   through the pages, he sees ad after ad for IBM, Commodore, Apollo, 
>   DEC, Wang, etc., etc.  Seeing the plethora of available products, each 
>   claiming superiority, he throws up his hands in dismay and says, 
>   "There's no way I can choose.  There's so many and they all say they're 
>   the best."  He finally rejects the idea of buying a computer.  
> Is this fictitious businessman's conclusion valid?  Positively not!  
> He certainly could find a computer -- if he really wanted to in the first 
> place.

The businessman has another choice.  Given that there are so many different
computers available, and that many of them make unfounded claims and that
none of them is completely satisfactory, he has the opportunity to construct
a machine (from "scratch" as it were) from individual components to be the
best computer for his needs.

Now you may retort:  I'm not talking about an electronics engineer or some
hardware hacker, I'm talking about Joe Businessman.  Why should he be
expected to build his own machine when there are already packaged systems for
people like him?

Well, that's precisely the sort of sheepishness that people should be avoiding
especially in areas like religion.  There may be lots of fancy packaged
religions with all sorts of preposterous claims, and maybe even with some
positive tenets for living.  But why can't a thinking human being extract the
positive tenets for living from the wrapping paper and chrome and whitewall
tires and aluminum siding and assorted frills that comprise the religion
package?  The religious analogy of a shepherd and a flock is all too accurate.
Haven't we had enough of it?
-- 
If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing.     Rich Rosen  pyuxn!rlr