Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-k
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:Pucc-K:afo
From: afo@pucc-k (Flidais)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: More replies to Ken (and general comments)
Message-ID: <488@pucc-k>
Date: Wed, 24-Oct-84 18:02:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-k.488
Posted: Wed Oct 24 18:02:25 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Oct-84 03:21:36 EDT
Organization: Society for the Consumption of Marsupials, Castrovalva
Lines: 65

Ken writes....

>>Did Mohammed rise from the dead?  No, I don't think so. Jesus
>>Christ did.


Well, Ken, if you look hard enough, there are plenty of tales in
which the gods and goddesses of the prominent religion of that
region/time managed to pull that off. Should we all be worshipping
Osiris?  Then I suppose you could say that *all those people* saw
that Jesus rose from the dead.	Fine.  We also have a *lot* of
people who said they saw Anne Boleyn have sex with her brother, and
of course, we have all seen Uri Geller bend those spoons, Doug
Henning make that elephant disappear....


>>Who cares what church they were from?

You don't, obviously.  That was meant as a bit of trivia for the
home-town bunch.  Humourless person, aren't you?

(now we will take the liberty of cleaning up some of Ken's spelling
errors. Nothing else has been changed)
>>Their responses did not make any sense to you, but they might have
>>if you had been shown by the Holy Spirit what they meant. The 
>>things of the Bible are spiritually appraised.


Oh, goodie, we're back to rationalisation.  The 'oh, you would A if
only you did B' is one of the classic defences used by those who
have no other way of convincing the other person that they are
right.	By the implication of fault in the other person, they can
find a way to believe their own views more fully.
************************************************************************				       
General comment time 

Apparently, there appear to be three different modes to the
conversion/argument styles used by those who try to convert others
or those who try to argue their persuasion in religious matters.


     1.) The 'if you did A you would be B' arguement, as delineated
	 above

     2.) The 'oh, you poor thing, you don't believe in X, how could
	 know the rapture and truth involved'.  This is used when #1
	 fails.  It's a lot easier to say that the person couldn't
	 possibly understand what was going on, rather than trying
	 to come up with a more convincing arguement.

     3.) The Rev. Johnson "you're going to burn in that nasty
	 place as defined by the tenets of my religion'. Obviously,
	 the person involved is such a heathen/infidel, that they
	 are soooooooo far from grace, that they possibly couldn't
	 understand what was going on.	This is different from #2,
	 as the person in question is being blamed by soemthing they
	 have done, rather than something they haven't done.


*sigh*

Laurie Sefton
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,seismo}pur-ee!pucc-k!afo
Mum?  There's an extraterrestrial ursine warlock in my bubble bath!