Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mcnc.mcnc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!bch
From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer]
Message-ID: <418@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 01:33:52 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.418
Posted: Wed Mar 20 01:33:52 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Mar-85 01:44:46 EST
References: <4947@cbscc.UUCP> <302@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <4991@cbscc.UUCP>
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 88
Xref: watmath net.religion:6196 net.religion.christian:486
Summary: 

>[Tim Maroney:]
>>Paul, I take very poorly to people misrepresenting my positions.  I do not
>>think Christianity is horrible.  I have never made any comment about
>>Christianity that would imply such a belief.  Christians sometimes find it
>>convenient to misrepresent me in this way to make it easy to write off
>>anything I say, much as the segregated black social clubs which I opposed at
>>college called me a racist.  My understanding of the motive does not lessen
>>the negativity of my reaction: this sort of lie is totally irresponsible.
[Paul Dubuc:]
>I have a different opinion about the implications of your writing about
>Christianity, I guess.  I suppose our idea of what your words imply doesn't
>count since we are only trying to write off anything you say?  If that isn't
>your position, Tim, then I suggest you represent your position better.  Maybe
>you do think there is something good about Christianity.  I certainly don't
>know what it is.  By and large, you only speak out about Christianity and
>Christians in order to condemn some aspect of it or their actions.  You have
>even stated that horrible actions are inherenty justified by biblical doctrine.
 
Sorry, Paul, I've got to side with Tim on this one.  Certainly Tim uses some
strong rhetoric, but by in large rebuttal to his points takes place outside
the context of the discussion which generated them.  I do not recall Tim
ever disparaging Christianity as a faith.  He has, however, taken the secu-
lar practice of christianity [small "c" deliberate] to task many times.  
If I understand Tim correctly it isn't the belief he objects to, but its
social effects as produced by the American fundamentalist movement.  

Tim's major contribution to this forum ("Even if I did Believe...") I
interpret not as an attack on Christianity, but as an attack on those who
"prove" Christianity on the basis of Biblical inerrancy but who in fact
exclude or ignore some of the more embarrasing events described in the
Bible.  It is a call to honesty:  fundamentalists have created G-d in
their own image as much as have the more liberal sects and need to be aware
of this.  Tim's opponents have tried, unsuccessfully, to pick the argument
apart point by point without dealing with the essential issue.

>To accuse me of lying here implies that I know of things that should
>give me a different impression of your attitude toward Christianity.  I
>don't.  If my impression of your true feelings about Christianity is
>wrong, I apologise.  But I do get that impression from what you write
>here and I'm not trying pass off anything you say.  At worst, I
>misunderstand your position, not misrepresent it.

Tim's use of "lie" is an effective, but unfortunate, turn of phrase.  It
did get your attention, didn't it?  There's a real frustration involved
when folks deal with your submissions on a sentence-by-sentence basis
rather than responding to the article as a whole.  After a while it is
very easy to believe that it is a deliberate attempt to sidestep the
issue.  Paul is not usually guilty of this, but many are.

>>Furthermore, I find it ludicrous that a fundamentalist creationist is
>>demanding "proof" of others' religious positions.  Give me a break.
 
>A fundamentalists I am not (unless you say so, of course).  Creationist?
>Well, I'll just say that as far as evolutionism goes I am not a true
>believer.  I don't buy the whole creationist line either.
 
>I am not demanding proof from Byron in particular.  I differ with him
>as to whether religious positions can be compared, or justified
>philosophically in comparision to others.  He seems to understand that.
>You have spent a lot of time rejecting the claims of Christianity with
>rational argument.  Do you subject the claims of your own religion to
>the same scrutiny?

Hopefully I'm not putting words in Tim's mouth, but so long as I have
crawled out on this limb I might as well saw it off behind me...

I believe Tim's contention to be (well, it certainly is *my* contention)
that one selects a faith on the basis of personal preference and world-view.
All faiths are essentially different views of the construction of the
universe.  None are unambiguosly provable.  One is drawn to a faith 
because it conforms to one's pre-existing ideals (perhaps not at a
conscious level) about morality, justice, fairness and a whole host of
other attributes.  In a sense one makes G-d over in the image of what
one expects.  Some faiths, like Christianity, have an enormous body of
interprative literature to aid in this transformation.  Others, like
Tim's do not.

The request for Christian self-analysis is a response to the Christian
claim of being the one TRUE faith.  In passing let me note that Tim 
has demanded the same of any other faith, like the Bahai, who have claimed
a greater authority.  As neither Tim or I believe that our respective
faiths are in any sense provable, the only person we need to account to
for them is ourselves.

-- 

						Byron C. Howes
				      ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch