Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/3/85; site sdcc6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!ix415
From: ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Whats wrong with this eqation? (Paul=Jesus)
Message-ID: <2013@sdcc6.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 14:50:24 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc6.2013
Posted: Mon Apr 15 14:50:24 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 02:31:11 EST
References: <765@ccice5.UUCP> <179@spar.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 35
Summary: Odd sounding palatable fundamentalists.

> 
>     The huge portion of the New Testament written by Paul strikes me
>     as the most powerful motivation I know for not being a
>     `fundamentalist' -- by this I mean someone who rejects all writings
>     of the middle ages and derives everything from the Bible -- since
>     many of the best Catholic theological philosophers are far more
>     palatable than Paul.
>     

The problem with that is who said palatable = true.  Because you happen
to like what some of the Catholic theological philosophers have said
it's therefore true??  Because you don't like what Paul said, it's
therefore untrue??  That sounds like an odd criteria for objective
truth.

>     Is it not true that
>     these same Falwell-types consider the more unusual sects, such as
>     the Jehovah's Witnesses (who seem like fundamentalists in the truest
>     sense of the word, and for whom I have an odd sort of respect),
>     to be too weird? Or am I very mistaken?   [Michael]

Fundamentalists in the truest sense of the word??  I would think that
any common definition of Fundamentalist would have to have some
reference to accepting the Bible literally.  The Jehovah's Witnesses,
however, have their own translation that continually contradicts
accepted, standard translations by experts in both Greek and Hebrew.
One of the founders of the JW's (Charles Taz Russel  sp?) was convicted
of perjury when he lied under oath that he could both read and write
Hebrew.  He and another man whose name I forget both claimed to be the
scholars that originated the New World Translation, but Russel was
proven in a courtroom to have not even the most rudimentary knowledge of
Hebrew.  Is this a Fundamentalist?  I hope the respect you have for them
is very odd.

			Rick Frey  (ix415@sdcc6.UUCP)