Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: The Revelation to Mike Huybensz
Message-ID: <471@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 15:56:59 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.471
Posted: Mon Apr 15 15:56:59 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Apr-85 02:27:46 EST
References: <281@cvl.UUCP> <465@cybvax0.UUCP> <4881@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 72
Summary: 

In article <4881@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
> Obviously Mike has some source of historical information we are not party to.
> I mean, it's just like you read in the _Inquirer_ (NOT Skeptical, the other
> one).  "Jesus: the true story!"  "Brain-washed by an Apostle!"  "The Gospels
> were Written By Francis Bacon!"  :-)  At this late date in history, such
> things represent pure speculation, all the more so considering Mike is
> second-guessing text written 18 centuries ago, presumably from earlier
> versions.

Pardon me if I adopt the same air of certainty that Christians exhibit
so readily.  Now you have an idea of what I feel when I read your
writings.  At this late date in history your beliefs also represent pure
speculation.  At least my hypothesis requires fewer entities.

My certainty is merely that my hypothesis is the best I've yet heard.
It's inconvenient and a disadvantage in argument to phrase a hypothesis
with the full set of caveats, assumptions, and polite kowtowing to other
beliefs.  If you wish to insist that I do that, allow me to request the
same from you.

> It also very interesting that he claims to know why God seems to have chosen
> to do many fewer miracles these days.  Is Satan writing exposes on the
> Godhead?  ("Menage-a-trois on the White Throne!"  THe mind boggles at the
> possibilities! :-))

I don't argue by ridicule much anymore.  However I have been known to
describe Joseph as a cuckold....

> >Consider the parable of the bind men and the elephant.  You say the
> >elephant is like a wall because you examine 2000 years of interpretation
> >by believers who didn't question their assumptions.  I've felt the wall,
> >and may not know its wrinkles as well as you do, but I have also felt the
> >snake-like trunk of interpretation without supernatural assumptions.
> 
> Seems to me like you have felt the snake-like trunk of naturalistic
> assumptions.

(I wonder why I've never heard obscene "blind men and the elephant" jokes?)

That's exactly the meaning I intended.  Complete with snake and other
allegorical allusions.  (Mixing allegories-- a new crime like mixing
metaphors?  :-)  Now, assume I mean more, and find 8 other lessons that
I didn't intend.
 
> The evidence supports the hypothesis that various sects exist due to a)
> differences of opinion on subjects that scripture is silent on, and b)
> suppression of this or that teaching that someone doesn't like.  Sure, the
> NT is not totally unambiguous, but my God! the thing isn't an operator's
> manual for christianity.

I'd be fascinated to hear your classification of Luther's numerous
complaints into those two categories.  It would make a fun and flame
filled debate.

> >My quote above is how the biblical parable of JC and Satan can be used
> >as a simple conspiracy theory explanation for (McCarthy-like) silencing
> >of skeptics.
> 
> Since it has never been so used in the history of christianity, this
> argument is without merit as it stands.

You'd have to be exceedingly ignorant of Christian abuse of
skeptics/heretics to be serious.  I've been abused by analogies with
this passage several times.

> Perhaps Mike should read _Pilgrim's Regress_, paying particular attention to
> the passage on copies (in Zeitgeistheim).

I love the title.  What's it about?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh