Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Re: one more time... (not again!)
Message-ID: <3342@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Sep-86 08:57:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3342
Posted: Tue Sep  9 08:57:48 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Sep-86 05:34:49 EDT
References: <1500@mtx5a.UUCP> <1133@cybvax0.UUCP>
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
Lines: 35

M. Terribile writes:
>> ... All of Christianity rests on a
>> single point: the Resurrection.  If Jesus did not rise from the dead after
>> a brutal crucifixion, there is no point whatsoever in Christianity....

And Mike Huybensz replies:
>Very seldom will I speak in favor of Christianity, but the above is downright
>stupid.  While the resurrection might be a key point of christian theology,
>it has nothing to do with Christian morality (some of which even I value.)

Well, that simply isn't true.  In the Letter of James it says right out that
the works are the evidence of faith.  The faith is the source for the
morality.  If you throw away the fiath and just keep the morality you have
something entirely different.

It should be noted that the ressurection centrality is an important feature
of the Acts.  The morality problems argued out there wouldn't be compelling
at all were it not for their cause in the bringing together of these
different groups through preaching of the ressurection.  THe notion
persisted, finding explicit recognition in a number of early reformation
hymns.  In _Christe ist Erstanden_ we have the line "If Christ were not
arisen, then death were still our prison."

>Ideas like turning the other cheek, etc. may not be original to Christianity,
>and are far too often overshadowed by obnoxious teachings.  But I consider
>the moral teaching to be the point of Christianity, and preoccupation with
>belief in Jesus and "the life to come" to be dross.  (That's because of my
>scientific materialist viewpoint, which doesn't believe in the latter two.)

That kind of reasoning is a crock.  What your saying is that from your
perspective, you want to throw out of Christianity the part which is
inconvenient to your way of thinking.  Two and a half millenia of Christians
beg to differe with you on that point.

C. Wingate