Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Re: one more time... (not again!)
Message-ID: <1140@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 11:56:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1140
Posted: Wed Sep 10 11:56:33 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Sep-86 06:44:42 EDT
References: <1500@mtx5a.UUCP> <1133@cybvax0.UUCP> <3342@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 52

In article <3342@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
> And Mike Huybensz replies:
> >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.

First off, the Letter of James is not the resurrection.  But I'll let that
slip, since I can see you're upset.  :-)

Second, what are my works, if I am not a believer?  How can they be evidence
of faith?  This contradicts the Letter of James.

Third, once again you are trying to explain morality with theology: I see
no reason to nail the two together other than Christian vested interests in
the historical status quo.

> >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.

Two (and a half?) millenia of Christians have not been able to produce a
convincing justification for their theological ideas.  However, some of their
moral ideas seem good to me.

The notion that you take the whole thing or nothing is the real crock.
The Jews could have used that argument against the early Christians (and
probably did) and so could the Catholics against any other schismatic sects
(from which most protestant demoninations evolved.)

Do you agree with my original point that there is something of value in
Christianity even if you don't believe in the resurrection?  (I wonder if
some Unitarians would agree.)
--

Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a
	   case brimming with such poetical emotion?"
Chancellor: "Distinctly."
	From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan.
-- 

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