Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!nike!cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!usc-oberon!sdcrdcf!randvax!jim
From: jim@randvax.UUCP (Jim Gillogly)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: one more time...
Message-ID: <516@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Sep-86 19:45:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: randvax.516
Posted: Fri Sep 12 19:45:38 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Sep-86 07:30:51 EDT
References: <1500@mtx5a.UUCP> <1133@cybvax0.UUCP> <222@octopus.UUCP>
Reply-To: jim@rand-unix.UUCP (Jim Gillogly)
Organization: Banzai Institute
Lines: 38

In article <222@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes:
>                                               There is only one unique
>thing about the Bible/Christianity that makes it any different than other
>religions: Jesus. No other religion has a central human figure ('prophet',
>whatever you want to call it) who claimed to *be* God.
> (etc.)
>        If he wasn't, then the Bible is just a pile of mostly-correct teachings
>(wrong at least in the case of who Jesus was), and we can all follow any
>'moral'/religious code we feel like without looking back. If Jesus was/is God,
>then a lot of things automatically follow, and Christianity is something
>to be reckoned with.

Firstly, the claim is not all that unique.  Although Joseph Smith (founder
of the L.D.S. (Mormon) church) didn't claim to be God at the time, it was
clear that he was scheduled to become one after his martyrdom.  The accepted
theory was that he and the rest of the faithful would end up as gods of
their own worlds, accompanied by their wives.  Although I can't lay a hand
on them, I imagine that there are a number of people in institutions who
claim to be God.

Secondly, even if that were a unique point it wouldn't be important.  The
fact that somebody claims something doesn't make it so, as Ubizmatists have
been trying to demonstrate to the unbelievers all along.  The whole point
of the Ubizmatist movement is that any unsubstantiated claim has equal
weight.  So the point is not what Jesus *claimed* to be, but rather what
he *proved* to be.  I'm not arguing the latter point, but rather pointing
out that the former is a non-issue and can't be a meaningful distinction
among religions.  Now if you want to argue that Christianity is distinguished
by being the only *true* religion, I'd say that's an important distinction.

	Jim Gillogly
	HASA, U[Spam] division
	{decvax, sdcrdcf}!randvax!jim
	jim@rand-unix.arpa
-- 
	Jim Gillogly
	{decvax, sdcrdcf}!randvax!jim
	jim@rand-unix.arpa