Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Re: one more time...
Message-ID: <1038@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Oct-86 11:28:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.1038
Posted: Tue Oct 14 11:28:35 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 19:07:10 EDT
References: <2fa71dcd.33cd@apollo.uucp> <2fa77b2f.46@apollo.uucp> <1500@mtx5a.UUCP> <2722@burdvax.UUCP> <2735@burdvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 54

In article <2735@burdvax.UUCP> devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) writes:

>What I would assert is that one cannot be a Christian and still deny the
>historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  This is just not an
>option.  The resurrection is CENTRAL to the Christian faith.  Those
>churches that deny the resurrection, the divinity of Christ and a whole
>host of other core doctrines have no business claiming the label of
>"Christian".

Well, this still seems to me to be YOUR opinion; whether everyone who
says s/he's a Christian would agree with you remains to be seen. I
have no idea whether what you're saying is a minority or majority
opinion in the set of all churches that claim to be Christian, or in
some subset of those churches. IF someone can show to me that a clear
majority of people who call themselves Christians believe this, I'll
accept it as a majority opinion and agree that people who don't tow
the line probably shouldn't be calling themselves Christian.
 
>...  I simply suggested
>that you might feel comfortable in one of these liberal churches.

I agree.
 
>I would suggest that your understanding of Christianity is flawed.  If you
>read the NT, the writings of the church fathers and conservative,
>contemporary authors such as Charles Hodge or Francis Shaeffer you will
>get a more accurate perspective on Christianity.  If you reject
>Christianity because you reject supernaturalism, then say so.

Again, the claim that such a perspective would be more accurate is
your claim. I would agree that my perspective might be more complete
if I read some of these authors (I have read the NT, by the way),
but I still believe that there's far from a consensus on these things
among those who call themselves Christian. And if you say you're
Christian and someone else isn't while that person is claiming s/he's
Christian and you're not, who should I believe?

I don't reject Christianity or supernaturalism out of hand: I simply
don't know what the Ultimate Truth is, or whether an Ultimate Truth
exists, or even if it makes any sense to ask such a question. That's
what agnosticism is about (at least my brand of it). I consider myself
in many ways a religious person and certainly a moral person, but I 
see my life more in terms of defining my own theology as I go along. 
And this is a lifelong process: I don't think ANY book or prophet is 
going to give me all the answers to my living a moral and satisfying 
life.

Christ died for me, but so did everyone else in history who paid a
great price for peace and the well-being of his fellow human beings.
That's my perspective on Christianity; that's my perspective on ALL
religions. I respect anyone for his beliefs if they help him to be a
better person. That includes HASA members as well as Christians. :-)
 
                            -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly