Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz!christian From: christian@topaz.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.religion.christian Subject: Re: More good questions from Vasu Message-ID: <9756@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Mon, 2-Mar-87 05:59:23 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.9756 Posted: Mon Mar 2 05:59:23 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 3-Mar-87 21:10:01 EST Sender: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 80 Approved: christian@topaz.UUCP In article <9686@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Mike Andrews attempts to address some questions raised by Vasu Murty. Vasu points out extensive contradictions in the differing versions of the Resurrection, and asks why we should believe them since they differ. Mike seems to accept Vasu's observations, but tries to explain it away as unintentional differences in perspective of the authors. But that's not good enough. I might equally well point out that almost all folk stories exist in similarly varying versions, yet we don't have faith that they are all true. Plain and simple, Mike doesn't have any valid reason, he has only unjustified faith. Faith which is so worthless that he might just as well believe in the Ramayana or any other religious story. It's also amusing that Mike ignores Vasu's point that the differing versions don't even agree on the site of the assumption, despite the fact that Christian fundamentalists loudly and frequently claim site-accuracy of the Bible as evidence for its overall accuracy. Which brings up the question of accuracy. Mike seems to think that these differences don't disprove the Bible's "truth". In the sense of the Bible being literally true, they do with absolute certainty. So we have to ask what vaguer sense of truth Mike has in mind? Just how abstract do we need to get? Is the resurrection a metaphor? Not to Mike. For him, "To deny that Jesus rose from the dead, is to deny the basis of Christian faith." The heck with truth, it's the puny little faith of Christians that matter. Fooey. It's the same kind of faith that demands (for only about half of the Christians in the US) that Genesis is literally true. On that basis, I'd say that the resurrection could be disposed of as a tenet of faith as easily as Creationism, resulting in Christians almost indistinguishable from today's. Mike also mentions that John's Gospel was probably written by other people and ascribed to John. There's a word for that: forgery. But that sort of word wouldn't gibe with Mike's faith, now would it? Finally, the moderator writes: > [In general I discourage this style of point by point response. > Vasu's message was an excellent example of how to deal with the issues > raised by other people without spending all your space quoting them. > I've let this one pass, since it is does introduce substantial new > material. But the point by point style tends to lead to argument > for argument's sake, so I have a tendency to reject such postings. > Of course I mean no criticsm of the content of this posting. --clh] It looks as if you're making exceptions for Christians. But frankly, I have to disagree with discouragement of point-by-point argument, because it makes critical analysis of counterarguments much clumsier. If the infrequency of m.r.c postings at my site is typical, I'd say that there's so little going on in this group that you might be rejecting too much. -- "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality." George Bernard Shaw Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh [No, I'm not making an exception for Christians. I am not rejecting large numbers of articles. I find that a reminder when I start seeing the >'s build up is usually sufficient. The only recent rejection due to excessive >'s was when there was a second article submitted at the same time that made the same point in a more organized fashion. One recognized purpose of moderators is to reduce duplication. What I'm really trying to do is get people to put a bit of thought into organizing what they have to say. In the old net.religion.christian and the current talk.religion.misc, we see arguments that proceed roughly at the same level as verbal discussion. A bull session is fun now and then, but the original intent of this group was to see if we could have something at a slighly higher level. Of course I don't intend to compete with an academic journal. But I am trying to provide an alternative to the talk groups. It is clear that it takes effort to organize what you have to say, rather than just annotating another posting. However I think the benefits of this effort are apparent to everyone. Of course if the readership disagrees, or people are not willing to put the necessary time into their writing, then another approach may be needed. --clh]