Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: re: Get a Clue (was:Get a Life)
From: <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 28 Jul 1992 11:02:48 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

In article <1992Jul27.192608.7655@dg-rtp.dg.com>,
grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gross) writes:

>In article <92205.122637SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET> <SECBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
>writes:

>(Jesus is "the man" referred to.)
>As the man is almost 2,000 years dead and the concept of "sin" is
>what you make it to be, ..............

>Jack, would you care to point out His grave to us!?

One such site is venerated in Israel, another in India.  There may
well be others I am not aware of.  That they are empty
proves nothing.  The bodies of many of the pharoahs are not in
their tombs but I do not take this as proof that they have entered
into eternal life with the gods.

>Your opinion is that He is dead.  However, there is consistent
>evidence that not only is He not dead, but that He arose and walked
>with His disciples and that some 500 disciples saw Him ascend into the
>heaven whereupon He was swallowed up by clouds.

It is your opinion that he did not die.  There is nothing whatsoever
that could be considered "evidence" to support your opinion.  Your
personal faith nor the personal faith of millions does not constitute
evidence to support your claim.  Claims made in your scriptures on
this point are not supported by anything outside of themselves.  There
is in short no evidence whatsoever.

>The concept of sin is clearly defined in the Bible (a book of 66 books
>covering a period of over 4,000 years).  Check it out sometime.

The concept of sin does not seem to be clearly and unequivocably defined,
and the examples to be gleaned from the scripture of the Christians
run a dizzy gamut from petty sumptuary laws to questions of such
magnitude that they involve the nature and meaning of human existence.
I think you will find that sin and the nature the relationship between
your god and his creatures is hardly cast-in-concrete among Christian
believers.  Much of the vibrancy that the faith of Christians can
have comes from the fact that these are ever-fresh, never-settled
issues which the individual Christian engages daily.

>Actually, there is less confusion than you seem to think.  Most of the
>arguments among Christians seems more centered on semantics than hard
>issues.  The Christian that I know from a variety of denominations
>agree that:
>
>God exists; that He is s trinity in unity, the Great Three in One,
>neither dividing the substance nor confusing the Persons.
>
>Jesus, the uniquely born Son of God, has existed as the Son since
>before time began.  Further, He is the Lamb who was slain from the
>founding of the world.
>
>The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Teacher; He proceeds from the
>Father and the Son.
>
>The Bible is our sole source of faith and teaching.  The Bible is both
>infallible and inerrent.  When there is a dispute, we must turn to the
>Bible for final arbitration.

Each of these topics has been a source of major debate within the
Christian tradition, and there remains a very wide range of beliefs
on them which goes far beyond your summary statements.  The last
point alone is the source of major divisions among Christians.

>But the point is that conservative evangelicals agree on more than
>they disagree.

But I am speaking of the broad range of the Christian tradition, not
one just one facet of it.

>And we often agree with our more liberal brethren than
>seems to be the case on this net.

This has not been my observation, especially from listening to
fundamentalists and born-agains, but in any case I leave that to
the Christians to discuss.

>.............................................  There is a premium on
>the net for being PC.  When someone isn't, they are automatically
>whatever badnames come to mind and onto the screen.  Frankly, it now
>appears that the effort to force PC views is just another form of
>tyranny and attempted control over free speech.

I find the concept of being "PC", as I understand it, quite offensive
too.  But then its opponents are just as likely to distort its meaning
and intent to promote their own PC position.  We see this all the
time in the talk.religion.misc group.  This is a device commonly employed
by conservative fundamentalists and evangelicals -- though as it is
presented in the guise of religion I suppose the term should be
"Religiously Correct".  It is the stuff that the Inquisition was made
of and it is the rock upon which most TV evangelist grind the hearts
and minds of their followers, and as I said it is ever with us in trm.

I share Mr. Gross's deep concern over the rise of tyranny and the
suppression of free speech.  It is clear that the primary threat to
the basic freedoms of this country comes from the Religious Right
which is actively seeking to destroy the foundation of liberty in
the United States.  It is only by opposing the arrogant presentation
of sectarian beliefs and positions as "The Truth" and keeping discussion
open to men of all religious beliefs and none that freedom will prevail.

Jack Carroll