From: sleibowitz@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Re: A deep bit of flame bait (long)
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:24:55 GMT

>>motivation behind most of these posts. On the incredibly rare occasions I post
>>to this list, it isn't because I have some strange urge to raise the hackles on
>>a few gentiles. Honestly, I've got better things to do with my time. It's
>>because (usually) I've read something I vehemently disagree with and feel
>>compelled to respond to (as is the case now). If it sounds smart-alecky to you,
>>I apologize. Write it off to anger at being treated like a child.
> 
>Neither most ... nor am I speaking to you yourself. I am glad that you only
>respond to things you find relevant to you. It shows a bit of thought !!

I disagree with your choice of words, and wonder if you're missing the point.
I generally do not respond because I feel the subject "relevant" to me per se.
I respond because I feel insulted, as was the case here. I understand that you
were not speaking specifically to me here, but as near as I can tell, you 
weren't speaking specifically to _anyone_, other than a somewhat nebulous group
of Christian-bashers, which may or may not include people who's motivations are
similar to my own.  I'm extremely glad, however, that you haven't dismissed 
this out of hand as the ravings of a heathen infidel. "It shows a bit of 
thought !!"
 
>>...assuming that your analogy likens us to
>>theological "babies", are you seriously proposing that you know what's best for
>>us because you have some form of experience that we lack? I find that logic
>>specious at best...
 
>What I am saying is that babies don't have text books and scientific
>explanations for why they get hungry, they just do. There are many parts to God
>that can not be explained, they just are !!! These things require experience,
>and there is no stopping ANYONE from having that experience. 

Again, I think you may be missing the point. Babies may not know that the
precise biological mechanisms that cause feelings of hunger, but they certainly
know that food has something to do with it.  And while text books and science
may not be able to explain everything, they certainly _are_ good at explaining
_lots_ of things... and are apparently getting better all the time. The fact
that reason can't explain a fact does not necessarily mean that the Bible can.

Getting more back to the point, specific people may or may not be "spiritually
hungry": it depends on the nature of the person. I was, as one point, but I'm
of the opinion (NOTE: personal bias and opinion pending, your milage almost
definitely differs) that Christianity, especially in the forms most common to
today's society, is the equivalent of spirtual junk food. _I_ don't find it
satisfying, and that is neither because I am incapable of accepting Christ, nor
because Christ doesn't have "the answers". It's because Christ doesn't have
_my_ answers, and there's no one to blame for that. (Except possibly Christ, if
you believe he created me.)

>>>you have to give it a go before you can really experience it.

>>This _really_ confuses me. If "you have to give it a go before you can really
>>experience it," does that mean that _after_ you've converted, you become a
>>believer? I was under the impression that belief was a prerequisite to
>>conversion. And as far as pride is concerned, I don't think you have anything
>>to worry about. You're no more capable of "making" me into a Christian than I
>>am of "making" you into an ice cream cone.
 
>No ... of course not. It just means that if you beleive, then God will give you
>experiences that support your faith. But you can't say there is no substance to
>the claims of Christianity if you don't seriously ask God to come into your
>life and reveal the truth (divine revelation being an exception to this rule.
>eg. Saul's conversion in the 'Acts of the Apsotles').

I see. But I didn't ask Christ to come into my life, I asked something else.
And it's doing quite well, thank you. Furthermore, I'm unsatisfied with the way
you write off divine revelation as being the exception to the rule.  The
argument runs like "Christ won't change your life unless you seriously ask him
too... or unless he feels like it." If he is all-knowing and all-powerful, and
truly wants us to accept him as our savior, then there is _no_ reason he should
not come to us and say "This is what I want you to do," other than through 
some sort of perverse desire to see if the little rats can find their way 
through the maze on their own.

>You probably are a LOT MORE capable of making me into an ice cream cone
>(depends on what flavour is acceptable) than I am of making you a Christian,

Agreed.
   
>> Sorry that you think that I resent your caring about me. It's your
>> holier-than-thou attitude I resent. And I hope that it's not to late to lose
>> that.
> 
>I am not holier than you,

Also agreed. I wasn't talking about you. Merely your attitude.

>			   I call Christ the Holy One ... but according to my
>faith I will not see those who aren't Christians in heaven, and I would like
>to (hey ... I like meeting people). And more than a few comments in this group
>have talked about these Christians who want to convert the world, in an
>unpleasant vein, and to me that's a sad thing as my motive is care. If you
>do'nt mind the fact I care about your future ... then great, no reason for any
>arguments.

I understand that you are well-intentioned, but the road to hell... well, 
that's a Christian saying that I'm not sure I agree with, so I'll leave that 
there. The point being, it isn't your care that I want, since if it's not in
your nature to care anyway, I don't want it. It's your respect I want. I want 
you to respect my decision to find fulfillment in other religions, or 
philosophies, or whatever I choose. As a rational adult, I deserve the respect
to make my own spiritual decisions that I afford you to make yours. To bring 
this argument full circle, it is when I hear warnings of "accept Christ or go 
to hell," I am not merely disagreeing, or "finding it relevant". I'm _angry_, 
because you won't accord me the same basic respect for my judgement that I do 
for you. And that is most certainly a reson for argument.

>Have a great day ... God bless ... Arron.

And spirits guide you, Arron... and hopefully open your eyes a bit wider.
 

            			       		Your humble servant,
					    Samuel "Smiling Wolf" Leibowitz
					    sleibowitz@hamp.hamp.edu
                                            email replies welcome

PS -
	As I'm shortly leaving for winter break and will not have net access,
	I would appeciate it if any respones to this post were emailed to me 
	privately, so that I may read them upon my return.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc