From: skinner@sp1.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Moderate Christianity
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:05:13 GMT
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development

jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:

>skinner@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:
>: jay@oclc.org (Young Jeff) writes:
>: 
>: >I am investigating moderate Christianity in another thread, but I
>: >have some more questions.  (unrelated to one another)
>: 
>: Whether I am moderate I don't know, and I cannot speak for other
>: moderates, but I can speak for myself.
>: >1) If the Fall is mythical, there is no historical basis for Original
>: >Sin.  How does moderate Christianity justify the doctrine of
>: >Original Sin?
>: 
>: I think the Fall is probably mythical.  I do not see any basis for the
>: doctrine of Original Sin.

>I can't remember if I got this same reply earlier here or via email.
>Since I haven't seen a reply yet, I will risk repeating it.  Orig.Sin.
>places the blame for the world's woes directly on us.  Lack of OS places
>the blame directly on God since he created the world such that
>evil was unavoidable.  What does this say about the justness of God?

When asked for one's opinion in a survey form, one does not expect to
have to justify his opinions upon answering (unless one is being
baited, perhaps).  That aside, I will say that when you write Original
Sin (capitalized) I assume you refer to the specific doctrine held by
some Christians denominations (e.g. Roman Catholic Church?)  That
exegesis does not appeal to me.  However, lack of that exegesis does
not necessarily place the blame for evil directly on God.  It leaves
open that possibility, but there are certainly other possibilities to
consider.  The above is a false dichotomy.

>: >2) The founding fathers were quite vocal about preventing religion (vis.
>: >Christianity) from interfering with the government.

>: >  Do you believe
>: >that Christianity has cleaned up its act enough to be given a second
>: >chance (especially considering the fundamentalists seem to be in the
>: >vanguard of such efforts)? 
>: 
>: I'm not sure what is meant by giving Christianity a second chance.  If
>: this means giving it a chance as a state religon, then my answer is
>: no; the kingdom of God is not brought about by forcing it on a
>: population.

>I meant things like school prayer, requiring Presidents to be Christians,
>excluding atheist from public office, creches on public property,
>changing the pledge of allegience to invoke God, requiring "In
>God We Trust" on our currency, etc.

Regardless to what extent Christianity has "cleaned up its act," I
think the separation of chruch and state should stand, as it benefits
both church and state.

>: > If fundamentalism is just a minority,
>: >why do moderates allow them to set the agenda?
>: 
>: I believe there are better ways to bring about the kingdom of God than
>: to work through government channels.  My answer is, "because moderates
>: have no political agenda."

>Why don't they seem to be willing to stand up to those Christians
>who do?  I realize this is a sweeping generalization, but it 
>seems that way sometimes.

What would you have them do?  

They may be busy doing things that are, in their opinion, far more
important than politics.  My opinion is that working for or against
political agendas is just a big waste of time for the Christian.
--
Gregg Skinner                 I do not speak for any organization.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15371 alt.atheism:16325