From: mayne@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Why Believe?
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:03:48 GMT
Reply-To: mayne@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <Sep.27.22.24.04.1992.1964@athos.rutgers.edu> gouge@osceola.cs.ucf.edu (Christopher D. Gouge) writes:
>    
>a.  I have only rudimentary knowledge of textual criticism, but I am
>    told that all of the books of the Bible as it is generally known
>    are as reliable as any other ancient documents we now have; saying
>    that the Bible is corrupt and has lost its original meaning is as
>    plausible as saying that Plato, Herodotus, Homer, and Ovid have all
>    been completely warped in translation.  Commonly-accepted accounts
>    of history are commonly accepted on less textual evidence than the
>    historical accounts within the Bible.

So? I don't accept Homer as infallible either.

>b.  Concerning history, it is also worth noting that Judaism and
>    Christianity (and Islam to a certain extent) are the only universal
>    religions (i.e. claiming to define God, etc., for all mankind)
>    that are bound up in historical events.

Judaism does not attempt to define "God, etc." for all mankind.
Its claim is to be only for the Jews. A straight forward reading
of the earlier parts of the Old Testament suggests they weren't
even monotheistic in the modern sense. YHWH was the god of Israel,
the only one they should worship. The existence of other gods is
not denied. In any case Judaism has never proclaimed most of its
commandments to apply to anyone else.

It is true that only Christianity and Islam claim to be universal
in the sense of defining one God for all mankind. In fact (outside
of Judaism) Christianity, and Islam which are all culturally and
historically linked no other religion has the same concept of
"god". (This is dismissing extinct religions which are from the
same cultural milieu.) Some Muslims and Jews even deny that their
concept of God is the same as Christianity's, with some justification.
But from an outsider's point of view they are close together.

Buddhism is actually the oldest religion which claimed from the
beginning to be a universal as opposed to a tribal or national religion.
It is universal in the sense that anyone is accepted on an equal basis
by personal choice rather than an accident of birth, and the principles
are claimed to be applicable to all. It is not universal in the sense of
claiming a monopoly on truth or that all others are going to hell.

>  With doctrine this is
>    especially true of Christianity.  If the Buddha had never actually
>    lived, Buddhism would not collapse; Muhammad was not particularly
>    important to the content of the things he proclaimed; however, if
>    Jesus is only a mythical figure, then Christianity goes down the
>    tubes...

This is doubtful, in spite of what some conservative theologians
think. Christianity is a robust social phenomenon which has survived
major upheavals in thought before, including Copernicus and Darwin.
You might not call the result Christianity, but neither would orthodox
Christians of a few centuries ago call much of what passes for
Christianity today acceptable.

>c.  Concerning the miraculous.  Miracles are more central to Christianity
>    than to any other religion; take them away and the religion just
>    vanishes into dust.

Demonstrably false unless you have a very narrow definition of Christianity
which excludes quite a few who profess to be under that banner. Whether you
do this or not your claims, all but the first, are hardly points in favor
of Christianity.

Bill Mayne