From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Crusades; Once more into the breach
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 20:03:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.100131.288@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>Doug, your comments seem reasonable in the context of one who does not
>have a fundamental understanding of Christianity.  Having a poor grasp
>of the doctrines and principles of Christianity is understandable for
>one who denies or disbelieves in God, and who is not likely motivated
>in gaining a complete understanding of Christian principles and teachings.
>
>
>I am not criticizing you, so I hope you understand that I mean no offense
>when I say that your understanding of Christianity, its doctrines, and
>harmonizations of the gospels and the epistles in the NT is quite lacking.

No offense taken.  I was thankfully spared the Sunday lessons in
rational^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hharmonization when I was a child, so when
Jesus says the Law stands, and later Paul says it's out, I naturally
tend to see a contradiction.  I see a lot of other contradictions as
well, but I'm sure that's due to my poor training in "spiritual
matters" as a child.  It may be too late now, so I may have to opt
for the lobotomy instead.

>There is no contradiction whatever between the teachings of Jesus and Paul.
>Nor is there a contradiction between Paul and James.  Nor between, Jesus,
>Paul, James, and John.  Etc.  The cohesive structure of the NT is well
>established in Christian philosophy and thought.  Any imagined contradiction
>in the NT is trivial at best, and the real work of harmonization remains,
>admittedly, between the NT and portions of the Old.  Whether you or others
>wish to accept Christian harmonizations in the NT, is of course, up to you.
>But arguments as to whether Christians obey Jesus or Paul (or James or John)
>really carry little weight for the well-grounded Christian who is aware of
>the context and harmonizations of these various teachings.  You might as
>well assert that Jesus never lived, or that Christianity is "immoral" for
>all the good it will do.  All you will succeed in doing is to convince other
>non-believers, as lacking in their understanding of Christianity as you, of
>the "truth" of these assertions.

Yes, I understand that all of us non-believers are that way because we lack
understanding of Christianity.  The religion is so obviously true, and
has borne such wonderful fruit, that nobody in full possession of the
facts could possibly spurn it.  In addition, it seems to make people
so happy, as they bomb clinics, murder homosexuals and heretics, donate
much of their earnings to filthy-rich televangelists, and spew gibberish
on Usenet.  I do admit that the appeal to join in the festivities is
great, but alas, I just can't get the hang of that Christian "philosophy"
and "thought."

You are quite right about arguments with "well-grounded" Christians being
futile.  Most have been immunized against the attacks of reason by many long
years of mindnumbing dogma.  Any hope I may have once had for shaking loose
a few brain cells in the faithful, are rapidly fading, but there are still
those whose brains haven't atrophied completely yet.  Who knows, I may even
catch you on a day when, due possibly to something you ate,  your brain is
in an abnormally fluid state.  When those neurons start firing, watch out!

>Regards,
>
>Jim
>Send a copy of any replies to Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com as I am not able to
>read this newsgroup each day, and many posts get deleted from the system
>before I can read them.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:15575 alt.politics.clinton:2514 alt.politics.bush:2423