From: cwblack%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Charles W. Black)
Subject: Re: Secrecy (was Oaths & Fervor (was `MORMONISM'))
Date: 11 Apr 92 17:44:12 MDT
Organization: University of Utah

In article <1992Apr10.041013.9984@en.ecn.purdue.edu> muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> Why should one have to defend his/her faith?
> Try 'cause God says so:
> (1 Peter 3:15)
> 
>      15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in
>    your hearts, always being ready to
>    make a defense to everyone who asks
>    you to give an account for the hope
>    that is in you, yet with gentlness and
>    reverence;

Certainly, I can answer when asked to explain my faith.  I can tell
someone what I believe and why I believe it.  Perhaps they will even
accept my answer as reasonable, or at least possible.  But, that
doesn't mean that they will accept it as true.

In my previou post, I was referring to proof of personal belief.  I
said that it is impossible to defend ones religious convictions in any
acceptably arguable context, because they are largely a matter of
faith.  This verse, as I see it, is not telling us to be able to
defend our personal beliefs to the point of truth, but rather is
telling us to be able to express our personal beliefs in some
reasonable manner.

> I think there is conclusive scientific evidence for Christianity, and even
> better philosophical evidence for Christianity.  However I do think that the
> various Christian cults (Mormons, JW's, Christian Science, etc) would have
> a problem with this.

First, I have seen no scientific evidence, much less conclusive
scientific evidence, substantiating or condemning Christianity as a
whole.  Perhaps you would care to elaborate; I would be very
interested in some convincing support of this point.

Secondly, I would also be very interested to learn of the reasons that
led you to consider the Mormon, JW, and Christian Science faiths to be
cults.  It seems contradictory for you to state that you believe that
there is conclusive scientific evidence for Christianity and then to
use the wording, "Christian Cults."  I'm not sure exactly what
distinction you are trying to emphasize here.

The word cult carries some nasty implications.  According to Webster,
cult can mean simply, "a system of religious beliefs and ritual."  By
this definition, any any religion could be considered a cult.
However, in common usage, cult more often implies Webster's further
definition, "great and especially faddish devotion," where a fad is,
"practice or interest followed for a time with exaggerated zeal."
Mormonism has been around since 1830.  Hmmm, so far that's 162 years.
Although many other organized religions have been around for *much*
longer, I don't think that 162 years qualifies as a fad.  And, it
doesn't seem that it will be going away any time soon.

Again, you made this claim with relatively little support.  I don't
know whether your statements concerning the "cults" are accurate or
inaccurate, but before I accept what you have to say, I would like to
know the reason behind your conclusions.

              ----------  Charles W. Black  ----------
                  ------  cwblack@asylum.utah.edu  ------
                     ---  Department of Computer Science  ---
               ---------  University of Utah  ---------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc