From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Anyone heard of Cliffe?
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:10:08 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <UerQu0q00WBLE4avlJ@andrew.cmu.edu> "Jordan M. Wolbrum" <jw67+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>The intervarsity Christian assoc here at CMU got someone named Cliffe to
>come speak.  I went to listen to him, and while there was much he said
>that I disagreed with, I went away respecting him.  He challenges all
>people, including Christians, to not accept Christ's divinity on faith
>alone.  He said the gospels could be vieved as a historically viable
>source.

I've not heard this "Cliffe" guy, but this sounds like an
approach I've heard from other christian salesmen.  Sorta like,
"oh no, we're not silly mystics, we have PROOF for our
beliefs, it says in the bible (blah blah blah) and the
bible is a reliable historical source".  

>Having not read the gospels, I couldn't add anything to that
>discussion, but wonder if anyone here has an effective arguement against
>the gospels' validity.  I don't know how to approach this with my
>limited knowledge of the New Testament.

Not having a NT handy, these comments are general (and from memory).
There are a number of internal consistencies in the NT, casting
considerable doubt on their accuracy; if the writers of the NT
cannot even remember an easy fact like who the high priest
of the temple was, how can we have confidence in some of
the more extraordinary claims, like Jesus's "divinity"
(whatever that means)?  Second, there is virtually no
supporting evidence for any NT events outside of
the bible; wouldn't at least some of the fantastic
events mentioned in the NT get recorded in contemporary
Jewish and/or Roman writings (the Romans espeically
were wonderful record keepers).

>Cliffe said "there is more than enough evidence, nobody has a right not
>to believe in God."

Why should the biblical "evidence" be taken any more or less
seriously than the "evidence" from other religions.
As a political point, we have the "right" to believe whatever
we want; in terms of being rational and respectful of
facts, it's obvious (to me) that the evidence is overwhelming
that there is not god(s) as described in the bible.
So, where is his "evidence"?

>I didn't agree, but I didn't know what to say
>without sounding like some closed-minded moron.  Needless to say, some
>students here just attacked Cliffe and went away looking like assholes. 

Well, saying "Cliffe, you are an asshole" is not a good tactic.  :-)
Even if he is.  

>Others actually made him think, and he was reasonably open-minded- a
>trait I have rarely evidenced before in theists strong in their
>convictions.

Again, I've seen this sort of thing before.  The christian
salesman appears to seriously consider the criticisms and
questions of well-spoken members of the audience.  However,
the next day he is off to his next campus, dishing out the
same swill as before.  This is similar to the times people
would point out errors to Ronald Reagan in his speeches;
the next day, he would give the same speech with the same
errors.

>Any comments?  I thought it was about time for a new thread anyway!

Maybe we could come up with a list of quick replies to common
christian sales techniques.  Generally, the most successful
ones are those which put the burden of proof and explanation
on the salesman (where it belongs) and not on you.



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: alt.atheism