From: doug@testsys.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 12:26:06 
Distribution: na
Organization: SKAN Communications Inc.

In article <1992Aug26.051700.2077@colorado.edu> 
(Bear Giles) writes: 

> What _I_ saw (your mileage may vary) in Christianity was a religion
> based on fear.  This is most pronounced in "fundamentalism," but the
> concepts of "original sin" and "redemption through Christ" _define_
> Christianity.  (I am refering to what people are taught in seminary,
> not what your arm-chair bible-thumper will say).

This is a very superficial and incomplete description.

> I've given this a lot of thought, and I can't accept the concept
> of Original Sin.  Humanity isn't perfect, but it is _not_ without

I think there is a contradiction here. The doctrine of original sin is
basically saying "humanity isn't perfect". It goes on to say that
humanity is not perfectable except through spiritual, or supernatural
connection. Only a few of the most radical and perverse Christians
have suggested that humanity has no redeeming features and/or contains
nothing good at all. It rather has to do with perfectability.

> redeeming features.  Moreover, I have seen some of humanity's flaws
> institutionalized in the Christian church (say, indulgences, the
> inquisitions and intolerance)

Well if you are going to judge the merits of any definable group by
looking at its most extreme weirdos in the distant past . . . then all
Englishmen are bad because King George III was an idiot. Indulgences
and inquisitions were recognized by the Church as bad and gotten rid
of. Intolerance is not a Christian doctrine or dogma, though love is.

There are intolerant Christians, intolerant Englishmen and Intolerant
Taoists. So what?

> Perhaps I could accept a form of 'lite Christianity' :-), but
> I've seen several Christian theologians tell me, in no uncertain
> terms, that 'Christianity without Original Sin' is _not_ Christianity,
> so I don't use that label anymore.

As soon as you understand "Original Sin" I don't think you'll have an
argument with it. You will (as do I) take exception to some of the
extremist interpretations of it, but the essence of the thing is not
so radical or odd. It is a recognition that we are not perfect *and* a
recognition that we are not adequate to perfect ourselves without the
divine assistance.

You might still disagree with that, but it is not the insidious
sillyness of 'everything human is bad and evil and without God there
is nothing good at all' of the extremist 'self-loathing' kind of view.

It is more a statement and acceptance of limitations to human nature
and the need for connection to the divine nature to get beyond those
limitations. 

It is different than the humanist view which sees man as the highest
order of being, does not admit a higher order of spiritual entities,
and argues that humanity can perfect itself.

But if we are going to talk about belief systems and doctrines, let us
get clear about what they really are and not judge billions of
people's beliefs on the basis of a few absurd perversions in their
number.

I mean you can do that if you want, but you aren't gonna come up with
a very accurate picture if you only look at the lunatic fringe in any
group.

Most religions need to be looked at in several different ways. You
have the history and the founding characters and ideas. You have the
history of the development within societies. You have the
institutional forms which grow up over time. You have schisms and
factions within the group. You have people stuck on prserving things
the way they were in grandma's time and you have people trying to
re-interpret the old verities into the changing historical
circumstances. You have closed minded authoritarians and open-minded
mystics. And you can't judge the whole phenomenon, nor the beliefs of
*all* its members simply by looking at one of its many manifestations.

Within Christianity, for example, the inquisition and indulgences
caused so much dissent and debate that the Reformation happened -
about half the Christians in Europe renounced and rejected that
direction and disaassociated themselves from it. It's called
Protestantism. It's still Christianity but it denounces indulgences
and the papacy as a matter of doctrine.

So you see, within your very criticism of Christianity you are
actually using ideas that are doctrines for some Christians.

I guess what I really want to say here is that Christianity, as
manifested in the world over the past two millenia contains such an
enormous variety that it is quite unfair to tar all Christians with
any one brush in most cases.

Things that you can pin on most all Christians would be belief in God,
belief in God's active intervention in human life, belief that
mankind needs God and can't do it on his own, and belief that Jesus of
Nazereth was sent by God to show people the way and 'save' people from
error.

=Doug
---

uuisis!skanadm!doug
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic