From: lm89@ecs.soton.ac.uk (McIlhoney L)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: References of Christianity
Date: 27 Jul 92 10:54:36 GMT



To those of you who are fed up of theological debates, page down:
we get to argue about Time Lords later on ...

In <1992Jul18.150321.20958@news.iastate.edu> trump@iastate.edu (Jennifer M Trumpy) writes:

>>Christians are also supposed to be against superstition.  It was
>>originally the Christian church that established places of learning
>>through the monasteries and later the universities.  I was originally
>>an atheist, but at the age of 17 I discovered a large body of historical
>>evidence, which overturned my (rather hysterical) rejection of Christianity
>>as a child.  What the Doctor rejected in "The Daemons" was a belief
>>in witchcraft - which the church also rejects (though it does acknowledge
>>it to contain potential danger).

>Ha. Thank you for giving me a good laugh.

Some are easily pleased, it seems!  :-)

>The only reason the church ever set
>up places of learning was because they were trying to cover their asses after
>setting off a war that killed millions(the holy war and the dark ages).

Oh, NOT to teach Christianity then?  Fine!  :-)
The Church didn't start a holy war.  Richard & Saladin did.  Then
as now, statesmen do these things for their own motives.  Are we
really to believe (for instance) Saddam Hussein made war in the gulf
out of love for the god he believes in?  A religion is a convenient
scapegoat.  Now, you're about to accuse _Christians_ of twisting
the facts, I believe ...  :-)

>The
>only historical evidence for religion is a small, shattered tablet found in
>the Dead Sea. Anything is else just something the occurred that people have
>twisted until it matches their beliefs.

There is more historical proof for the acts of Christ than there
is for the existence of Julius Caesar.  Scores of direct documents
and thousands of indirect documents.

And now, back to what we're REALLY arguing about!

>>> The Doctor is certainly good, but he is
>>>certainly not Christian. (Christianity is supposed to be the result of
>>>Christ coming down to Earth, not Gallifrey)
>>
>>Oh yes, I know!  I was just wondering if maybe the character of the
>>Doctor could believe in any kind of supreme being, and if he did,
>>would he follow him?  Where would the Doctor's morals come from?
>>That sort of thing ...

>How would a 'supreme being' follow a supreme being? If the Time Lords are
>basically in control (when you have time at your disposal, you are.), then why
>would they need anybody else? They are the most intelligent life forms in the
>Universe. They don't have any use for some explination to the beginning of the
>Universe, I'm sure they know, and we're awful damn close.

I think maybe Robert Holmes would feel a little put out if he could
read this!  The whole trend of the development of the Time Lord culture
in the TV Show (and also in the books) has been to show that while
they an immensely advanced civilisation, they are flawed, decadent,
and certainly not the omnipotent beings they first appear.

And as for the beginning of the Universe, have you noticed how many
leading physicists are beginning to accept the existence of God nowadays?

>>Come to think of it, Gallifrey does sound a bit like Galilee ...
>>
>>Just joking ...
>>Lawrence

>Did I just say something about twisting formerly fine ideas and occurances?
>Even if he said 'just joking', that sort of thing has been done by Bible
>Beaters for 2000 years.

I thought you said you'd had a good laugh at this?  I'm most disappointed
- there goes my career as a humourist ...    :-)

Lawrence