BOUNCE: Altered & Resent
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Sun, 14 Dec 1997 23:19:39 -0800 (00882191979, 2.2.32.19971215071939.0069320c@midwest.net)
Greg, Nancy, and James Todd wrote:
>
>
> NANCY
> Well, Claire, all you have done is toss out an xxsubstantiated criticism. If
> some members of this list are, as you claim, uncritically parroting atheist
> dogmas then you ought to provide us with some examples.
CLAIRE
I already have. The transubstantiation discussion was an example of
this. It seemed that Jim Washburn was saying that I was incapable of
critical thought, simply because I accepted the Catholic doctrine of
transubstantiation.
What about people assuming I was "brainwashed" in my Bible studies,
before they even knew what my commentaries had to say about the Bible?
> CLAIRE
> > Also, I hope that these people might
> >eventually question their own doctrines and show some open-mindedness
> >toward Christians (is this blind faith on my part?)
>
> NANCY
> Claire, you seem not to realize that most of the atheists on this list were
> xtians at one time, some of them bible-thumping inerrantists. Opening our
> minds is what led us to abandoning god-beliefs.
CLAIRE
I also think that some of the people on this list are unfairly
prejudiced against Christians.
> >CLAIRE
> >The principal doctrines that some atheists seem to believe are:
> >(1) Anyone who believes in God (especially a Christian) is a deluded
> >superstitious ignoramus, who is incapable of rational thinking (in ANY
> >area, not just the "God-area").
>
> NANCY
> I don't think the last part of this statement is an accurate. It has been
> stated by atheists on this list repeatedly during the 6 months I have
> xxxscribed that xtians are quite capable of critically examining the
> scriptures of other religions, but they are unwilling to apply the same
> techniques to their own religion. But I certainly do think that people who
> believe in God are deluded and superstitious. Faith is not rational.
>
> CLAIRE
> >(2) Anything having to do with Christianity (e.g., the Promise Keepers)
> >MUST BE BAD, simply by virtue of its association with Christianity.
>
> NANCY
> I think the criticisms of PK voiced on this list have been very specific,
> aimed primarily at the PKs tenet of submission of women. Personally, I don't
> see much of anything in PK that is positive, but then, I don't see much good
> in xtianity in any form. As a humanist I not only don't find the xtian
> degradation of the human race to be very uplifting, I find it to be
> abhorrent and dangerous. I don't see any justice in someone being punished
> for the wrongs of another. I don't see any value in worshiping a cruel,
> vicious, murderous, vengeful, genocidal deity. There is little in xtianity
> to recommend it, and much to cause a rational thinker to reject it (along
> with other superstitious and supernatural beliefs).
CLAIRE
There was a good article in US News and World Report about the Promise
Keepers. Many of the men who joined the Promise Keepers did so at the
urging of their wives. Most of the women interviewed for the article
were very pleased with the changes in their husbands. The wives did not
feel subjugated; they said that their husbands were helping out around
the house more and were much more attentive to them and their children.
> >CLAIRE
> >A corollary to both (1) and (2) would be that any historical information
> >that would appear to make Christianity "look good" (such as evidence
> >that the historical Jesus really existed,
>
> NANCY
> Evidence of a historical Jesus would not lend much support to the existence
> of the legendary Jesus. Compared to the evidence for the historical Jesus,
> there is a myraid of evidence for the historical Julius Caesar, but that
> doesn't add credence to Suetonius's report that divine figures descended
> upon his funeral pyre and lit it. There is much evidence of the historical
> Alexander the Great and the historical Augustan, but no rational person
> believes that either was really born of a virgin, although the historical
> record states that both men were.
CLAIRE
The reason I mentioned "the historical Jesus" is that several people on
this list seem to think that there never was an historical Jesus.
> CLAIRE
> or that Christianity was
> >actually much better for women than paganism was) must be (a) fabricated
> >by some conspiracy (b) otherwise untrue, even if not intentionally
> >fabricated.
>
> NANCY
> The historical record speaks for itself, and xtianity doesn't come out
> looking very good, especially the RC variety.
CLAIRE
The sociologist Rodney Stark (who may be an atheist) has an entire
chapter in his book on how Christianity was MUCH better for women than
paganism was. I don't have time right now, but I can reproduce that
entire chapter if you would like.
~Claire O'Connor
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net