Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:06:00 -0700
From: Marie Foster <mfos@ieway.com>
Subject: Re: virus: Jesus of Nazareth
> Cathy has left the room. I take my life in my hands by leaping in
here
> but could you agree that the myth or the reality of the existence of a
> human being named X having lived at some time in the past is not
> particularly relevant? I think that Cathy believes that He was a real
> person. You do not. I figure that any argument will not convince
> either of you.
I've been thinking about the nature of faith too... it seems to me that
the entire idea of requiring an argument just doesn't fit into the
Christian world-view -- one is supposed to accept it without questions.
So I'm thinking that even if someone does convince me (and it is
possible -- if you could point to your God, I'd believe!) I don't think
that would make me a Christian -- although I agree it would start me
down the path towards "faith".
> If reason is to prevail in any discussion I think it is best to find a
> point of agreement and go from there.
> I don't mind a fight as long as it is a clean fight.
I'm interested in the idea of starting from the assumption that there is
a Christian meme -- as I see it, the believer would then have to
convince me that that meme originated from Jesus -- a very difficult
task indeed!
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:07:31 -0400
From: Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>
Subject: Re: virus: Jesus of Nazareth
> I think that ERiC, if provided evidence of Christs existence that
he
> could accept, would change his view. Cathy, on the other hand, even if
> taken back in time and witnessing the entire "hoax" (I say this as a
> what-if case) would still believe, in in the face of incontrovertible
> evidence to the contrary.
... no, she admitted that if we could show it was wrong, she would stop
believing. Or, at least, she *said* she would -- I do have doubts.
> I don't want to talk behind Cathy's back, so lets consider this to be
a
> difference in perspective. I think ERiC's perspective is more flexible
> in that it will change to fit existing evidence regardless of
emotional
In an ideal world -- yes. Sadly, I've found that my emotions get caught
up in the fray too. We are our memes, after all.
> encumbrances. I think person "C" has a perspective that discards
> evidence it does not like, regardless of validity. Neither is flawed,
I
> simply prefer the former.
I'd be tempted to argue that "C"'s position is dangerous -- here's a few
quotations to back me up:
Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very
first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always
and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence
which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering
and uncertain. -- Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)(My Struggle)
The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this
world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which,
fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its
will against all others. -- Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)(My Struggle)
It is the "conviction" that one is right that is dangerous -- it allows
one to perform all manner of evil, and believe that one is "doing the
work of the Lord" -- when, if they stepped back to think about it -- to
actually *look* at what they are doing (the evidence) -- they would
realize their mistakes.
ERiC