Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcnc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!bch
From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Fundamentalism Revisited -- A Radical [Heretical] perspective
Message-ID: <2434@mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Dec-84 01:31:38 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.2434
Posted: Mon Dec 17 01:31:38 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Dec-84 02:13:29 EST
References:  <2401@mcnc.UUCP> 
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 74
Summary: 

In article  pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes:
>
>Although this is a critique, I want to say that I am offering
>it in the spirit of reasonable discussion.  Please try not to read
>any vituperative intent into what I write here.  We have got to
>find a way to disagree with one another without descending into
>the pettiness and personal attack that is common fare in net.religion.
>In net.religion we have come to expect hostility.  Let's no carry
>those expectations into this group or they will become self fulfilling
>prophecy.

Genuine critique is always acceptable.  I would not have posted the
referenced article if I did not expect it.  I offered my heterodox views
of Bob's five points precisely in the spirit of reasonable discussion as
a contrast to the more mainstream points of view represented by Bob and
Charley.  I am surprised that so little discussion has taken place.
I agree with Paul completely about trying to avoid the hostility that
marks net.religion.  I assume that each point of view expressed here is
the result of a honest and heartfealt search for some form of truth much
like my own.  I am also hoping that questions will be honestly and
directly asked, rather than being loaded as they often are in net.religion.
If we all restrain ourselves a bit, we'll do just fine.
 
>The main fault I see with Byron's view is that it seems to reject
>rational and evidential bases for belief totally in favor of empirical
>(sensory) and existential ones.  When this is done beliefs slip their
>anchor in reality.  At least it makes any attempt at defining
>what it means to be a Christian (disciple of Christ) futile.

Paul continues with a critique which goes far beyond the point of the
original article -- to initiate discussion of the five Fundamentalist
points.  A complete response to his critique would go far beyond the
polite length of a netnews article.  I will respond here to the above
paragraph, then divide my response to his critique into several
articles to be posted over the next week or so.

First, I don't know what Paul means by rational and evidential.
I don't know what is irrational and non-evidential about my basis for
belief, at least any more so than more orthodox beliefs.  I presume,
perhaps wrongly, that any adopted belief system must correspond to
some extent with the believer's internal and external perception of
reality.  If not, then it cannot be accepted.  Melodrama excepted,
I do not seriously believe that many people are "converted" to a
belief system diametrically opposed to something they have believed
a very short while before.  Usually there is some preparation.

True, I regard the canonical Christian writings as to some extent
suspect (more on this in a later article.)  This does not mean I reject
them entirely.  Rather, I merely exercise the right of interpretation
that the offices of the various orthodox churches seem to have held as
their perogative.  Similarly, I reserve the right to extend
interpretation to non-canonical sources, not because they are any more
or less right than canonical sources, but because they may add to the
paucity of information provided by canonical sources.  It is difficult
for me to believe that a Christian, in coming to an understanding of
the faith, would ignore historical facts regarding the canonization
process.  This doesn't mean I think the process points out grounds for
rejecting the canonical view, just that it is yet more information on
which to draw conclusions.

Finally, I cannot reject the testimony of the senses with respect to my
faith.  I am surrounded by miracles each day.  Charley Wingate says
that the Deity is somehow "outside" the universe.  My senses tell me
differently.  Birds fly, baking bread smells good, grass grows (in
summer, this may be a miracle I can well do without) I see, feel,
taste, smell and hear.  I cannot separate this very living testimony
from the more abstract intellectual processes of faith.  Again, more on
that in a future article.  Let it serve for now to say that for me, the
Promise is fulfilled each day.

-- 

						Byron C. Howes
				      ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch