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