From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Nov 11 2002 - 16:40:22 EST
Actually, Jim, I was writing to Michael Roberts attempting to make a
few points.
If you do not mind, I'll use your text to illustrate my points.
Michael,
1.) First of all, I maintain that Christianity is not about the Bible. For
centuries the common Christian came to faith without it. If one listens to a
Billy Graham Crusade, you hear Billy Graham say many things like: "The Bible
says .. and According to the Bible .... and Following the Bible we hear that
....". At the end of the service, Billy Graham does not ask people to come
forward and accept the Bible as the Infallible word of God. Instead, he asks
people to come forward and accept Christ as their personal Saviour and Lord. I
maintain that people who loose faith because of a quarrel with some
interpretation of the Bible do not have their Faith based upon this personal
relationship. For example:
Jim Eisele wrote:
>
> Christianity of personal experience. Not to diminish anyone's personal
> experience, but that is very subjective.
Jim lost his struggle with his Infallible view of the Bible --- not with Billy
Graham type Christianity
2.) Second, I maintain that Agnosticism is a wimp's way out of taking
a position
and living in the "best" of all worlds -- a world where everyone else may be
criticized while he or she is taking no position to defend. The
agnostic has God
"should he exist " showing no disfavour towards him, while he is free to do
whatever he wants by formulating his own view of an acceptable lifestyle. I
lived with these wimps for a period of 5 years at the Agnostic Capital of the
U.S. (M.I.T.). Thanks to them, however, I was forced to abandon canned
philosophies and search for the truth whatever it might be. A sample of this
Agnostic thinking is articulated by Jim Eisele as:
> Agnosticism provides all of the freedom that you need. If there is a God,
> he would seem to reward agnosticism.... Not having your life (more or less)
> controlled by the church opens up opportunities, financial and otherwise.
Life is wonderful in Disneyland.
3.) Lastly, I contend that agnosticism is personally falsifiable. Since
agnosticism claims that both atheism and theism are viable world views, one
needs to become a STRONG atheist to prove that is not true. ( I don't
mean these
watered down "free thought" alliances with "weak atheists", agnostics and
humanists, which avoid facing the consequences of true strong
atheism.) Just try
being an strong atheist for an extended period of time. Say there is no God and
live your life as through that were absolutely true. Shake off all moral
principles and go for the gusto. Wallow in things that used to be "sin" and
plunder whenever you cannot be caught. You may have to be a hypocrite so that
your peers don't see your lack of morals but the financial gain will be worth
it. Try to ignore that funny feeling in your gut and avoid throwing up. If you
cannot actually do it physically, do it in your mind daily. When through with
this exercise, atheism is down the tubes and agnosticism necessarily follows
with it.
IMHO
What say you and others?
----------------------------
Jim,
No offence intended.
------------------------------
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 12 2002 - 11:04:36 EST