Subject: Re: Christianity Question In article <1989Nov1.013221.20377@agate.berkeley.edu>,

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: AIN14922@merrimack.edu (Doug Linder) Subject: Re: Christianity Question In article <1989Nov1.013221.20377@agate.berkeley.edu>, conan@herb-ox.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes: > In article <1989Oct31.234237.5143@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> markl@uokmax.UUCP (Mark A. Lindsay) writes: >>Why does someone have to hear of Jesus to be saved? After all, if you are on >>the right road, does it matter if you know the name of the road? I find it >>hard to accept that you must: 1) love God, 2) love your neighbor and 3) >>accept Jesus. It seems to me that doing the first two implies the third, This question was one of the first (though ceratinly not the last) questions which I as a young person first posed as I began to realize how stupid religion was. The point is, there is no answer. It is just another of the zillion-and-a-half direct self-contradictions contained within the bible and christian doctrine. My point is this: there is an inherent, logical conflict between the two doctrines, they are mutually exclusive. If we assume - ONLY for the sake of argument - that god exists and he is benevolent, then it cannot be true that one must be baptised and/or accept christ in order to be "saved." Do you see? It wouldn't be very 'benevolent' of the christian god to damn to hell innocent tribespeople for the sole crime of never having heard of him. Would that be very fair? Clearly, it would not be. > These alternatives help to reconcile two points of scripture: that > God wanted all to be saved, and that Baptism is necessary for salvation. I don't quite follow the two 'different' types of baptism that are described here, but they ceratinly don't, IMO, seem to 'reconcile' two irreconcilable points. It sounds suspiciously to me like just another in a long list of "bible errata" created somewhere along to the line to convieniently explain these contradictions to people who (since they are religious) are dumb enough to accept them. It is a pretty convenient religion, it seems to me, when people can just make up bits and peices along the way to suit their purpose. After all, the entire church heirarchy is made-up. I am not a bible or history scholar, but if I'm not mistaken the offices of pope, bishop, cardinal, etc were never mentioned in the bible but were made up later by a Roman emperor - yet christians still eat it up. C'mon, people, when are you gonna wake up and smell the coffee? Religion is a farce. It has only been around for so long not because it is true, but it is a great way to control people. It logically makes no sense at all. When you have enough guts to face the world on your own, crutchless, and accept responsibility for your own successes and failures, then you have truly "seen the light." The light of day, not reflections from a hypnotist's coin. "Believe in yourself. All the rest is rehtoric from people who only want to take your freedom - intellectual and otherwise - for themselves." - Me -- Douglas D. Linder, Merrimack College, N. Andover, MA Atheist and proud. CSNET: ain14922@merrimack.edu UUNET: {uunet,bbn,ulowell}!samsung!hubdub!ain14922 I do not speak for Merrimack and they do not speak for me. "By the cold and religious we were taken in hand - shown how to feel good, and told to feel bad." - Roger Waters

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank