NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/religion/misc/21227

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 3.4 KB

Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:21227 alt.atheism:21370
Path: sparky!uunet!know!mips2!news.bbn.com!noc.near.net!news.Brown.EDU!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!psinntp!psinntp!newstand.syr.edu!rodan.acs.syr.edu!dwjurkat
From: [e-mail] (Jurkat)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:32:34 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Lines: 51

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gerry Palo) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jurkat) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Young) writes:
>>>[e-mail] (Gerry Palo) writes:
>>>:
>>>: Your observations are well taken.  I have nothing against public schools as
>>>: such, or even schools that present a diversity of views.  Unfortunately,
>>>: public schools do not present a diversity of views.  You will not learn any-
>>>: thing there about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Quakerism, the Bible,
>>>: the Koran, or the Tao te Ching.  The only references are of an historical
>>>: or anthropological point of view.  This is not necessarily a wrong approach
>>>: for some people, perhaps the majority of them.  But it should not be called
>>>: diversity.
>>>
>>>Believe it or not, there are other types of diversity than just the
>>>religious kind.
>>>--
>>If you feel that strongly about it maybe they could teach that "stuff"
>>in English Lit. class, you know under the category of fiction.
>>On second thought there is a whole lot of much better fiction available.
>>So it really is a good thing that we don't have to read inferior and often
>>poorly written moralistic claptrap.
>
>I get the feeling that you have never read the Tao te Ching or the
>Baghavad Gita or the Confessions of St. Augustine.  Or for that matter
>Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua, or the Journal of George Fox or even
>the C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters.  You may not agree with them but
>I don't think that even someone as skeptical as you could read them
>and characterize them as "poorly written moralistic claptrap".
>
>I may be wrong on this.
>
>Cordially,
>Gerry Palo

You are right, I did not read those particular texts and the first two
are considered classics in that subject area.  So I do appologize for
comming down so hard on them.  However I did say "often"
and not "all".  My reasons for not reading a lot of religious/moralistic
texts is that I consider them harmful to a healthy mind.  Sort of like
garbage in garbage out.  When I said "poorly written" I was thinking of
things like "God made the world in six days" (Bible), that the world is
3000 years old, etc. things that we know are outright lies.
I am not adverse to reading texts that are
philosophical (works by Kant, Aristotle, etc.).  At least there you
work with reason and you don't get sent to hell for disobeying irrational
"laws".  Also being based on reason they can be checked for fallacies,
contradictions, and even compared with other philosophical systems.
Religion on the other hand is set in stone:  God(s) said this, and
that's the way it is, so there.  I also include mysticism with religion
since it deals with uniting yourself with God.