[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

[No Limberger]

>Geoff:
>From my experience I have known many people who claim
>to be atheists or agnostics or whatever but who avoid
>seriously tackling the question of what Christian faith
>is really about and use red herrings as diversionary
>tactics in discussion so as not to have to consider
>faith in real depth.

No.Limberger responds:
I am occasionally in situations in which someone with
strong religious convictions takes over a conversation
in an effort to quote from the bible and/or proselytize.
I, and others that I know who have been in similar situations,
often want to avoid an argument and either say nothing,
walk away to end the conversation or attempt to change
the subject.

Religious beliefs or the lack thereof are a very personal
choice best left to each individual.  Unfortunately, followers
of exclusive religions (such as Christianity) can come
to view themselves as being superior to everyone else
and can sometimes take it upon themselves to proselytize
and/or criticize others' beliefs that are different from theirs
and may do this very subtly or without understanding
what their statements may imply.  For example, comments
such as "true faith" imply that a faith different from theirs is
not true.  And, if not true, then there is no reason for them
to have any regard for it or those who believe it.  When
religious people use potentially insulting language such as
this, either deliberately or naively, then the likelihood that
others will be interested in what they say drops dramatically.

>Geoff wrote:
>I think the fact that Paul makes references to his
>experiences ought to substantiate the facts.

No.Limberger responds:
So if you get pulled over for a speeding ticket and
you tell the cop that you were only driving 63 in a
60 mph zone, but you were really doing 73, do you
expect your comments alone with no witnesses to
back you up to be believed?  Even the bible clearly
states that "at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the
mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be
established" (Deut 19:15).  Given that there is no
other claim outside of the bible regarding Paul's
alleged supernatural vision, then, no, it is hardly
substantiated.

>Geoff wrote
>The fact that Paul's writings pre-date the gospels is
>not really relevant to the above.

No.Limberger responds:
The fact that someone who never actually met Jesus,
but became the architect of Christianity (not anyone
who actually did know him, if he ever actually existed),
does not make for a strong foundation.  Additionally,
the fact that the canonical gospels were not written
until more than 40 years after the events allegedly
occurred, makes their claims more likely to be
inaccurate, biased and non-factual.  Further, given
that much of the material in the gospels appears
to plagiarize ancient Egyptian writings and beliefs
about other Pagan deities, this too has a tendency
to disqualify what is written in them as having actually
occurred.

-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]