Re: virus: Ho Ho Ho-Hum

Eric Boyd (6ceb3@qlink.queensu.ca)
Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:51:07 -0500


Hi,

>So - my Uncles - Father Bob and Father Ray Roh, have started
>e-mailing me quite a bit. Seems they stumbled onto some of
>my rather, um, uncomplimentary religious writings on the web.

Could we have your web-page address please?

---snip---
>I need something
>new that they have probably not seen before. I do care about
>these guys, so I dont want to cause any family aches.
>If anyone has ny idea, I'm listening.

I have a few ideas:

1) Try something outrageous. Claim you've been converted to some
"insane bogus" religion and attempt to convince them to join as well.
(I recommend: The Invisible Pink Unicorn). Explain to them how the
apparent problems of the religion are explained by this and that crazy
story (e.g. she is both pink AND invisible becuase she is one unicorn
but two persons!)[1]... this works best if you're creative and wacky.

2) Try going ultimatly simple. Ask questions which appear so simple,
yet are hard to answer if one assumes total biblical innerrancy (if
this is what your Uncles do). e.g. Who carried Jesus's cross? (John
18:17 vs. Matt 27:32) Are we saved by works, or by faith alone?
(James contradicts Paul/Saul) Why, if the kingdom of God was "at
hand" 2000 years ago, did it not come? What actually happened,
exactly, on easter? Insist that there is a truth to these questions,
and enquire as to why the bible can't get it straight? This strategy
is most effective if you also pick *important* issues.

3) one word: theodicy (the problem of evil) (this is probably the
"old" arguments you were referring to, eh?)

4) Here's a research one I intend to get working on: read the gnostic
accounts of Jesus and research the council which voted on
inclusion/exclusion. Ask why this or that account is not just as good
as the story we have now. i.e. how did the early church fathers
decide which was true and which was *utterly* false? I expect this
will have more effect on Catholics than others, since it WAS their
orginization which did the purging in the early years. If popes and
priests aren't infallable now, how can we be sure they were then?

ERiC
[1] If I'm right, a priest will immediate see this for what it is -- a
jab at the trinity doctrine. However, HE will now be in the place you
are effectively in: he can't tell you it's bullshit without
dissrespecting your "religious beliefs". Claim it's a mystery of the
faith. (it's hard to keep a straight face with this one...)