In a message dated April 9, 1998, Bsmith5044 writes:

Don't be surprised when I say that I must agree with Brian (and others) on this one. David pointed out in a prior e-mail that he did not accept the claim that man's soul survives his death in some kind of 'afterlife'. In fact, I believe David even agreed with my statement that belief in an afterlife can only cheapen man's value of this life on earth (i.e., his only life).

However, belief in an afterlife is one of the core premises of Christianity. The basic rudiments of Christianity invariably include (but are not restricted to): a) belief in a god, and b) the doctrine of the immortality of man's soul.

Without the doctrine of immortality of man's soul, Christianity would be pointless (in fact, it is pointless, since both the basic rudiments mentioned above are arbitrary claims, that is: they are completely untenable rationally, but that's besides my present point).

If one rejects the doctrine of the immortality of man's soul, which I believe David did in a recent post, how can he call himself a Christian? In fact, when David was asked to reconcile his rejection of the doctrine of the immortality of man's soul with his calling himself a Christian, he asked in response: "Reconcile what?"

Again, my conclusion is that this individual is indulging in head games (perhaps he's taking his "transpersonal" view of mythological metaphors on a new tangent) or he's just as irrational as he sounds (because he's taking his "transpersonal" view of mythological metaphors on a new tangent). If so, perhaps he should isolate the principle of his beloved "boy-cried-wolf" story, or eventually none of us will take him seriously at all.

Brian also made the following comments in response to David's apparent confusion about Christianity:

I picked up on this twist of wording, too. I don't know if this were a Freudian slip or a Clintonian spin (I can say it, too, because I didn't vote for the guy!).

Agreed.

Tindrbox

_________________________________