Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Sargent on reality vs. illusion, etc. Message-ID: <1168@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Oct-84 14:01:31 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.1168 Posted: Mon Oct 1 14:01:31 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Oct-84 07:42:26 EDT References: <4011@tekecs.UUCP>, <499@ames.UUCP> <1138@pucc-h>, <1123@pyuxn.UUCP>, <1215@pucc-h>, <970@trwrba.UUCP> <1277@pucc-h> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 99 >>All you have are very old testaments of what people say happened; not >>tangible evidence that we can see and touch and analyze. [JOHN NELSON] > There is of course the empty tomb near Jerusalem. [SARGENT] There are empty tombs all over the world. Those who choose to believe accounts of those spreading a religion (i.e., its "advertising agency") just because it suits their preconceptions should realize what they are doing. First, assume there is a god. Then assume that it sent a human to earth as its child. Then assume that all "evidence" (third party accounts, testimony of biased "witnesses") furthers this claim, without of course examining the evidence objectively, and POOF! in your mind, the proof is obvious! > No one has yet backed up the claim that physical evidence is the BEST or the > only valid convincer. Why this urge to view human beings -- those wonderful, > ambiguous, irreproducible [in the laboratory sense, obviously] creatures -- > as no more than lab specimens? [SARGENT] In what sense are human beings MORE than "lab specimens", more than "objects" (a term you used in another article), more than physical entities? Because YOU are one, and because it would make YOU feel more important if it were so?? Or is there some other reason for thinking this? Again, we are dealing with the crux here: wishing to believe certain things (humans are more than objects, there is justice and order in the world of a type that I perceive and desire) is assumed by some to make those things true and real. > There is no physical evidence that God does not exist. Agreed. I don't deny the possibility of the existence of a deity, I simply deny the notion that your claims to having witnessed or experienced such a deity have any real substance other than your wishful thinking. > Actually, I was referring to the changes in lives of people who are alive > today. For instance, many people have been ruining their lives with drugs, > then turned to Christ and been immediately (or at least quickly) freed from > their drug habits. My case is not quite so dramatic, but if you think I'm > intolerable now, you should have known me 10 years ago! God's love has > enabled (is enabling) me to be gradually freed of all that prevents me from > loving Him and loving those around me. Or could it have been YOU who changed yourself? Or do you deny the possibility that YOU (a creation of god?) are good enough and worthy enough and capable enough to perform such a task? If a deity is responsible for the way you are, aren't you denying the power of that deity when you claim that it must intervene in your life to cause things to happen, rather than it having created you with the power to change yourself? Isn't it just wishing to hope that a god will come and save you (like waiting for a prince(ss) to do the same???) when you should be doing it yourself? You know I myself don't believe in the notion of a deity responsible for the universe, but if one exists you are belittling its power by claiming it must invoke a superzap program on your life to fix it up, when it could have built you to "fix" yourself. Obviously I believe that humans and their incredible capabilities evolved by natural processes. You can believe what you like. Just think about your reasons for doing so. >>Besides, many people have >>experienced changes in their lives without some intervention by God. > This is true. On the other hand, again, many have experienced changes in > their lives *with* intervention by God -- though He doesn't force His aid > on anyone. How do you distinguish the difference when the source of the "knowledge" of the difference is the subjective mind? (And PLEASE don't redundantly ask what's wrong with subjectivity, unless you have some further points to make about subjectivity that we haven't heard.) > If one is genuinely > questioning -- open to whatever the right answer turns out to be -- then it > is certainly neither rebellious nor sinful to have questions about God. > However, if one's questions are actually based, not on curiosity or love, but > on some less creditable motive -- on some desire to hang onto yourself rather > than give yourself to God so He can give your real self back to you -- I would > count that rebellious, and I would not be surprised if you got no answer. It sounds like you "require" a less than objective basis for asking questions. If you ask because you want to get closer to god (and thus assume the existence of god), then that is good. If not, then that is a "less creditable motive". Remember that asking questions while assuming the conclusion you desire does not make for correct answers. > Jesus replied "Blessed are you, because flesh and blood have not revealed this > to you, but my Father in heaven" -- a one-line comment on physical evidence), And what a one-line comment it is: it simply shows how the bible describes the importance of "non-physical evidence". It comments little on its usefulness. I think we've already gone into that. But if comments out of the Bible are your basis for judging "non-physical evidence", isn't that a bit circular? > Pardon this rambling detour, but I thought it would be nice to point out how > God can take even the flakiest person and, with His unflagging love and power, > turn him or her into a vastly different, much stronger and better person. No comment. -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr