Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:rsk
From: rsk@pucc-h (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: If that's all there is, my friend...
Message-ID: <1268@pucc-h>
Date: Thu, 27-Sep-84 12:01:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.1268
Posted: Thu Sep 27 12:01:12 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Sep-84 07:33:42 EDT
References: <302@uwmacc.UUCP>, <1196@pucc-h> <1226@pucc-h>, <1155@pyuxn.UUCP> <1260@pucc-h>
Organization: Purdue, THE Indiana University
Lines: 63


>> Rich Rosen (pyuxn!rlr)
>  Jeff Sargent (pucc-h!aeq)

>> I've said it before.  I'll say it again.  Because Jeff sees no purpose for
>> living if "that's all there is", he *assumes* that there MUST be something
>> external, otherwise HE would see NO purpose in HIS life.

> I've said it before, I'll say it again:  YOU LIE -- or at least you are
> passing on a lie which you have been deceived into believing.  You've got it
> backwards.  Christians *know* deep inside themselves that "that" isn't all
> there is.  You are the ones who assume that this experience is not valid and
> that there is no God to whom we are relating who brings meaning, purpose,
> foundation, strength, healing to our lives.  You speak of subjectivity with
> contempt -- WHY??  What's wrong with it?

	Jeff, aside from the fact that you insulted Rich Rosen for (apparently)
	no reason, and then rambled off into "subjectivity", I did slog through
	this far enough to note that you once again completely missed the point.
	Try re-reading Rich's article again; he points out, quite correctly,
	that you have made the assumptions you find necessary to find a purpose
	in life.  Period.  QED.

> Doug Dickey points out that the scientific method looks at all reality as
> objects.  Thus, people are also objects; the observer himself is merely an
> object.  You LIKE this world-view?

	Makes no difference whether one likes it or not; I don't like it
	very much; however, I see no evidence whatsoever for any other view,
	and it is the simplest one that explains the available data.  Therefore,
	I suscribe to this view, in a philosophical way.

>> I feel sorry for Jeff if he
>> has such a low opinion of physical life and "the physical body" that he
>> feels the way he does about there having to be something else.

> You've never seemed to have a high opinion of it; you've written that all the
> good in us, all the intelligence, the creativity, the wisdom, the intuition,
> the emotions, are all only biochemistry; and I'm pretty sure you have in the
> past used "only" or a similar word, indicating low position.
> 
> However, again you have things backwards.  Actually, there didn't HAVE to be
> any physical universe at all; God just chose to create it, for reasons I
> certainly don't claim to know.  We didn't HAVE to exist, but we do.  And we
> don't HAVE to have a relationship with God, trusting and following Him.  If
> we choose not to trust Him, we will bear the consequences, even in this life
> ("Do not be deceived; God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, he will also
> reap" -- Galatians 6:1 [I think], approximate quote).

	Off into random ramblings again; can't you stick to a subject?
	Anyway, you certainly don't seem to feel that the HERE and NOW is
	enough; I think Rich was just pointing that out, as I did in another
	article...do you deny this?
-- 
---Rsk

UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs  } !pur-ee!rsk
      { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk

And in all your pomp and glory,
You're a poorer man than me,
As you lick the boots of death,
Born out of fear.