Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!jejones From: jejones@ea.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: If that's all there is, my frien Message-ID: <22200002@ea.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Sep-84 19:56:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ea.22200002 Posted: Fri Sep 28 19:56:00 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 1-Oct-84 03:44:40 EDT References: <1260@pucc-h.UUCP> Lines: 23 Nf-ID: #R:pucc-h:-126000:ea:22200002:000:1240 Nf-From: ea!jejones Sep 28 18:56:00 1984 /***** ea:net.religion / pucc-h!aeq / 12:08 am Sep 26, 1984 */ 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? /* ---------- */ Because those of us who lack this "knowledge" observe that there people who have it can be partitioned into more than one equivalence class, the members of any one of which "know deep inside themselves" things which the members of the rest of them vehemently deny. How can one therefore consider any such claims as being likely to have any validity? All the people of each group seem equally sincere/vehement. Lacking the Great Pumpkin to choose the most sincere group (and even then, one would have a hard time verifying that the Great Pumpkin was who He says He is), what can one do save conclude that subjective knowledge is simply unreliable? James Jones