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.