Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!jah From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: Pots and Pans Message-ID: <201@philabs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Dec-84 12:09:51 EST Article-I.D.: philabs.201 Posted: Fri Dec 21 12:09:51 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 24-Dec-84 02:41:17 EST References: <548@uwmacc.UUCP> <334@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY Lines: 106 > > Concerning wishful thinking and presuppositions: Rich continually > > brings these up, wishfully presupposing that my beliefs are based on > > the way I wishfully presuppose the way I would like the world to be. > > Such an argument must *always* fail in my case: Before I became a > > Christian, I was content. (At least I thought I was - I found out > > afterward that my "contentment" was a poor substitute for the peace > > of God - but I certainly had no motivation to change my beliefs > > because of any thoughts about the way I wished the world to be.) I > > have state this in previous articles. Since Rich seems not to be a > > careless reader, I am not sure why this argument is directed my way. > > Perhaps the postings never made it to his site. [DUBOIS] > > Without getting into the fallacy "I 'thought' I was happy, but now I've > been indoctrinated into something else and I 'realize' that I wasn't happy > even though that's how I felt", let me reiterate. Paul is consistently > claiming that *he* is not like other religious converts we've witnessed > in that his conversion wasn't based on fear or negative self-worth or ... In many ways I'm much like Paul in that I 'thought' I was happy and in many ways I was, but I was not 'fullfilled' whether I was happy or not. Everybody faces ups and downs in life, so the motivation for seeking the Lord is not so much the 'unhappiness', since we know that there's always an up after a down, but it is the lack of 'fullfillment' inside that leads us to the Lord. There's something missing...on the ups of life, as well as on the downs. And there's a yearning for less extremes and more even keals. There is a void that only God can fill; so we long to know Him and His ways. > Thus, one must assume that, if Paul was indeed "content", he must have > either been shown significant evidence that led him to radically alter his > beliefs, or else he had a (perhaps latent) prior alignment (through societal > indoctrination perhaps) to the newfound doctrines. In either case, he > accepted whatever evidence he found. If he was truly content (and truly > inquisitive) he would have asked the same questions and brought up the same > issues that others in the newsgroup have. The fact that he was apparently > satisfied with the answers means either: 1) he is as stringent as the rest > of us, and he had to have gotten answers that impressed him, 2) he is not > very stringent in his analysis, because he is gullible/stupid/etc., or 3) he >is not stringent in his analysis,because he had a vested interest in believing > the outcome to be a certain way. Since we've heard no incredible unheard of > answers reiterated by Paul, we can rule out (1). Why rule out (1) Rich??? What makes your investigation more stringent than Paul's? There's lots of information out there to support both positions. Josh McDowell's _Evidence that Demands a Verdict_, and how about the over- whelming evidence in the Shroud of Turin (somebody here at the Labs is on the committee investigating it's authenticity and the evidence looks pretty good in terms of the markings on it). What about preservation of Scripture and Jewish traditions??? What about all the 'Miracles'? You can explain them away all you like but that is just evidence of your attitude... guilty until proven innocent. My point is that you can be accused of the very same things that you accuse Paul of. > Assuming he's not gullible > or stupid or whatever, that means (3). I hope I'm not making assumptions based > on wishful thinking here... :-) This 'wishful thinking' kick that you're on is starting to get to me. I do not 'wish' to be a sinner, I do not 'wish' that there be only one way to God and I do not 'wish' that any should perish. Anyone who believes that I do, doesn't know me. Actually, I trust God to be merciful to all those who would have believed had they seen Jesus in the flesh and that's wishful thinking!!! > > The notion that a group of people, duped into believing an incredulous series > of wishful thinking lies, can declare to me and other thinking individuals in > this country (and world) what is "morally" right and wrong, what we can and > cannot do (based, not on the notions I've put forth hundreds of times--- > regarding minimal restrictions to provide maximal individual freedom---but > rather on arbitrary edicts that restrict people from doing things that these > "moral" people simply don't like), this notion is repugnant and dangerous. > If I can do one small thing to point out to just one person the fallacies in > the religious mindset, the dangers in allowing people with such mindsets to > formulate public policy for other innocent people, then I'd feel that the > "emotional release" (as Paul describes it) was worthwhile. If doing this > requires showing that the basis by which these people seek to justify their > manipulation is erroneous, or pointing out how they are telling lies or > obscuring the truth to pursue their own ends, then so be it. No, Paul, > you don't threaten my beliefs, much as you might like to think so. > (Projection?) The notion of millions like you deciding for me what my life > should be like threatens my very existence, and the existence of civilization. Neither do you threaten ours. I don't tell God what's right and wrong, I just try to listen. And it goes against my desires sometimes, but when the situation is past, I can see the benefits of acting in a certain way. I think, also, that this last statement of your preference is where all the blockage comes in. Nobody wants to give up a lifestyle that doesn't seem to be hurting anybody...but God wants us to live a certain way. And it turns out that God's way is beneficial to us...although, we find this out only after we start to attain towards it. It makes sense, though, that a person not accept something that goes against his current lifestyle, until he sees the damage that it is doing. I trust that God reveals these things to us to give us the choice...in time. I do not say 'believe'...I say, rather, 'when God speaks, listen'. He'll speak to you, if He hasn't all ready. Julie Harazduk {ihnp4|decvax}!philabs!jah And Simon Peter answered and said, ' thou art the Christ, the Son of living God.' And Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: For flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father which is in heaven.'