Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcc6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!celerity!sdcc6!ix415
From: ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: The true God lives in the real
Message-ID: <2256@sdcc6.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 04:18:50 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc6.2256
Posted: Tue Oct 22 04:18:50 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 01:46:40 EST
References: <667@utastro.UUCP> <-145727674@sysvis> <2210@sdcc6.UUCP> <1939@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 238
Summary: But what about the Life of Brian ...

In article <1939@pyuxd.UUCP>, rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
> 
> Very sure.  I have more than passingly familiar with the work of Terry
> Gilliam with and without Monty Python, and interviews with him about this
> movie confirm what I have said about your ironic misconception.
> 
I've never seen any of them (Monty Python) or Terry Gilliam being
interviewed and I have few doubts that you aren't right in saying that
there portrayal of God was satirical.  But maybe the irony at least
works both ways.  Can I at least have that much?
> 
> > Is that something to be proud of?  Consistently saying something?
> 
> Well, it is when you claim he was waffling back and forth when in fact he
> hadn't.  Proud that the only way to debunk his position is seemingly
> to tell lies about it.  (Another thing I am more than passingly familiar
> with, from experience.)
> 
If you're going to insult me and call me a liar, at least do it for
something that I said.  I've never said Paul hasn't been consistent,
I've been hammered over the head with his consistency which is great.
And I have no idea what 'lies' you're referring to so either clarify or
make sure that the person you're writing to is the one responsible for
the actions of which you accuse them.

> > Paul has in no way provided any evidence whatsoever 
> > proving God to have done anything.  His entire argument that God isn't
> > the ultimate creator is that we can ask since nothing can come out of
> > nothing, God must have been created.  And that's a convincing argument?
> 
> You mean it isn't?  What scenarios have YOU come up with that are better.
> 
Woah, what does this have to do with Paul's argument being convincing.
You made a simple statement that Paul's arguments were convincing.
Asking aboout my arguments has nothing to do with that assertion.  My
solution might not be any more convincing, in your eyes it might be
ludicrous, but we were talking about your description of Paul's
arguments and their plausibility, not mine.  What in Paul's arguments
convinces you?
> 
> I don't recall Paul saying ANYTHING about evolution, so it would seem that,
> as with your conclusion about Time Bandits, you are engaging in wishful
> thinking again.  (Correct me if I'm wrong, Paul.)  

Can't I correct you?  Read Paul's response to me and you can see where
he responds to my questioning him about evolution and the existence of
God.  Don't worry about this one though, I know how hard it is to get
excited about keeping up with someone else's arguments.
> 
> > Winner of the out of context quote of the month.  The line you quoted is 
> > from the Bible and the actual words are my paraphrase in response to 
> > a discussion about the evil in people's hearts and what the Bible had to say
> > about it.
> 
> Make that IN context quote of the month!  I repeat the question that Rick was
> answering above in '>>>':
> 
> >>>> 	But this still doesn't say that humanity is *by* *nature*
> >>>> wicked, only that at that particular time essentially all men were
> >>>> *acting* wickedly.
> 
> His claim was that to "prove" that humanity is by nature wicked, look
> in "every thought and intent of your heart".  I repeat: this is a contemptuous
> and presumptuous notion, that may very well apply to Rick (or he may just
> perceive things that way), but he cannot speak for the rest of humanity.

And again while you tried to pass off my quoting the Bible as me
actually speaking, that is not my quote.  If I quoote Shakespeare, are
those now my words just because I said them?  Christ said that you're
heart and my hearts were evil in every thought and intention.  You
accused me of saying that and of being presumptious.  I didn't say look
into your own heart and see if that was true (like you say I do), I was
referring to a question about what the Bible says about the nature of
man.  I made no comment to individual people.  There's absolutely
no convolution of logic or meaning that can get you out of this one (I
can't wait to see you try though).  Whether or not I agree with it,
Christ still said it.  I could have posted it to laugh at or to use it
to accuse you but either way, Christ made the claim and Christ is the
presumptious one.
> 
> I don't claim that people are all always absolutely wonderful and kind.
> To do so would be factually wrong.  But likewise, it would be equally wrong
> to assert (as you do) that the converse is true.  The way people act is
> based on their perceptions of their needs.  

You're absolutely right except for saying that I say people are evil all
the time.  Christ talks about earthly fathers giving good gifts to their
children and about sinners loving those that are kind to them so it's
not so much a statement about absolute evil in outward action as it is
in behavior being determined by exactly the means you listed.  God calls
us to determine our behavior with every thought and intention focused on
Him.  To not do that is 'evil'.
> 
> >  Secondly, while I believe what the Bible says, I didn't say it.  God did. 
> > If you want to complain to someone about criticizing people, talk to God.
> 
> It is only your assertion that (1) there is a god at all, (2) that god is
> of the specific type you believe (desire?) it to be, and (3) that this
> Bible is the work of that god.  This is called assuming your own
> conclusion.  You believe humanity is evil, for whatever reason, thus you
> assume that god agrees with you in your opinion of people.
> 
(1)  I assert that Oxygen has an atomic weitght of 15.9994 grams/mole.
(2)  I assert that objects falling freely, disregarding air resistance
     fall with an acceleration of 9.8 meters/sec squared.

If I assert something, that doesn't automatically invalidate it.  You
could be completely wrong in saying that it is only my assertion about
God existing that makes Him exist (whatever type of existence that would
be); just as my asserting that the acceleration due to gravity is due to
my asserting it and not due to the interaction of the masses of the two
objects and the distance between them.
> 
> You are, of course.  (making the unfounded assumptions)

Thank you for clarifying that.

> BUT, just out of curiosity, and for my own edification, I would greatly 
> appreciate your explaining to me (and everyone) what you mean by free  
> will, and the mechanism by which it manifests itself.
> 
You posed the question the most important and necessary way for it to
receive any kind of meaningful answer; what do I (or anyone) mean by
free will.  It's an excellent question.  In trying to think up the
brilliant, nobel prize in philosophy award winning answer, I realize and
freely accept that much of what I base my belief in free will on is
subjective and internal.  Just to get you mad I could simply say that
the Bible says it, I believe it and that's the end of it, but being a
Psychology major and having dealt extensively with learning theory,
behavior modification and also the biological bases for behavioral
determinism (aren't those great buzzwords?) I don't think that they can
adequately describe what we can only know subjectively.  And that is
that I go throughout a day and make these things that for lack a more
neutral word I'll call decisions and neither one's environment nor the
physiochemistry of one's brain is soley resoponsible for determining
one's actions.  Do you want to call those things I do decisions?  And if
you call them that than if at least to some extent I (here's another
relevant question, what/who am I) have some say in how I will behave,
then, yes, I believe that's free will and the ability to make decisions.

Another incredibly horrible, subjective and assumptive proof that I feel
more strongly insists on free will is that God through the Bible says
that we are responsible for our choices.  If some day I can understand
how I have no real choice but yet am responsible for my choice (the
basis for many teachings on predestination and something that to me seems
like a paradox) then maybe my whims of free will will go away.  But I've
spent to many days out in the yard going through random motions, trying
to find incalcuable patterns just so God wouldn't be able to have known
what I was going to do.  I used to spend hours agonizing over the fact
that I couldn't really choose but everything in my life and also in the
field of psychology (both behaviorism and physiological) still lets me
stick with free will.  Forgive me for turning the question around and
for also starting up soomething that you've probably already dealt with,
but what makes you feel we don't have free will?  I don't mean to make
that sound so vague and general, but it would seem to me (and I could be
wrong here from a tactical or logical standpoint) that the burden of
proof in stating something about me and people categorically would be on
you or on anyone trying to make such a statement.
> 
> Again, this is only your assertion, and I repeat that your beliefs that people
> are ipso facto evil or "fallen", which are also nothing but assertions

Which is nothing but your own assertion.

> Should not be applied to the rest of us against our will.  

Don't listen to it or apply it to yourself.  You obviously don't feel
guilty about not keeping the Sabbath or not praying or not giving money
to the church, so why should it be any different when I simply bring one
of these commandments (which you feel to be invalid both objectively and
in reference to yourself) to your attention.  If you tell me that I'm a
bad person for not bowing to trees when I go to school every morning and
that every thought and intention of my heart is bad because I don't
worship trees, that wouldn't bother me at all.  I'd listen to you
politely, nod and smile and then walk by and go on to class.  If it
doesn't hit you as being accurate in any way or being valid in any way
than it's your choice (assuming free will of course) to let it bother
you.

> Again, ironic that you
> omitted the section which I was responding to above

My postnews coommand when I tell it to include a copy of the article
says to supress any unnecessary verbiage.  Not denying it or saying
anything against it, it just didn't have a whole lot to do with what I
was directly addressing.  I do what my computer tells me.

> and stating that professors who teach what you call not accurate information 
> (which I assume really means facts that you disagree with) 

That's a really poor assumption.  Sorry if I sound like a school teacher
here but what grounds did you have for making that assumption?  What
facts did you base it on?  Percentage of people on the net that make
unfounded claims so the odds were favorable?  If it's hard for you to see
any intelligence or objectivity outside of your own conclusions on life,
existence et al (which I admit is quite difficult alot of times) at
least don't assume the worst until it's confirmed.  If for no other
reason than the long term benefits you listed before about societal
cooperation and mutual benefit, some day you might make a real fool out
of yourself when the person you accuse of claiming information to be
inaccurate becasue they disagree with it turns out to be a hundred times
more rigorous than yourself.  And no this is no statement whatsoever
about you and I.
> 
> The "foisting" I do is to present substantiation for my opinion.  

Not to ask a silly question, but what was I doing?  In context, I was
responding to a question that Stanley Friesen asked me about the nature
of mankind.  I was substantiating my position with the most applicable
source (seeing as how we were discussing what the Bible has to say about
the heart of man).

> The "foisting" you and your kind do leads to legislation in the halls of 
> Congress, where your religious beliefs have no place in a free country.
> -- 
I hope this doesn't shock you overly, but I agree.  I think the idea
that the US is a 'religious' country is a crock and the idea of
legislating morality is just a no go.  I will, however, say that things
like abortion, child pornography could be wrong for other reasons,
outside of the fact that God condemns them.  

> Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.

I've always liked your quote selection.  You've got some great
statements and ideas represented in most of them but just like you were
saying with Terry Gilliam, you don't intend them to be taken the way I
take them, but I like your E.E. Cummings quote probably as much as you
do.  In fact the apostle Paul (not Paul Zimmerman) has his own version
of it, "Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the
renewing of your mind that you may prove what the will of God is, that
which is good, acceptable and perfect."  Your quote is close to
excellent but in my eyes it makes the correct negative assertion without
the needed positive exhortation that Paul gives.

				Rick Frey

				(...ihnp4!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix415)
					         !sdcc7!ln63fac)