david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (03/22/85)
In reply to a reply: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) >[David Harwood] > > My feeling > is that everyone who sincerely wants to know whether there is a God > will be given sufficient reason for faith, but that not everyone is > sincere. You have only to look around to see that many lord it over > the others -- in their hearts, they would presume the place of God. > They hardly want to find out that they were wrong. > Please step back David and look at what you are saying. You are making a bold claim that everyone who doesn't believe in your version of a God is insincere. Do you really think that? What about someone like myself who grew up a dedicated Christian but when confronted with the contradictions involved chose to honestly face what reality was instead of blindly clinging to earlier beliefs in God. And it was very painfull. I didn't WANT to change my beliefs. It was much more psychologically confortable not to have to. But there was something within me, a yearning for Truth, that forced me to be honest and accept the consequences of being honest. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm sorry if I have offended you; but I did not insist upon anything, certainly not, as you suggest, that others must "believe in my version," unless they would be "insincere". I have several Christian and Jewish and Hindu friends, as well as some who are not "religious", who are usually sincere, but disagree with me all the time. (But my friends are very good-hearted and open-minded; and simply because we have cultural and personal prejudices does not mean that we are insincere.) You have cast my words with an intention which is not mine, but which I understand to be related to your own experience. It is you, apparently, who now thinks that belief in God is self-deception, and evasion of the truth; but if you think this about your former self, then do you think this about others also? You might say that we are "self-deceiving", just as you may believe that I say that others are not "sincere". Actually, I never doubted that there are those who are sincerely unbelieving. But I was talking about what experience was necessary for one who would be faithful, if only he did believe that God exists; I was not talking about "intellectual sincerity", but about "religious sincerity". My point is that God provides us with enough evidence for the faith we would sincerely desire, except for the struggle with our doubts; nevertheless, He does not compel us to assent to what we would not desire. From what you have said about yourself, while you are intellectually sincere, like my friends, you do not now desire faith, even though you may want to see compelling evidence. But we may say that God provides for our hearts' victory, rather than for its assent. Is this my opinion only? I remember that Jesus said to Pilate, "It is for this reason that I have come into the world. And all who will hear the truth, they shall hear my voice." But Pilate said, "What is truth?" then turned away. My question is -- Was Pilate sincere? Yes and no. Pilate may have been intellectually sincere, as skepticism is often so called, and might have assented to evidence, which Jesus did not provide, but he certainly had no religious desire to know the truth, and would need be compelled, having no sincere desire to know the will of God. I think we can agree that Pilate had no sincere religious desire to know whether Jesus was telling the truth. As he said, "Am I a Jew?" The attitude of most unbelievers is the same: "Am I a Christian (or Jew)?" They do not suppose that they would want to be. But they demand evidence. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Back in my earlier years I would have said just what you did. So I very well understand why you said it. But I suggest that you examine the damages your belief system holds as well as its advantages. Do you think it beneficial that you feel justified in labeling millions of people insincere just because they don't accept the same concepts as you do? If there were ever to be such a thing as a judgement day, I wouldn't be afraid. Since God supposedly sees into the heart, He/She would know I've dealt with the issues of Her/His existence with all integrity and openness. Dave Trissel {seismo,gatech,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Do we disagree? I'm sure that God is not less merciful than we are, and that no one is condemned simply because he is mistaken. Besides, my concern is not our judgement by God in an afterlife; it is what should we do in this life. If we destroy this "world in the hand", why should we be given some other "in the bush"? Simply because we profess to believe a formula, e.g. "Jesus is the Christ."? As Jesus said about those who are insincere, "Why do you call me 'Lord', and not do what I say?" No, even though they may assent intellectually to the right formulae, I believe they are hypocrites, even as he said. A great many people are not sincere; you have only to watch television to see what is our popular culture. How sincerely "Christian", acting in the spirit of Christ, is a nation that spends 100 times as much for military purposes (now 50+% of the budget, for past, present, and proposed wars) as it does on purely non-military, uninvested foreign assistance to poor nations. Is "mutually assured destruction" an advice of the Gospel? Are we told by Jesus that we we should indefinitely secure an incredible peace on Earth with probable horror -- with threats of horrifying retaliation against hundreds of millions of the innocent, who have no military ambitions and no real political authority? Even if we should be destroyed by nuclear weapons tomorrow, how could could anyone sincerely justify retaliation, in the name of Christ? I understand that you believe that I am prejudging those intellectually honest unbelievers, but I am not. All I said about them was that if they were sincere (wanting to know God so that they might do his will), then I believe they will be given sufficient reason for faith. I was an unbeliever, and yet I was honest more than most; nevertheless I was also full of pride; do you think I would get on my knees and sincerely pray to God for what He wanted rather than what I wanted? Sincerity is not an intellectual exercise; it is an exercise of will. Someone who simply wants God to prove His existence, without the desire to do His will, is not sincere. He is simply testing God, which is not to be done. Finally, I don't believe that we are condemned or acquited according to "labels" or what we profess to believe. We often do not fully understand even what we profess to believe. As you say, it is God who judges our hearts. In the beginning of Luke, it is prophesized to Mary about the infant Jesus, that Christ would be a sign that would be rejected, come to judge even her own thoughts as well as those of others. And in the Letter to the Hebrews, it is said that the word of the Lord is sharper than any sword, penetrating our very souls. Certainly, I did also reject Jesus as Christ, and my arrogance was, in that very instant, made plain to me. As it was also to Paul on the road to Damascus. So sure of ourselves, we were wrong about him. It seems to me more important than what we profess to believe is whether we actually do want to live as God would have us, and as Jesus has shown us the way. If an unbeliever would live as Christ has shown us, charitably without violence and hypocrisy, then he is living as God would have us live. The matter of his professed faith seems to be far less important. As John says, we are known by our love for one another, even as He has loved us. I believe that your reply was honest. Perhaps I can recommend to you and others some things to read which may change your religious views considerably, if you really want: the Anchor Bible translation of the Gospel of John, trans. by Raymond Brown, 2 volumes with very extensive commentary; Guide for the Perplexed, by Moses Maimonides; Tolstoi's autobiographical "My Confession"; the "Journal" of George Fox, founder of the Society of Friends.
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (03/26/85)
In article <197@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: >In reply to a reply: > >>[David Harwood] >> >> My feeling >> is that everyone who sincerely wants to know whether there is a God >> will be given sufficient reason for faith, but that not everyone is >> sincere. ... > [Me] >Please step back David and look at what you are saying. You are making a >bold claim that everyone who doesn't believe in your version of a God is >insincere. ... > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I'm sorry if I have offended you; but I did not insist upon >anything, certainly not, as you suggest, that others must "believe in >my version," unless they would be "insincere". ... > You have cast my words with an intention which is not mine, ... I apologize if such is the case. But your first sentence certainly stated you believe (substituting 'x' for 'y') that I "will be given sufficient reason for faith" since I am sincere. I challenge that as being not only presumptuous but condescending. It presumes that there is only one "correct" way to view reality, and that if another person had all the evidence that you did and was honest they would reach the same conclusions as yourself. > ........ It is you, >apparently, who now thinks that belief in God is self-deception, and >evasion of the truth; but if you think this about your former self, then do >you think this about others also? You might say that we are "self-deceiving", >just as you may believe that I say that others are not "sincere". Not at all. I don't see how any given belief system in and of itself proves that its believer is self-deceived. It doesn't matter whether its in regards to religion or Santa Claus. Only if contradicting facts are ignored or intentionally misinterpreted would self-deception come into play. Children who think Santa Clause is real are certainly not self-deceived. They have ample evidence to support their own convictions. They just don't have the sophistication as yet in their world concepts to rule Santa as an absurdity. Growing up a devout Christian I was not self-deceived. I honestly thought that my concepts were correct and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, later when I had reason to start questioning some of my basic assumptions some self-deception crept in in that I first tried ignoring things or twisted their implications around to fit my world-view. However, If I claimed to now be a Christian I would be either a liar or self deceived given my present understanding of reality. Conversely, I am sure that many Christians, including yourself, honestly believe in their religion and find that it provides them many benefits. In my opinion, the culprits are those of any persuasion that fail to question their beliefs. This leads to dogmatism and intolerance and it occurs with atheists as well as Christians. > From what you have said about yourself, while you are intellectually >sincere, like my friends, you do not now desire faith, even though you may >want to see compelling evidence. ... I do not "desire faith" nor "not desire faith." I do not "want to see compelling evidence" nor "not want to see compelling evidence." I just want to strive for an ever more accurate understanding of "Life, the Universe, and Everything." If this includes a God then fine. If it doesn't, then fine. If it means I will survive bodily death then fine. If when I die, I die then fine. I am determined to face reality whatever I find it to be. However, for me, I found my earlier beliefs unsatifactory and shallow. My search has led me to different water, water more intellectually and spritually satisfying. > Is this my opinion only? I remember that Jesus said to Pilate, >"It is for this reason that I have come into the world. And all who will >hear the truth, they shall hear my voice." But Pilate said, "What is >truth?" then turned away. > My question is -- Was Pilate sincere? Yes and no. Pilate may >have been intellectually sincere, as skepticism is often so called, and >might have assented to evidence, which Jesus did not provide, but he >certainly had no religious desire to know the truth, and would need be >compelled, having no sincere desire to know the will of God. The contrast between intellectual truth and religious desire here is interest- ing. The problem I see here is that this implies that an intellectual search for truth is not sufficient for the investigation of religion and its eventual acceptance. Since this has many important ramifications it would be prudent to support this with some evidence. It seems that you suggest that a "leap of faith" be made before God can be revealed. If so, that puts me in a difficult situation. Since I grew up with the "leap of faith" already made, that means that either I am now ignoring the truths of my earlier religion, or that I never experienced the truths it had to offer at all. I am sure that neither of these statements are accurate. > I think we can agree that Pilate had no sincere religious desire >to know whether Jesus was telling the truth. As he said, "Am I a Jew?" >The attitude of most unbelievers is the same: "Am I a Christian (or Jew)?" >They do not suppose that they would want to be. But they demand evidence. But isn't this natural? I'm sure that you didn't just jump to Christianity without any reason of some sort. Certainly you must have had some "evidence" that Christianity was worth the "leap of faith." I'm sure many others besides myself would be interested in hearing how you came to believe what you do. And maybe to balance the picture, I should show why I had to let go of my religious beliefs. > A great many people are not sincere; you have only to watch >television to see what is our popular culture. How sincerely "Christian", >acting in the spirit of Christ, is a nation that spends 100 times as much >for military purposes (now 50+% of the budget, for past, present, and >proposed wars) as it does on purely non-military, .... I agree completely here. I wonder just how many "Christians" of today would still be in the flock if Jesus' sayings were literally followed. How many would gladly give up their wealth to the poor and spend their time sharing love to those around them like Mother Teresa. > .............I was an unbeliever, and yet I was honest more >than most; nevertheless I was also full of pride; do you think I >would get on my knees and sincerely pray to God for what He wanted >rather than what I wanted? Sincerity is not an intellectual exercise; >it is an exercise of will. Someone who simply wants God to prove His >existence, without the desire to do His will, is not sincere. He is >simply testing God, which is not to be done. I find it fascinating that my story is just the reverse of yours. With very minor changes it rings true for me: I was a believer, and yet I was honest more than most, nevertheless I was also full of pride. Do you think I would get down on my knees as a devoted Christian and sincerely pray to God for what He wanted. After all, I already knew what God wanted and what He thinks since the Bible tells me everything and is perfect. Satan will cause me to doubt and will use my intellect against me, therefore it cannot be trusted. I must not doubt God, for that would be testing Him. Incidently, aren't there several places in the Bible where men "tested" God? Just to name a few, Abraham saying "if only 50 good men don't destroy the city" followed by "45" then "40" etc. Also the "test ye the spirits to know if they be of God." These and others would seem to tell us that we *should* test God. Often it seems that some Christians confuse 'testing' God to 'tempting' God. Yet another statement you make should be 'turned around' to apply to some Christians as well-- > My feeling is that everyone who sincerely wants to know whether there is > a God will be given sufficient reason for faith, but that not everyone is > sincere. You have only to look around to see that many lord it over > the others -- in their hearts, they would presume the place of God. > They hardly want to find out that they were wrong. By replacing the phrase "for faith" with "for doubt" an interesting juxtapos- ition occurs. Many presume God and hardly want to find out that they were wrong. It cuts both ways. >....... And in the Letter to the Hebrews, it is said that the word >of the Lord is sharper than any sword, penetrating our very souls. >Certainly, I did also reject Jesus as Christ, and my arrogance was, >in that very instant, made plain to me. As it was also to Paul on >the road to Damascus. So sure of ourselves, we were wrong about him. To me, I have found certain "truths" penetrate sharper than any sword, combining both intuition with reason producing a powerful form of enlightenment, understanding and reaching needs otherwise unfulfilled. When I was a Christian I was so sure of myself. Now I'm less sure, but more realistic in my determination of what I know. Now I'm free. Free to let the Universe unfold itself within and without me and I don't have to force any of my interpretation into a restrictive religious mold. Does either of our experiences invalidate the other? I don't think so. I believe they are at some level one and the same. My being "less sure" may be related to your "struggle with our doubts" mentioned in your last posting. > > I believe that your reply was honest. Perhaps I can >recommend to you and others some things to read which may change >your religious views considerably, ..... > After 15 years of reading I would be suprized to find any new revolutionary ideas which would change my veiws considerably -- but the search for deeper truths beckons. I will indeed check into these books. Even minor new dis- coveries are always refreshing. In any case, thank you for your reply. One of the great benefits of the net is the wide variety of viewpoints encountered. Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (03/28/85)
> The contrast between intellectual truth and religious desire here is interest- > ing. The problem I see here is that this implies that an intellectual search > for truth is not sufficient for the investigation of religion and its eventual > acceptance. Since this has many important ramifications it would > be prudent to support this with some evidence. > It seems that you suggest that a "leap of faith" be made before God > can be revealed. If so, that puts me in a difficult situation. Since I grew > up with the "leap of faith" already made, that means that either I am now > ignoring the truths of my earlier religion, or that I never experienced the > truths it had to offer at all. I am sure that neither of these statements > are accurate. > > > I think we can agree that Pilate had no sincere religious desire > >to know whether Jesus was telling the truth. As he said, "Am I a Jew?" > >The attitude of most unbelievers is the same: "Am I a Christian (or Jew)?" > >They do not suppose that they would want to be. But they demand evidence. > > But isn't this natural? I'm sure that you didn't just jump to Christianity > without any reason of some sort. Certainly you must have had some "evidence" > that Christianity was worth the "leap of faith." I'm sure many others > besides myself would be interested in hearing how you came to believe what > you do. And maybe to balance the picture, I should show why I had to let go > of my religious beliefs. > > > A great many people are not sincere; you have only to watch > >television to see what is our popular culture. How sincerely "Christian", > >acting in the spirit of Christ, is a nation that spends 100 times as much > >for military purposes (now 50+% of the budget, for past, present, and > >proposed wars) as it does on purely non-military, .... > > I agree completely here. I wonder just how many "Christians" of today would > still be in the flock if Jesus' sayings were literally followed. How many > would gladly give up their wealth to the poor and spend their time sharing > love to those around them like Mother Teresa. > > > .............I was an unbeliever, and yet I was honest more > >than most; nevertheless I was also full of pride; do you think I > >would get on my knees and sincerely pray to God for what He wanted > >rather than what I wanted? Sincerity is not an intellectual exercise; > >it is an exercise of will. Someone who simply wants God to prove His > >existence, without the desire to do His will, is not sincere. He is > >simply testing God, which is not to be done. > > I find it fascinating that my story is just the reverse of yours. With very > minor changes it rings true for me: I was a believer, and yet I was honest > more than most, nevertheless I was also full of pride. Do you think I would > get down on my knees as a devoted Christian and sincerely pray to God for what > He wanted. After all, I already knew what God wanted and what He thinks since > the Bible tells me everything and is perfect. Satan will cause me to doubt > and will use my intellect against me, therefore it cannot be trusted. > I must not doubt God, for that would be testing Him. > > Incidently, aren't there several places in the Bible where men "tested" God? > Just to name a few, Abraham saying "if only 50 good men don't destroy the > city" followed by "45" then "40" etc. Also the "test ye the spirits to know > if they be of God." These and others would seem to tell us that we *should* > test God. Often it seems that some Christians confuse 'testing' God to > 'tempting' God. > > Yet another statement you make should be 'turned around' to apply to some > Christians as well-- > > > My feeling is that everyone who sincerely wants to know whether there is > > a God will be given sufficient reason for faith, but that not everyone is > > sincere. You have only to look around to see that many lord it over > > the others -- in their hearts, they would presume the place of God. > > They hardly want to find out that they were wrong. > > By replacing the phrase "for faith" with "for doubt" an interesting juxtapos- > ition occurs. Many presume God and hardly want to find out that they were > wrong. It cuts both ways. > > >....... And in the Letter to the Hebrews, it is said that the word > >of the Lord is sharper than any sword, penetrating our very souls. > >Certainly, I did also reject Jesus as Christ, and my arrogance was, > >in that very instant, made plain to me. As it was also to Paul on > >the road to Damascus. So sure of ourselves, we were wrong about him. > > To me, I have found certain "truths" penetrate sharper than any sword, > combining both intuition with reason producing a powerful form of > enlightenment, understanding and reaching needs otherwise unfulfilled. > When I was a Christian I was so sure of myself. Now I'm less sure, but > more realistic in my determination of what I know. Now I'm free. Free to > let the Universe unfold itself within and without me and I don't have to > force any of my interpretation into a restrictive religious mold. > > Does either of our experiences invalidate the other? I don't think so. > I believe they are at some level one and the same. My being "less sure" may > be related to your "struggle with our doubts" mentioned in your last posting. > > > > > I believe that your reply was honest. Perhaps I can > >recommend to you and others some things to read which may change > >your religious views considerably, ..... > > > > After 15 years of reading I would be suprized to find any new revolutionary > ideas which would change my veiws considerably -- but the search for deeper > truths beckons. I will indeed check into these books. Even minor new dis- > coveries are always refreshing. > > In any case, thank you for your reply. One of the great benefits of the net > is the wide variety of viewpoints encountered. > > Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And Frith made the world"