brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (%David Brunson) (07/12/84)
I just received the following mail in response to the "Absurdity and Unbelief" article. >You believe what you've been told to believe (e.g., the Bible). >You reject what you've been told to reject (e.g., lesbianism). >So, how can you claim to think for yourself? >I'm not knocking Christianity. I know many thinking Christians. >You just don't happen to be one of them. Like water off a duck's back. I hold nothing but contempt for the dismal *poverty* of values demonstrated here. The ultimate secularist retort: "You are not intelligent." Weak. This is a perfect example of secularist absurdity. The writer would not have thought it a reproof to convict me of some evil. "Oh, so you condone abortion" or, "I suppose you are also a fornicator, sir!" will not shame the modern apostate. Oh, but comment on his spelling! or his misuse of a word! or his programming style! or any of the other things that have become sin in this age of folly, and you will have an enemy for life!! There is another shade of meaning to the use of the word "thinking" as used in the above excerpt. This is the modern notion of *open-mindedness*. "All beliefs are equally valid." The song of fools. Again a dismal *poverty* of values. I can abort fetuses for a living, I can be a flaming homosexual and influence others to do likewise, I can produce songs and films that encourage lifestyles ruinous to those that adopt them; but if I so much as *question* the prudence of these activities (let alone *mock* them), then I have violated the Secularist Ten Commandments and must bear my reproach before the "thinkers". Lou Grant is alive and kicking on the USENET! ---- David Brunson duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson "Why do the heathen rage? and the people imagine a vain thing?" [Psalms]
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/13/84)
> There is another shade of meaning to the use of the word "thinking" > as used in the above excerpt. This is the modern notion of > *open-mindedness*. "All beliefs are equally valid." The song > of fools. [DAVID BRUNSON] Apparently "The Song of Wise Men" tells our friend here that HIS beliefs are, in fact, the correct ones. He certainly avoids that dangerous modern notion of open-mindedness. So much so that he doesn't understand it. To him, it implies "all beliefs are equally valid", while to open-minded people it means "all beliefs are only as valid as the evidence and experience to support them, and new evidence/experience can and does alter beliefs". Where is the evidence in your "Song of the Wise Men"? It sounds like something Jeff Sargent had written about how *everyone* has a foundation to their beliefs, and the shattering of someone's foundation would in turn shatter his/her life. Not that that is true for everybody, but I think it's true for Mr. Brunson here. The foundation whose shattering would cause his life to crumble is the idea that his belief system is ultimately correct ("Evidence, we doan nid no steenking evidence!"). This may be why the notion of "open-mindedness" is so frightening to him. It would mean affirming the possibility that he could be wrong. Thus he boldly states that believing in the possibility of the wrongness of his beliefs is the song of fools. If that's what it is, then sing along. > Again a dismal *poverty* of values. I can abort > fetuses for a living, I can be a flaming homosexual and influence > others to do likewise, I can produce songs and films that encourage > lifestyles ruinous to those that adopt them; but if I so much > as *question* the prudence of these activities (let alone *mock* > them), then I have violated the Secularist Ten Commandments > and must bear my reproach before the "thinkers". Horrors! Being a flaming homosexual! (Quick, get a bucket of water! :-) Or a doctor who performs abortions on not yet living fetuses. (If they're living when can't they "live" outside of the womb? Further back-and-forth on this topic should move to net.abortion) Or an artist "encouraging" people to live out ruinous lifestyles. (This is absolutely true. I have seen films that describe such radically different lifestyles and ideals from Mr. Brunson's, and they DO have guards at the theater exits FORCING you to change into living these horrid lifestyles! Honest! You would think people could make their own decisions on the merits of a lifestyle. But, no, reasoning capabilities that have atrophied from disuse [I already know what's right---it's in this book!] often prevent that.) The one statement that intrigued me was "I can be a flaming homosexual and influence others to do likewise." But Mr. Brunson can write articles and be a flaming... uh... (rectal orifice? naaah!) religionist and influence other people to do so! Isn't that horrible? No? Oh, I see, it's different. Being a homosexual is a naughty bad thing, but proselytizing religious values is O.K. Do you just take that for granted or is there a reason for that (obvious?) point of view. Perhaps the fact that I don't think that it is obvious is another sign of dangerous "open-mindedness" ("Don't bother to think about *why* that's bad! I *said* it is!!!"). -- If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (07/15/84)
[] >Apparently "The Song of Wise Men" tells our friend here that HIS beliefs >are, in fact, the correct ones. He certainly avoids that dangerous modern >notion of open-mindedness. friend? avoids? dangerous? There seems to be a communication problem here! Substitute *enemy*, *debunks*, and *ridiculous* respectively. The rest of this writer's discussion on the topic is characteristic of the muddled consciousness of the apostate: demands for "evidence" (not until you ask *nicely*), mis-characterization of his confusion as a position of strength, and general vulgarity/filthiness. The real problem is *perversion of values*. The "open-minded" acceptor of Lou-Grantisms *alters* his notion of *sin*. Let me illustrate with an example: a typical episode from "Lou Grant". I saw "Lou Grant" maybe about 5 or 6 times before it finally went off the air (for *political* reasons :-)). One of the episodes featured a *small town* (home of all dangerous reactionaries) where the residents were caught starting bonfires and casting books therein (I love words like *therein* :-)). As the farce continued I pictured the following scenario: All across America millions of "open minds" jumped to outraged attention. Like millions of cells of a giant jellyfish the collective open mind spoke with one mouth, "Duh, HEY!! Uh-Duhh those people are book-burning. Duh. I don't think that's right. Uh-Duh, somebody should do something!" Now while opposition to book-burning is, of itself, a fairly innocuous position to adopt, the collective open-mind, after years of bombardment, begins to confuse this position with *virtue*. This is error and absurdity. >> Again a dismal *poverty* of values. I can abort >> fetuses for a living, I can be a flaming homosexual and influence >> others to do likewise, I can produce songs and films that encourage >> lifestyles ruinous to those that adopt them; but if I so much >> as *question* the prudence of these activities (let alone *mock* >> them), then I have violated the Secularist Ten Commandments >> and must bear my reproach before the "thinkers". > Horrors! Being a flaming homosexual! (Quick, get a bucket of water! :-) A weak and sickly attempt at humor. Next follows the usual Lou Grantisms: fetuses are not "live", people do not seek to emulate "artists". > The one statement that intrigued me was "I can be a flaming homosexual and > influence others to do likewise." But Mr. Brunson can write articles and > be a flaming... uh... (rectal orifice? naaah!) religionist and influence > other people to do so! Isn't that horrible? No? Oh, I see, it's different. > Being a homosexual is a naughty bad thing, but proselytizing religious values > is O.K. Do you just take that for granted or is there a reason for that > (obvious?) point of view. Perhaps the fact that I don't think that it is > obvious is another sign of dangerous "open-mindedness" ("Don't bother to > think about *why* that's bad! I *said* it is!!!"). Ho Hum. Substitute "naughty bad" with *weak pathetic*, and yes, "prosely- tizing religious values" *is* a good thing. > If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. He got *that* right, anyway. -- [Stomp] NEXT!! -- By the way, our news feed will be down for a few days next week for a software upgrade. If you are an apostate and imagine that you have something to say you might want to delay posting til after wednesday, the 18th to be sure I see it. -- David Brunson duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson What?? You mean you *don't* read the Bible every day? I don't understand -- how do you ever expect to *learn* anything?
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/15/84)
> Now while opposition to > book-burning is, of itself, a fairly innocuous position to adopt, > the collective open-mind, after years of bombardment, begins > to confuse this position with *virtue*. This is error and > absurdity. Imagine opposing book-burning on principle! How disgusting! We thank you, Mr. Brunson, for pointing out the error and absurdity of our position. Of course, Mr. Brunson may be quite unhappy when he hears which books we've decided to burn first... :-) -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/16/84)
My first question is: Who cloned Ken Arndt? >> Apparently "The Song of Wise Men" tells our friend here that HIS beliefs >> are, in fact, the correct ones. He certainly avoids that dangerous modern >> notion of open-mindedness. > > friend? avoids? dangerous? There seems to be a communication problem > here! Substitute *enemy*, *debunks*, and *ridiculous* respectively. Debunking requires erosion of the foundations of an idea through logical reasoning. You have not done any debunking. Nor have you shown why you feel that open-mindedness is "ridiculous" (though your preception of what open-mindedness might qualify). And if you are indeed "our enemy" and not "our friend", it is by your choice. > The real problem is *perversion of values*. The "open-minded" > acceptor of Lou-Grantisms *alters* his notion of *sin*. And the closed-minded acceptor of whatever he's told to believe doesn't. Certainly not based on any concept of rational thought. Some people have a rational system of values. >>> I can be a flaming homosexual and influence >>> others to do likewise, > >> Horrors! Being a flaming homosexual! (Quick, get a bucket of water! :-) > > A weak and sickly attempt at humor. To complement your weak and sickly attempt at attacking people for no good reason. >> The one statement that intrigued me was "I can be a flaming homosexual and >> influence others to do likewise." But Mr. Brunson can write articles and >> be a flaming... uh... (rectal orifice? naaah!) religionist and influence >> other people to do so! Isn't that horrible? No? Oh, I see, it's different. >> Being a homosexual is a naughty bad thing, but proselytizing religious values >> is O.K. Do you just take that for granted or is there a reason for that >> (obvious?) point of view. Perhaps the fact that I don't think that it is >> obvious is another sign of dangerous "open-mindedness" ("Don't bother to >> think about *why* that's bad! I *said* it is!!!"). > Ho Hum. Substitute "naughty bad" with *weak pathetic*, and yes, "prosely- > tizing religious values" *is* a good thing. Until you can give an objective answer to the question "*Why* is it such a good thing?", please refrain from dumping it on the rest of us. Readers will note in the doubly indented paragraph above, I asked "Do you just take that for granted or is there is reason for that (obvious?) point of view?" It's certainly not "obvious" to me. And it's probably not obvious to many others. Why don't you explain to us just why it is so obvious? Without such an explanation, it is YOUR ideals that are weak and pathetic. >> If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. > He got *that* right, anyway. Since I doubt that anything will change Mr. Brunson's life, I guess nothing in his life would thus be worth doing if he agrees with that statement. I think he "agrees" with it in the sense that "whatever changes my life to make it more like his would be worth doing from his perspective?". Am I assuming too much? > What?? You mean you *don't* read the Bible every day? I don't > understand -- how do you ever expect to *learn* anything? By reading more objective and rational materials as a source of knowledge. I'll read the Bible when I want some nice storytelling. Either Mr. Brunson is a recent graduate of the Ken Arndt School of Human Relations (summa cum laude, I'd think), or he's a non-religionist trying to make religious people look bad. (Nobody, with few exceptions, could possibly be as ridiculously closed-brained as this.) If the latter is true, please refrain from going out of your way to make religionists look bad. They do a fine job all by themselves. (ONLY KIDDING!! Was making joke!!!) :-) -- WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS? pyuxn!rlr WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA? I don't know that ... ARGHHHHHHHH!
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (07/17/84)
Well Mike,
If you think I quoted you "out of context"...It happened to
me too !
Yosi,
My point wasn't that I want to impose my "superstitions"
on you, but that people that I consider to be atheists
do in fact make their living or a portion thereof from
promoting their "beliefs" which was my original bone
of contention with Mike. Now Mike thinks I took him
out of context and...etc. etc.
"Tommorrow is another day" S. O'Hara
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (07/26/84)
]> From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson)
]> I saw "Lou Grant"
What's that? Isn't that one of the programs whose output goes to terminals
without input devices?
]> What?? You mean you *don't* read the Bible every day? I don't
]> understand -- how do you ever expect to *learn* anything?
Well, I got all these THINGS growing in my head, and stuff,
and they keep trying to tell me all about this "reality" thing, you know?
(-: Brian Peterson :-)
{ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianporb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/26/84)
I think that the Bible is a very interesting book. However I think some people (like my own sister) get carried away with its educational value. I have given my sister numerous books on Buddhism, the nuclear arms race, evolution, and so forth. She never seems to read them because she is too busy reading the Bible. I just finished reading the New Testament in a week--my question is: how many times can you reread the same book? Wouldn't it be wise to read some other sources or viewpoints every once in a while? Now of course I know some people will criticize a one-week reading of the Bible as shallow and trivial. But if it takes a week for me to read the New Testament, in a year I could read it 52 times. But what is served by that? Might I not be more informed by reading other religions sacred works as well? Or reading Darwin's "Origin of Species" (even if superficially) and so forth? I think it is very worthwhile to read the Bible but I think it is foolish to make it the only thing you read--there is too much to be learned for such a narrow vision of life!
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/26/84)
Well, books are only the first stage, witches and heretics come next on the pyre! Tim Sevener
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (08/01/84)
-- >> Of course reading the Bible 52 times in a year would be worthless >> to you. Your mind is not going to understand it, because you are >> spiritually blind. God does not reveal the truths of the Bible to >> unbelievers, that would be throwing "Pearls before the Swine" as it >> says in Mathew. Only the Holy Spirit given at salvation will cause >> you to understand the Bible. With this understanding you could read >> it 522,000,000 times and still find something you've never seen before. >> Trying finding out a little about the author before you read His book. >> Ken Nichols And how is one supposed to do that except by reading said book? Or do you have to be in such a state of despair that you'll fling yourself at anything that appears more solid than your own psyche? Actually, it's an intriguing notion--the Bible as ciphertext. Public or private key? O my, when you read the Gospels backwards, it says "I buried Paul". Oink. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 01 Aug 84 [14 Thermidor An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
greggt@ncoast.UUCP (Gregg Thompson) (08/07/84)
The Bible is almost written
as a good poem is. It has many levels
the more you search and dig into it
the more you find and the more you
understand.
This also means that there
are MANY interpretations. None are
right unless the WHOLE Bible doesn't
contradict it. Even some of the
contradictions must be dug up and
researched to see if the contradiction
is truely contradicting.
Comments please.
--
Gregg Thompson
{ucbvax}!decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!greggt
{ucbvax}!decvax!cbosgd!aat!m-net!greggt
{ucbvax}!decvax!microsoft!trsvax!sneaky!greggt
{decvax}!ucbvax!dual!proper!greggt
{ucbvax}!decvax!vortex!ihnp4!wlcrjs!greggt