rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (07/03/84)
Sargent (>) and Rosen (>>) are at it again... >A partial response to some of Rich's questions.... > >But first a question of my own: Rich, are you really interested in the >answers because you think they might do you some good, or do you just want >more material you can use as points of attack on imperfect, imperfectly >understanding Christians who are not (yet?) able to come up with all the >pithy responses Christ was famous for? I have to call foul here...it's a matter of, "OK, I'll consider what you wrote, but not before impugning your integrity" (just to set the tone?) >I would certainly appreciate help from anyone who wishes to give it. I do >have a job I'm paid to do, and this isn't it. [I sometimes suspect that >posting articles IS Rich's job! :-)] I.e., don't get too prolific, or shoot too close to home; that's suspect. >>2) ACCURACY OF PROPHECY BASED ON WIDELY APPLICABLE PHENOMENA >> >>| What of those who predicted the end of the world in 999, also based on the >>| Bible? Are those who now predict that our modern time is the time of the >>| end of the world more enlightened about the "real" meaning behind those very >>| specific prophecies in the Bible that could apply to any time in history? >(reference to analysis of oncoming disaster)...The >calamities he saw included economic confusion (already starting), drastic >changes in the earth (freakish weather, earthquakes, etc.), a growing flood >of pornography and sexual practices which might draw protest even from Rich, >hatred of parents by their children, and persecution of genuinely believing >Christians throughout the world (not just in totalitarian countries). But it's the same story to which Rich was objecting. Sure, this time looks different because we're living in it - and the less you consider historical perspecitve [insert quote from Santayana] the more it looks unique. >The Bible clearly predicted that the nation of Israel would be re-established. >Lo and behold, it has been... Yes - if you don't mind the fact that it was reestablished longer ago than the period of time generally ascribed to the life of Christ... >...Jesus, and also Paul, were big on the idea that keeping the letter of the >Law was not the important thing (Jesus and His disciples broke the letter >of the Law numerous times), but rather that what one was inside was the >important thing. When Jesus named the greatest commandments in the Law >(and they are indeed in the O.T.), viz. "Love the Lord your God with all >your heart & soul & mind & strength" and "love your neighbor as yourself", >he also said, "On these depend all the Law and the prophets" -- i.e. even >the intent behind the O.T. law was not to bind people into a rigid system >of behavior, but rather to get them to change into people who would want to >live as the Law described. Oh, then the laws - which were stated as laws - were not really laws? How do you determine which is the spirit and which is the letter. Sounds a bit intellectually dishonest, I think. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like the misinterpretation of "situational ethics" always leveled at humanists. >>4) EVERYONE IS RELIGIOUS; EVERYONE WORSHIPS SOMETHING >> >>| Could someone explain precisely why it is impossible not to worship? >...If it [your foundation] collapses, your life collapses. But I >doubt that anyone is without such a foundation. Many people do not recognize >their foundation explicitly. Rich at least is quite explicit about his >foundation...enough for his audience to see that his life is founded on the >general idea of negating and doubting everything he can, that his foundation >can be expressed in the simple phrase "it is not!" Jeff's rejoinder here is rife with contradiction (even over the gratuitous, and unnecessary, slam at Rich). It almost comes down to saying that "everyone does something" - confusing religion, worship, and action. >...He may claim that this is not the case,... (In which case Jeff would take one more shot at him for naysaying:-) >...Christians' foundation, >on the other hand, is not "it is", but "He is", or even "He lives!" -- a >positive statement. ...along with other positive statements like "you are wrong", "God will punish you", "Do not do xxx" (for many xxx), . . . >But anyway, everyone, in the sense described above, worships something or >someone. Jeff has only managed to beg the question - he starts with an unfounded assessment of Rich's behavior, generalizes it to everyone who doesn't worship, and on this basis of saying that he is correct, concludes that he is correct. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.