aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (04/07/84)
From Laura Creighton: > I am going to stick to the rules of predicate logic and not worry about any > new rules which I might get if I placed my faith in God. I would rather > work with an incomplete set then a set which might destroy my very capacity > to be rational. Faith in God hasn't destroyed my capacity to be rational; quite the contrary. But this brings up a general question which I would address to all those who oppose Christianity with what they claim (not always correctly) to be rationality. This is a question that might almost be better debated in net.philosophy, were it not for the fact that it deals with the fundamental tenets on which people base their lives. Why is reason, rationality, the BEST, or (as some would say) the only valid thing to base one's life on? This is the underlying assumption (and I claim it is an assumption) in many of the articles by the opposition. So far I have seen nothing to back up this claim. (Again, I will, with great difficulty, restrain myself from saying that famous phrase which Ubizmo utterly abhors.) While I'm here, I might as well clean up another loose end: More than one critic (Thomas Ruschak, Darrell Plank) has claimed that Scott Bowyer's experience could have occurred had he followed some other person or belief (Richard Simmons or Hinduism). Darrell even says (without quoting any case histories) that the same sorts of things have happened through other religions and even through atheism (it's hard to understand how that could do anything, since Scott surrendered to God and atheists don't surrender to anything); and he asks why we say that Christ is better than what a Hindu would experience. To tell the truth, I don't know any Hindus, so I haven't any direct information as to what they believe and experience. But all this is rather empty speculation and questioning (especially the Richard Simmons [Simians? :-)] bit, which is purely hypothetical). Why wonder about other beliefs when we have right here a case history showing that Christ is good, and that faith in Christ is good? Why go looking for something else that may or may not work, when Someone who does work is so readily available and His handiwork is so plain to see? I do concede, especially after reading "The Way of the Bull" by Leo Buscaglia, that non-Christian belief systems are not 100% bad by a long shot. Buscaglia, in his travels through much of Asia, met several people who were much "nicer" (for lack of a better word) people than many Christians (including myself, for that matter); Buscaglia himself is a much more loving individual than I, despite the fact that (as far as I know) he does not adhere to Christianity. I don't wish to get into an argument as to whether Buscaglia will be damned just because he doesn't acknowledge Christ; none of us know the answer; I find verses which suggest that God will reward each person according to what he has done; and 1 Timothy 4:10 refers to "the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe." I do not condemn all non-Christian beliefs out of hand (unless they are obviously destructive); but on the other hand, I have found that since I came to know Christ (or rather, to let Him know me), I have found the beginnings of joy, hope, peace, and love; many others have gained the same things from Christ; so I see no reason to try anything else, when Christ works. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Software maintenance: It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (04/10/84)
<> Replies to a few comments from Jeff Sargent: >Why is reason, rationality, the BEST, or (as some would say) the only valid >thing to base one's life on? This is the underlying assumption (and I claim >it is an assumption) in many of the articles by the opposition... Let's distinguish BEST from ONLY. It isn't the ONLY thing, and it's not something we (speaking as one of the "opposition") need to evaluate as BEST. (Anyway, how do you get "best"? By a rational analysis and comparison? :-) Rationality is demonstrably useful for a large class of problems - but not the entire universe of problems, mind you. As far as I can tell, even the most devout Christians do not regard "irrational" as a compliment. It's customary to use rationality as a technique. It is common to be irrational. (Rationally, I shouldn't have a beer - but I want one.) But it is common to recognize one's irrationality for what it is. >...since Scott surrendered to God and atheists don't surrender to anything.. If that was meant to be a cheap shot, it came pretty close. "Surrender" is a pretty heavily loaded word. Would you care to say it a little more carefully and less emotionally? (Or did you really mean "surrender" as in "give oneself up, as to an enemy"?:-) >...Why wonder >about other beliefs when we have right here a case history showing that Christ >is good, and that faith in Christ is good? Why go looking for something else >that may or may not work, when Someone who does work is so readily available >and His handiwork is so plain to see? This has a lot of holes in it. First, one case history isn't enough to make me believe anything - even neutrinos! (Notice that I said "believe" and not "accept proof of".) Second, I've seen case histories of people badly screwed up by Christianity. Third, the reasons to go looking for "something else that may or may not work" are that (a) Christianity may or may not work, as far as I can see, and (b) Something else may work better. -- "A friend of the devil is a friend of mine." Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
aeq@pucc-h (coyote) (04/13/84)
I wish to address Dick Dunn`s remark, "did you really mean 'surrender' as in
'give oneself up to an enemy'?". (If I can get past all the punctuation,
that is.)
In a nutshell, you bet your life that that`s what "surrender" means. God
is a terribly powerful enemy, and when we turn against Him we do make Him
an enemy. Many are sitting complacently in the Rebel`s (i.e., Satan`s)
camp, completely unaware that the war against God cannot be won. The
battle ended two thousand years ago, when God finally set the terms of
peace. Our current age is more of a "mopping-up" operation than anything
else. The terms consist of admitting that you are a rebel and accepting
that Christ has already made reparation for your sins.
That`s easier said than done. I can tell you that myself, because I`ve
been through it. Still, if we don`t let God have His will with us we
let Satan have his will with us. Even if you view it as a choice between
"the lesser of two evils," bear in mind that Satan hasn`t the slightest
bit of respect for anyone except himself. In fact, he enjoys your
suffering, if it can be said that he enjoys anything.
Yes, surrender means laying down your will and giving up. The good part
of it is that God won`t abandon you afterwards. He has plans for each and
every one of us. Does that sound unfair, or manipulative, or perhaps
like a violation of free will? Well, it isn`t. When you are learning
anything, be it the alphabet or less complicated things like calculus,
it helps to have an instructor who knows the subject cold, or a textbook.
Even with that, you can still ignore the instruction and try to do it
your own way. Perhaps you`ll be one of those brilliant types who can
intuitively deduce the laws of the subject without any help. It`s more
than likely, however, that you will run into a wall soon after abandoning
your guides.
God acts the same way. He will teach you, but only if you are willing.
Set out on your own, and you won`t go very far without erring. Listen
to Him, and you will do things that you once thought impossible. The
getting of wisdom is never easy, but the rewards far outweigh the work.
Surrender, Mr. Dunn? You already have. The trouble is that the enemy
who holds you now holds you in contempt. He wants to see you squirm.
You are one of God`s creatures, and once you get that straight you will
realize that what you call surrender is really a call for help. The
rescue holds many dangers, but the cell you`re in now is more dangerous
than anything.
Sincerely,
coyote (Steven Crane)
{allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:knu