Pucc-H:aeq@CS-Mordred.UUCP (03/16/84)
Earlier this evening I heard a Christian speaker named Tom Mullen. While his
main topic for the time he's here is "Laughing Out Loud and Other Religious
Experiences" (and he made lots of jokes and lots of good points about humor),
the thing that struck me was a serious point. Christians (especially intense,
perfectionistic ones like me) would be a lot more relaxed if they could really
internalize the following:
"We are not responsible for results, only for obedience."
Just thought I'd share that, in the hope that it might be helpful to some of
my brothers & sisters on the net....
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
Buy some gefiltefish for your aquarium.ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (03/19/84)
-- >>> the thing that struck me was a serious point. Christians (especially intense, >>> perfectionistic ones like me) would be a lot more relaxed if they could really >>> internalize the following: >>> "We are not responsible for results, only for obedience." >>> Just thought I'd share that, in the hope that it might be helpful to some of >>> my brothers & sisters on the net.... >>> -- Jeff Sargent Now that's really scary. I thought such beliefs were completely repudiated at Nurenburg. But then, it gives me a better insight into the appeal of Nazism. Sorry if it makes you tense, Jeff, but you are responsible for your own actions. There will always be people like Eichmann with a "the devil (Fuehrer/God/whatever) made me do it" defense, I suppose. So where do *YOU* draw the line, Jeff? I'm sorry, I mean, where does your god draw the line? Might he ask you to inconvenience 1 person? How about 2? 10? 1,000? 6,000,000? *NEVER AGAIN!* -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 19 Mar 84 [29 Ventose An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (03/21/84)
>> = Jeff Sargent > = Ken Perlow >> Christians (especially intense, perfectionistic ones like me) would be a >> lot more relaxed if they could really internalize the following: >> "We are not responsible for results, only for obedience." > Now that's really scary. I thought such beliefs were completely > repudiated at Nurenburg. But then, it gives me a better insight into > the appeal of Nazism. Sorry if it makes you tense, Jeff, but you > are responsible for your own actions. There will always be people > like Eichmann with a "the devil (Fuehrer/God/whatever) made me > do it" defense, I suppose. So where do *YOU* draw the line, Jeff? > I'm sorry, I mean, where does your god draw the line? Might he ask > you to inconvenience 1 person? How about 2? 10? 1,000? 6,000,000? > *NEVER AGAIN!* I see that some clarification is in order. What this statement meant is: Don't insist that the results of what you do come out "perfect" by your standards; just do your best to follow what you understand to be the will of God, and trust Him to take your efforts and, shall we say, globally optimize them. It does not mean that you don't bear the consequences of your actions; the Bible itself says, "As you sow, so shall you reap". Come on, Ken! God doesn't ask me to inconvenience people; He asks me to love them, help them, affirm them, transmit His love to them through me. (I'm the first to admit that I don't do this consistently, or even all that frequently, but I'm getting there, slowly but surely.) One doesn't need a "the <powerful entity> made me do it" defense of truly beneficial actions. And I do mean beneficial, like feeding the hungry, comforting the sorrowing, and other such things that do good to people where they really live. It is such actions that God desires us to do. He hopes, initially, that we will obey Him when we sense Him leading us to do some such good thing; but He also hopes we grow into the sort of person to whom it is a joy to do such good deeds, so that we want to do them rather than feeling we have to--in which case the question of obedience fades somewhat. Besides, it is by doing such good deeds, and often ONLY by doing them, that the truth of Christ can be communicated to the world; people are going to believe in a loving Christ a lot easier if someone loves them in the name of Christ than if someone invokes fire & brimstone upon them. I regret that so many Christians, including many prominent ones, seem unaware of this--they don't know what joy they're missing! I may be sinning by judging other people here, but I am reminded of Jesus's comment to the Pharisees, which is something like: "You refuse to enter the Kingdom of God yourself, and you hinder those who would want to enter." I hope & pray that my articles will never turn off those who might be approaching the Kingdom. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Have you hugged your junk mail today?
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (03/21/84)
Ken,
You are taking obedience completely out of its
Christian context. Nazi's were not Christians
though they appropriated the symbols and titles
for their own ends.
Bob Brown {...pur-ee!inuxc!ihnp4!clyde!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/23/84)
>> The atheist is restrained from following the siren call of immortality >> by the bonds of rationalism. [LEW MAMMEL] > "Bonds" is the correct word. One is indeed bound if one restrains himself > to rationalism only. And "rationalism" (as distinct from "rationality"), > meaning a deification of the mind (particularly one's own), is certainly > going to oppose something which considers the mind important but not > primary. [JEFF SARGENT] Yes, bonds is indeed the correct word. By choosing to "bond" oneself to rationalism, one attempts to ensure that one will not be ensnared by that which is tempting but clearly not rational. Often, because of years of conditioning about the mystical and supernatural, one needs to actively "bond" oneself to reality and to rationalism. (When you distinguish between rationality and rationalism, what is it about 'rationalism' that you dislike as opposed to rationality?) >> Or perhaps we could say that the atheist stands his ground against >> the spectre of death, rather than leaping into the abyss of the irrational. > I think it's almost the other way around. The Christian is the one who knows > that he need not fear mere physical death, and thus has a supply of courage > and strength (which the atheist denies himself) wherewith to face death. > And I repeat what I've said before: Christianity is not irrational--the > correct word(s) might be supra-rational or trans-rational. A relationship > with Christ is an excellent way to cure actual irrationality. Knows? Denies? Has? These words make large scale assumptions about the nature of reality which you clearly have not shown evidence for. Can one "deny" something that is only believed to exist? Can one "have" a supply of anything for which one "has" no evidence of, or that may be explained by internal rather than external explanations? Can one "know" the truth about life after death without evidence? The fact that you do not require such evidence sheds light on what the notions of supra-rational and trans-rational really mean-------non-rational. Care to rebut rationally?? Logically?? Just a side comment: We've often heard of religionists who claim to be questioning, and to whom god has given strength through prayer, etc. Is the nature of that strength "God, give me the strength to not ask myself these questions so that I can have a closer relationship to you without having to answer them...."? I.e., when forced to confront such questions, is the desired help sought from god supposed to be the strength to still believe unswervingly despite those questions? -- You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (03/27/84)
>> = Jeff Sargent > = Rich Rosen > By choosing to "bond" [I would say "bind", i.e. "fetter"--jjs] oneself to > rationalism, one attempts to ensure that one will not be ensnared by that > which is tempting but clearly not rational. Often, because of years of > conditioning about the mystical and supernatural, one needs to actively > "bond" oneself to reality and to rationalism. (When you distinguish > between rationality and rationalism, what is it about 'rationalism' that you > dislike as opposed to rationality?) Rationality, i.e. thinking logically, is a perfectly good thing. Any Christian who claims otherwise has missed the boat. Rationalism, however, is the elevation of the rational mind to the status, effectively, of God. One should indeed use one's rational mind in the conduct of his life. But I think you are the one who has been ensnared by that which is tempting but clearly not complete or sufficient. >> The Christian is the one who knows >> that he need not fear mere physical death, and thus has a supply of >> courage and strength (which the atheist denies himself) wherewith to face >> death. And I repeat what I've said before: Christianity is not irrational >> -- the correct word(s) might be supra-rational or trans-rational. A >> relationship with Christ is an excellent way to cure actual irrationality. > Knows? Denies? Has? These words make large scale assumptions about the > nature of reality which you clearly have not shown evidence for. Can one > "deny" something that is only believed to exist? Can one "have" a supply > of anything for which one "has" no evidence of, or that may be explained > by internal rather than external explanations? Can one "know" the truth > about life after death without evidence? The fact that you do not require > such evidence sheds light on what the notions of supra-rational and > trans-rational really mean-------non-rational. Care to rebut rationally?? > Logically?? I refer you to my earlier articles: The only way you're going to get evidence is to try it yourself. I also would point out some verses I quoted in a response I posted to Tim Stoehr, which show you how far above your rationality God is. (If you're arguing against God, you're arguing against the One who gave you the ability to argue--sort of like sawing off the limb you're sitting on.) > Just a side comment: We've often heard of religionists who claim to be > questioning, and to whom god has given strength through prayer, etc. Is > the nature of that strength "God, give me the strength to not ask myself > these questions so that I can have a closer relationship to you without > having to answer them...."? I.e., when forced to confront such questions, > is the desired help sought from god supposed to be the strength to still > believe unswervingly despite those questions? Actually, one definition of faith is holding on to what one's mind has come to believe, in spite of moods that may tend to alter that belief. (Thanks to C.S. Lewis for this one.) -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Have you hugged your junk mail today?