lab@qubix.UUCP (07/26/83)
Many thanks to those who have used the mail to continue discussions and
kept the netnews load down. This article got longer than I wanted, so I
split what would have been the main feature into another article.
Significant-items-since-last-time-not-otherwise-responded-to Dept.:
It appears N.Tinkham and I disagree on the value of "Know Why You Believe."
I would let the reader decide between us, yet I have known many for whom
the purpose of the book has been vindicated.
The purpose of the ark was a testimony against the world. They saw it;
they probably scoffed at Noah. So when the Flood came, there was no
excuse. Rounding up animals (especially in a vegetarian world) would
have meant little, yet the purpose of the ark was clear. "Rain?!
Suuuuure, Noah! A flood?! Hah!" No excuse... BTW, Noah had over 60
years (some claim as much as 120) in which to build the ark...
"I suggest you read Kierkegaard for a very good explanation of how
reason can \lead/ to faith, but not how faith can be 'based' on reason."
1. Kierkegaard's idea was a "leap of faith" (like going against
gravity) rather than having a strong supporting basis.
2. (From "Know Why You Believe" p.18) "Faith in the Christian sense goes
beyond reason but not against it." "Faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1
"...are you telling me that if I make some form of modification to my
mind, I will be able to figure out the ways of God?" Not *you* making
the mod, Alan, but *God* changing you. (Glad to discuss via e-mail)
"Second, you had better believe that we remember [the plagues]." Hmm...
Seems I read in Exodus and Numbers ("In the Wilderness") about some
very forgetful people "unto whom [God] sware in [His] wrath that they
should not enter into [His] rest." (Psalm 95)
"How did the crops grow if there was no rain?" Gen.2:5,6 say enough.
BTW, Wex, I haven't seen much (if any) "Bible-thumping" in net.singles.
Steve Den Beste missed my point altogether by saying "If sex is only
for reproduction..." The question was (again) why the reproductive
process and the joyful intercourse process are so intermeshed. Why
aren't they separate? To turn his own question back, the "gentle orgy"
would have had fewer side effects that way.
"I have watched too many marriages where the people only became
sexually involved after the wedding break up for this reason [sexual
incompatibility]." 1. Too much pressure on "sexual compatibility."
People are being indoctrinated that sex is the only way to show love. I
contend that if you can't demonstrate your love without sex, the bed is
no place to begin. 2. I've lived several places on this continent and
have YET to see a marriage wherein there was no premarital sex break up
because of "sexual incompatibility." And they wouldn't trade their
marriages for anything. Perhaps you should try a different group...
Re a deformed child having to "live the rest of his life in an
institution - a fate I would not wish on anyone" - many work in
institutions as jobs, others as a ministry to God. And I know at least
one place where the workers are all of the latter. Want a recommendation?
Steve gives quite a bit toward an emphasis on overpopulation. Sounds
like a good excuse for genocide :-). And why don't we start with those
"condemned to abject poverty" :-( If you insist on looking ahead, look
FAR ahead - if left long enough, this whole universe will run out of
energy, so they'll all die anyway. :-(
Re "the early verbal traditions of the church" (unc!bch) - may I
suggest reading the Acts of the Apostles? Also this bit about the early
documents being rewritten - I weary of this worn-out excuse. The
findings of ancient documents continue to bear out that the documents
we have are essentially the same as the originals. The Apostle John
himself was around until almost the end of the first century to provide
the authority needed to know what was what.
Darrell Plank quotes a 1948 Supreme Court ruling attempting to use
Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" to apply to
state governments. In his 1805 inaugural address, Jefferson clarified
that this statement referred to the separation between the church and
the FEDERAL government. (see Edward Corwin "American Constitutional
History" (1965) p.205) Further, Jefferson had NOTHING to do with the
writing of the Constitution - his contribution was the Declaration of
Independence, in which (everyone take note) he said that "inalienable
rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" came by a
CREATOR. If you accept those rights, I suggest you accept the basis of
those rights - else where do your rights come from?
As a followup, Darrell and I are continuing the "human" rights
discussion by mail, so the issue is far from dead...
One last note about the "laws" of nature: natural "laws" are NOT
causative agents; they are the results of observations that are used to
base expectations. The "law" of gravity does not cause a stone to fall;
gravitational force does. The "law" tells what to expect, not HOW or
WHY it happened. (Then again, what & why is gravity? :-)
Splitting 'em up this time,
Larry Bickford,
{ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!lab