lab (03/29/83)
(Posted a day late to avoid the weekend accumulation.) First, cheers to Larry West for posting the first article that was really worth putting into net.religion (regarding televised religious services). Now, the week in review (chill blood to 4 Celsius): To clear up a logic case and reiterate a point: Every religion is BY ITS NATURE opposed to every other religion (which also implies the impossibility of Randal's request). If one of the tenets of A is "B is wrong," and one of B's tenets is "A is right," both cannot be true - a logical impossibility. To see: A => A & ~B B => A & B (use implication of A) => (A & ~B) & B (use associativity of &) => A & (~B & B) (the latter is necessarily false) => A & False (anything & False is False) => False A False conclusion demands at least one False hypothesis (and my philosophy instructor certainly wasn't a Christian). A lot of the net.religion arguments are striving after the wind. One of the basic recurring themes I see is the concept of the finite God, i.e., "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself" Psalm 50:21. If indeed their god is not themselves, they want that god to be accountable to them, and not to interfere if they want to go their own way. Perhaps what they want is Aladdin's genie; the God of Israel doesn't fill the bill. This is directly opposed to the Creator/creation relationship in the Bible. God is Supreme - period. He does what He wants, when He wants, the way He wants, and answers to no one. If He creates something with a will and it disobeys, He has every right to destroy it (except for Noah, none of us would be). His nature is Absolute perfection; His justice demands absolute perfection; His love provided the way for the less-than-perfect to be made perfect (II Cor. 5:21) - a perfect substitute to take the punishment demanded by perfect justice. I'll admit God is tyrannical - II Peter 2:1 "Lord" is translated from the Greek "despot" - considering His position, I won't argue with Him. I'm just glad I'm delivered from wrath and on the winning side. Considering what God had to work with, that is LOVE! Specific replies: Avi: "I could not be convinced by anyone who did not follow any of the rules I like to play the game by." Who made you the authority on the rules? You say you are against efforts on state religions - will you also help to keep the courts from making Humanism America's state religion? As far as "alternate explanations" are concerned - even 1st century Jews could see the connection between the crucifixion and Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. You have given your opinion of the "original translation" of the Hebrew Bible. If you mean the Septuagint, sorry - it was the one in use in Jesus' day, and quoted by Jesus, Peter, Paul, and John (or did "parthenos" in Isaiah 7:14 bother you?). Congratulations on your eight languages - you've only got another 37 to go to catch Robert Dick Wilson of the 1800's. Don: Sorry I can't control the use of "Christian" or "fundamentalist." Many of the acts done by the "church" during the Dark Ages were done to people who today would be called fundamentalist Baptists! You have spoken of rights; I would speak of responsibilities. You have never seen critics of the fundamentalists ... declare a teacher unfit for holding Christian beliefs? Tell that to the science teacher in South Dakota, who was fired after 17 years on the job for presenting ONCE evidence for creation. Humanists get all the free speech they want because the courts have made it the de facto state religion; a fundamentalist preacher in Texas was forced off the air for saying that homosexuality is a sin. Transcendental Meditation and horoscopes are allowed in schools, but not the Almighty. Three general points: "Inspiration" - Theopneustos - "God-breathed" - The Scriptures, the words themselves, are the breath of God. Not the writers, not the readers, but the words. Whatever thought God gave to the writer, when pen met parchment, what was scribed was God's word. I will grant there are a lot of counterfeit Christians. Why aren't there counterfeits of any other religion? A counterfeit implies something of value - the more counterfeits, the more valuable the genuine. As long as man is made the final judge of [name your religion], no one is going to get anywhere. The standard for judgment is superior to the item judged, and pursuing a case with one who has a different standard is fruitless. Consider before posting. Be glad to read any mail, Larry Bickford decvax!decwrl!qubix!lab
randals (03/29/83)
To reply publicly to:
Larry Bickford
decvax!decwrl!qubix!lab
as stated in qubix.181 as follows:
~~~ begin quote ~~~
To clear up a logic case and reiterate a point:
Every religion is BY ITS NATURE opposed to every other religion
(which also implies the impossibility of Randal's request).
If one of the tenets of A is "B is wrong," and one of B's tenets is "A is
right," both cannot be true - a logical impossibility. To see:
A => A & ~B
B => A & B (use implication of A)
=> (A & ~B) & B (use associativity of &)
=> A & (~B & B) (the latter is necessarily false)
=> A & False (anything & False is False)
=> False
A False conclusion demands at least one False hypothesis
(and my philosophy instructor certainly wasn't a Christian).
~~~ end quote ~~~
Lots of neat logic. I agree 100% with your logic. I've studied boolean
algebra and logical derivations since I was a little tyke. I already had
come to this conclusion a long time ago.
Now (and this may shock you), where's the lie?
This is not an answer to my question. You've gotten off into left field
somewhere. You've proved that if A says B is wrong, and B says A is
right, that there is a paradox, and thus, a false assumption.
I am not looking for an A and B that fit the above qualifications.
I look for an X (to use the original variable!), such that members
of X are not instructed to (by the paradigm of their religion)
either (a) put up with, tolerate, ignore, or cope with non-X's, or
(b) try to change the non-X's into being X's.
Note that the question doesn't say "all non-X's are right, anyway",
or anything to that effect. It simply says that they are (this is a
hint) not wrong, and don't need to be resisted or fixed up.
Now, keep looking. I've given away some of the essential details.
YOU CAN'T FIGURE THIS OUT LOGICALLY!!! YOUR LOGIC CAN NOT PROVE ANYTHING
NEW... IT CAN ONLY GIVE YOU *MORE* *OF* *THE* *SAME* *BULLSHxT*!!
Wake up! There's a very amazing, simple answer to my question. Those that
discover it will blow their minds. The question is *so* simple that
you can't figure it out. I'm asking a "who's buried in Grant's tomb?"
question.
Larry's statement:
Every religion is BY ITS NATURE opposed to every other religion
(which also implies the impossibility of Randal's request).
is simply his point of view. It is the filter in which he views
life through. That is the truth *for* *him*. He is blinded to a
much larger view. Remember, that statement is not *fact*, it is *opinion*.
Not afraid to wake people up a little,
Randal L. ("(null)") Schwartz
Tektronix Engineering Computing Systems (the UNIX folks)
Wilsonville, Oregon, USA
UUCP: ...!XXX!teklabs!tekecs!randals (ignore return address)
(where XXX is one of: aat cbosg chico decvax harpo ihnss
lbl-unix ogcvax pur-ee reed ssc-vax ucbvax zehntel)
CSNET: tekecs!randals @ tektronix
ARPA: tekecs!randals.tektronix @ rand-relayhutch (03/29/83)
REgarding Larry Bickford's article on the week in review. Larry, I found one tiny problem with your logical analysis. You assert that all religions are mutually exclusive, this is patently and totally untrue. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, in their normative (common) forms are all exclusive of other religions, with the primary basis in Christianity being that other religions are idolatry, mistaken, or unnecessary. That is all there is to that claim. You cannot assume that religions are isomorphic. The assertion that the Tao is exclusive of other religions is false. The assertion that the philosophies of Zen are exclusive of other religions is false. The assertion that the Greek pagan religion is exclusive of other religions is ridiculous. In fact, the major religions do tend to try and present themselves as the "best" way, and Christianity is the only one I know of that succeeds in making the claim that it is the ONLY way, since even Islam has to allow the Jews their own religion (as per my last discussion with a person of that faith, who may have been either misinformed or of an unusual sect). Other than the misapplication of logic, Larry, I liked your article, even if it will get you so deluged with mail that you won't be able to read it all. Steve Hutchison
tim (03/29/83)
Larry, you just don't understand. You claim to prove a thing that is manifestly false. If you look carefully, you are only proving that if there are not at least two religions which do not claim that the other is false, then all religions are opposed. These two exist (to mention some examples lately discussed, Unitarian/Universalism and Thelemism, although there is no tie between the groups), therefore not all religions are opposed. No amount of sophistry will change that simple fact. You are talking in the abstract, so your error is not as plain as it is to someone used to living with evidence to the contrary. Tim Maroney