lab (03/21/83)
To avoid network cluttering, more I suggest a moratorium while we ponder I Corinthians 1:18-32 and the following: Defenders: Conversion requires conviction, not convincing. The skeptics will not be converted by the answers to their questions. As David Hawley said in an earlier article, there is a more basic problem. Skeptics: Who of you will be the historic first to say that the alleged contradictions in the Bible are the only thing between you and Christ? A group of skeptics once had all their Bible questions answered. One asked them if they would surrender to Christ; they said "No." One asked "Why?" They said "We don't want to." A matter of "Won't," not "Can't." Before further skeptical questions, let the inquiring party use a concordance and Hebrew/Greek lexicon to make sure a given English word (such as "heard" or "voice") comes from the same word in the original language in the questioned instances. (Avoids "version-vision") For the extra-biblical evidence on Jesus (mikec): Tacitus' Annals, Lucian's Passing Peregruis, Flavius Josephus (THE historian of that era), Seutonius' Biographies, Pliny's Letters, ... For J.D.Jensen on books referenced in Scripture: Being referenced in Scripture is not a testimony of canonicity. Only Enoch is quoted, and then only one verse. The unquoted parts are not guaranteed accurate. Bill Pfeifer on the Genesis "day": Hebrew "yom" as in "Yom Kippur" (Day of Atonement). Root word means "to be hot" - a very definite time! Ditto "evening," root "to grow dusky," and "morning," always used for "early" Regarding a religion which neither tolerates nor tries to convert: every religion is BY ITS NATURE opposed to every other religion. Simple logic: A says "A is the only way to God, and B is not." B says "A and B are ways to God." B accepts A which denies B. Either A is wrong or B is self-contradictory, and hence wrong. Either way, NOT(both are right). This also applies to humanism and Unitarian-Universalism. Yours for cleaner netting, Larry Bickford decvax!decwrl!qubix!lab
randals (03/25/83)
~~~ (quoted material) ~~~
Regarding a religion which neither tolerates nor tries to convert:
every religion is BY ITS NATURE opposed to every other religion. Simple
logic: A says "A is the only way to God, and B is not." B says "A and B
are ways to God." B accepts A which denies B. Either A is wrong or B is
self-contradictory, and hence wrong. Either way, NOT(both are right).
This also applies to humanism and Unitarian-Universalism.
Yours for cleaner netting,
Larry Bickford
decvax!decwrl!qubix!lab
~~~ (end quoted material) ~~~
Interesting. You blindingly make a number of conclusions at light-speed in
the middle of the paragraph, and hope to con us into a proof that is,
itself, not founded on facts.
I refer specifically to the one statement "Either A is wrong, or B is
self-contradictory, and hence wrong." What rule in what rulebook says
that something that is self-contradictory is wrong? Even so, what
rule in what rulebook says that any B such that "B accepts A which denies B"
is self-contradictory? I assert that these items are UNJUSTIFIED OPINION,
and not FACT. Your own preconceptions are distorting your observations.
That is why, in my original request, I said to "look hard". It may take
some real thinking and observing out there to see what I am looking for.
For most of you (if not practically all), you will see the situation as
impossible and unsolvable. Those few that can make it past that barrier
will discover something very fascinating about what I am asking.
Hint: to get there, you need to be willing to think the unthinkable,
as contradictory as that seems.
By the way, the individuals that have sent me info on a few specific religions
still haven't quite seen it. I agree with Larry in that UU and humanism
are not the "religion" I am looking for.
In another net article, Don Winsor stated:
"The basic principle of Unitarian Universalism is freedom of belief.
U.U.'s are not expected to assent to any particular creed or statement
of belief. Instead, they follow the principle that all persons have an
obligation to seek and to follow truth as they understand it."
Now, doesn't that mean that UU people necessarily infer that anyone that
DOESN'T "seek and follow the truth as they understand it" is wrong,
and must be put up with or changed?
Sounds to me like UU is just another system for justifying who you are,
and invalidating others. Not what I asked for, is it?
In another case, someone sent me a note on Theleism, and stated in
the text:
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
I belong to the religion known as Thelemism. We do not practice
or believe in oppression of any religious group which does not
believe in imposing its will on others. There are many paths; the
only thing that can prove a path invalid is a belief in imposing
one's will on others (for instance, sending people to jail for
practicing birth control). This belief is shared by most of the
neo-pagan groups (which we are not) that have sprung up in this
country in the last few decades.
Love is the law, love under will."
Now, look at that. These people say it is wrong to "[impose] one's
will on others". What if my will is that it is o.k. to impose one's
will on others? Then, you would be imposing on me with your own
*different* will! You would then either have to tolerate me, or
try to get me to see that I am doing wrong (by YOUR definition).
Sorry, not what I asked for again.
Oh well, keep looking. Maybe you'll see it, and maybe you won't.
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-relaytim (03/27/83)
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Randall Schwartz has posted a letter I sent to him on the subject of my religion, Thelemism. The basic tenet of Thelemism is a belief in the Will of the individual as the ultimate arbiter of behavior. Mr Schwartz ridiculed this belief, saying: What if my will is to impose my will on you? This is an absurdity. If you feel that such is your will, you are acting in error. By def- inition, the "Wills" I am speaking of do *not* conflict, and the will to block another's will is no will at all. I am not speaking of random organismic impulses when I speak of Will. Such are clearly liable to conflict. The postulate of Thelemism is that the true Will of a person is "good" (although that's not a word I like to use, it may be the only way to convey the concept here). As such, it is a reversal of the basic Christian orientation, which is that we are all pretty "evil" and will sin at the drop of a hat if we aren't careful. The reason that I hold to this assumption is that it cor- responds most closely to my own beliefs concerning morality. It postulates no improbabilities such as divine judgment or the carrot-and-stick absurdities of "good" and "evil". Fundamentally, it is no more than a paradigm for exploration of concepts and experiences. In conclusion, Mr. Schwartz, you are without a doubt the single most pretentious writer I have seen on this group since its inception. I am including Dave Lee in this. You say: No, none of you have it, but I do, because I can think in ways you can't, you poor fools. Then, you effectively take yourself beyond the reach of reasonable criticism by refusing to divulge any details of your "truth", merely saying: If you fools will imitate me, perhaps one day you can attain to my status. There is little alternative for me, when forming an opinion of you, but to conclude that you are suffering from a vastly overinflated ego and a deep-seated conviction of the inerrancy of your own belief. Your attitude makes it impossible for me to take anything that you say seriously, even as seriously as I take Biblical apologists. Love is the law, love under will. Tim Maroney decvax!duke!unc!tim