rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Whatever I'm calling myself this week) (09/23/86)
> You have stopped the entire Western Christian World (what there is left of > it!) with your searing question, "How does one reconcile 'And he was handed > over to the torturers until he should pay all his debt' with the model that > people do it to themselves?" And again you ask, (WoW!) "How about the > entirety of the Last Judgment parable, in which God commands people into > Hell?" > > I can hear the churches emptying and see the blank slack-jawed look on the > faces of ministers across the land! NO ONE EVER THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE!!!!! > EGAD! TIM'S SHOWN US HOW IT ALL MAKES NO SENSE!!!! > > THANKS TIM. [KEN ARNDT] Ken makes a very important point here. When it comes to any gap or hole in Christian religious thinking, the churches will NOT empty, the clergymen will NOT scowl and frown, the theologians will NOT ultimately care. They will simply go on as if no important unresolved issue or contradictory evidence existed. For that is the way of religion. That is what faith is all about. Not caring a tinker's cuss about the fact that if you really stopped to use brain power to think about such things and reflect on the evidence, you might not believe anymore. (Actually, the theologians don't just "not care". As Paul Zimmerman likes to say, they simply take the philosophical contradiction or problem and rewrite the premises so that they still get the solution they want, whether it reflects reality or not. Isn't that how all good philosophers work? :-( ) Thanks, Ken. As usual, through no fault of your own, you have made an interesting point. > Oh wait a minute! I see the difference between a human judge and God. God > created the whole thing soooooo, (since we all know God can't create other > than 'preprogramed' beings) God's at fault! Wheeew. God almost wiggled out > for a moment there. > > Say Tim, have you ever thought of teaching theology? Actually, I wouldn't mind a REAL "comparative theology" class taught in tandem by the likes of Ken and Tim. Might prove interesting. (Though not half as interesting as one taught by Paul Zimmerman and Charley Wingate. :-) But, alas, Ken isn't interested in presentations of opposing points of view so that they may both be evaluated. Since he's got it all right, he sees no need for such things. From his past writing, it's pretty clear that his idea of a discussion involving two opposing parties consists of this: KEN: This is clearly all wrong because Dr. Flimsky said so and I happen to believe it, so there. X: But what about ... [SUBSTANTIVE REBUTTAL FOLLOWS] KEN: You weenie-poo-poo homo, you! Does your mother wipe your ass? Nobody but liberal homosexual atheist kaka people believe that! Ken Arndt, the art of rhetorical persuasion at its finest. -- "Supernatural, schmupernatural," Simon grimaced. "You're still like the people in that mathematical parable about Flatland. You can only think in categories of right and left, and I'm talking about *up* and *down*, so you say 'super- natural'. There is no 'supernatural'; there are just more dimensions than you are accustomed to, that's all." Rich Rosen bellcore!pyuxd!rlr
magore@watdcsu.UUCP (09/23/86)
>From pyuxd!rlr Tue Sep 23 12:44:26 EDT 1986 [munch munch] >Ken says: >> >> I can hear the churches emptying and see the blank slack-jawed look on the >> faces of ministers across the land! NO ONE EVER THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE!!!!! >> EGAD! TIM'S SHOWN US HOW IT ALL MAKES NO SENSE!!!! >> >> THANKS TIM. [KEN ARNDT] > >Ken makes a very important point here. When it comes to any gap or hole in >Christian religious thinking, the churches will NOT empty, the clergymen will >NOT scowl and frown, the theologians will NOT ultimately care. They will >simply go on as if no important unresolved issue or contradictory evidence >existed. For that is the way of religion. That is what faith is all about. >Not caring a tinker's cuss about the fact that if you really stopped to use >brain power to think about such things and reflect on the evidence, you might >not believe anymore. (Actually, the theologians don't just "not care". As ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No the point He is making is that many people (non-Christians) do NOT have the background that Christians have in understanding Christianity. So they (non-Christians) *tend* to ask DUMB questions. Or you might say that they seldom can ask a good question( this is not just a snip...). Many of the questions I have seen are like the old joke about the lawyer that asks the accused 'So when did you stop beating your wife??'. Here the lawyer guides the 'truth'(by what he thinks and asks ) into untruth. Many (non-Christians) have posted similar questions and then go on to prove how dumb we are ( one might say 'circular' attacks). The point above is tongue and cheek as I see it (to an extreme) to point out that perhaps Christians are not so dumb after all (as if to point out the very problem). Remember that both Christians and non-Christians can ask dumb questions but it is up to us *all* to discard 'noise' so as not to fall into the trap of using it (noise) as a measuring rod to measure reason. I contend that many Christians believe God from experience. That is the Bible tells of a testable method to find Him (no blind faith just be determined). Such experience is what I contend is the reason for yet more 'faith'. Just as we understand that the sun will rise (because we know why). That is the sort of faith you should understand Christians in general to have. (There may be exceptions BUT so there is in all fields, we don't judge a field of study by those who are questionable.) But making up stories about how Christians think etc... also does not help the cause of discussion... # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (09/25/86)
In article <2573@watdcsu.UUCP> magore@watdcsu.UUCP (M.A.Gore - ICR) writes: > I contend that many Christians believe God from experience. That is >the Bible tells of a testable method to find Him (no blind faith just be >determined). Such experience is what I contend is the reason for yet more >'faith'. Just as we understand that the sun will rise (because we know why). You are misusing the word "faith". Faith means "belief in something for which there is no proof". That the Sun will rise can be proven (to the satisfaction of most people). "Faith" can also mean "complete confidence", but the "despite lack of proof" is generally implied. Your contention that people believe in God because of personal experience brings up an interesting point. Any "proof" of any issue must be evaluated by each person; they base their judgement of the correctness of the proof on their own experience (which constitutes their reality). I can believe that a person honestly believes in God because in their reality God speaks to them, causes things to mysteriously happen, thwarts Evil and promotes Good. However a non-believer might take these reported manifestations of God as the products of an active imagination, since these are not consistent with the non-believer's experience of reality. If you wish to be understood, please be clear: "I believe in God because of the proof of my experience which is [so and so]." The rest of us can then judge your assertions with respect to *our* view of reality. > But making up stories about >how Christians think etc... also does not help the cause of discussion... Be precise, and no one will have to make up any stories. When *I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I chose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you *can* make words mean so many different things." -- Steve Nahm UUCP route: {amd|cae780}!ubvax!sxnahm sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP Internet address: amd!ubvax!sxnahm@decwrl.DEC.COM