laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/17/85)
since Rich Rosen wants to know what is considered ``impolite'', i am going to give it to him. this article is a very good example. the shift key on this terminal is very ill, so no more flames about capitalisation, okay/ --that ws supposed to be question mark, bother! >>>them right for everyone? Why is poor Jeff Sargent trying to squeeze certain >>>things into his life that may be hopelessly inappropriate for him, just >>>because it says so in a book? [Rosen] okay, first mistake. The authority on jeff sargent is jeff sargent. now, last i read, jeff thinks that he has an on-going and personal relationship with a god that exists -- not just with some book. you are going to have to dispose of that claim before you can make such statements. this is going to be a very tough one, since people who have subjective religious experiences early on figure out that either: a] something real is going on or b] they are insane [hardware problem in brain type] or c] they are insane [software problem in brain type]. this insanity may or may not be permanent. assume that jeff is not insane, if only because, if he is insane then there is little point in arguing with him at all. therefore, assuming he is not lying [again, if he is lying, why bother/] he must be experiencing something real which you think he is misinterpreting. okay. the way to show people who are misinterpreting things is not to ccuse them of doing wht you may even suspect that they are doing but which they do not believe they are doing. they are bound to view you as a narrow-minded and hostile critic who didn't bother to listen to them in the first place. this is called hostile. we'll see what happens. >> Apparently either you have not read either my postings or my letters to >> you, or else you have filtered them through your negative preconceptions -- >> contrary to your claimed intention to see all things objectively. You will >> note that my recent writings talk a lot about FREEDOM in Christ; perhaps you >> are slow to adjust to the fact that Christ can change people quickly if they >> let Him. I am finding, for instance, that I actually would prefer *not* to >> fornicate, that I actually would *prefer* to keep sex in a context of full >> trust and commitment -- not because of anything the Bible says, but because >> that's what I really want. (I admit that I'm not sure what I would do if a >> woman with whom I had a really trusting relationship short of marriage wanted >> to add a sexual dimension to it; this depends on so many factors that it's >> useless to speculate.) [SRAGNET] right. jeff says you aren't listening. he's right. he is trying to tell you about his religious experience. i have some problems with his conclusion [in looking for your path of most freedom, how do you know when you have arrived/] but we will see what you do with it. >What's been filtered by my "negative preconceptions" is how little what you >claim has changed you has in fact really changed you. wow! holy shit, but that is a hostile statement. you have out and out denied what jeff has said. this is not quite as strong as calling him a liar, but it comes pretty close. if you pulled this one on me, i would pack up my marbles and go home -- but maybe we can do one better and have 2 sorts of discussion newsgroups -- on in which such arguments can happen and one where they aren't supposed to. or maybe we should all ignore you. i don't know what is best, but i am thinking about it a lot. >Are your preferences >formed before or after presumption, etc. are important avoided questions. >It's fine to want or not to want to "fornicate" (what a disgusting word for >simply "sexual enjoyment"!) But don't do so on the basis of what you're >told that you SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do, especially when you can't see a clear >valid reason for the SHOULD/SHOULDN'T restriction. Obviously I don't consider >"it's in a certain book" to be a "clear valid reason". But neither is peer >pressure, or media brainwashing that you're "supposed" to do something. It >works both ways. That's all I'm saying, and I'd venture that a lot of >real Christians would agree. what valid reason could jeff give that would make you say that his decision not to fornicate was a good one/ he already told you that he now thinks that this is what he deeply wants to do and that this is where the greatest freedom lies. you think that he is wrong, and, yes, i think that he is wrong, but stop going back to ``jeff is wrong because he believes this book''. go back to ``jeff is mistaken because he has interpreted his religious experience incorrectly''. at least there you will have something to work with. by the way, if you haven't figured out that, even in net.religion.christian there is a heck of a lot of contraversy as to what is a ``real christian'' then you haven't been thinking about what you are reading. so dumping that line in is hostile to a lot of christians, especially those who are the fundamentalist sorts who think that ``it is in a certain book'' is a clear and valid reason. if you want to argue that these people are not real christians, then you can do so, but *please*, do it in a separate article! otherwise there will be no way to get back to jeff sargent's religious experience from this note -- assuming that any reader wants to discuss it, and jeff is willing. this note, instead, will collect 50 flames from fundamentalists who feel that you have maligned them and their religious beliefs. jeff sargent's beliefs on fornication and religious experience will be lost on the wayside. >>>Uniform monolithic rules for everyone not only stagnate the human race by >>>making everyone the same (or close to it), but they also deteriorate the >>>quality of each individual life. Desiring a world in which everyone obeys >>>such rules of behavior (beyond simple non-interference laws) is the same as >>>desiring to see the world force-fit into your mold, and desiring to lay down >>>what others can and cannot do. here i agree totally with what you have said. >> It is true that many people who claim to be presenting Christianity actually >> present various flavors of religion with strict rules (or at least a generally >> legalistic attitude). However, I have finally begun recently to understand >> and experience for myself the truth that I have encountered here and there in >> Christian writings: that freedom means being free to do what you were >> designed to do = what God wants you to do = what you, in your heart of >> hearts, really want to do. so jeff agrees too. now, the question that needs broaching is are there certain things [like fornicating] which one can know for certain god does not want anyone to do/ or is fornicating fine for me but not fine for jeff sargent/ >That's fine if you already believe the premise of god, which you obviously do. >But the notion that YOU, Jeff Sragnet, were designed to do certain things and >be a certain way and that a book holds all the answers to what those certain >things and certain ways are is both self-destructive and erroneous. The best Rich, you still aren't listening! (wonder! my shift key is WORKING AGAIN!). Jeff is not saying that he is doing what he was doing because a book has all the answers. Also, you may object to the notion that Jeff thinks that he was ``designed'' for something, but would you object as strongly if he said ``because I am composed in such-and-such a way'' and made no claim to being created? What if he simply said that he thought that it was not natural for him to fornicate? you can dispute this, but if you do so, you must get back to ``your interpretations of your religious experience are flawed'' not ``you are doing this because you believe all the answers are in this book''. To do the second is to deny the fact of Jeff's religious experience. . . but I would be very surprised if this is not the reason that he is a Christian. You miss the whole boat, and end up making jeff justifiably convinced that you are stuffing his experience through your narrow minded view of Christianity. How can he not but think that when you keep going back to ``the book'' when he is trying to talk about his religious experience? talking about religious experience is tough enough at the best of times -- talking to you seems to be unusually difficult. jeff might as well go shout up the chimney -- you *aren't* *listening*... >way to find out how to live is not to read a book (any book) to "tell you how", >to tell you what you were "designed to do", but rather through the process of >life itself. I'm sure that's one more things many Christians would agree with. If you follow the chronicles of Jeff Sargent in net.singles, you will see that he *is* doing things in life. May ebe he is not doing enough things. Maybe he is doing the wrong things. But the notion that he is just stagnating is false. We have already determined that Jeff is afraid, right. [I think Jeff will agree to this.] He took a big vacation and went and saw interesting net people over the east coast. This was a gutsy thing to do for someone who once claimed to be afraid of meeting people. This is called living. Explorations of one's psyche, even if done in a religious context :-), are also part of living. there is nothing which says that if you try to avoid mistakes you are not living. Do you think that Jeff is trying to avoid mistakes too much, and should discover that failure isn't so bad? Me too -- but that is not what you are saying. Again, you are denying his experience. From what I have read, Jeff has had the sort of life where one gets to learn about pain a whole lot. This, too, is experience -- and if it has been Jeff's experience that life is full of nearly unbearable pain then no wonder he wants to avoid doing things which are ultimately going to give him pain because they are ultimately not what he wants. All you are doing is providing another example of a painful person out there. Hmm. I feel an urge... Jeff, things work out a lot better when you become convinced that no matter what mistake you make, you will endure and survive throught he consequences and come out the other side. I figured this one out after screwing my life up so badly that I was (and still am) convinced that nothing worse could happen to me and -- wow -- I was still around. Any chance that you can look at you life from this light? It is a neat perspective for making dicisions and getting things done relatively quickly. >> God made you and loves you, and "His commands are >> not burdensome"; and it would be illogical on His part, as well as unloving, >> for Him to make you so that your truest desire was at variance with what He >> wanted for you, since then you would be always in a suboptimal state -- you >> would either be doing His will, which was not what you really wanted, or you >> would be doing what you really wanted, but uncomfortable because it was not >> His best for you. >All this is based on an a priori assumption that there IS a god and that THAT >is how he/it is going to behave (a point I've been trying to make to Jeff and >to others for some time). But it's irrelevant to this particular discussion. No, Rich, it isn't. *If* there is no god, *then* you have irreproachable claim that Jeff is misunderstanding his religious experience. Until you can prove this one to Jeff's satisfaction, or for some other reason convince him that his interpretations of his religious experiences are incorrect he isn't likely to do anything about your claims that god does not exist. His experience denies this. why is he supposed to accept the conclusions that you have made rather than the ones he has made based on his own perceptions? Not because you have ever explained to him why his interpretation of his experience is false. Are you asking him to accept you as an authority on the non-existence of god and to divorce himself from his perceptions? I wouldn't take you up on that offer and i don't think that there is a creator-god! No wonder Jeff doesn't... >> But if individuals freely choose to use the Bible, intimacy with God, and >> the counsel of others in the faith (including those older and wiser who >> are leaders, but not theocrats), to help them mold their own lives, there >> will be certain similarities among all of them, but they will be most free >> to be fully the glorious and beautiful individuals they were created to be. >If individuals freely choose to use their own reasoning and figure out what's >best for them as individual human beings, then and only then will they be >"most free". So far you have not stated where the conflict lies. How do you know that what is best for human beings (in particular, the human being Jeff Sargent) is not being a Christian? Karl Rahner (big name theologian) defines what a christian is by this. by his definition, you (assuming that you are freely choosing to figure out best for you as an individual human being) are what he calls an ``anonymous christian'' -- even though you will deny it. i don't happen to agree, but you have failed to present this one. by the way, for someone who doesn't believe in ``free will'' you have used the word ``freely chosen''... odd. did you freely choose your beliefs/ if not, whuy condemn jeff sargent, who presumably didn't either. if so -- do you have a ghost in your machine/ laura creighton utzoo!laura