Tim Maroney's world stoppin' questions!!
Whatever I'm calling myself this week
> 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
mag...@watdcsu.uucp
>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.
W. Harry Plantinga
>
> 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.
>
> # Institute for Computer Research.
Mike makes a good point here. Let me expand it a bit.
When a person sees another person, he (or she) assumes or "knows"
that there is another person near him. In fact, however, he cannot
*prove* the existance of the other person--he cannot prove that the
appearance is not an illusion. The point is that he has had an
experience from which he concludes that there is another person
nearby.
In the same way, most (many?) Christians believe in God because
they experience Him. For many Christians, the experience is just as
compelling as the appearance of another person nearby. It's not a
mental defect that causes the person to believe in God, it's a correct
and natural response to experience. Many Christians *don't have a
choice* about believing in God any more than a person has a choice
about believing there's another person in the room when he sees him.
I sometimes even wonder if *everyone* experiences God, and either
accepts him or rejects him. It would certainly explain the venom I
see in this newsgroup . . .
Harry Plantinga
plan...@colby.wisc.edu
{allegra,seismo,ihnp4}!uwvax!planting
sxn...@ubvax.uucp
> 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
sxn...@ubvax.UUCP Internet address: amd!ubvax!sxn...@decwrl.DEC.COM
Stephen Nahm
>
>When a person sees another person, he (or she) assumes or "knows"
>that there is another person near him. In fact, however, he cannot
>*prove* the existance of the other person--he cannot prove that the
>appearance is not an illusion.
But that person can relate the ways that he or she "experiences" the other
person. If you describe how that person appears to you, other people who
also "experience" the observed person will either agree with you or not. If
they agree with you, fine. If they don't agree with you, someone must
account for the difference: Too foggy to see correctly? Are the observers
experiencing an altered conciousness? Is someone describing something that's
contained only within that person's mind?
> Many Christians *don't have a
>choice* about believing in God any more than a person has a choice
>about believing there's another person in the room when he sees him.
A Christian (or any person for that matter) *does* have a choice as to what
experiences he or she will rely on for acquiring beliefs. Would a religious
person rely on sensations experienced under the influence of a mind altering
drug? I hope not. Would a person who has been indoctrinated in a belief in
the supernatural believe "experiences" which he or she has been told are
manefestations of God? Probably; if you've been told that certain feelings
and thoughts are direct experiences of God, you're likely to believe you've
experienced God when you've had those feelings or thoughts. You have decide
to use emotions and internal thoughts as criteria for belief (in God).
>I sometimes even wonder if *everyone* experiences God, and either
>accepts him or rejects him. It would certainly explain the venom I
>see in this newsgroup . . .
Everyone *doesn't* experience God (I don't). I hope my follow-up has been
sufficiently free of venom to allow you to believe this.
Joel Rives
>they experience Him. For many Christians, the experience is just as
>compelling as the appearance of another person nearby. It's not a
>mental defect that causes the person to believe in God, it's a correct
>and natural response to experience. Many Christians *don't have a
>choice* about believing in God any more than a person has a choice
>about believing there's another person in the room when he sees him.
>
believe in god out of personal experience. Many people, from many walks
of life, in many different countries throughout time have referred to
a "spiritual" experience. Some people recognize this experience as evidence
in some external deity (not necissarily a Christian deity either). Others,
see it as evidence of their own oneness with the universe - their own
potential godhead, so to speak. Those two groups, by no means, define the
set of reactions to this experience. Such an experience as you are referring
to is - as are all experiences - subject to various filters in our minds.
If you are brought up as a Hindu, you might filter the experience into a form
that is compatible with Hindu scripture. If you are a Toaist, you might
perceive this experience as being one with the flow of Tao. If you are
a Christian, the layers of indoctrination and cultural background might
flavor the experience so that it conforms to the concept of god.
Two people, perceiving the same object, will not necissarily describe the
object in similar terms afterwards. This happens quite often in the mundane
world. How much more so must it occur when we experience something so
intangible as the experience you refer to. A dozen persons sitting in a circle
around some central object will all perceive a slightly different aspect of
the whole object. None of them has the perspective to perceive the object in
it's entirety and so, some may disagree completely as to the objects appearance.
What's more, if this object were to be something that each person in the
circle sought to obtain, then it would not be possible for all of them to
achieve the goal by going along the same path or the same direction. Each
person in that circle would have to make a unique path to the object.
>I sometimes even wonder if *everyone* experiences God, and either
>accepts him or rejects him. It would certainly explain the venom I
>see in this newsgroup . . .
>
I have had such experiences often in my life. When I was younger and didn't
know any better, I attributed them to Jesus Christ's influence in my life.
Later, when I was rebelling aginst the religion which was forced down my
throat as a youth, I preferred to perceive these experiences as Magic in the
universe. Now, I prefer not to attach a label to the experience. For, any
such label will only limit the experience.
--
Joel Rives
gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr
{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ ^ }-------{ * }
There is no place to seek the mind;
It is like the footprints of the birds in the sky.
{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }--------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }
Tim Maroney
supposed to refer to. Care to enlighten me?
In article <27...@rsch.WISC.EDU> plan...@rsch.WISC.EDU (W. Harry Plantinga)
writes:
>When a person sees another person, he (or she) assumes or "knows"
>that there is another person near him. In fact, however, he cannot
>*prove* the existance of the other person--he cannot prove that the
>appearance is not an illusion. The point is that he has had an
>experience from which he concludes that there is another person
>nearby.
This experience is trustworthy because it is almost never contradicted.
Anyone with you at the time will see the same person, and future meetings by
other people with the same person will confirm their meeting with you. This
is not the case with respect to contact with deities. If the universe were
so constituted that meeting a person was, like meeting deity, a highly
questionable experience, in which one had only subjective feelings of
contact but no outside corroboration, and in which the person allegedly met
could not state to any other person at what time and place he or she had
last met with you, then we would hardly have the same absolute confidence in
our meetings with people.
>In the same way, most (many?) Christians believe in God because
>they experience Him. For many Christians, the experience is just as
>compelling as the appearance of another person nearby. It's not a
>mental defect that causes the person to believe in God, it's a correct
>and natural response to experience. Many Christians *don't have a
>choice* about believing in God any more than a person has a choice
>about believing there's another person in the room when he sees him.
Nonsense. In my own pagan invocations I have many times had contact with
what appeared to be pure and transcendent beings, a feeling of contact that
was, if anything, far more vivid and compelling than my current contact with
you. This does not mean that I am unable to treat these experiences with
skepticism, once I re-activate my intellect. I do not believe in non-human
sentience on the planet; I believe that the experience of such was largely
conditioned by my expectations of encountering apparently sentient beings.
When I was twelve years old and privately foreswore Catholicism, one of the
two chief insights I had was that my own religious experience proved
absolutely nothing about the correctness of any doctrine derived from
literally interpreting it. If I had been raised a Hindu, then I would have
experienced Vishnu rather than Jesus. This caused me to over-react for a
few years into dogmatic atheism; since becoming eclectic I have since
experienced both gods, though you would say the experiences contradict each
other. (Actually, what you would say is that I experienced Satan both
times; this is presumptive to start with, and therefore throws aside your
supposed basis in repeatable experience. It also ignores the issue of how
you know that what *you* have experienced is not Satan....)
You will note that for me to accept your viewpoint would require that I
accept that your religious experiences have somehow been superior to mine.
On the other hand, for you to accept mine only requires that you grant that
our experiences have been equally valid.
>I sometimes even wonder if *everyone* experiences God, and either
>accepts him or rejects him. It would certainly explain the venom I
>see in this newsgroup . . .
I don't understand. There is venom on both sides, and you have explained it
on neither. If you want to see where the greater venom lies, I suggest you
compare the tone of Ken Arndt (the sole resident of my global kill file)
with that of any non-Christian poster, including such supposedly terribly
venomous posters as myself and Rich Rosen.
--
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)