Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq
From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Is General Goodness just a moral principle?
Message-ID: <2147@pucc-h>
Date: Thu, 25-Jul-85 06:14:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.2147
Posted: Thu Jul 25 06:14:48 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jul-85 01:41:45 EDT
References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP> <360@utastro.UUCP> <879@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <1235@pyuxd.UUCP> <2134@pucc-h>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 113
From Rich Rosen (pyuxd!rlr):
> Amongst the whole universe (or set of
> universes), this one that we're in is the one where physical laws are as they
> are and this small part of it that we're in is the one in which conditions
> were such that life could exist. Why are we here, in this spot? Because if
> this wasn't "here", there wouldn't be any "we", conditions wouldn't have
> allowed it. Does that imply some designer? Not at all. We are "here"
> because this is the only place that had conditions to allow us to exist.
Obviously the physical conditions here allow us to exist. But allowing
something is an immense distance from causing it. Your assumption that
life, consciousness, and intelligence arose -- from a state where there
were no such things (this is your assumption, is it not?) -- is not at all
empirically verifiable; it just fits the rest of your world view.
>> The Bible was written, among other things, to give us guidelines as to what
>> is actually in our best interests, though we may not have discovered it yet.
> Agreed. Much of it was written with that purpose in mind. But given that
> there's no reason to believe it really was the "word of god" (assuming for
> now that there is such a beast), when one sees some of the flaws in the
> reasoning found in the book, some of the things it claims (and commands!)
> are WRONG for everyone and should be punished, one should take the time to
> stop and think. Does this book, though it offers some brilliant philosophy,
> offer the be all and end all? Do I believe EVERYTHING I read in it regardless
> of evidence to the contrary, or do I take from it what is good, what helps,
> and take the rest as parable, fable, legend, or even the wild impositions of
> some author of the time?
I am genuinely pleased that you and I have found some ground of agreement.
(No :-); I mean that.) It would be interesting, but time-consuming, to have
a discussion of some of the "flaws in the reasoning" -- that is, if there are
any other than the basic premise of the existence of God, which you obviously
consider a flaw. I'm not sure why so much of the Bible (particularly the Old
Testament) was put in terms of crime and punishment, other than perhaps to make
graphically clear the idea that if you do something wrong (or, as I've said
elsewhere, suboptimal), you'll suffer for it sooner or later (perhaps only
inside yourself). And heck, a great many Christians don't believe everything
in it, because they (we) have a vested interest in not doing so (e.g. Matthew 6,
starting at about verse 19). But anyway, I am glad that you do not reject the
entire Bible out of hand.
>> God Himself is constantly at work healing us so that we lose our false
>> wants and find out what we really want, then have the courage to go for it.
> For instance, what are "false wants"? I agree that some things one may want
> are not in one's best interest, some things may be downright wrong. But is
> it a false want just because a book says so?
Actually it's the other way around: The Bible opposes certain things because
they are not what anyone really wants, what are in anyone's best interests.
>> But until this healing is completed (or at least well along), those
>> guidelines are there so that we don't mess ourselves up worse than we
>> already are.
> One can be better healed by better recognizing one's position in the real
> world. I shouldn't speak for those who simply cannot get along without
> belief in a parent figure that runs it all despite the lack of evidence to
> support that notion, but such cases strike me as very sad.
Actually my point was that sticking within Biblical limits stands a good
chance of preventing you from requiring more healing than you already do.
And yes, many people who come to Christ are indeed very sad when they come
or perhaps for years after, and it is Christ who enables them to discard
that sadness.
>> Example: This group had a discussion a while back on fornication. Many
>> fundamentalists look upon this as one of the star sins, i.e. something which
>> renders those who commit it liable to judgment and ostracism. But in actual
>> fact, the reason not to do it is that it is a suboptimal satisfaction of a
>> want -- the want for total (not just physical) intimacy with a MOTOS, which
>> can't be achieved very well outside of marriage. Paul puts it even more
>> strongly when he comments that someone who does indulge "sins against his
>> own body" -- i.e. hurts himself.
> Oh? Care to elaborate on why? Seriously, beyond the words of a book, what
> makes it WRONG? In what way is sex (outside marriage or even outside
> "conventional" norms!!!) hurting oneself? PLEASE elaborate!!!!!
Anyone out there who is married but who played around before marriage care to
comment on the difference between the two? All I can say is that my minimal
experience with premarital sex was pretty painful (no, not physically!). At
least I can say that it doesn't work without a high degree of trust between
the partners, such trust as is at its strongest when the two have made a solemn
commitment to each other.
>> It is my contention that starting from the basis that one is loved and
>> accepted is a far more effective means of becoming free to reach one's
>> fullest potential than merely sticking to dry rationalism.
> Loved and accepted by what? Feeling that way may make you feel better,
> but if you're talking about love and acceptance from some mythical deity
> your basis may be flawed, and that's no foundation worth standing on.
> Human beings don't love and accept unconditionally, they offer such things
> in response to good actions and a feeling of companionship stemming from
> those actions. To want this "unconditional love and acceptance" you've often
> spoken of (from a deity) strikes me as a wish to fulfill that need without
> interacting with humans to get it. You may live on the illusion, but the
> real thing is out here amongst us people.
But it is a foundation that has transformed me in the past 10 years or so.
As to the source of love and acceptance: Certainly the love and acceptance
of humans who cared for me though I didn't offer them much of anything
except draining them with my need for self-esteem and acceptance has helped
me. But so has a lot of prayer alone in my room.
--
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq
The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)
The prayer of a not-so-righteous man availeth sometimes.... (Rich McDaniel)