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: <2163@pucc-h>
Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 06:14:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.2163
Posted: Tue Jul 30 06:14:01 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 08:18:20 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: 71

From Rich Rosen (pyuxd!rlr):

>> 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.

> It is also supported by archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, ...  Not an
> assumption, no, it is the converse (that it DID [yes, it DID, DID, DID and
> DID!] ), that a creator deliberately caused it to exist, that is the
> assumption.

Rich, you're entering obnoxious mode without provocation (per my article
"a suggestion").  The parenthetical note in your paragraph above is unnecessary.

The sciences you name support the idea that changes have occurred on earth
(e.g. dinosaurs once lived here, but no more), but they do not imply that
there was no intelligence behind the changes.  And as I said, we don't see
evolutionary changes taking place now, and we certainly don't see life coming
from non-life now.  The idea that that could happen is an assumption by those
who, like you, do not want to admit the existence of a god.

>>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.

> Funny, there are plenty of people I know (myself included) that really and
> truly want to do things that this book considers wrong, and we have yet to
> see any reason for labelling these things as wrong (they don't harm other
> people or themselves).  Are you SURE it's the "other" way around??

It's all in the definition of "harm", I suppose.  Sex, for instance, is such
a titanic linkage of two people that if one has sex with numerous partners,
one is in a sense violating oneself by bringing too many people too close.

And actually, a lot of things in the Bible are backwards from the way most
people think.  Not for nothing has the Kingdom of God been called "the
upside-down kingdom"; as one progresses as a Christian, one can discover
radical new ways of looking at life that are totally different (and better,
more freeing) than the way "the world" looks at life.

> I'm sure many married Christians might support Jeff's view [that premarital
> sex is unwise], but the fact that others may not, and that married and
> unmarried non- Christians can offer a completely different perspective shows
> that the blanket classification that this is ONLY right in marriage is bogus.

Once again, I'm not talking "right" and "wrong"; I'm talking "best for the
people involved".

>> 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.  

> Good thing they saw good in you that you yourself were hiding.  If prayer
> puts you in a frame of mind that makes you feel better about yourself,
> great.  It sounds like it only makes you feel better about yourself in
> relation to something else, though.

Yes and no.  It does help me to see things more clearly (there are some things
that don't have to be looked at radically [as above], rationally [!] does fine,
thank you).  But be it noted that the idea that acceptance by {S,s}omeone else
can help you to accept yourself and grow toward wholeness is not confined to
Christendom; the most obvious more secular example is Alcoholics Anonymous.

Sigh....  No time to say more, system is shutting down for the night.

-- 
-- 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)