From: mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Puritans (Re: Agnostics and Athiests)
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:01:43 GMT
Reply-To: mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch)
Organization: Bellcore

In article <76802@ut-emx.uucp>, sheila@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (sheila) writes:
|> In article <UeQsWIW00VpOR531sx@andrew.cmu.edu> 
|> ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
|> >Which leads to an interesting point.  If you're predestined, then why be
|> >good.  You're already guaranteed salvation.  If you're not predestined,
|> >then you have nothing to lose by being bad.  Hmmmm.
|> >
|> 
|> O, now we can talk books. If you are really interested in this point,
|> read some books about the puritans, I guess. Matt, my beloved, took
|> a history class last summer session and kept bringing home horrible
|> details about puritans (wait, perhaps I have the wrong group).
|> I think they believed that god at some point would give them a sign
|> determining their predestiny. 
|> I wish I could refer you to a book. I havn't read up on this topic.
|> I seem to remember a book called _The Puritan Dilemma_ which Matt
|> read for history class, but when I asked him if it was interesting
|> reading, he said to read _The Way of Duty_ instead. I went to class
|> with him one day, and his history professor is an interesting teacher.
|> 
|> Matt told me a story about a young lady who was so obsessed with her
|> destiny that she threw her baby into a well, because she felt that
|> anyone who did such a thing would certainly not be part of the elect.
|> Her preacher told her that she still didn't truly know. 
|> I think I will study about this one day, (but I want to study too many
|> things) because it is interesting to think about the effects of thinking
|> this way.
|> 
|> When I was a christian I would make up interesting interpretations on
|> predestination. Such fun thrown away now that I am not. No, I bet I 
|> could still have lots of theological interpitational fun.
|> 
|> btw, it is simply ghastly, no awful, no SINFUL, the talk of lying to
|> oneself. Terribly terrible atrocious and awful to attempt to believe
|> something that is not part of one's personal integrity and if I 
|> were a diety I would not respect one who did that.
|> 
|> Has no one mentioned the point that one may choose simply not to 
|> care whether or not a (for example) Judeo-Christian MOnothestic
|> deity exists, and their attitude is, if Judeo-Christian Monothestic
|> said Deity exists, I don't care and choose not to worship it because
|> I have no respect for it. I wash my hands of the whole matter. (nice
|> that, washing ones hands of the whole matter.)
|> (one of my conclusions is that any such diety as given in my
|> example is simply insane. I think it would have OCD. IT is also rather
|> paranoid. no, I must confess, I don't think I can come up with 
|> these conclusions -- well, simply becuase all the descriptions
|> that I am making these conclusions from are from descriptions based
|> on human perceptions, therefore I suppose I shoudl say, the describers
|> are obsessive and paranoid and crazy and have delusions of grandeur.)
|> (it is also simply too too annoying that people keep insisting upon
|> creating such anthropomorphic gods. too too ridiculous.)
|> (I am so annoyed.)
|> (I am so annoyed that I am using this annoying tone of voice)
|> -- 
|> stark raving sane!   sheila@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu


I'm gonna stay on the sidelines of this issue and just spectate,
but I have to say, Sheila, that yours was a truly refreshing post.
Whether I agree with you or not (and I'm not sure, because I not sure
exactly what you said) I read your article with a smile.  I have a
hunch you'd be a very interesting person to sit opposite at the debate
table.

Mike Lynch
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.misc:2220 rec.humor:24556 alt.folklore.urban:19807 alt.religion.kibology:3222