From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief (was Luke, Derrida, etc.) (REPOST)
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:29:30 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.


I'm reposting this per Sean's request....his news system expired the
article before he could respond...

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <adams.725035616@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>Steve Adams writes:

[On accepting Jesus]

>>>Think about that for a second. A person cannot control what the impulses
>>>of their "heart" are, by definition. You've just asserted that the act
>>>of _accepting salvation_ is 100% out of the hands of the individual.
>>
>>:-)  God gives grace to those who will accept it.  Basically, all you can
>>do is stop saying 'No' to God and he does the rest.
>
>Wait, now. In my first remark on this subject I said that I had stopped saying
>"no" and that nothing had happened, nevertheless I try to be a good boy
>anyway.  You replied: sorry, you have to confess with your mind (which
>I did), AND with your heart (which I didn't).  By definition, the impulses
>of the heart are spontaneous, uncontrolled, unless they are forced. "Forced"
>feelings are universally regarded as yucky and horrible -- 
>are you saying that I must fake spontaneous confession of the heart? 
>If you aren't, then you are saying that a) I am not saved, and b) I can
>do nothing to alter that state.  You are placing the WHOLE business in 
>God's hands. Man cannot even choose to accept grace or not. He just
>gets it or doesn't.

Well, I am hardly an expert at explaning soteriology, but as I see it, God
gives the grace to beleive to those who accept it.  In order to accept it,
all you need to is stop saying 'no.'  Once you truly do that in your mind,
your heart will confess Christ as Lord, if you truly accept that.  There's
the issue with you.  While you 'accept' Christ, you continue to say 'no' in
your comments about the existence/non-existence of God.

Basically, 'accepting' Jesus means acknowledging that he is 'Immanuel', God
with us.  Anything less is not accepting him.  See my point?  This is where
your current level of 'acceptance' falls short, I think.

Remember one thing though, that anything I say has no effect on God's
truth.  The above is my interpretation.  God's plan, and your mileage, may
vary.

>>>In effect, that only the "elect" (those whose hearts run that way) will
>>>be saved. So much for free will, etc. etc. Booom whoosh crunch...geez did
>>
>>The 'free will' part is in saying 'No' to God.  When you stop saying 'No',
>>then you receive the grace...round and round we go, where we stop, nobody
>>knows.
>
>For starters, we agreed that free will was a myth back in September, so what
>are we arguing about? :)  Second, your remark above is obviously false -
>because I stopped saying "no" and didn't receive the grace, and I am certainly
>not alone in this. 
Explained above...you didn't *really* stop saying 'no'...;-)

>I suspect you probably know all this, and are just playing "advocatus Pauli"
>for me. :)
Who me?  Would I do that?? ;-)

>Re: Bible stories fictional?
> 
>>>Heck, I forget the details of that story...it's been years. But I would
>>>read that more as Jacob wrestling with God. Next question: from what we know
>>>about Yahweh, and what he is a metaphor for, what does it mean to wrestle
>>>is what they were originally, I'm sure. I'm sure they were never intended as
>>>history, any more, than say, the Arthurian cycles were. 
>> 
>>Were they?  Assume for a moment that they are just 'stories,' and not
>>divinely inspired documents.  Think about that for a moment.  In this case,
>>these 'stories,' told by early story tellers, were likely considered as 
>>logical explanations for how things came to pass.  They were likely
>>believed by the people as 'truth'...whatever that is!
>
>Oh, certainly they were. You're 100% right, I think.
I just can't bring myself to delete this line! ;-)  Sean telling me that
I'm right!

>We can see this process in reverse today, in the people who try to 
>push the idea that the Holocaust never happened. You think people aren't
>credulous?  There are people who seriously believe the Holocaust never 
>happened, despite films of the death camps ("faked"), survivors' testimony
>("lies") etc. etc.
Up to and including the testimony at Nurenburg by people who did it,
admitting more or less what went on...disgusting.  But revisionism isn't
really new, is it?  Look at what passes for 'biography' and 'history' from
the Greeks and Romans...they purposefully made up episodes and included
them as 'truth' in their histories.  It's only recently (in historical
terms) that biographies and histories are (reasonably) accurate to events.

>>In other words, you're agnostic! ;-)  Kind of a long-winded way to say it,
>>isn't it???
>
>Not just an agnostic. The term I like to use is "Recursive meta-agnostic." :)
>In other words, not only do I see that it is impossible for me to make 
>a judgement about God's existence, I see that I can't even be sure about 
>that!  Or about THAT! (ad infinitum)   

>My uncertainty is total and absolute -- I am even uncertain if I am condemned
>to uncertainty.   Faith, or belief of any kind, is really meaningless,
>since we are surrounded by total mystery. There is not one thing we can be sure
>of -- not even taxes. This is one way to tackle the issue of belief, although
>not my personal favourite. Nevertheless, I hope I've made it clear that
>sincere belief of any kind is silly. In fact, it is always a sign of
>delusion. Someone who has sincere beliefs is subject to the delusion
>that he or she can actually know anything.  
This is an interesting mental state...how does one function when one truly
believes that nothing is certain?  Everything becomes uncertain, every act
has undefined results, every thought is uncertain...how do you make
decisions?  (Don't give me that 'process' stuff....give me an answer on how
you personally evaluate options and make decisions).

>You'll know you're getting a feel for this when you start to get scared.
>Belief is a pleasant blindfold that keeps us from coming face to face
>with the Void, which is the world where we have been living 
>all along, where you stare the unfathomable and indifferent Mystery in the eye
>every minute. No wonder we want to be blindfolded!
Staring into the abyss, as it were?  Most certainly I wouldn't feel
comfortable with being face to face with such a void.

>We have already established there is ultimately no grounds at all for
>any belief. Obviously, then, people do not believe for rational reasons.
>We believe because we are scared little creatures who are afraid to
>die. And why the hell shouldn't we be?  So, having a belief means: 
>living in a dream-world (literally),  playing make-believe all life
>long, in order to hide our eyes from the mystery that seems to threaten
>our existences.  That's why people get rattled when their beliefs get
>shaken -- they catch a glimpse of the Void beyond the
>dream. They feel the "cold hand of Death." Quite naturally, this
>scares the bejesus out of them. How much nicer it is inside where it's
>warm...
Again, I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this.  While is accurately
reflects some people's actions, does it accurately reflect everyones? 

>Belief (of any kind) is a folding screen we set up to curtain off death. 
Well, death doesn't scare me, particuarly...but then again, since I'm
assured of eternal life, there is no threat!

>(note that immortality doctrines are not necessary for this to be true)
Hmm..:-)  Gee...;-)  I walked right into that one, eh?

>Which of course means that my current efforts to "wake you up" are a
>rather cruel form of aggression. However, I don't
>think you're buying any of this, so I don't feel too bad...:) if it looked
>like you were starting to realize that I'm not joking around, I'd cool it
>a little.
But are you?  I don't think so.  I think you realized that I wouldn't jump
off of a building if you challenged me, so you continue to do so.  In other
words, you didn't see any permanant damage being done, so the discussion
can continue.

I'll let you in on a secret...after that little(!) conversation back in
September, I sure did a lot of thinking and had some very unsure periods...

>ps. Where in the States are you (just out of curiosity)?
"Let he who has eyes to see, see"...As my .sig shows by the phone number,
Chicago (area 312)...;-)  'Course you appear to be one o' them furiners, so 
I'm not surprised you didn't notice! ;-)  ['sa joke, son!]

I work right on Michigan Ave in downtown, and live out in the burbs (WAY
OUT in the burbs!)

 -Steve

--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc