From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 05:00:06 GMT

Young Jeff writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:

>: Gordon Storga writes:

>[variously deleted for space]

>: >Why doesn't god speak to me?
>: 
>:   god has presented an autobiography and a personal manifestation to
>: tell us about himself.  both jesus and god's word live and work today.

>Does God talk directly to some people outside this autobiographical 
>work?  If he talks to some in this way, why not all?

  the bible says that when jesus ascended into heaven 40 days after his
being risen, he said he'd leave the holy spirit with us to dwell in the
hearts of the believers to guide and direct us in our walk of life.  he
need not speak directly to people in laundramats or anything.  in fact, 
i've kinda made a deal with god that he will in no way speak to me in
such a literal fashion: after all the nasty experiences i've had on the
spiritual realm, i have grown to distrust conscious experience with spirits
and i've made it quite clear to god that any spiritual intervention 
in my life i will consider not to be from him.  it was possible to make
this arrangement with god because i felt his presence in me and i could
be certain that i didn't need any burning bushes, channelers or psychics
to know him, so i'd assume that if anything supernatural contacts me i'm
free to expell it.  so i, for one, am eagerly opposed to spiritual
encounters from angels/whathaveyou. 
  
>: >If the bible is so clear and Christianity the *one truth*, then why are
>: >there so many sects?
>: 
>:   some sects have radically perverted the essential essence of jesus.  some
>: sects are doctrinally nearly identical to others, merely there are different
>: styles of worship for different kinds of people.  and some sects have more
>: fundamental disagreements over biblical theory in practice, yet still accept
>: the role of jesus.  those that don't accept jesus don't even fit the 
>: dictionary definition of christian.

>Your response doesn't really answer the question, unless you are saying
>that the "radically perverted" views are intentionally insincere.  
>Personally, I think fundamentalists are misguided, but I wouldn't claim 
>they are insincere.  Could it be that they are radically perverted 
>because the Bible isn't clear and people honestly misunderstand?

  mormons for instance have the mormon bible with their wacky claims
[it's online on the cleveland freenet if anyone wants to peruse its
wackiness for themselves] that supposedly update the bible and lead to
secret spiritual underwear, polygamy and a whole host of sociologically
interesting cultural phenomena.  yet they want to be called christians.
jw's re-write the bible and key verses to conform to the generation
whims and edicts of the watchtower organization: like at least 5 predictions
of jesus' return within the 20th century alone [each of which, of course
have gone by with little more than normal stock market burps and hiccups].

  these were the groups i was refering to when i said radical perversions.

  i don't think they're intentionally insincere...they believe they're
right and we should all respect the mormon bible or the watchtower
quarterly reports.  fundamentalists seek to ground their dogma
in scripture, while others take more liberal interpretations with 
relevance of certain verses.  you're free to feel the fundies are radically
perverted, but i hope for your sake that you're well prepared to 
document your opinion when discussing the issue with a fundamentalist
who is more adept than i at 10:00pm on a friday night.  the onus is on
you to support your claim and on the fundie to refute it with arguments
as well.  i suspect neither of us are well-informed to debate this
with any more seriousness.  correct me if i'm wrong.  :)

>:   you've asked some really good questions.  keep asking, but i'll ask
>: you, do you believe there are absolute, objective and knowable answers?
>: if not, then you don't need to ask any of these questions.

>The claim that absolute answers exist isn't immediately obvious.  
>Since I hate thinking for myself ;), life would be so much 
>easier with them.  Therefore, I would like to know if the claim
>is true.  You provide the answers, we will evaluate them for
>consistency.  If they withstand the test of credibility, I and many
>others will be compelled to accept it as fact.  Just because we don't
>currently accept the claim of absolute answers doesn't mean the questions
>are needless.

  well, i was asking more do you believe absolute answers exist, not
really what, specifically, they may be.  see, i ask this because
tons of people believe the universe is too unknowable for absolute
answers to even exist, thus they turn to ineffible religions/philosophies
that stress the unnecessariness of ultimate answers [buddhism, taoism,
californism, etc.].  i think before any of us asks questions of the meaning
of life, we should first ask ourselves if we believe the answers exist.
if one believes there are no such answers, i, for one, will not waste my
time responding to their questions, because my answers i believe to be
absolute.

  so technically before i provide my responses, you may have to search 
within yourself, look at the extraordinary nature of the universe and life,
examine the scientific evidence for the invalidity of evolution, 
ponder just how necessary a creator would have to be, and whether God(tm)
is knowable in any absolute way.  then i'd give you my responses.  but
that's just technically, i've already given what i have found to be 
workable absolute truth.  ultimately, before you accept any set of 
asserted absolute truths, you'll have to first believe absolute truth
can be known. 
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:13995 talk.abortion:31737