From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Sean gets his reply (finally)
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:28:05 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada



Hmmm....you raise some good points in this post, John.  You know, if this goes
on, I might even start to LIKE Christians...:)

(For those just tuning in - the argument is about:
1. ex-Christians. Is it possible to be one?
2. Certainty and absolute relativism
3. the experiences that go by the name "Christ in me" according to John. )

In article <1992Sep2.055652.28932@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> Sean Hartigan writes:
>
>>I longed to give my life to him...this I think was one of the things that
>>began to undermine my faith. I burned to give my life to Him..but there didn't
>>seem to be anyone to take it! 
>

  John Muehlhausen writes: 
> Lets see if I understand correctly... You wanted to live for God but were at
> a loss as to how that could be accomplished?  There wasn't anything that you
> could _do_ for God?

No - I was pretty clear on that aspect of things. What I mean is that I
was drawn towards a more mystical understanding of Christianity, and found
that the self-projected image I was calling God was unable to satisfy
that "drive to be consumed in the Divine."  
 
> I have noticed that once a church gets "tied down" it tends to fizzle out.  I
> avoid major denominations like the plague. :-)  I am currently involved in
> Great Commission ministries which has strong campus, community, and world
> outreach and fellowship organizations.  The large majority of these people
> are devoted 100% to God... 

Yeah, I had dealings with the IVCF people at my school. Several of my friends
(including my ex-girfriend) were involved with that, also with something
called The Navigators. I'm pretty hazy on their M.O. but I think they're
very evangelistic. No offense intended, but these people 
(the non-denominational fundamentalists) struck me as 100% devoted, all right,
but not to God. They are extreme ideologues, in love with an 
absolutist ideology that gave me the willies. It was through dealing with
these people that I first understood how World War II happened. It was from
watching them at prayer that I first understood how prayer could be
"that most odious of narcissisms."  (John Fowles, I think, said that?) 
Of course, your group may be entirely different.

>>> All I can give is that I do realize this and am
>>> capable of looking at my beliefs objectively,
>>
>>Do you really think so?  What does that mean? It means you judge them in the
>>light of your experience. What is the organizing ideology of your experience?
>>Catholic-derived Christianity. So, you're going to judge Catholic-derived
>>Christianity in the light of Catholic-derived Christianity. Do you think this
>>is likely to lead to true understanding? If I judge Marxism in the light of
>>Marxism, am I likely to find difficulties?
>
> First of all, I am not at all sure of what you mean by "Catholic-derived
> Christianity".  Do you mean catholic in the literal sense or the Catholic
> church? 

I'm sure you're aware that early Christianity was highly diverse. One 
branch, the Pauline church based in Rome, gained secular authority and
suppressed all rivals, most to the point of extinction, I believe. This
branch was responsible for the compilation of the Bible, and it became
the Catholic Church, which split into Western (Roman) and Eastern (orthodox)
branches. Of course, in the 1500-1600's, the Roman branch began a 
progressive fragmentation that has led to thousands of sects. 

Effectively, all modern Christian churches are Catholic-derived (that is, 
they adhere to certain basic principles that were part of the core of
the Pauline-Roman branch of Christianity.)  I think there might be
some Nestorians still out there, though - and some Thomasites in India?
 
> Either way, I am a Bible-derived Christian, period. 

In other words, your beliefs were formulated into an orthodoxy over
a period of several hundred years beginning with St. Paul. You are a
Catholic-derived Christian, then. Your beliefs are very similar to those
of the other 20,000 sects of modern CHristianity, but very different from
those of the other early branches of Christianity, branches cut short by
political/religious oppression.

> I cannot
> over-emphasize that enough.  That doesn't mean that good ideas can't come
> from other sources, but in the end they must stand up to Biblical scrutiny.
> This is reflected in how our church is run, from the leadership to the
> worship service.  We are not tied down by much (if any) man-made tradition.

Comical...:)  As if Protestant Christianity isn't an offshoot of 
Catholicism! As if it didn't take hundreds of years for HUMANS to hammer
out the doctrines you take as gospel.... Don't they teach you history in
your organization? 

> To answer your question, I feel that I can be objective.  There is nothing
> that "bugs" me about Christianity.  If I am trying to put Marxism into
> practice, and things which "bug" me but do not hurt me pop up, I think I
> could be objective enough to re-evaluate.

I think you missed my point. Any ideology makes sense from the inside. 
Nothing "bugs" the devoted Muslim, either. An objective evaluation of
an ideology is impossible, since we can only evaluate with the aid of
the same, or another, ideology.
 
>>What you will have lost (if Sean-centred solipsism is not the true state of 
>>the universe) is connection with your experiential existence, having abandoned
>>it in favor of an imagination-based life. Strictly speaking, you will have 
>>abandoned the Divine in favor of it's shadow. However, let's not get into that
>>one right now!  
> 
> Lets do get into it if you don't mind. :-)  I think you are proposing that
> "God" is to be found in absolute relativism. 

I can see why you might say this. However, that's not quite the case, as we'll
see.

> Before you deny this, consider
> that you have already said that no one can know anything for sure.  

Strictly speaking, what I said was:
1. _I_ can't know anything for sure. (an observation, not a doctrinal 
assertion.)
2. Assuming that the universe is not a Sean-centred solipsism, other people
exist, and apparently function in much the same way as me. Note: this is
an ASSUMPTION I make for the sake of discussion. I am not asserting this
as a fact.  
3. Assuming 2, YOU can't know anything for sure, either. 

I think the difficulty arose because I did not emphasize 2 enough. 
From now on, all my statements are to be considered in the light of 
point 2 above. 

> I ask:
> "Do we live in a reality of non-absolutes and confusion?"  Certainly not.
> Why can't there be an absolute, knowable God behind an absolute, knowable
> reality?  Your "experiential existence" is nothing new to me -- in fact I
> think I accept a broader range of experiences than you do.

You certainly _believe_ in more things than I do. 

> You have said that I cannot be as sure as I am about God, or that I am not a
> butterfly.  So I ask "How do you know you are Sean?  Is not the inner
> knowledge that you exist as an individual an irrefutable absolute?"

No - this is not an absolute. Strictly speaking, there is no such entity as
"I."  That is to say, it is an illusory entity, useful for purposes of
conversation, however! :)   As the Prajna-Paramita Sutra puts it (more or less):

"Know then: form is only emptiness, emptiness only form...there is no
eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind, no sound, colour smell, nor what the
mind takes hold of. There is no pain, nor cease in pain, nor Noble Path
that leads from pain, not even wisdom to attain. Attainment, too, is
emptiness."
 
> Now listen carefully:  I claim Christ in me.  I claim that inner absolute
> knowledge of God, just as you must claim an inner, absolute knowledge of
> yourself.  To deny that you exist as an absolute individual is insane, don't
> you think?

Perhaps...what does insanity mean? 

(You're going to hate me for this but:

"the wisdom of God is foolish to men."

:-)

> If you hold strictly to your original proposition, how is Sean's life (based
> on physical experience - which is not knowable in an absolute way) any less 
> imaginative than mine? 

The only difference is in the degree of attention we give to imaginative
constructs. You regard the products of your imagination as actual
entities (eg. "I" and "God") ....I regard them as products of imagination.
 
> In fact it is much more so, because you substitute 
> spiritual imagination for spiritual absolutes!

Tomatoes, tomatos...  (apologies to your Vice-President) 
 
>> Certainty is always
>> delusion, because certainty is impossible. 
> 
> Therefore you, as well, must be deluded, because whatever philosophy you now
> have can not be considered absolute.

The difference, it seems, between you and me is that I acknowledge that
the philosophy I hold is only a metaphor. I don't claim that it is
absolute.  

> 
> Now listen carefully:  You have absolutes.  You will always have absolutes.

Are you trying to hypnotize me? :-)

> The more you deny any the more that denial becomes one.  Oops!  Better get
> rid of the stance that you can't have absolutes, because that is an
> absolute stance!

Now we get into an interesting distinction. I am not claiming that
I KNOW that absolute knowledge is impossible....I am saying that
I SEE that absolute knowledge is impossible, for me. For the sake of 
argument I assume that all humans are essentially the same in nature,
and on the basis of that assumption I generalize. 

However! That assumption is NOT a philosophy which I hold. It's only
an assumption made for the sake of argument. Strictly speaking, I see
that I cannot know anything for sure. I am not going to take the next
step and make a knowledge claim. That would indeed be contradictory.
Since I do not do that, my statement remains an observation.
It is up to you to look at yourself and see if it is true for you.
If all human beings are fundamentally the same in nature( don't ask me to
define what I mean by this, please!!) then it IS true for you. 
However, only you can see if that is the case. 

I should have emphasized this more earlier, I see.

> 
> I am not talking about illusions here Sean.  If you want to slip into
> confused obscurity with a relative view of life, go ahead. 
> I am telling
> you right now it is impossible for humans to hold such views in a true
> fashion.  Why is that?  Because we are in the image of an absolute, personal
> God.  This is where we get our absolute, personal identity.  Assuming you
> now grant me that the later exists, where would such a thing come from if
> not from a creator?

Perhaps unfortunately, the latter is an illusion. As is your notion of 
"a creator," given assumption 2 above. 

>>> I cannot think of anything that is worth having in the first
>>> place.  I know you are thinking that you would be believing a lie, and for
>>> that reason it would have no meaning. 
>>
>>We cannot KNOW anything for sure about the ultimate nature of our lives, so
>>belief in Jesus is as acceptable to me as any other belief. But belief for
>>me means humility - humility that acknowledges that one really has NO IDEA
>>whether or not one's belief is correct. That kind of belief is all that's
>>posible for the honest man - but Christianity won't accept that. It's not
>>good enough. That is how I know it's delusion. 
> 
> Don't you see now that your reasoning is hopelessly contradictory?  You say
> you "know it's delusion" and yet "one really has NO IDEA"...

Contradictory unless I qualify my statements as I have above. I don't fault
you for this - my wording is indeed bad in the quoted extract.

> By your own definition you cannot know that "We cannot KNOW anything for
> sure about the ultimate nature of our lives".  I am telling you that you
> can know for sure, and you might as well, because it is impossible to
> reject all absolutes!  In doing so you have accepted one!

This is dealt with above, I hope.
 
> I hope I am doing God's will by posting to this group.  I really am not sure
> sometimes because His time to use me is so precious.  I am on the verge of
> quitting it but people like you give me hope.

You're not wasting my time. I am learning all kinds of stuff - I hope you
are, too.

>>> For me it looks true as you are saying, but more than that I know its true
>>> and it is true.
>>> 
>>
>>See? Certainty. Sorry, comrade. Certainty is always delusory. 
> 
> Your certainty MUST be delusory, then?

I stand by that statement, given assumption 2 above. 
 
>>Jesus said: "Become passers-by." That means pass by everything - even your
>>images of God. Only when you have passed by everything, and there is nothing
>>left, does God become apparent.  I guess I would rather get you to take a
>>closer look at what Christianity IS and could be, rather than get you 
>>to become a scientific materialist. 
> 
> I cringe as I read this, because it is not true!  Have you lost the God-
> given ability to follow your conscious?  Jesus does not want me to pass
> Him (God) by... I am passing the world by, which you are having a hard time
> with (scientific materialist??). 

Well, this would be a theological argument I doubt I could win, since you
accept that St. Paul really did talk to God. In order to change your mind
I'd have to get you to question this. I don't think you want to...am I right?
 
> Christianity is absolutes.

Catholic-derived Christianity certainly is, that's true.

> You have
> absolutes.  You know for certain that you cannot know for certain that Jesus
> is the way to God, or that anything else is what it seems, including this
> way of thinking. 

Not exactly - I SEE that I cannot know anything for certain. Strictly speaking,
this is an observation, not a "way of thinking." It only becomes a way of
thinking if I turn my subjective observation into an ideological absolute,
which I have no interest in doing. 

> Get a grip man!  There is no honor in objectivity when you
> have removed yourself so far that you lose identity and become a bumbling
> idiot... (You have not done this obviously, but it is the only end of this
> type of thought, if it could be carried through to completion.)

I like Americans! That sounds just like Captain Kirk!  I hope I haven't
disappointed you in this post... :)

> Maybe the atheistic world does make more sense than whatever "Catholic-
> derived Christinaity" is. 

Well, it does match the observations of the scientific community better...

> The point is that Jesus makes sense, and the
> Bible makes sense, pure and simple,

It does if you accept the basis assumptions as absolute, which is delusion,
if all human beings are essentially the same. (Have I repeated my disclaimer
enough?)

> and God does exist, and you know this,
> even though you have told yourself you can't, and atheistic views
> hold NOTHING in the way of meaning for life or validity through honest self-
> appraisal.

These are statements of faith. The first is hardly undeniable, the second is
impossible for you to know, so if you claim to know it I conclude you're
deluded, and the third is simply inaccurate. You know very little about
"atheistic views," I gather. Your pastor may have told you a lot of lies
about them, but they vary widely, and many appear to offer meaning to their
adherents, of which I am not one. 

>>It is quite possible that you are a very virtuous person. However, if I may
>>say so, intellectual humilty is not exactly radiating from your words like
>>sunshine. 
> 
> My humility is a realization that I am nothing before God, but I am
> everything through Christ!  I know nothing of myself, but I know everything
> through Christ!

You certainly are passionate about this matter...I'll grant that! This,
however, is another statement of faith, dependent on basis assumptions, etc.
etc. etc. 

> 
> PLEASE READ 1 COR 2 _CAREFULLY_!!!  I think NASB and NIV are the best 
> translations, but read as many as you can.

I'll give it a look, but I warn you, I think Paul is a big silly. 
 
> God is certain!  Gosh-darned it, man - why should God have limitations?
> Do you honestly think a faith in self-projected images would mean squat in
> real-world application?!?  

Sure. I used to do it. I regarded a self-projected image as the creator of the
world and interpreted my experience accordingly. Because the dogma upon which
I based my projection was unfalsifiable, nothing in the "real-world" could
ever prove me wrong.

> I want nothing to do with what you are calling
> "God." 

"Jesus said:`He who considers the All to be deficient is himself deficient.'"
   
 - Gospel of Thomas
 
[further comments about absolute relativism deleted - I think I've covered
it all already]
 
>>> It is nothing.  We, of ourselves, are nothing.  80 years is nothing.  Human
>>> achievement is nothing.  Read Ecclesiastes.
>>
>>Eccleiastes is a beautiful little book, but it is a meditation on life by one
>>man in a certain mood, not the definitive description of human existence.
> 
> What in it is false in any mood?

I'm not saying it's false - but it's a reflection on life by a man in a certain
mood, one we can all relate to.  At certain times we do not feel our
lives to be nothing, at certain times we feel them to be important and
wonderful. Ecclesiastes is about another mood, the mood in which we see
that life is short, and that the days of darkness shall be many. 
 
>>Christianity is something I (for example) have passed through.
>>You have not done this (yet?) so obviously our perspective on the faith is
>>not available to you except second-hand. On the other hand, your perspective
>>on the faith is something I remember very well. 
> 
> If you had my perspective you would not be where you are now. ;-)

If I STILL had it, you would be right.  However, you are making statements
about something which it is impossible for you to know about, so forgive me
if I seem unimpressed with such assertions. It was not so long ago I was
making them myself. 

>>> If it was a game, even in retrospect, then you were not a Christian.
>>> 
>>
>>*laugh* Spoken like a True Believer. No, it wasn't a game while I played it, 
>>it was life and death. I understand your seriousness. Please forgive my levity.
>>All I meant was that it is an artificial situation which we embrace in
>>pursuit of pleasure, i.e. a game, in one sense of the word. 
> 
> Argh!  Pursuit of pleasure?  Anything but!  Joy in the knowledge of my
> salvation - yes.  Joy of Christ in me? Yes.  Day-to-day peaches and cream?
> No way!  Myself alone as an individual apart from God wants nothing to do
> with Christianity.

There are many kinds of pleasure. The  gratification of feeling onself to
be saved is one, the feeling that one has Higher Knowledge, that one can
look down in benevolent pity on the ignorant masses, is another. The 
security of feeling that one will never die is another. And of course,
the warm happy feeling that comes from knowing one is Right.

[discussion of Christ in John deleted (due to space)]

Thank you very much for that obviously sincere testimonial. That is exactly
the kind of story I am interested in. I want to think a bit more about the
matter before I respond, but if you want to say anything more about the
subject in your reply to this post I would be pleased. 

Oh - and listen...thank you for your sincere concern. I hope I'm not
wasting your time!

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism