From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: And over to you, Sean...
Date: 29 Dec 92 19:07:07 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>Thanks for the repost...hope this is worth the wait!
Hmm..I wonder! ;-)

>In article <Bzz496.E9@spss.com>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

Re: accepting Jesus (ie "stop saying 'no'")

>>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.
>
>This is the doctrine, yes. I'm trying to point out that the doctrine is
>wrong. You see, one _has no control_ over what one believes! Step into
>my office here and I'll show you....

>step 1. "I believe X" = "X appears true to me." Only a skilled practitioner
>of doublethink can believe something that appears false to them. If you
>deny this, consider: can you believe in Ahura Mazda? No? You can't make
>yourself, can you?
Correct.  Mazdaism is not 'true' in my belief.  Therefore, I cannot make
myself believe.  Now if Ahura Mazda would show up, that's different.  "The
unrepentant generation looks for a sign."

Ya know, I realize exactly where non-believers or other-believers are
coming from..."just show me"...sort of a "Doubting Thomas", eh?

>step 2. One has no control over what appears true to one. A thing either
>seems true or it doesn't. One can look for more info, but the new info will
>either seem true or false and you can't do a thing about it. Sometimes
>one might want very much to believe something, but it just seems false.
Or vice versa.  In this event, one seeks out as much information as
possible about the thing to help with the decision.  In the end, though,
you do have a point.  Really it comes down to what one will accept as
evidence of 'truth.'

What I mean by this is that we 'know' that the earth circles the sun,
because we accept the evidence provided by those who know.  Thus, this
becomes a truth.  I accept the evidence of the Bible, and as such, it
becomes truth.

So in the end, if you reject the evidence presented (and it is by no means
incontrovertable) then you will reject the theory as truth.

>step 3. Therefore, belief is not an act of will! One cannot accept Jesus
>in the way you mean as an act of will.  Your doctrine _precludes_ free will.
I disagree in this case...we went through this back in Septmber, eh?  I
think that one can commit an act of will to accept the evidence and believe
that evidence as true.

In fear of trying to predict response, I suspect you'll say that the
'ability' to decide to accept the evidence is really a factor of past
encouters and experiences, and as such is not truly free.


>Therefore, the doctrine that we must freely choose to accept Jesus
>is _false_ unless the kind of despairing acceptance I offered is good 
>enough.   
If the above statments were true, this conclusion would follow...I don't
accept them as true, for the reasons given above.

>Since that acceptance _wasn't_ good enough (I received no noticeable grace),
>the only conclusions are:
>
>1. God chooses whom to save and whom to damn and human actions are 
>irrelevant. Predestination.
Calvin.  Luther.  Augustin at the end.  This to me makes absolutely no
sense.  Perhaps that's the point behind 'my ways are higher than your ways'
etc.  For in this case, we are all simply actors in a play that God has set
up for his own amusement and enjoyment.  I would have a hard time believing
in that God.

>2. The Xian doctrine of salvation does not accurately reflect God's plan.
Could well be.  We've been through this one a bit, too.  Of course, there
is no single 'Christian doctrine' on salvation...there are many.  And there
have been since the beginning.

>3. God does not exist. 
This is a non-sequiter that doesn't follow from the above.

>Pick one...or show me where I'm in error, if you would be so kind, effendi. 
Likely it's number 2...if I have to chose.  I make no claim to have all the
answers...

>> Explained above...you never really stopped saying "no." :-) 
>Well, comrade, you either have to call me a liar, or revise your doctrine,
>or show me where I'm mistaken.
Well, I pointed out some mistakes...but revision of doctrine is the likely
outcome, in the long run.

>Re: Bible stories fictional?
>
>>>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.
>
>Hmm...so it seems reasonable to regard the OT as legend, then?
One can clearly do that.  Simply deny the inspiration (ie God's
intervention in some way), and you're all set.  This puts the OT on the
same level as Seutonius, Plutarch, Homer, Einhard, etc.  History, some of
which is accurate, some of which is invented.  Plutarch, I believe, thought
that it was quite ethical to put in made-up situations to show how a person
would react...a sort of 'type', even if the event didn't happen.

If I ever came to the conclusion of non-inspiration, this would be my
position on the OT.  As for the NT, I'd take the Gospels as a similar
record of the man Jesus Christ, and go from there.

>Re: The delusional nature of sincere belief

>Probably you will regard everything I'm saying as just another theory. 
Correct...

>It's hard to snap out of the hypnosis we're all subjected to as children.
>You have to want to...you have to feel tied up, boxed in, by the ideology
>you call "home."  If you don't, though, you _will_ eventually wake up, when
>the Grim Reaper looks you in the eye. By then, it is usually to late --
>the show is over, and you have slept through it. 
Likely the case...but then again, there are plenty of examples of people
who have died (at least outwardly) at peace.  I'm making no claims in this
area...except for one uncle, no person close to me has died.  I'm a lucky
SOB in that regard.  30 yrs...but my luck's going to run out one day.

>>Staring into the abyss, as it were?  Most certainly I wouldn't feel
>>comfortable with being face to face with such a void.
> 
>You're face to face with that void right now. At this moment you can
>remove your blindfold and see, if you want to. 

Of course, at this point, I don't want to, as I'm sure you realize.
Someday, perhaps, but I don't know that I AM wearing a blindfold...

>I think so. Don't you find your beliefs reassuring when the universe seems 
>indifferent to you and your life? Don't you find it scary when death or
>random disaster touches your life, and everything suddenly doesn't look
>so certain anymore?  Isn't it nice to be able to go to the Bible, to
>one's projections of God (prayer), to church, and be reassured
>that everything you value most will never disappear forever?

The only thing that is certain is that I will die.  At that point, I
*believe* I will have eternal, spiritual life.  Every single thing that I
value : wife, kids, posessions, friends, etc, *will* disappear at that
point (if not before).  All that will be left is God.

This sort of confirms your point, eh?  One tangible thing to hold on to in
the face of the loss of everything else.

>Look at your wife, or someone or something you love. If things go as they
>have for the last 4.5 billion years, that person or thing will be destroyed
>before very long. If you really love them, that should scare you. 
>Isn't it nice to then think: Oh, but I'll meet her/him/it again in Heaven?
'Course I don't see it that way.  I have a really different view of heaven
than most, I think.  I don't believe that I'll be particularly aware of any
other individual person...just God...in all his persons.

>Whew...saved! Maybe.
?Who?  You or me?

>>>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!
> 
>Death _will_ scare you when you're looking at it face to face. No one is
>scared of death when they aren't threatened. Everyone gets scared
>when the wolf suddenly shows up at the door.
I yield on this point....past experience shows that you are correct.

>As I sit here, I can say, "I'm not scared of death."  But I remember
>hanging on a cliff face with nothing between me and the grave but the
>friction of my gloves against the bare rock...waiting for my hands to tire.
>I assure you, one is less detached about the matter then. I was a Christian
>at that time, BTW. 
Same kind of thing when I've jumped out of an airplane and things haven't
gone 100% correctly...seconds from death, as it were.  It does wake you up.

>Letting go of belief means looking at the situation -- I may be closer
>to death now then I was then. I don't know if I'll see the people I love
>again tomorrow. This may be my last night of existence. There is no
>certainty. Only a person who sees that the darkness is waiting, and the days
>thereof will be many, can appreciate the light. 
This reminds me of the parable of the man who tore down his barns to build
bigger ones..."Fool, don't you know that your life will be demanded of you
tonite."  Jesus made the same point...hmm...

>>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.
>
>Well, that's good. But we are talking about some pretty serious stuff.
True enough...and this kind of discussion is good...in and of itself,
irrespective of the outcome.

>Jesus said, "If you would be perfect, sell all you have and follow me."
>Who is he? He is a person who recognizes his unity with God. Who is
>God? "God" is the poetic way of referring to the creator of all things.
>Who creates all things? That is unknown, but you are it, and "you" are also
>its creation. What the hell is going on? 
I see what you are getting at, but I'm not on the same wavelength as you...

 -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