From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Paul Harvey's Dream (was: Re: Stop thinking?)
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:35:46 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <fSwQ2bV@quack.sac.ca.us>, pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
> In article <1992Sep12.124113.7480@ac.dal.ca> 
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
>>The human being may be a creation of the transcendent God, but if the human
>>is capable of independently generating action (which the free will 
>>position implies) then he or she is a NEW source of creation. Just
>>as God is "responsible for sin, but not to _blame_" (S. Adams),
>>God would be responsible for creating these new creators, these new
>>sources of _ex nihilo_ existents, but NOT responsible for what these
>>new "unmoved movers" do. 
> 
> Ah, that is good, but this word responsibility, is that not a human
> being word, perhaps not very transcendent? Who is it that can be
> responsible?

I don't know what your point is here, I'm afraid. This was just a 
theoretical argument about the implications of a doctrine of free will.
Personally, I think free will is a myth, so all of the above argument is
simply academic. Interesting, but irrelevant, finally.

>>In other words, humans are independent creators. Like God, only not so
>>powerful. (If free will exists, which it doesn't :)
> 
> Trust me that it does. You and your kind 

My kind?? What kind would that be?
 
> were freed from slavery, any
> clinging to the broken shackles is of your own design and it is you
> alone who bears responsibility for voluntary slavery.

Oy. I'm getting set to start a new thread with Steve Adams on the subject
of free will. Feel free to join in...
 
>>I'm not sure if we're discussing implications of orthodox Christian
>>doctrine anymore, or not. I suspect that you are taking something of a
>>"New Age" angle on Christianity, judging by your terminology. 
>>Anyway, I think my argument above still applies.
> 
> What is orthodox Christian doctrine and New Age angle, who defines what
> these mean? 

Fair enough. I meant that we were discussing implications of Steve Adams'
understanding of Christianity (or lack of same :) , an understanding that
matches fairly closely the traditional one.  Your version may in fact be
right, but it seems to be closer to a late-twentieth century pluralism-
derived understanding of Christianity. Your other posts seem to
demonstrate a fair amount of study, so I would guess that you have
reached this position after some thought. No criticism implied or intended.

> If my religion confuses you, let me clarify. I do not belong
> to any religion, I'm a free man, free to study dogma and reach my own
> conclusions. I am Homo sapiens sapiens, thinking man, from the mother
> continent of Africa, source of all human beings.

Fair enough. Can't argue with you here, I guess.
 
>>...and the only reason left to obey God is
>>fear of Hell. 
> 
> Obey God? Has He spoken His word to you? My understanding is that there
> is one command from God, and that is "do the right thing". What has God
> told you?

Again, the original discussion was about Steve Adams' Christian ideology.
Steve believes that God has given people rules to follow.
 
>>>We are not separated from Heaven by time, only by perception. Heaven is right
>>>here, right now, only most don't see it for what it is. Do you see what life 
>>>is really worth? Hell is not seeing. 
> 
>>I am not unsympathetic to this interpretation of the Gospel message, however,
>>I am suspicious of your attempt to combine this with the notion of a
>>actual creator God out there somewhere. Sounds like grasping the water snake
>>by the tail to me...:)
> 
> An actual creator God, and what would that be? And why is it necessary?

Read the Creeds, dude. It sounds to me like you have some idea of "God..."
although I may be wrong about this. Personally, I suspect that "God"
is a _poetic_ figure, a fictional character, like Captain Kirk. This
doesn't mean that the Bible is worthless any more than _Hamlet_ is 
worthless because Hamlet and Ophelia are fictional. Just my opinion, though.

>>> And NEED God? Tsk, tsk, tsk,
>>> (you shoulda used wisk) that is once again not transcendent. Do you expect 
>>> God to just quit? Try this mantra: The transcendent is transcendent.
> 
>>What do you mean by "transcendent?"  You've lost me, here.
> 
> Standard dictionary definition. You see, the problem is, we are human
> beings, what we see is what the human being sees, what we say is what
> the human being can say. Is this all there is? Is there something, some
> class beyond our current ability to understand it?

Obviously, the answer to this must be "we don't know." Anything which is
beyond what a human being can see is obviously not known to any human beings. 
 
> Once we had no idea
> of why the moon is reborn on a constant basis, it was transcendent of
> human knowledge. Now we know why. But, is there anything else we don't
> know why? If there is than that is transcendent, transcendent of human
> knowledge. Ever have a thought that you can not put down into writting,
> that is transcendent of writting. Now, what is transcendent of all?
> Answer that and you've got the true transcendent, the transcendent that
> *IS* transcendent. I think you're gonna like that mantra.  :::::B^}

If I can answer that question than it's NOT transcendent anymore, is it?
Because now I know what it is. It has passed into the realm of human
knowledge.  So if there is something that _is_ transcendent of all, I can
never know it, by definition.  My mantra doesn't help very much, then, 
I'm afraid. 
  
>>> Knowledge of good and bad? Now I ask you, is that transcendent? 
> 
>>There's that word again! :)
>  
> Who is it that has knowledge of good and bad, that needs this knowledge
> in order to do the right thing? Surely it can not be the transcendent,
> can it?

Human beings need this knowledge in order to do the right thing, because
without this knowledge, there _is_ no "right thing."  As for the
transcendent, by definition I can't even know if it exists, so how
could I know what it thinks/knows?

>>Since you use the words "do the right thing," I infer that you HAVE this
>>knowledge of good and bad. Otherwise you wouldn't know what "the right thing"
>>is.  As to fear and desire, what's the story?
> 
> Right, I have knowledge of good and bad, I am an eater of that fruit, I
> eat with pride, when I eat I throw my hands up high! I have tasted
> forbiden fruit and I tell you, it is good, it is very good.

That was never in question! :) However, there was a warning - on the day that
you eat of that fruit, you shall surely die. 

> So good that
> I shall eat some right now. Hmm, that is good, and all they ask is just
> eat one per day, that is if you can eat just one. And fear/desire,
> surely you see that they are just two opposites, like life/death. If I
> can get beyond fear and desire, than what would that say? How are fear
> and desire different, and yet, how are they the same? It is in the union
> that you will find the transcendent of your mantra.

I'll bite: how are they different, and how are they the same? 

>>This "way of light:" what exactly is it? Why follow it? 
> 
> Ah, it is of course the way of an authentic individual living an
> authentic life 

What standards do you use to determine what is "authentic" and what isn't?
 
> and doing the right thing. And why follow it? Because
> that is my right. 

Hmmm...how did you come to this conclusion?

> I am now a human being, but only for a brief time,
> while I am human being I will feed the fire, I will live as the human
> being that I am,

Do you really have any choice?
 
> I will do the right thing, as my knowledge of good and
> bad tells be how. 

Why follow an artificial code of morality?  Since your "right" is someone
else's "wrong," why bother with notions of "right" and "wrong?" Just asking.

>>Oh, right. "The transcendent is transcendent..."  Y'all better explain that
>>to me so I know what I'm saying.
> 
> Ah, a mantra is not for saying only, it must also be understood. Learn
> from dogma, but please do not be dogmatic.

Why not? If I may say so, you are preaching a dogma, albeit rather a 
idiosyncratic one. 
  
>>You dreamed about a land of milk and honey, where gas is cheap, and 
>>there's hardly any tax on cigarettes. And in this land, there arose 
>>a prophet, who proclaimed - "Lo, there is the Christ."  And many did
>>believe upon him, although many were skeptical, too.  And the words
>>of the scriptures were sweet upon his tongue. Wisdom flowed from him
>>like cool water from a fountain in a thirsty land...and all went well
>>until someone shouted - 
>>"That monk who has any kind of satori goes straight to hell like a flying
>>arrow." 
>>What is the meaning of this dream?  I could tell you...but why spoil your
>>fun? 
> 
> I know that, don't you think I know that? :::::B^} Ah satori, but boy
> could she dance.

So do I escape the dunghill treatment?
 
>>> Sorry, 
>>> justice is justice, why do you think that lady holding the scales is
>>> blindfolded?
> 
>>She doesn't want to see the atrocites (big and small) committed in her name?
> 
> Right, she only weighs the evidence, the scales go up and the scales go
> down, better hope that when you're there they are going up. Friends in
> high places, brains and a look and a friendly smile might work in
> Hollywood, but not with the blindfolded scale lady.

What standards do you use in determining what is just?

>>Freedom is slavery.
> 
> Yes, I am a slave to freedom, but let me tell you, that is the only type
> of slave to be.

Hmmm...really? The Lord came to deliver your kind (?) FROM slavery! 
Why do you cling to your broken shackles?
 
> Enslaved to the freedom walk and the freedom talk. And
> the words of Janis Joplin, another prophet, 

I'm not sure what to say to this!
 
> who said, "Freedom is just
> another word for nothing left to lose, nothing. I don't have that type
> of absolute freedom, I am enslaved in the being of human, but one day I
> will have that freedom.

How did you come to this conclusion, if I may ask?

>>War is peace.
> 
> Peter Tosh:
> Everyone crying out for peace, but nobody crying out for justice
> Everyone climbing for the top, but no one knows just were is the bottom
> Everyone concerned about crime, but tell me, just who are the criminals?
> I don't need peace, I need equal rights and justice

Admirable sentiments, I guess. I dunno. 

>>Ignorance is strength.
> 
> And conviction, is it not as strong?

I think that phrase (from Orwell) can be interpreted in a couple of ways.
One of which would make it a restatement of your comment, yes.

>>Can it be that this saint has not heard that God is _dead_? 
> 
> How can God be dead or alive, if God is transcendent? And of what use is
> the word God, if the transcendent is transcendent?

Well, you're using it above to refer to "the transcendent." You must think
it has some use. As for God being dead or alive...this is poetic
language, not scientific language.

> I am that I am?

And you are not that you are not. Or so I hear...:)
 
>>"There is no body or mind, nor what the mind takes hold of."  
>  
> That could be, but only to one who is enlightened. The best have all
> been humbled and I am not as enlightened as the best. I will take hold
> first, so that I can learn that I am not actually holding anything at
> all, or at the most, only a simple rock. By taking hold, I will learn
> that there is nothing to hold.

Maybe! What are you going to take hold of if there is nothing to hold?

>>Disclaimer: I'm wrong.
> 
> Oh no! I insist! It is I who is more wrong! It comparison to my
> absolute wrongness, you are comparatively right!

Okay, okay...you can have it your way... :)

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Disclaimer: Everything I say is false. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins