From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Sean's experiential hallucinogen :-)
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:36:37 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Sean...Sean...Sean...

WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING MAN?!?  :-)

Think.  kfjh kkk sdfgkjhs sdfgjh fdsddfk kfdg fdfkj #$ ljhds kjkfgs  sgk dfgj
! fkgk kdfsgj sglkkkjfdig kjfglriuhsg kjigu fglk  fgh urirt   rtl  lruh lkerl
rtlahgjfhgkfjdgkdfjg rturehtukfjghsdjghfdgf   f f     fgkj aaa lkut fgsdfkj
fdgkjf dglkfgjhslg  ghlkgrliug  fg.

You just experienced sensory input.  It is not really different from the
input you are now experiencing, but you are giving meaning to this set of
letters.  Both are of approximately the same duration, both have variance and
pattern.  They are both valid experiences.

The first is the way you view yourself and reality.  They are something to be
observed to which no absolute meaning can be given.  To try and make sense
out of it would only be guesswork and for that reason fundamentally flawed.
If you really lived removed from interpretation you would be the bumbling
idiot I described earlier.  You cannot do this though, so an interpretaion is
given but without certainty.  The passages are different though!  The first 
came about by chance - a random tapping on the keys.  The second was carefully 
designed to convey meaning and ideas that must be interpreted, but in an 
absolute sort of way.  A false interpretation would negate the meaning.

Reality could be, as you say, like the first: brought about by chance,
without absolute meaning, and given to any random interpretation depending on
ones whims.  Or, reality could be, as I say, like the second: brought about
by God's design, with absolute meaning, and given to any random interpretaion
of which only one accurately portrays the intended meaning.

One cannot live removed from interpretation - you are not capable of raw
experiences.  The intended absolute interpretation of existence, which makes
such a large amount of sense on so many different levels of thought, has been
revealed.  The Bible is the key to crack the code, graciously provided by the
designer of the message.  Note that the desire and ability to comprehend
absolutes and the ability (in fact aptitude) to attach absolute concepts to
abstract experiences (like this post) is built into human nature.

>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. 

You must attach at least tenative meaning to some, if not all, experiences.
The meaning that you give my words in your mind must be universal in order
for communication to be achieved.  Notice that does not mean there cannot be
misunderstandings, only that by far the majority of the concepts get through
in their intended form.  Modern Christianity is not perfect, but it is the
best interpretation of the message of God's relationship with man and the
meaning behind existence.  The only two ways to live ones life are to accept
or reject the obvious message.  You have chosen to reject it.

If you are more comfortable reading the first type of message, go right on
ahead.  The second type is available though, and much more interesting!

As with all analogies this one sucked donkey hoof but I think you see what
I'm driving at.  Please consider.

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc