From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: And over to you Sean... (a mixed bag of subjects)
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:03:40 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <root.726508832@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>In any event, 'delusion' has plenty of negative
>>connotations...that's why I picked 'illusion' instead...
>
>True. I don't mean to be critical, though. Centuries of ideological
>in-fighting have made most words like that somewhat nasty in tone,
>unfortunately.

Yep.  If one is not careful about the words one selects, it is very easy to
give a misimpression...

>>Could I interest
>>you in limited free-will?  Some form of moral agency, which, although
>>limited, allows me some choice and discretion that is not totally
>>predicated on past experience?
>Could you explain this a little more?
Hmm.  Well, more or less that there are certain things that I think I
decide to do and actually work through and come to a decision.  Not a lot,
but a few.  One analyizes the situation and acts according to a predicted
outcome...it is the analysis faze that seems to me to be an exercise in
free choice...

>>Questioning by me, yes.  By you?  Not out of bounds.  But I reserve the
>>right to be stubborn and pigheaded, just like the next human on the block.
>>You're right, of course, that I do have a core, well 'protected' that I
>>have not seen fit to challenge, nor at this point do I desire to.  But, I
>>am aware of the situation...that's the first step, eh?
>
>I would say so, yep. At the very least, I think you'll probably be happier
>as an honest Christian, aware of the shaky character of your beliefs, 
>but also knowing that you are unwilling to drop them. This self-knowledge
>will give you a bit of peace-of-mind, I expect. It will free you from
>feeling (if you ever have) threatened by people who hold opinions
>different from your own. 
Ideas different than mine have never really been threatening...I like the
free and open discussion brought out by contradictory ideas.  And one of
the things that is important to me is acknowledging those things where I
don't have all of the information, and working within the bounds of the
info I do have and can hope to gain...

>It will keep you humble...help make you a better
>Christian, maybe?  You'll be free of the most pernicious feature of
>ideology -- the ruthlessness that comes from thinking you really know
>what's right and wrong. Humility is nothing but the tentativeness 
>and gentleness that comes from knowing your own limitations. 
I have absolutely no clue, in the larger scheme of things, what is absolute
right and wrong...and no way to find out.  I can say things about good and
bad, but in the end, they are simply my perceptions, or a retreat into
trancedence...

>You may have some struggles with intellectual integrity, 
>as you're doing now, but obviously you feel that is a price worth
>paying for the benefits these beliefs confer. 
:-)  Yep.  Hit that right on the head.

>End of sermon. :)   Heh heh, you know, a minister friend of mine
>keeps trying to get me to go to theology school...I seem to be verbose
>and preachy enough for the ministry...I wonder...
>
>Nahh....:)
You never know...there are some very liberal Christian denominations that
would likely ordain you! ;-)  In any event, you might do some good in the
field of theology in general...keep some of us honest, anyway.

>You like being an ideologue, I don't. Of all possible forms of
>ideologue, a self-critical, sincere, good-natured Christian is 
>probably the most benign. Who am I to criticize?
I'm no threat, so I'm harmless?  Gee, thanx!  What a guy.  But I see your
point, too.  I only wish that all 'idealogues' had the same qualities, most
especially the set of morons we elect to govern our country.  Don't know
if you have the same problem in the great white north...;-)

>It seems quite reasonable to me that you and I might require 
>different psychological conditions in order to thrive. Of course, 
>none of this has anything to do with _truth!_ :)
No only reasonable, but probable.  Our environments, etc, require different
responses, based on what we perceive as good and bad...

>What does J.C. mean when he says be like a little child? Does he mean
>accept whatever you're told blindly? Children _don't_ do that. 
>You oughta know that Steve... ("No! I don't wanna!")
:-)  Yes...that's true.  Nothing worse than a 1 year old who's only clear
word is 'NO'. ;-)  I had one of those.  Now it's worse: he exlplains in
minute detail why not!

>Children are curious, they want to learn and understand, at least until
>the school system gets hold of them.  In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus
>specifies what kind of child he means: a 7-day old child! Think about
>_that!_
One who is unconstrained by society...not programmed...

>>We can't know anything about God for a fact....I can speculate, but I will
>>always miss the mark.  The Bible is correct about the transcendant: His
>>ways are higher than our ways, his thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
>>We can never, ever figure God out...
>
>Well, you still think you have the Inside Info. Which is, in this case, that
>the _heart_ of the Inside Info is incomprehensible. Just another way
>of thinking you know the score. You don't really know if God is
>incomprehensible or not, comrade. This, too, is vanity...:)
Ok, Ok...I yield!  [Begin Sgt Schultz voice] I know nussing, I see nussing...

>>>Uhhh...your original quotation then reduces to: No man comes to me but by me!
>>>Pretty deep...:)    
>>
>> Yep...interesting comment from that perspective...hmm, I'll have to think
>> about that one some more.
>
>You crack me up sometimes, you silly goose! :)

Hey, it's good for a laugh, isn't it?  But really, I hadn't reduced it down
to this.  Sometimes I just don't think.  Repeatig the creeds mindlessly is
a bad idea...

>> To quote a song I remember from when I was little, "for the Bible tells me 
>> so...", and all kidding aside, that's why.  Remember, I accept the Bible as
>> the inspired word of God, so my thoughts on Jesus are simply reflections of
>> the Gospels and Paul, as seen through my experiences...
>
>Remember -- the Trinitarian doctrine you espouse is not spelled out
>in the Bible. Strong cases have been made for various other 
>positions...why do you accept the Council of Nicaea's (et.al) decisions
>about which interpretation of the Bible is inspired and which isn't?
>
>In other words, why do you accept the Bible as the inspired word of God?
I've been told this is the case, and my own personal experience tells me
that it appears to be so.  I percieve it to be.

>And why the Trinitarian position?
18 years of Roman Catholic brainwashing...ask the Nicenean fathers...

>Here's my argument against free will in a nutshell -- the dice are
>always loaded.
So randomness is not truly possible?  Ie, there is never a fair chance...

>>Hmm...we are not even free to think we are or aren't free?  Wow...
>
>Actually, what I meant was that whatever attitude a person has, for example,
>towards the question of free will, they can have no other, the universe
>being what it is. 

That fits what you've been saying....I'm predestined to view free-will as
the correct answer. 

>Sean Hartigan                      Created by God to torment Steve Adams!
>hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Smart alec...;-)  But I don't doubt it, either.

 -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