Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: The Unanswered Question(s), part 1
Message-ID: <829@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 7-Jul-84 00:00:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.829
Posted: Sat Jul  7 00:00:52 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Jul-84 03:29:19 EDT
References: <179@ssc-bee.UUCP> <776@pyuxn.UUCP>, <786@pyuxn.UUCP> <811@pucc-h>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 126

> A partial response to some of Rich's questions....
> But first a question of my own:  Rich, are you really interested in the
> answers because you think they might do you some good, or do you just want
> more material you can use as points of attack on imperfect, imperfectly
> understanding Christians who are not (yet?) able to come up with all the
> pithy responses Christ was famous for?

Things that we don't understand we seek to find the answers for.  How can
you understand something imperfectly and yet assume its correctness?

> | What of those who predicted the end of the world in 999, also based on the
> | Bible?  Are those who now predict that our modern time is the time of the
> | end of the world more enlightened about the "real" meaning behind those very
> | specific prophecies in the Bible that could apply to any time in history?
> Yes, actually.  About 10 years ago, David Wilkerson published a book called
> "The Vision", in which he described a vision he had in 1973 of terrible
> calamities about to come upon the earth; he indicated that he had checked
> this vision with the Bible and found that they agreed; and he said that he
> believed that all these calamities would come on this generation.  The
> calamities he saw included economic confusion (already starting), drastic
> changes in the earth (freakish weather, earthquakes, etc.), a growing flood
> of pornography and sexual practices which might draw protest even from Rich,
> hatred of parents by their children, and persecution of genuinely believing
> Christians throughout the world (not just in totalitarian countries).

Would you like to hear about some of the visions *I* had in 1973?  They
correspond exactly to occurrences in the movie "Snow White and the Seven
Dwarfs".  Sorry for the flippant tone, but my visions seem to have just as
much relevance.  Again, most of the circumstances you describe are either
1) common in all historical periods, or 2) general statements that might be
used to describe the end of the world ("... the sky will turn black, and red
streaks will appear, and shoes will trample the ground ..."), with special
emphasis on "hitting home" ("... and all those like you who believe in
Ubizmo will have their hands swollen, and their eyes blackened, and their
nasal passages clogged...").  Speaking of which (we've been through this
before) but where is this "persecution of genuinely believing Christians"?
Is it to be found in people proposing questioning and rational thought?
In de-emphasis of religion as a central focus in society?  In net.religion?

> The Bible predicted that people would say something much like what you said
> (paraphrase of some verses from II Peter):  "Where are the indications that
> Christ is about to return?  Things are happening just as they've always
> happened since the world began."  In fact they haven't gone quite the same.
> The Bible clearly predicted that the nation of Israel would be re-established.
> Lo and behold, it has been.  I haven't made it into the prophecies yet in my
> current wading through the O.T., but my understanding is that the rebirth of
> Israel was to be one of the earliest signs that the world was about to get
> the hook....

How very clever of the prophecies to include the notion that "there would be
those who would laugh at these prophecies, and not believe them, and they
will scorn and laugh at those who blindly believe, and throw vegetables at
them".  That just makes sure you include all possibilities in your
"prophecies".  What if I proclaim that the world will come to an end when a
huge star goat will devour our planet and replace it with a giant bowling ball?
What if I further proclaim that there will be those who will doubt this
prophecy, and call me a fool?  In the words of Ken Arndt, "See?"  What if I
still further proclaim that some random event (the Great Wall of China will
fall into the Mississippi River) will proclaim the coming of this end, and
indeed you see it happen (some wealthy Arab has the Wall moved in the year
2011 just prior to the great flood of the American South...).  Again, see?

> | An interesting point: you claim that you [Bob Brown] "realize that a lot of
> | the 600+ laws of the Old Testament (what Jews refer to as "The Bible")
> | don't have much bearing on today's life" but that certain ones do.  How did
> | you make that determination?	Why are you claiming that the laws on
> | "keeping Kosher" or following Jewish law are obsolete, while other laws
> | concerning sexual practices you don't like or establishing absolute
> | infallibility of god and church and bible are OK? Sounds like an arbitrary
> | distinction to me.  If you can make such determinations yourself, great.
> | More power to you. Now allow the rest of us the right to make the same
> | determinations for ourselves.
>
> I think I answered this in some article not too long ago -- i.e. Jesus
> Himself indicated, for instance, that keeping kosher was not required.

Bob Brown also responded to this point, by saying that certain laws were
specified as no longer applying to Christians by Paul.  Again, this still
sounds rather arbitrary to me.  And isn't it commonly accepted that Paul
chose to de-emphasize Jewish religious law solely as a public relations
move, to make sure potential converts weren't put off by all of the
"Jewish" things they'd have to do to be Christians.  Agreed, Jeff, part of the
idea was that the letter of the law was not as important as the spirit of
the law.  In which case I'd say many Christians are right back where they
started from.

> ... from Doug Dickey's book (the man who said that all people are incurably
> religious), an idol (or a god, or even God Himself) is a center of integration
> around which one's life is built.  One could also call it the foundation upon
> which one's life is built.  If it collapses, your life collapses.  But I
> doubt that anyone is without such a foundation.  Many people do not recognize
> their foundation explicitly.  Rich at least is quite explicit about his
> foundation...enough for his audience to see that his life is founded on the
> general idea of negating and doubting everything he can, that his foundation
> can be expressed in the simple phrase "it is not!"  He may claim that this
> is not the case, but most of the articles I've ever seen from Rich have
> consisted largely of denying other people's claims.  Christians' foundation,
> on the other hand, is not "it is", but "He is", or even "He lives!" -- a
> positive statement.

(My *audience*???  Should I start selling tickets to these net.fiascos and keep
the interest accrued on the ticket payments when the show is cancelled? :-)

It is sad that Jeff feels that life (for him and everyone else, apparently)
must have an unshakeable foundation that can never collapse, else his life (and
yours and mine) would collapse.  My life has no such foundation, though
Jeff may think that it must.  I have no more proof that the way scientific
method has demonstrated the world to be for common human perception is the
"ultimate correct reality", than Jeff has proof that his way is the ultimately
correct one.  Nor do I need to have such ultimate proof, though I would hope
that humankind would always be searching for truth in the most rational and
logical way possible.  But the discoveries and understanding of logical
inquisitiveness into the order of things have resulted in a consistent
model of the way things work in this "purposeless" (to Jeff, thus unmeaningful)
reality.  And when I say "it is not", it is only when claims are made without
substance.  Anyone can venture forth with any of a number of random positive
affirming claims.  Not as many can offer substance.  And fewer still can afford
to have that substance stand the test of real scrutiny.

> But anyway, everyone, in the sense described above, worships something or
> someone.

Sorry.  That's just wrong.  I and others on this net stand as counterexamples.
-- 
AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU.
						Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr