Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq
From: aeq@pucc-h (the practical mystic)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: one point in Rosen's response to my uplifting digression
Message-ID: <1862@pucc-h>
Date: Thu, 21-Feb-85 03:38:09 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.1862
Posted: Thu Feb 21 03:38:09 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 04:00:38 EST
References: <488@pyuxd.UUCP> <1825@pucc-h>, <536@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: the other 1016
Lines: 39

From pyuxd!rlr ("Professor Wagstaff"):

First, one small detail:  There is in fact a Professor Wagstaff in the C.S.
department at Purdue.

>> if individuals freely choose to use the Bible, intimacy with God, and the
>> counsel of others in the faith (including those older and wiser who are
>> leaders, but not theocrats), to help them mold their own lives, there will
>> be certain similarities among all of them, but they will be most free to be
>> fully the glorious and beautiful individuals they were created to be.

> If individuals freely choose to use their own reasoning and figure out what's
> best for them as individual human beings, then and only then will they be
> "most free".

Surely your own reasoning would tell you that one thing that can help you
find what is best for you is to utilize the wisdom of others who have dealt
with the same sort of things you have to handle.  You seem to want to
re-invent the wheel, ignoring or distrusting the advice of anyone outside
yourself.  If you wish to do this, that's your choice; but you could 1) spare
yourself a lot of trouble, 2) get valuable input to help you make the
decisions of your life, if you consulted other people -- either talking with
those living now, or reading the writings of those who lived previously.

I also dispute the idea that reason alone is sufficient to find a life that
will satisfy the whole person; you aren't entirely made up of rationality.
Or, put it another way, reasoning is only as good as its premises.  Your
reasoning is founded on the premise that there is no God -- something which
itself *cannot* be proved by reason.  Do not confuse rationality with
empiricism.

Finally, I would invite all readers to contrast the joyous but realistic
optimism of my "uplifting digression" with the rather dry and dead ideas
of skepticism expressed by Rich and others.  Which would you prefer?

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
When I could honestly say I hated God was when He could show me His love.