Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcnc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!bch From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: what does it mean to talk to God [a brief attempt at an answer] Message-ID: <2665@mcnc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 13-Mar-85 11:11:32 EST Article-I.D.: mcnc.2665 Posted: Wed Mar 13 11:11:32 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Mar-85 06:43:20 EST References: <893@topaz.ARPA> <2635@mcnc.UUCP> <4947@cbscc.UUCP> Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service Lines: 76 Xref: watmath net.religion:6021 net.religion.christian:437 Summary: In article <4947@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > > ...you still have to face the problems of >contradictory truth claims. Surely you don't resolve them by saying they >are all equally valid. You must have reasons for believing some things >are true and others not, even in the realm of religious belief. How >can all subjective criteria be equally weighted when the only subjectivity >any of us posesses is our own? Doesn't the act of weighing them require >something a little beyond total subjectivity? It is precisely because the only subjectivity we have is our own that we cannot begin to "weigh" others religious experiences. When Karen claims she has spoken to G-d, who am I to dispute it? It is her experience and she, alone, knows the full texture of it. If you or I call into question the subjective religious experiences of the Hindu, the Moslem or the Mormon are we not essentially doing the same thing as Rich Rosen (in his followup to this subject?) My take is that this is hubris in the classi- cal sense. > Yet you claim that >determination of what is correct it impossible. I would hope that God >has made a provision to resolve the issues adaquately (albeit not >absolutely). We cannot suspend judgement indefinitely on many things >that are important; the implications of our beliefs. Laura thinks >Satanism is horrible. Tim thinks Christianity is horrible. I may agree >with Laura and disagree with Tim, but I would not claim that there >are no grounds for making such judgements; that the judgements themselves >are meaningless. Religions invariably lead their adherents to hold >beliefs that inherently imply that other religious beliefs are wrong. >We cannot ignore this conflict. There must be some meaningful way >to consider it. We have no choice, I think. "Horrible" is interestingly different than "wrong." It is an aesthetic rather than moral judgement. I think Okra is "horrible" but I don't think folks who like it are "wrong." Chuck Hedrick has astutely pointed out that the "purpose" of religion is to bring man into relationship with G-d. To this purpose all else is secondary. From what you have written, I take it that you believe there is only one valid form of this relationship which is what you mean when you say "right" or "wrong" in the context of religious experience. The "judgement" you refer to above is the decision as to which path is "correct" from G-d's point of view. Dangerous stuff. The only "judgement" I can make is whether a particular set of beliefs can or will lead *me* into knowing G-d. I do not suspend that judgement, but only limit its scope to my own existence. For whatever reason, fundamentalist Christianity does not provide me with the tools to sustain a relationship with G-d, in that sense it is "wrong" for me. Similarly, my brand of Gnostic Christianity is not useful to you or to Karen. In that sense it is "wrong" for you. It does not meet your needs. There are billions of people in this world, each of the with differing needs and perspectives. My assumption is that the manifold ways people relate to G-d are sustained because G-d has provided them to meet differing human needs. Although there may be a universal Truth (which I don't believe I am privy to) I can't see a universal "correct" in this sense. > >Maybe I have totally misunderstood your point, Byron. But you must >have some way of resolving these conflicts to your own satisfaction >and you must believe the methods you use have validity that extends >beyond your own subjectivity (why even discuss religion otherwise?). > The purpose in discussing religion is to listen to and share the religious experience. That we are different means that we cannot help but learn from one another. If what is said here helps anyone in knowing G-d, then the purpose is served. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch