Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site trwatf.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!trwatf!root From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Invitation for Scott Deerwester Message-ID: <832@trwatf.UUCP> Date: Sat, 6-Apr-85 14:59:24 EST Article-I.D.: trwatf.832 Posted: Sat Apr 6 14:59:24 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 05:14:29 EST References: <> <398@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <863@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA. Lines: 153 >> Rich invited me to react to an account of a (mystical?) experience >> that he posted recently. This article is my response and is in two >> parts. The first (which I'm very sure will not be at all satisfying >> to Rich) is my reaction to the article. The second is a short >> exposition on the role of subjectivity in the acquisition of faith in >> God. [SCOTT DEERWESTER] > > And this, of course, is my reply. > [RICH ROSEN] > > > When you're disoriented enough and > > are ready to reach out to something or somebody for support, they > > make very sure that the nearest person is somebody who can help you > > "understand" what's happening to you. Powerful technique. The > > account that you posted sounds a lot like that. People can be > > manipulated into having very powerful experiences by somebody who > > knows what they're doing. > > Who's to say that this isn't exactly what has happened (in a lifetime instead > of a weekend) to you? You alone. Just like they alone would vouch for their > experience. Why is yours so much better, as you seem to indicate from your > own tone above? What would you have to say if I let you know that the > story came from the experience of an actual charismatic Christian? What > would your conclusions be? Perhaps he can answer you. Scott seems to be able to identify the more blatent form of (how shall we put it).... persuasion. I doubt that he has been persuaded by means this obvious. But can Scott Deerswester be sure that HIS beliefs are not the result of slow fundementalist persuasion or wishful-thinking self-prophecy? > > First you look to see if the belief set, taken as is, is reasonable. > > The fundamental tenets of Christianity have been presented many times > > before in this forum. Basically: > > > > - God created the universe in general and man in particular. > > - Man sinned and fell away from God. > > - Jesus was born in accordance with prophesy and lived > > a sinless life. > > - He gave his life and this act was sufficient to permit Man > > to be restored to fellowship with God. > > - He was resurrected and ascended to be with God the Father. > > - He gave the Holy Spirit to live within, guide and comfort > > all those who believe in Him. > > And the funny thing is, you claim all the above is reasonable. Yet clearly > the only possible basis for calling such things reasonable, in the absence > of evidence, is to already believe them to be true! And we know what that's > called... Well yes that's true. He DOES seem to place the belief before the evidence. And we ALL know what that's called. But really Rich, most you state the obvious? How about finding out WHY he did it this way? Actually I don't think you'll get the chance the way you're jumping all over this guy. > > *Of course*, experience isn't enough to prove anything, all by > > itself. *Of course*, people's senses can deceive them. But if the > > scripture says things are supposed to happen a certain way, perhaps > > with certain conditions on my part, then my faith grows as my > > experience bears out the truth of the scripture. How do I know that > > God lives? By what He does. And He's the same God to me as He was > > to His children that He led out of Egypt and loves me with the same > > love that they experienced. > > To support your subjective experience, you have a book that tells you what > to expect from your subjective experiences, what preconceptions to have > about them, and how to relate to them. *That* is a reason for one's faith > to grow? Again, clearly you are believing what you already choose to > believe. I agree with you Rich that a book is NOT enough to base one's belief system on. However, Scott did not claim that this was the ONLY influence in his life. He is merely pointing out that God made himself known to people by doing things they could readily see and touch and taste.... > > Remember how God would identify Himself when He addressed His people? > > "The God who led you out of Egypt... the God who fed you for forty > > years in the desert... the God who drove out nations before you..." > > They, the children of Israel, knew and know Him because of the ways > > in which He intervened in their lives. He was called their Deliverer > > because, in specific circumstances, He delivered them. He was their > > Rock because, when they couldn't rely on anyone or anything around > > them, He showed Himself to be unchanging and faithful. > > Wait a minute! That's some jump there! From "my experiences are supported > by what it says in that book because I read it and had such an experience, > and lo and behold it met my expectations of what the book told me" to > "let's assume thus that this book is truth" in one simple leap. But Rich, remember that you yourself said that this change may have occured over a LIFETIME. That's a long time to look at the world and one's self. Care to elaborate Mr. Deerswester? he's got a point. > > I'm really not concerned about whether my faith can stand up to scrutiny > > or not. I'm confident that it can. > > So you don't bother to scrutinize, having faith that your faith would > obviously withstand the test. Or, perhaps, fearful that it wouldn't. > Either way, you have no interest in knowing the answer: you've already > accepted a set of premises and don't care whether they're flawed or not-- > you're going to continue along the same way in any case. Well actually Scott might not care to stand up to YOUR kind of test. Perhaps he HAS good reason that you don't know about. Perhaps not. It's too difficult to say from this article. Everyone SHOULD be concerned with the validity of his or her own beleifs though. >> But frankly, you show so little >> respect to the people that you interact with on the net that I'm not >> very anxious to talk about things that are precious to me only to >> have you ridicule and belittle them. > > You know, it's so ironic. You are doing nothing but engaging in excuse > making, my friend. I'd venture that the only way you'd consider my words > respectful to you is if I stopped disagreeing with you and only took your > side. Actually Rich, you DON'T treat net people with enough respect. Didn't you notice that he said "I'm not very anxious to talk to people about things that are precious to me..." Did it occur to you that his experiences are SO precious and SO magical that he DOESN'T want to share the pearls of his life before (what he perceives to be) swine like you? I don't think it's that he doesn't have anything to say. He just doesn't have anything to say to you. Or perhaps it is all a scam. But I don't think Rich Rosen is the one to judge in this case. > No matter. Either what I have to say above is valid, or it is > not. The fact is, as you've stated above, that you're not concerned with > whether it's valid or not. You're *more* concerned about whether what I > say is "respectful" in your view.... > And that you are choosing to ignore anything that would go against those > premises, preferring instead to stick by them because they are what you > choose to believe. Because they are what you want to believe. That's not what I gathered to be the spirit of his article. It might be true of some, or even most, Christianoids on the net... but it is not evidenced by Scott Deerswester's article. In fact, his article quite clearly pointed out that he was unable to provide the evidence (subjective or objective) that you require. He DID show some humility about his own perspective that you rarely find on this net. Rich, is it your habit to pounce on anyone who mentions "subjective evidence" or "religious experience" with the above comments which, let's face it, are pretty standard fare? -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And he made the stars, too, and the world is one of the stars"