Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Is General Goodness just a moral principle? Message-ID: <1321@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Jul-85 11:46:30 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1321 Posted: Fri Jul 26 11:46:30 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 14:36:35 EDT References: <852@umcp-cs.UUCP> <360@utastro.UUCP> <879@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <1235@pyuxd.UUCP> <2134@pucc-h> <2147@pucc-h> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 98 >>Amongst the whole universe (or set of >>universes), this one that we're in is the one where physical laws are as they >>are and this small part of it that we're in is the one in which conditions >>were such that life could exist. Why are we here, in this spot? Because if >>this wasn't "here", there wouldn't be any "we", conditions wouldn't have >>allowed it. Does that imply some designer? Not at all. We are "here" >>because this is the only place that had conditions to allow us to exist. [RR] > Obviously the physical conditions here allow us to exist. But allowing > something is an immense distance from causing it. Your assumption that > life, consciousness, and intelligence arose -- from a state where there > were no such things (this is your assumption, is it not?) -- is not at all > empirically verifiable; it just fits the rest of your world view. [SARGENT] It is also supported by archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, ... Not an assumption, no, it is the converse (that it DID [yes, it DID, DID, DID and DID!] ), that a creator deliberately caused it to exist, that is the assumption. > It would be interesting, but time-consuming, to have > a discussion of some of the "flaws in the reasoning" -- that is, if there are > any other than the basic premise of the existence of God, which you obviously > consider a flaw. It is that assumption (the existence of god) that all the further compounded "flaws" seem to stem from. (They're not "flaws" in reasoning because they're perfectly valid if you accept the assumption, though it seems a few added assumptions must be inserted along the way to fill in cracks.) >>> God Himself is constantly at work healing us so that we lose our false >>> wants and find out what we really want, then have the courage to go for it. >> For instance, what are "false wants"? I agree that some things one may want >> are not in one's best interest, some things may be downright wrong. But is >> it a false want just because a book says so? >Actually it's the other way around: The Bible opposes certain things because >they are not what anyone really wants, what are in anyone's best interests. Funny, there are plenty of people I know (myself included) that really and truly want to do things that this book considers wrong, and we have yet to see any reason for labelling these things as wrong (they don't harm other people or themselves). Are you SURE it's the "other" way around?? >>>Example: This group had a discussion a while back on fornication. Many >>>fundamentalists look upon this as one of the star sins, i.e. something which >>>renders those who commit it liable to judgment and ostracism. But in actual >>>fact, the reason not to do it is that it is a suboptimal satisfaction of a >>>want -- the want for total (not just physical) intimacy with a MOTOS, which >>>can't be achieved very well outside of marriage. Paul puts it even more >>>strongly when he comments that someone who does indulge "sins against his >>>own body" -- i.e. hurts himself. >>Oh? Care to elaborate on why? Seriously, beyond the words of a book, what >>makes it WRONG? In what way is sex (outside marriage or even outside >>"conventional" norms!!!) hurting oneself? PLEASE elaborate!!!!! >Anyone out there who is married but who played around before marriage care to >comment on the difference between the two? All I can say is that my minimal >experience with premarital sex was pretty painful (no, not physically!). At >least I can say that it doesn't work without a high degree of trust between >the partners, such trust as is at its strongest when the two have made a solemn >commitment to each other. Sure add in enough guilt ("this is WRONG! this is WRONG! this is...") and it's sure to be painful. Working from assumptions again. Since you have no experience with such "solemn trust" in the context you mention, you are in no position to judge. I'm sure many married Christians might support Jeff's view, but the fact that others may not, and that married and unmarried non- Christians can offer a completely different perspective shows that the blanket classification that this is ONLY right in marriage is bogus. >>Loved and accepted by what? Feeling that way may make you feel better, >>but if you're talking about love and acceptance from some mythical deity >>your basis may be flawed, and that's no foundation worth standing on. >>Human beings don't love and accept unconditionally, they offer such things >>in response to good actions and a feeling of companionship stemming from >>those actions. To want this "unconditional love and acceptance" you've often >>spoken of (from a deity) strikes me as a wish to fulfill that need without >>interacting with humans to get it. You may live on the illusion, but the >>real thing is out here amongst us people. > But it is a foundation that has transformed me in the past 10 years or so. Cults, beliefs, etc. all have successfully transformed people. > As to the source of love and acceptance: Certainly the love and acceptance > of humans who cared for me though I didn't offer them much of anything > except draining them with my need for self-esteem and acceptance has helped > me. But so has a lot of prayer alone in my room. Good thing they saw good in you that you yourself were hiding. If prayer puts you in a frame of mind that makes you feel better about yourself, great. It sounds like it only makes you feel better about yourself in relation to something else, though. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr