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 Subject: Re: The true God lives in the real Message-ID: <1939@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 19-Oct-85 22:34:47 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1939 Posted: Sat Oct 19 22:34:47 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 20-Oct-85 06:45:54 EDT References: <667@utastro.UUCP> <-145727674@sysvis> <2210@sdcc6.UUCP> <1881@pyuxd.UUCP> <126@sdcc7.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 154 Summary: The true meaning of Time Bandits >> Some God you envision. Terry Gilliam (not Monty Python), who made "Time >> Bandits", quite obviously intended the introduction of Ralph Richardson as >> God as a very cute bit of satire. Sad that those who are so entrenched in >> their beliefs didn't get the joke. [ROSEN] > Are you sure that couldn't work both ways? Very sure. I have more than passingly familiar with the work of Terry Gilliam with and without Monty Python, and interviews with him about this movie confirm what I have said about your ironic misconception. >> If memory serves, Paul has been very consistent (contrary to what Craig >> claims) in saying that god did not create the universe. > Is that something to be proud of? Consistently saying something? Well, it is when you claim he was waffling back and forth when in fact he hadn't. Proud that the only way to debunk his position is seemingly to tell lies about it. (Another thing I am more than passingly familiar with, from experience.) >> In any case, >> if this is so (and Paul gives a very convincing argument that if a god >> exists it could not have been the "ultimate" creator) > Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are using 'could' in a > conditional sense, Paul has in no way provided any evidence whatsoever > proving God to have done anything. His entire argument that God isn't > the ultimate creator is that we can ask since nothing can come out of > nothing, God must have been created. And that's a convincing argument? You mean it isn't? What scenarios have YOU come up with that are better. > Paul's other point is that since he can see how the sciences have 'proved' > that we evolved, obviously God didn't create us. You seem pretty easy > to please if you consider Paul's argument's convincing. I don't recall Paul saying ANYTHING about evolution, so it would seem that, as with your conclusion about Time Bandits, you are engaging in wishful thinking again. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Paul.) I think the problem is that you are a pretty iintransigent cookie if Paul's arguments don't convince you. I mean, they may not be the greatest arguments in the world (frankly, Paul reminds me a bit of Wile E. Coyote, what with everything going wrong in his life attributable to the "Acme" damager god :-), but they are certainly less presumptive than yours. >>> But how much deeper can one go than every thought and intent of your heart? >> Maybe every thought and intent of YOUR heart, bucko! PLEASE don't be >> so damned presumptuous as to claim that because YOU feel your innards to >> be naturally evil that everyone else IS the way you feel you are. > Winner of the out of context quote of the month. The line you quoted is > from the Bible and the actual words are my paraphrase in response to > a discussion about the evil in people's hearts and what the Bible had to say > about it. Make that IN context quote of the month! I repeat the question that Rick was answering above in '>>>': >>>> But this still doesn't say that humanity is *by* *nature* >>>> wicked, only that at that particular time essentially all men were >>>> *acting* wickedly. His claim was that to "prove" that humanity is by nature wicked, look in "every thought and intent of your heart". I repeat: this is a contemptuous and presumptuous notion, that may very well apply to Rick (or he may just perceive things that way), but he cannot speak for the rest of humanity. >>is this the reason for the Christian movement towards moral imposition: that >>we are dealing with people who essentially feel themselves to be hideously >>evil and thus assume that everyone else is, too, thus "requiring" that >>society have stringent restrictions to protect us from those who don't >>"recognize" that they are evil the way these good people (?) do? What >>a revolting self-debasing philosophy! > First I could ask you (you seem to dislike unfounded assumptions) what you > claim to be the nature of people. Look at the world around us and the people > and tell me how wonderful and kind people are. I don't claim that people are all always absolutely wonderful and kind. To do so would be factually wrong. But likewise, it would be equally wrong to assert (as you do) that the converse is true. The way people act is based on their perceptions of their needs. Some people engage in acts that are perceived by others as evil, because these acts interfere with THEIR lives and possessions. And they are right in doing that, because evil can only be defined subjectively as that which brings you harm. On the other hand, other people acknowledge the rights of other human beings, and recognize that doing so may aid in procuring mutual cooperation among people. Within the scope of such a morality, "evil" is that which interferes with personal individual human rights, because we know that an interference allowable toward any one person could also be allowable against us. In any case, I see no reason to reach your presumptuous conclusion that the nature of people is "evil". If they have any intelligence and longterm foresight (as more and more people do) they learn that satisfying short term interest/need at the expense of other people ("evil") is not as beneficial as the long view. > Secondly, while I believe what the Bible says, I didn't say it. God did. > If you want to complain to someone about criticizing people, talk to God. It is only your assertion that (1) there is a god at all, (2) that god is of the specific type you believe (desire?) it to be, and (3) that this Bible is the work of that god. This is called assuming your own conclusion. You believe humanity is evil, for whatever reason, thus you assume that god agrees with you in your opinion of people. >>> I'm convinced that free-will exists and that men choose to do evil. >> Nothing like working from unfounded assumptions... > I missed Rich Rosen vs. the world on the free-will debate and rather than > start it again, I'll simply say that you, not knowing anything about my > environement and about what goes on in my mind you aren't in a very good > position to categoricaly deny the free-will of anyone other than yourself. > Who's making the unfounded assumption? You are, of course. If you read what has been quaintly called RRvTW on free will, you'd know that there are valid reasons for denying the presumption that you have this free will. BUT, just out of curiosity, and for my own edification, I would greatly appreciate your explaining to me (and everyone) what you mean by free will, and the mechanism by which it manifests itself. >> But seemingly less angry about your own beliefs that we "are" evil (because >> you say so) being foisted upon the rest of us. Doesn't that strike you as >> equally "boneheaded"? > Being foisted? I simply quoted the Bible and repeated words that Christ said > to people way back then. I have no right, no authority and no knowledge with > which to judge you or condemn you. God, however, claims to. The Bible says > that each of us have the law of God written in our hearts and that we are > responsible to God for our actions. Again, this is only your assertion, and I repeat that your beliefs that people are ipso facto evil or "fallen", which are also nothing but assertions, should not be applied to the rest of us against our will. Again, ironic that you omitted the section which I was responding to above, describing your assumptions and assertions that "man fell", and stating that professors who teach what you call "not accurate information" (which I assume really means facts that you disagree with) to students (I guess that's the "humanism" that Christians want out of schools). I'm grateful when students do get taught some semblance of objective thought, and it's too bad if learning to be more rigorous in thinking leads them to the conclusion that your beliefs are erroneous. > Are you a bonehead for foisting your belief in the lack of free-will on me? The "foisting" I do is to present substantiation for my opinion. (Which you admit you haven't read.) The "foisting" you and your kind do leads to legislation in the halls of Congress, where your religious beliefs have no place in a free country. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr