Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!vrdxhq!BMS-AT!stuart From: stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) Newsgroups: net.religion,talk.religion Subject: Re: Banning books, religion etc... Message-ID: <180@BMS-AT.UUCP> Date: Sun, 31-Aug-86 16:05:46 EDT Article-I.D.: BMS-AT.180 Posted: Sun Aug 31 16:05:46 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Sep-86 04:27:04 EDT References: <1637@ames.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Business Management Systems, Inc., Fairfax, VA Lines: 105 Xref: linus net.religion:10659 talk.religion:33 Summary: a further clarification In article <1637@ames.UUCP>, barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: > Now that the discussion's been moved here, I hope you > will see fit to expand on the points you make. I have a couple of > questions. First the questions: > >I will just say that they belong > >to a genre which present Mankind as evolving to higher and higher states. > >(This is often called Humanism). I find this concept arrogant and foolish > >whether viewed from a christian or existential standpoint. > Why? Oh, I can see that it runs counter to creationist > dogma, but most Xians, and presumably all existentialists, are > not creationists. I fail to find anything anti-religious in the > notion that human evolution has not stopped with the current > model. Arrogant? How so? If anything, the admission that the > human race could stand some improvement shows an admirable humility. A christian does (should?) not accept Humanism because it tries to improve the human race without God. Trying to run our lives without consulting the manufacturer or His intructions is how we got into such a mess in the first place! An existentialist does (should?) not accept Humanism because he knows that any supposed 'improvement' is illusory. Why I don't diet exclusively on garbage: > What I *do* find a bit arrogant and foolish is the desire > to avoid being presented with ideas with which one does not > agree. Arrogant, because it suggests that one's ideas are > incapable of further refinement, and foolish because it inhibits > such refinement. When I read that many people eat garbage to stay alive, I went out to our garbage cans and looked at it, smelled, and put my finger in some slime (I couldn't bring myself to actually taste it). I wanted to have some idea of what these people went through. I don't, however, ever eat garbage. I might if I had to live in such conditions in order to befriend and help the people, but it would be foolish for me to do so just for kicks. When I first heard about the horror of pornography, I went out and found a copy of Playboy. I avoided the pictures (hoping to have a happy marriage someday) and read several articles. My conclusion: the articles were typical of magazines and only occasionally disgusting. People must buy it for the pictures. I have never since bothered reading (or looking at) such magazines. Do I need to keep looking at the latest issues to see if anything has changed? (Note, Playboy is considered very mild pornography. The real stuff is better compared with sewage than garbage. I have just the word of my friends who try to help people on 14th street in DC. I feel no need at the moment to find out for myself.) When I saw 2001, I enjoyed HAL and the gang. The first part of the movie was more enjoyable than the last. At the end, it abandons traditional storytelling and attempts to communicate Mankind's dream of becoming God via disconnected but increasingly visionary scenes. This last part is difficult to enjoy without sharing the philosophy of the authors. If I was a full-time movie critic, I would probably see 2010. Since I am not, I only have time for a movie 2 or 3 times a year. Based on the advertising I simply decided that I would rather see a rerun of 'The Return of the Jedi' than see 2010. (Note, the 'StarWars' series also contains anti-christian elements, especially in 'The Empire Strikes Back'. Nevertheless I have found it consistently entertaining and stimulating.) Since I watch so few movies, perhaps a list of the ones I have seen and would see again will attract some flames. The more times I watched it, the better I liked it. This is not a complete list from a journal. This is just what sticks in my conscious mind. Mary Poppins (5 times) Sound of Music (6 times, plus numerous TV reruns) Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (uncountable TV reruns) 2001 (1 time) The Cabaret (-1 time, I wished I hadn't) The Black Hole (2 times) StarWars (4 times) Empire Strikes Back (1 time) Return of the Jedi (2 times) The Last Starfighter (1 time) The Time Bandits (2 times) LadyHawk (2 times) The Gods must be Crazy! (3 times) Firefox (1 time) Chariots of Fire (5 times) (despite my preference for fantasy/sci-fi) The Chosen (1 time) I have enjoyed using NewsNet immensely since going on-line several weeks ago. I quickly discovered, however, that one cannot read every single article that comes in and expect to get anything else done. For this reason I began to unsubscribe to a number of groups. In some cases, the group was inherently worthless (e.g. net.jokes, talk.bizarre, FLAMES!). In other cases, I simply was not 'into' the subject (e.g. net.sports). "To fit everything into your schedule, you've got to be picky about what you do." -- Stuart D. Gathman himself. "If it doesn't work, delete the offending code." -- SDG on the art of programming. -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>