[Vision2020] answer to Melynda
Eric Engerbretson
eric@eric-e.com
Thu, 27 May 2004 13:35:46 -0700
--Apple-Mail-24-8764198
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1;
format=flowed
>
>> If we would all just realize that we are all religious beings who=20
>> worship our worldviews, then we could all sit around and peacefully=20=
>> debate and try to decide whose religion is closest to the truth,=20
>> without malice.
>
> This model presupposes that there's one truest religion and that it's=20=
> possible to determine which one that is through argument.
Yes, and No. Yes, it presupposes that there's one truest religion. =20
There must be, because something is true. Either a god created us, or=20
he didn't. If he did, than that makes less true the religions who=20
believe he didn't. Either Jesus rose or he didn't. If he did, then=20
that makes less true the religions of those who believe he didn't. =20
There is a truth, therefore some guesses at it are going to be closer=20
than others. If you deny this, you're more of a sentimentalist than a=20=
realist.
No, it is probably not possible to determine which one is right through=20=
argument-- because we are human and probably can't grasp the whole=20
truth. But it sure is enlightening to try! The best effort I have ever=20=
seen at proving God through argument is C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity=20
(which we offer for free at the Nuart Theatre BTW). I doubt there is a=20=
person on earth that has the exact understanding of who God is and the=20=
precise truth on every question of philosophy. I doubt any person has a=20=
complete understanding of the Bible. But you can bet some people are=20
closer than others. And the only way to get closer to the truth is to=20
pursue it. Debating the points of philosophy with others is the best=20
way to do that. Some would say reading is better, but reading is simply=20=
debating in your mind with somebody in the past. Every time I talk=20
with someone about spiritual things or write something, I come away=20
with a better knowledge of what I know and what I don't know as well as=20=
I should. Therefore I am stepping closer to the truth.
It is one of the very saddest things to me that some people necessarily=20=
are more right than others. But you live out this truth in the=20
minutest details of life all day long-- all day long you live in a=20
world of absolute truths. I absolutely went to the post office today,=20=
no matter how vehemently Suzy believes I didn't. No matter if that=20
belief has "changed Suzy's life" and made her a better person. All day=20=
long you live with absolute truth, and yet when it comes to the matter=20=
of utmost importance, you want to deny that it exists!! Talk about=20
faith! Melynda, I could have you preaching "absolute truth" in five=20
minutes. All I would have to do is accuse you of murder and throw you=20
in jail. You'd be screaming "absolute truth" at the top of your lungs,=20=
and paying a lawyer to argue about it.
> (I"ll leave aside the question of worshipping a worldview). But even=20=
> if that were true, what then to do with the case of you and me, Eric? =20=
> Two Christians, but with such widely diverging worldviews that we=20
> could scarcely agree on a single social expression of our=20
> Christianity. Do we have different religions? Different=20
> interpretations of the same religion?
These are great points, and great questions. I would say if you=20
believe Jesus Christ died so that you can have your sins forgiven, and=20=
that he truly rose from the dead to prove that he was who he said he=20
was-- then you and I are both Christians. I would say we have different=20=
interpretations of the same religion.
But the scripture is very clear that there will be all sorts of people=20=
who believe they are Christians and God will say "I never knew you". =20
God said "these people worship me with their lips but their hearts are=20=
far from me." The people Jesus got the most angry with where the ones=20=
who claimed to be closest to God-- the Pharisees. In Northern Ireland=20=
war raged between "Christians" and "Christians". Obviously some of=20
those Irish folk didn't know God as well as they claimed. Some of them=20=
had interpretations of the Bible that were just wrong-- even if it=20
would hurt their feelings to tell them. So it is clear that many who=20
think they are Christians simply are not. They are deceiving=20
themselves. Two people can have different interpretations of a=20
religion, but one is certainly closer to the real truth. And when they=20=
meet God, they will find out who was closer.
And many people with different interpretations will commune together in=20=
heaven. The question is: how different. Only God knows ultimately, but=20=
He has an awful lot to say about it in the Bible.
> Is one of us wrong?
We are both wrong about certain points, and we are both right about=20
certain points. But one of us is definitely closer to the=20
interpretation of scripture that God intended. And our lives will bear=20=
fruit accordingly.
> Is debate required, and does one of us have to change his mind=20
> afterwards?
Of course debate is not required, but one certainly won't grow or get=20
much closer to God unless he reads or talks with others. And you can't=20=
read a book without debating the author as you read. If you read a book=20=
and agree with every written word, then you either need to step out of=20=
the children's section or start doing a lot more reading. No, after a=20=
debate one will rarely ever change his mind completely-- but an honest=20=
person will either sense a slight shift in their position, or discover=20=
topics which they need to pursue so that they can better communicate=20
their position.
> And if we aren't successful in changing anyone's mind, won't anger, if=20=
> not malice, begin to seep into our relations?
Anger & malice will likely slip in if you are not in touch with the=20
true God, absolutely. Some religions like Zen and B'hai
do a good job of mastering negative emotion. A true Christian=20
immediately recognizes anger and malice as sin and turns away from it. =20=
Someone in touch with the real God will look at a person who is=20
deceived or deceiving himself and pray
for that person, thinking "there but for the grace of God go I". But=20
the confusion comes in because true Christians are still sinners.=20
Sometimes they do let anger and malice master them. They are=20
forgiven-- because Christ's death covers them, but it can be hard for=20
others to tell the difference in isolated circumstances. But one day=20
we'll all meet God, and it will be made completely clear who knew Him=20
and who didn't.
I, personally, won't hold anger or malice against someone who disagrees=20=
with me, no matter how obnoxious they are, because God commands me in=20
the Bible to love them. I have no choice, even under the most delicious=20=
temptations to be bitter.
>
> Fears about domination or conquest in Moscow--of a particular person=20=
> or denomination "taking over"--arise from a conviction that there's=20
> some desire to take over, and that such a conquest would harm our=20
> community and its members. Debate doesn't change that perception: =20
> you can't argue someone into feeling safe, or coerce her into trusting=20=
> you. This is one of the reasons religious conflict is so=20
> intransigent.
I don't agree. I think you can argue someone into trusting you. Argue=20=
is perhaps the wrong term. But I am quite sure that if you and I,=20
Melynda, sat for an hour over coffee and debated some religious points=20=
I am sure that afterward you would feel
safer with me. You would feel more trusting that I had your best=20
interests in mind. Certainly more than you trust me now.
You might not be one iota closer to agreeing with me, but you might=20
want to get together again and pursue it further.
The problem with people today is they are so completely afraid of=20
religious conflict that they clam up whenever religious topics come up.=20=
They refuse to seek out people different than themselves and pursue=20
conversation about deep things.
They flock together with birds of their feather, and mistrust, gossip,=20=
and spread rumours. Christians are as guilty as anybody in this=20
respect (but they're forgiven :=AC). The problem is most people don't=20=
know how to debate, they only know how to argue. They can't control=20
their emotions in a debate because at the bottom they are insecure=20
about their position and themselves. A person who is secure can never=20
get riled. Now, a person can be secure and deceived at the same time. =20=
But a person can also be secure because he is truly in touch with the=20
true God.
But most people don't want to talk about it. I met a senior citizen=20
who was the checker at the grocery store. He overheard me talking about=20=
something spiritual with the person behind me, and he said, in the tone=20=
of a sage, "the one thing I've learned is don't talk about religion,=20
death, and taxes." I said, "and you've got to face 'em all eventually,=20=
don't you."
As for "taking over the Palouse". I, personally, would like to. I wish=20=
I could get everyone in the Palouse to believe in God's forgiveness=20
through Christ. I wish I could get everyone to love their neighbors as=20=
themselves. I wish I could coerce everyone in the Palouse to use the=20
Bible as the owner's manual for their lives. I think you might be=20
surprised at what a nice place it would be.
Anyone who believes they know the way "things ought to be" should want=20=
to take over the Palouse. If they don't want to,
they are either misanthropists or lazy. Some people just care more=20
about other people, and some just work harder for what they believe=20
will change the world. Doug Wilson only wants to take over the Palouse=20=
because he wants everyone to know the great love of God and experience=20=
His forgiveness. What a horrible guy, that Doug. If people think they=20=
know what reality is, they ought to be trying to take over the Palouse=20=
with it. If they don't know what they believe, they ought to be=20
talking about it and trying to figure out why they're living. Less=20
time in front of the TV and more time with people and books.
If you don't like people or books, come check out our free movie, "The=20=
Climb", at the Nuart, Friday (tomorrow) night at 7:00.
Cordially,
Eric E.
>
> Melynda Huskey
The Nuart Theatre
208-882-0459 (lobby, no message)
208-883-0997 (CCM, leave message)
516 S Main, Moscow ID 83843
eric@eric-e.com
http://www.ccmbooks.org
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Melynda Huskey" <mghuskey@msn.com>
> Date: May 27, 2004 8:34:49 AM PDT
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Wilson is not a great mind, and neither am I
>
> Eric writes:
>
>> And so, according to these folks, if DW tries to tell people what he=20=
>> thinks is right and wrong, he is a religious freak supposedly trying=20=
>> to take over the Palouse. But if Nick or Joan tries to tell people=20=
>> what is right and wrong they are simply normal, non-biased people=20
>> trying to create a more tolerant and benevolent society for us all. =20=
>> Nick & Joan, et al, need to realize that they are religious, and that=20=
>> they, too, are trying to make the world see things the way they do.
>
> I think we've got some semantic confusion here (deja vu!). Everyone=20=
> has a worldview. Me, Eric, Joan, Ted, Nick, Debbie, Tami--you name=20
> her, she's got a world view. But not every world view is a religion. =20=
> So I can share a religion (Christianity) with Doug and Eric, although=20=
> not a world view. Likewise Ted can reject religion, while holding=20
> passionately a non-religious value system which privileges care for=20
> one another. It is possible to construct a civil society in which=20
> many religions and non-religious world views are valued and their=20
> expression protected.
>
>> If we would all just realize that we are all religious beings who=20
>> worship our worldviews, then we could all sit around and peacefully=20=
>> debate and try to decide whose religion is closest to the truth,=20
>> without malice.
>
> This model presupposes that there's one truest religion and that it's=20=
> possible to determine which one that is through argument. (I"ll leave=20=
> aside the question of worshipping a worldview). But even if that were=20=
> true, what then to do with the case of you and me, Eric? Two=20
> Christians, but with such widely diverging worldviews that we could=20
> scarcely agree on a single social expression of our Christianity. Do=20=
> we have different religions? Different interpretations of the same=20
> religion? Is one of us wrong? Is debate required, and does one of us=20=
> have to change his mind afterwards? And if we aren't successful in=20
> changing anyone's mind, won't anger, if not malice, begin to seep into=20=
> our relations?
>
> Fears about domination or conquest in Moscow--of a particular person=20=
> or denomination "taking over"--arise from a conviction that there's=20
> some desire to take over, and that such a conquest would harm our=20
> community and its members. Debate doesn't change that perception: =20
> you can't argue someone into feeling safe, or coerce her into trusting=20=
> you. This is one of the reasons religious conflict is so=20
> intransigent.
>
> Melynda Huskey
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the=20
> communities of the Palouse since 1994. =20
> http://www.fsr.net =20
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF
>
--Apple-Mail-24-8764198
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
charset=ISO-8859-1
<excerpt>
<excerpt>If we would all just realize that we are all religious beings
who worship our worldviews, then we could all sit around and
peacefully debate and try to decide whose religion is closest to the
truth, without malice.
</excerpt>
This model presupposes that there's one truest religion and that it's
possible to determine which one that is through argument.=20
</excerpt>
Yes, and No. Yes, it presupposes that there's one truest religion.=20
There must be, because something is true. Either a god created us, or
he didn't. If he did, than that makes less true the religions who
believe he didn't. Either Jesus rose or he didn't. If he did, then
that makes less true the religions of those who believe he didn't.=20
There is a truth, therefore some guesses at it are going to be closer
than others. If you deny this, you're more of a sentimentalist than a
realist.
No, it is probably not possible to determine which one is right
through argument-- because we are human and probably can't grasp the
whole truth. But it sure is enlightening to try! The best effort I
have ever seen at proving God through argument is C.S. Lewis'
<italic>Mere Christianity </italic>(which we offer for free at the
Nuart Theatre BTW). I doubt there is a person on earth that has the
<italic>exact</italic> understanding of who God is and the
<italic>precise</italic> truth on every question of philosophy. I
doubt any person has a <italic>complete</italic> understanding of the
Bible. But you can bet some people are closer than others. And the
only way to get closer to the truth is to pursue it. Debating the
points of philosophy with others is the best way to do that. Some
would say reading is better, but reading is simply debating in your
mind with somebody in the past. Every time I talk with someone about
spiritual things or write something, I come away with a better
knowledge of what I know and what I don't know as well as I should.=20
Therefore I am stepping closer to the truth.
It is one of the very saddest things to me that some people
necessarily are more right than others. But you live out this truth
in the minutest details of life all day long-- all day long you live
in a world of absolute truths. I absolutely went to the post office
today, no matter how vehemently Suzy believes I didn't. No matter if
that belief has "changed Suzy's life" and made her a better person.=20
All day long you live with absolute truth, and yet when it comes to
the matter of <italic>utmost </italic>importance, you want to deny
that it exists!! Talk about faith! Melynda, I could have you
preaching "absolute truth" in five minutes. All I would have to do is
accuse you of murder and throw you in jail. You'd be screaming
"absolute truth" at the top of your lungs, and paying a lawyer to
argue about it.
<excerpt>(I"ll leave aside the question of worshipping a worldview).
But even if that were true, what then to do with the case of you and
me, Eric? Two Christians, but with such widely diverging worldviews
that we could scarcely agree on a single social expression of our
Christianity. Do we have different religions? Different
interpretations of the same religion?
</excerpt>
These are <italic>great </italic>points, and <italic>great
</italic>questions. I would say if you believe Jesus Christ died so
that you can have your sins forgiven, and that he truly rose from the
dead to prove that he was who he said he was-- then you and I are both
Christians. I would say we have different interpretations of the same
religion. =20
But the scripture is very clear that there will be all sorts of people
who believe they are Christians and God will say "I never knew you".=20
God said "these people worship me with their lips but their hearts are
far from me." The people Jesus got the most angry with where the ones
who claimed to be closest to God-- the Pharisees. In Northern Ireland
war raged between "Christians" and "Christians". Obviously some of
those Irish folk didn't know God as well as they claimed. Some of
them had interpretations of the Bible that were just wrong-- even if
it would hurt their feelings to tell them. So it is clear that many
who think they are Christians simply are not. They are deceiving
themselves. Two people can have different interpretations of a
religion, but one is certainly closer to the real truth. And when they
meet God, they will find out who was closer. =20
And many people with different interpretations will commune together
in heaven. The question is: how different. Only God knows ultimately,
but He has an awful lot to say about it in the Bible.
<excerpt> Is one of us wrong? =20
</excerpt>
We are both wrong about certain points, and we are both right about
certain points. But one of us is definitely <italic>closer</italic> to
the interpretation of scripture that God intended. And our lives will
bear fruit accordingly.
<excerpt>Is debate required, and does one of us have to change his
mind afterwards? =20
</excerpt>
Of course debate is not required, but one certainly won't grow or get
much closer to God unless he reads or talks with others. And you can't
read a book without debating the author as you read. If you read a
book and agree with every written word, then you either need to step
out of the children's section or start doing a lot more reading. No,
after a debate one will rarely ever change his mind completely-- but
an honest person will either sense a slight shift in their position,
or discover topics which they need to pursue so that they can better
communicate their position.
<excerpt>And if we aren't successful in changing anyone's mind, won't
anger, if not malice, begin to seep into our relations?
</excerpt>
Anger & malice will likely slip in if you are not in touch with the
true God, absolutely. Some religions like Zen and B'hai
do a good job of mastering negative emotion. A true Christian
immediately recognizes anger and malice as sin and turns away from it.=20=
Someone in touch with the real God will look at a person who is
deceived or deceiving himself and pray
for that person, thinking "there but for the grace of God go I". But
the confusion comes in because true Christians are still sinners.
Sometimes they do let anger and malice master them. They are
forgiven-- because Christ's death covers them, but it can be hard for
others to tell the difference in isolated circumstances. But one day
we'll all meet God, and it will be made completely clear who knew Him
and who didn't. =20
I, personally, won't hold anger or malice against someone who
disagrees with me, no matter how obnoxious they are, because God
commands me in the Bible to love them. I have no choice, even under
the most delicious temptations to be bitter.=20
<excerpt>
Fears about domination or conquest in Moscow--of a particular person
or denomination "taking over"--arise from a conviction that there's
some desire to take over, and that such a conquest would harm our
community and its members. Debate doesn't change that perception:=20
you can't argue someone into feeling safe, or coerce her into trusting
you. This is one of the reasons religious conflict is so intransigent.
</excerpt>
I don't agree. I think you can argue someone into trusting you. Argue
is perhaps the wrong term. But I am quite sure that if you and I,
Melynda, sat for an hour over coffee and debated some religious points
I am sure that afterward you would feel
safer with me. You would feel more trusting that I had your best
interests in mind. Certainly more than you trust me now.
You might not be one iota closer to agreeing with me, but you might
want to get together again and pursue it further.
The problem with people today is they are so completely afraid of
religious conflict that they clam up whenever religious topics come
up. They refuse to seek out people different than themselves and
pursue conversation about deep things.
They flock together with birds of their feather, and mistrust, gossip,
and spread rumours. Christians are as guilty as anybody in this
respect (but they're forgiven :=AC). The problem is most people don't
know how to debate, they only know how to argue. They can't control
their emotions in a debate because at the bottom they are insecure
about their position and themselves. A person who is secure can never
get riled. Now, a person can be secure and deceived at the same time.=20=
But a person can also be secure because he is truly in touch with the
true God.
But most people don't want to talk about it. I met a senior citizen
who was the checker at the grocery store. He overheard me talking
about something spiritual with the person behind me, and he said, in
the tone of a sage, "the one thing I've learned is don't talk about
religion, death, and taxes." I said, "and you've got to face 'em all
eventually, don't you."
As for "taking over the Palouse". I, personally, would like to. I
wish I could get everyone in the Palouse to believe in God's
forgiveness through Christ. I wish I could get everyone to love their
neighbors as themselves. I wish I could coerce everyone in the Palouse
to use the Bible as the owner's manual for their lives. I think you
might be surprised at what a nice place it would be.
Anyone who believes they know the way "things ought to be"
<italic>should want</italic> to take over the Palouse. If they don't
want to,
they are either misanthropists or lazy. Some people just care more
about other people, and some just work harder for what they believe
will change the world. Doug Wilson only wants to take over the Palouse
because he wants everyone to know the great love of God and experience
His forgiveness. What a horrible guy, that Doug. If people think they
know what reality is, they ought to be trying to take over the Palouse
with it. If they don't know what they believe, they ought to be
talking about it and trying to figure out why they're living. Less
time in front of the TV and more time with people and books.
If you don't like people or books, come check out our free movie, "The
Climb", at the Nuart, Friday (tomorrow) night at 7:00.
Cordially,
Eric E.
<excerpt>
Melynda Huskey
</excerpt>
=
<bold><italic><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>8080,0000,0000=
</param><bigger><x-tad-bigger>
The Nuart =
Theatre</x-tad-bigger></bigger></color></fontfamily></italic></bold><bold>=
<italic><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>9999,9999,9999</para=
m>
<smaller><smaller><x-tad-smaller>208-882-0459 (lobby, no message)
208-883-0997 (CCM, leave message)
516 S Main, Moscow ID 83843
eric@eric-e.com
http://www.ccmbooks.org
=
</x-tad-smaller></smaller></smaller></color></fontfamily></italic></bold>
Begin forwarded message:
<excerpt><bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>From:
</color></bold>"Melynda Huskey" <<mghuskey@msn.com>
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Date: </color></bold>May 27,
2004 8:34:49 AM PDT
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>To:
</color></bold>vision2020@moscow.com
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Subject: </color>Re:
[Vision2020] Wilson is not a great mind, and neither am I
</bold>
Eric writes:
<excerpt>And so, according to these folks, if DW tries to tell people
what he thinks is right and wrong, he is a religious freak supposedly
trying to take over the Palouse. But if Nick or Joan tries to tell
people what is right and wrong they are simply normal, non-biased
people trying to create a more tolerant and benevolent society for us
all. Nick & Joan, et al, need to realize that they are religious, and
that they, too, are trying to make the world see things the way they
do.
</excerpt>
I think we've got some semantic confusion here (deja vu!). Everyone
has a worldview. Me, Eric, Joan, Ted, Nick, Debbie, Tami--you name
her, she's got a world view. But not every world view is a religion.=20
So I can share a religion (Christianity) with Doug and Eric, although
not a world view. Likewise Ted can reject religion, while holding
passionately a non-religious value system which privileges care for
one another. It is possible to construct a civil society in which
many religions and non-religious world views are valued and their
expression protected.
<excerpt>If we would all just realize that we are all religious beings
who worship our worldviews, then we could all sit around and
peacefully debate and try to decide whose religion is closest to the
truth, without malice.
</excerpt>
This model presupposes that there's one truest religion and that it's
possible to determine which one that is through argument. (I"ll leave
aside the question of worshipping a worldview). But even if that were
true, what then to do with the case of you and me, Eric? Two
Christians, but with such widely diverging worldviews that we could
scarcely agree on a single social expression of our Christianity. Do
we have different religions? Different interpretations of the same
religion? Is one of us wrong? Is debate required, and does one of us
have to change his mind afterwards? And if we aren't successful in
changing anyone's mind, won't anger, if not malice, begin to seep into
our relations?
Fears about domination or conquest in Moscow--of a particular person
or denomination "taking over"--arise from a conviction that there's
some desire to take over, and that such a conquest would harm our
community and its members. Debate doesn't change that perception:=20
you can't argue someone into feeling safe, or coerce her into trusting
you. This is one of the reasons religious conflict is so intransigent.
Melynda Huskey
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994. =20
http://www.fsr.net =20
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF
</excerpt>=
--Apple-Mail-24-8764198--