[Vision2020] Longhaired Preachers (pace Joe Hill)

Carl Westberg carlwestberg846@hotmail.com
Fri, 28 May 2004 07:37:34 -0700


While I certainly continue to disagree with Eric's defense of Doug's desire 
to "take over" the Palouse, I admire him for continuing the dialogue on the 
listserve.  It's keeping him busy.  I wonder, Joan, if, in a countermove, 
the Church of Joan and Carl should attempt to coerce, by gunpoint if 
necessary, the less enlightened in the area to our way of thinking, which 
you and I know to be the real truth?  I confess to a certain lack of skill 
in the handling of firearms, however.  It could turn out badly.              
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                     Carl Westberg Jr.


>From: "Joan Opyr" <auntiestablishment@hotmail.com>
>To: "Vision2020 Moscow" <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: [Vision2020] Longhaired Preachers (pace Joe Hill)
>Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 22:27:20 -0700
>
>Eric writes in response to Melynda:
>
> >. . . it presupposes that there's one truest religion.
> >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.
> >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.
>
>Or, one might be a Universalist, denying none of the above but recognizing 
>the possibility of other apparently competing but in fact simultaneous 
>truths.  Is God so simple that s/he can be utterly encompassed by the 
>limited religious thought of a single people, a single denomination, or a 
>single individual?  What's sentimental about believing that there is more 
>in heaven and earth, Eric, than is dreamt of in your philosophy?  Or, for 
>that matter, in mine?  I haven't cornered the market on right thinking, 
>though I consider the occasional hostile takeover bid.
>
> >I doubt there is a person on earth that has the exact understanding of 
>who God is and the
> >precise truth on every question of philosophy. I doubt any person has a
> >complete understanding of the Bible. But you can bet some people are
> >closer than others.
>
>Why?  Why would God give the truth to some but not to others?  Why Yahweh 
>in Israel and Shiva and Kali and Krishna in India?  Why Jesus for you but 
>not for me?  Attempts at argument on this point invariably fail because 
>they all boil down to the question of faith: I know what I know because God 
>told me so.  Even the great C. S. Lewis was unable to leap this final 
>hurdle and win the triple crown.  'Mere Christianity,' like so many other 
>attempts to prove that its author has the one, true answer, ultimately ends 
>up biting its own tail.
>
> >All day long you live with absolute truth, and yet when it comes to the 
>matter
> >of utmost 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.
>
>Ah, but now you're confusing absolute truth with objective fact.  Melynda 
>did not murder Colonel Mustard in the library with a candlestick because 
>five witnesses and a video camera place her in the cereal aisle at 
>Tidyman's at the time of death.  The judicial system (in theory, anyway) 
>relies on facts, not absolute truths.  You can't skip from religion to 
>legalism without tripping on your jump rope.
>
> >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.
>
>And I'm content to wait for that day.  My objection to Doug -- and now to 
>you, since you wish that you could "coerce" the entire Palouse into 
>believing your interpretation of the Bible -- is that you aren't prepared 
>to await God's judgment.  You want to jump the gun; you want to embalm us 
>while we're still breathing.  Why rush the Rapture?  Why try to enshrine 
>theological ideas about heaven into secular, earthly law?  You've got three 
>score and ten years to tough it out down here and then bang, you're home 
>free.  I have no doubt that you believe we'd all be happier in your version 
>of paradise, but I don't want to go.  Look at it this way -- if you're 
>right and I'm wrong, you'll never have to see me again.
>
>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
>
>PS: Maybe I'll get to Heaven and God will say, "Hard cheese, honey; this 
>here's Wilson country," but I'm willing to risk it.  In fact, I'm 
>cautiously optimistic that I'll get pie in the sky when I die.
>
>
>      Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : 
>http://explorermsn.com

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar  get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/