[Vision2020] Wayne, Ted, Eric, etc.
Art Deco aka W. Fox
deco@moscow.com
Sun, 30 May 2004 11:17:43 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C44637.BA143A90
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Keely, Eric, Others not Bored/Impatient with/Offended by this Thread, et al,
Keely, thank you for your thoughtful post. As you know you were among those
referenced by my earlier post saying that some religious beliefs, per se, make
positive contributions to that of their holders and to other's lives without
imposing gargantuan restrictions on the way other people can aspire, grow, and
seek to cope with life. I know from our enjoyable personal interactions that
you are an empathetic, gracious egalitarian. [Only the last of the final three
words of the last sentence applies to me.]
The issue between us is not so much based on behavioral proscriptions, but on
logic and epistemology. This is because many who hold similar beliefs to yours
are neither empathetic, gracious, nor egalitarian.
In the course of discussing beliefs in any matter, when any statement is made,
the hearer wants to know what that statement means in discoverable terms and how
the hearer can determine with some probability if the statement is true.
Upon critical examination the conceptions of the various gods in almost all of
the tens of thousands of different religions present a number of interesting
problems of meaning and knowledge . Here are just three:
1. Many concepts of god, including that of most, though not all Christian
sects/cults, claim that their alleged god is allegedly all-powerful and perfect.
Yet upon looking at the tenets of these individual faiths, it is clear that
numerous human weaknesses, failings, and frailties are used to describe these
alleged Christian gods. For example, " I am a jealous God, therefore, have no
other before you..." [Hundreds of other examples can be found in the various
writings called scripture -- though not all Christians recognize the same
writings as scripture.]
If some alleged god is powerful enough to have allegedly created the universe,
not only would jealousy be a totally unnecessary emotion but would seem petty, a
sign of great insecurity, and a lack of confidence in her/his/its
self-sufficiency.
The problem: Discussions about the ambiguity of this alleged god's existence,
purpose, and proscriptions characterize not only this discussion but billions of
such other discussions, past, present and future. It is an deniable fact that
among the people of the earth there are millions of different beliefs in the
properties and proscriptions of the alleged gods.
Given this ambiguity and lack of clearly ascribable probability, the beliefs
demanded by this alleged god in herself/himself/itself as a condition for an
allegedly eternal reward seems not only unrealistic, unreasonable, selfish,
egomaniacal, and uncomplimentary, but also hardly characterizes a being who
allegedly is perfect and all-powerful and thus would be above such petty, human,
confusing, ambiguous demands.
Demands by this alleged god for consideration for eternal reward by requiring
belief in the light of contradictions, lack of unequivocal evidence, extremely
barbaric behavior in hers/his/its name exhibited by some of this alleged god's
most committed adherents is not something one would expect of an allegedly
perfect, all-powerful being. Ascribing these petty, irrational desires and
emotions to this allegedly perfect, all-powerful god seems grossly insulting.
It is not unlike saying that X is the perfect husband in one breath and saying
that X regularly beats his wife in the next.
Keely says that we were allegedly created for a relationship with this alleged
god.
If this alleged god is perfect and all-powerful, why does she/he/it need a
relationship with anything?
Is there something missing in this alleged god's existence? Is it loneliness,
lack of adoration and/or acknowledgement that drives this god's need to create
pathetic beings with a necessary subsidiary psychological dependency
relationship with she/he/it?
If so, then such a god is neither perfect nor all-powerful but exhibits great
weakness by craving attention so badly that the cost of receiving this attention
is this veil of tears called life filled with outrageous suffering for many.
2. For purposes of this discussion [2], let's assume [1] that the alleged
Christian god exists, [2] that she/he/it became unhappy at the behaviors and
lack of respect toward herself/himself/itself and toward other humans shown by
her/his/its human creations, and [3] thus sought to change this state of affairs
by disguising herself/himself/itself as a fellow human with the name of Jesus.
[Let's assume also that the last clause [3] is comprehensible.]
Is this something that an allegedly perfect, all-powerful god would do?
Obviously, this ploy has been quite unsuccessful. A reading of the headlines
over the past few weeks gives clear evidence that human nature and behavior is
little changed since before the advent of Jesus.
It seems to me that if a smart, knowledgeable, determined, all-powerful god
wanted to be effective in engendering behavioral/attitudinal change, a much
better method could have been devised. Here are two possibilities:
A. Instead of Jesus being a human, he might have been delivered as a talking
zebra. If a zebra were to talk, people would be much more inclined to believe
that this was truly a miracle and consequently would pay much more attention to
what was being said and would be much more likely to heed the proscriptions
given. Making Jesus a human hardly distinguishes him from tens of thousands of
other religious fanatics. But a talking theological zebra, imagine the impact!
B. Those even mildly familiar with attempting to shape in a positive manner
people's behavior know that two elements must be present in order to make
behavioral change probable: clarity of description of the desired behaviors and
repetition.
Hence, a perfect, all-powerful, kindly, concerned god could market his message
much more effectively.
Each day at a given time, this god could talk to each person for a few moments
in their own language, giving exactly the same message to all. This could be
done in such a way that hers/his/its messages were verifiable (e,g., the
presence of corresponding sound and/or electro-magnetic waves which would be
recordable).
If this were to happen, questions of belief in and the need for adhering to this
god's proscriptions would be unambiguously settled. This would greatly aid all
toward earning their eternal reward. This method would be certainly superior to
whatever is going on at present. Gaining eternal reward would no longer be a
difficult, perplexing guessing game with the odds stacked mightily against the
players.
A serious, logically insurmountable problem with the assertion that god
intervened on earth disguised as Jesus is the unfortunate inconsistency this
assertion gives rise to:
If god had to intervene to change the way humans were behaving, then she/he/it
must have bumbled somewhere in the design/creation process.
If things had to be attempted to be changed by god's disgruntled intervention,
then obviously grave mistakes were made in the initial planning/design/creation
process. This is not something that one would expect of a being defined as
perfect, all-powerful, a being who would have known what was going to happen in
the first place with any proposed design.
If this god knew that some of us were going to be irredeemable pricks, but
proceeded with his plan anyway, it looks like god was going
"nah,nah,nah,nah,nah," too bad for you screw-ups -- no cake and ice cream for
you (even if it was not your fault, but the fault of my design). Humankind
being forced to be an unwilling participants in a cosmic guessing game in order
to win the grand prize is hardly an intelligent design for achieving success.
Ascribing such an ignorant and inconsiderate design to a perfect, all-powerful
god seems to be either a colossal insult or a thinly disguised expression of
egomaniacal ignorance/arrogance of themselves by the ascribers.
If god did not know what was going to happen in the beginning, the she/he/it is
neither perfect nor all-powerful. If she/he/it did know, then what a sadistic
monster! This would mean for most of us, all our suffering/deprivation is/was
for naught -- a compelling argument against god's alleged perfect goodness.
3. The positing by believers of an allegedly all-powerful (or even powerful
god) poses a problem of knowledge impossible to solve.
If an alleged god is allegedly all-powerful, then this god, among other powers,
has the power of to deceive completely.
This god, if all-powerful (or even very powerful), could easily deceive
humankind about anything. She/he/it could deceive humankind into believing that
she/he/it is good/kind/loving, etc. when such was really not the case.
She/he/it could even deceive humankind into believing contradictory and/or
preposterous things.
Given this alleged god's power to deceive, it then becomes impossible to have
any certain or even probable knowledge about her/his/its
nature/motives/intentions/feelings/outlook. If this alleged god's deception is
possible, then since she/he/it is much more powerful than humankind, it is
impossible for humankind to tell if they are being deceived or not. There is no
way for humankind to evaluate whether they are being deceived or not. Hence,
there is no way for humankind to evaluate/validate their alleged knowledge of
this allegedly all-powerful god and his alleged proscriptions and intentions.
The naive might immediately respond: "Not only is god all-powerful, but
she/he/it is perfectly good also!"
Such a response shows a failure to understand the immediately preceding
paragraphs. How do you know that this alleged god is perfectly good? Among the
things an all-powerful god, who allegedly created the universe, could do would
be to trick you into believing (in spite of much other cogent evidence -- wars,
sickness, cruelty, etc.) that she/he/it is perfectly good. Since god is
all-powerful, and hence much more clever than her/his/its humankind groupies,
such a deception would be undetectable.
A very cheering dilemma. Most who have read this far will have a headache, if
not from the poor, abstruse prose, then for the impact of same.
I doubt that either Keely, Eric, or many others will be influenced by any of the
above. Most humans have compelling ego, emotional, financial, political, and
economic needs and investments that prevent them from seriously considering
ideas that constitute a viable threat to their worldviews and the sanctity of
their inner being dependent upon those worldviews .
I have met Keely on several occasions. I have enjoyed discussing religion and
other topics with her. She is a most likeable, concerned, and generous person.
She may not like the following, but for what its worth here is my part of my
opinion about her:
If Keely were by some means persuaded that her religious beliefs were in error,
it would hardly change her general behavior or attitude toward her fellow humans
at all. She would still be a kind, concerned, charitable, open, empathetic,
gracious, egalitarian person -- and that for me is what counts.
Wayne
Art Deco (Wayne Fox)
deco@moscow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: keely emerinemix
To: Art Deco aka W. Fox ; vision2020@moscow.com ; Eric Engerbretson
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Wayne, Ted, Eric, etc.
As Joan's favorite erudite evangelical -- and what a compliment that is,
coming as it does from the Aphrodite of Erudite -- perhaps I can jump in here.
Wayne, I've appreciated the respect you've shown me in our previous
discussions, and I know it will come to no surprise to you that I disagree that
God commands our worship because he's in any way puerile or needy. I believe,
as a disciple of Jesus Christ, that God designed us for relationship --
relationship with himself as well as with others. Every satisfying relationship
I enjoy on earth is a picture of the relationship with the Divine that I was
created to have and that I desperately sought, and that God graciously provides
me in Christ.
Ted, I've admired many of your postings and regret that Eric's responses have
annoyed you so. And I admit to more than a little consternation that much of
your irritation with Eric stems from his continued association with and defense
of Doug Wilson and his conduct and doctrine. It's hard for me to read Eric's
elucidation of the Christian faith without wondering why he would continue to
embrace the ministry of a man whose conduct and beliefs are, at best,
antithetical to the gospel. I am, however, grateful that Eric equates the
Christian life with something other than art, music, poetry, stout beer and good
cigars (not to mention class privilege, sexism, and serrated wit). But I wonder
how his apparent soft heart for humankind finds its nurture in the nest of a man
who gleefully maligns and insults those around him, both inside and outside the
fold of Christianity, and who has done more than anyone on the Palouse to turn
people against the faith.
Eric, have you given thought to the possibility that your continued embrace of
Doug Wilson has had a deleterious effect on your witness for the Gospel?
Sometimes you need to be known as much for who you rebuke as for who you
embrace. It's impossible for those who share your faith to not gag over what
has come from the Kirk of late. To imagine that those who don't share your
beliefs will somehow swallow hard and drink in what you have to say is more than
a little unlikely. The cup you're offering tastes burnt and bitter. Pour out
the nasty stuff, wash out the cup, and refill it with something better. You'll
be as good a man for the pouring out as for the refilling...
keely emerine mix
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Engerbretson
To: Art Deco aka W. Fox ; vision2020@moscow.com
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ted's answer to Eric E.
Wayne,
Again, great thoughts on your part.
I appreciate very much the need to meed the physical needs of the world's
masses, especially since God commands me in the Bible to feed the hungry, and
minister to the poor and sick.
I will gladly do these things (at the moment, only with my money), to the
degree that a person needs to be fed and healthy to be able to understand a
presentation of the Gospel, and then to be helped to live a life pleasing to
God.
But humanitarianism as an end to itself, is helping only half of the man.
The Bible says, "What does it profit a man if he gains the world and loses his
soul?"
What good does it do for me to feed and clothe a man and leave him so that
he can happily and warmly go spend an eternity without God? As Nick said with
his Max Planck quote, it is folly to artificially separate a man's physicality
and spirituality. Any attempts to do so are only illusions, and are a band-aid
on a bullet hole. That is why I think wholistic medicine, and preventative
health, and Eastern medicine are on the right track. They respect the whole man.
So, yes, I would love to do a Peace Corps mission. But to ignore the
spirituality of the people I would be helping would be to harm them. My Peace
Corps mission would emphasize the most important "Peace", the peace between God
and man.
Far more tragic than a poor person starving to death and going to spend
eternity with God is a healthy, well-clothed person living a long wasteful life
and then going to spend eternity without God.
Best regards,
Eric E.
On May 28, 2004, at 1:16 PM, Art Deco aka W. Fox wrote:
Eric, et al,
When searching for "the truth" it may be useful to understand that some
statements are neither true nor false. For example:
"The square root of blue recrystalizes sodomy."
Just because words can be strung together in an apparently syntactically
correct sentence doesn't meant the sentence has a comprehensible, literal,
testable meaning.
In your quest for "the truth" you might watch out for these kind of
assertions. Religion, philosophy, politics, etc. are rife with such statements.
These assertions are generally recognizable by the practical impossibility of
being neither unequivocally confirmable nor falsifiable. The latter is often
especially the case.
A parable derived from an example written by an apostate Catholic disciple
of Wittgenstein may be helpful as an illustration to you.
Neighbors A & B were having an over-the-back-fence discussion:
A: I heard you have a new kind of powerful watchdog or something.
B: Yes, it is called the Odg.
A: What does it do?
B: It watches over us continually and protects us and our property from
harm.
A: I haven't seen anything. Where is it?
B: The Odg is invisible.
A: I have heard any barking or anything.
B: The Odg makes no sound.
A: You don't have a fence. How do you keep the Odg in?
B: The Odg stays with us always. It is the loving nature of the Odg to
do so.
A: Your lawn is immaculate. I don't see any Odg droppings at all.
B: The Odg never eats. Consequently, it makes no droppings. It
doesn't slobber or have bad breath either.
A: Tell me again what it does.
B: It watches over us and protects us from all harms. It requires only
unquestioning belief on our part in return.
A: But wasn't your home robbed of everything of value, weren't you
badly beaten up, and wasn't your wife taken for and enjoyed a month-long sexual
romp by a motorcycle gang a few months ago?
B: Yes, but it must of been good for us, else the Odg would not have
let it happen.
Eric, I hope you are a sincere person who wishes to better the world.
After understanding the above parable and its ramifications, perhaps you
might consider shifting the focus of your faith and the use of your talents from
proselytization to working directly, non-judgmentally, and non-theologically to
alleviate some of the obvious sufferings in the world -- hunger, disease,
illiteracy, war, religious strife, crime, social disorganization, etc.
When I lived in Africa as a Peace Corps Volunteer, I meet a number of
missionaries and other once very religious people of various faiths who came to
Africa originally to spread their religious beliefs.
The pursuit of the alleviation of suffering and the physical improvement
of the general conditions of life for many of these people soon became the
meaning of and center for their existence. Religious beliefs, if not abandoned
for many of these people, became a very less important part of their lives.
Their faiths, like Albert Schweitzer's were greatly altered. I know because I
worked with and enjoyed several of these people. They openly and unabashedly
talked about their spiritual transformation and their determination to help
those less fortunate than themselves in a multitude of non-spiritual ways.
Many formerly very religious persons believed that in the overall scheme
of the universe as they came to see it, preventing glaucoma or teaching Africans
to farm productively enriched humankind a great deal more than such self-serving
activities like building churches, making doubtful converts, or singing hymns.
Wayne
Art Deco (Wayne Fox)
deco@moscow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Engerbretson
To: Art Deco aka W. Fox ; vision2020@moscow.com
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:19 AM
Subject: Re:Re:Re:Re: [Vision2020] Ted's answer to Eric E.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a clear and well-written bunch o'
thoughts, Wayne. Very cogent. And I mean that sincerely.
But, regardless of how well it can be proven that none of us can prove who
is right-- someone still IS closer to the Truth, and I'm going to keep trying to
find out who they are.
Eric E.
On May 28, 2004, at 9:21 AM, Art Deco aka W. Fox wrote:
All,
At the risk of sounding like a broken record and probably offending almost
everyone again, here are a few comments on the current Eric E. vs.. other V 2020
posters thread.
There are tens of thousands of different systemic religious beliefs, each
contradictory to each of the others. Unless you can present cogent evidence
that a contradiction is not always a false statement, this means that only one,
if any, of these different religious views is true. Compounding this problem is
the fact that many adherents of many of these religious beliefs are, like Eric,
absolutely convinced that their way is the only absolutely true way.
The tens of thousands of systemic religious beliefs is an understatement.
If we consider the nuances of individual belief, the are probably billions of
different religious beliefs.
The problem is that, so far, no method has been found that provides a
clear, acceptable, universal way to decide the truth of particular
statements/assertions referencing alleged supernatural beings and occurrences.
If there were such a method, this discussion would not be occurring -- not
only on V 2020, but in millions of other places. There is no argument about the
specific gravity and the conductibility of copper, the tensile strength of alloy
X2314, or other beliefs that are used to send humankind to the moon and
broadcast that event in real-time.
The existence of the above problem of knowledge should give rational
persons a great deal of pause before asserting with apodictic rigor the truth of
any particular set of superstitious/religious beliefs such as Christianity,
Islam, Judaism, God as Space Traveler, Gods who Live in a Volcano, Pan, etc.
The probability of any particular religious/superstitious system being true
appears miniscule. This pause should also limit attempting to control/limit
other's lives based solely on these superstitious/religious beliefs. [Other
considerations appear at the end for those that do not get bored/disgusted
before arriving there.]
With regard to ethical statements, a somewhat similar situation exists.
However, since all of us must act, there are various systems which attempt to
provide a practical answers to ethical questions. Some of these ethical systems
are, in great part, empirically based. In these systems, facts are considered
and ethical truths are subject to testing and to modification based on
experience.
Anthropological investigations of many different societies appear to
demonstrate that ethical beliefs generally arise out of practical
considerations. These ethical beliefs occur before the superstitious/religious
foundations which eventually are used to propagandize belief in and to buttress
obedience to such ethical beliefs.
Life is a constant, sometimes very difficult struggle. An observably
contingent universe provides many uncertainties and unpleasantries. All of us
have various means of coping with various parts of this struggle. Many of these
coping mechanisms involve fantasy. Psychologists call them defense mechanisms.
Those who have read modern psychology know there are a great number of these
mechanisms that have been identified, e.g., rationalization, projection,
reaction formation, etc.
For example, probably all of us had an imaginary friend and/or ascribed
to/fantasized about the actions/emotions of real friends. Defense mechanisms
allow us to cope with and to alleviate in the short term many unpleasant
feelings and to defend our personas against unpleasant truths. The use of these
coping mechanisms when not confused with reality in the long term are normal and
generally healthy.
The problems with the use of defense mechanisms begin to appear when the
person believes the fantasies driven or engendered by these defense mechanisms
correspond to reality. When the fantasies/delusions reach certain levels of
unreality, such as believing in contradictory statements, believing in
existential statements contrary to or not supported by evidence, or, in
particular, believing that a particular person controls the weather for a
region, then such defense mechanisms become pathological to various degrees.
Many non-believers such as myself do not find all superstitious/religious
beliefs to be "evil." Such beliefs provide solace in times of grief, provide
moral guidance for some, provide a sense of community/belonging for some,
provide comfort from the vicissitudes of life's struggle, etc. Although the
truth of such beliefs is highly doubtful, to the extent that
religious/superstitious beliefs provide relative peace, well-being, individual
growth, etc. non- believers are not upset by such matters.
The problem for non-believers and many believers alike arises when
religious/superstitious beliefs are use to proscribe the actions of others who
do not share the particular superstitions of the proscriber.
In plain terms, many see that solely using superstition/religion and
ignorance to limit the freedom, aspirations, individual growth opportunities,
non-criminal life styles, etc. of other people is little short of colossal
egotism and is an logically/epistemologically unwarranted intrusion on personal
liberty.
Eric and his fellow believes are clearly free to indulge in, use as coping
mechanisms, and to argue for their particular superstitious/religious beliefs.
If Eric's beliefs provide comfort for him, fine. However, when Eric and his
fellow travelers use their particular beliefs to condemn, to attempt to impose
guilt upon, and/or to outlaw the non-criminal freedom of others, then because
there is little or no logical/epistemological support for Eric's beliefs,
conflict, often acrimonious and sometimes deadly, arises. If Eric were a
Christian living in Saudi Arabia, he would understand this position much more
clearly.
When gender based, race based, sexual orientation based, etc. roles are
limited not by a discussion of observable consequences but by superstition and
ignorance, we all lose not only our own freedom of choice, but the contributions
those who are limited can make to our lives as well as to their own.
If you have had the patience to struggle through the above, thank you.
In closing, here is one general problem of many that arises out of certain
kinds of religious/superstitious beliefs.
General Observation: If one expects others to act in a certain manner to
achieve certain goals in given situations, then clarity of purpose and procedure
is essential.
Specific Instance: When desiring employees to provide excellent customer
service, for example, a good manager carefully explains/re-explains to each
employee clearly and unequivocally which behaviors/attitudes/etc. (and the
purposes of such behaviors/attitudes/etc.) are required to reach the goal of
excellent customer service. The clearer, more careful, more detailed the
instruction, the greater the probability that the employees will perform
correctly. Moreover, the instructions given about good customer service are a
result of years of experimentation and observation -- the results of such
instructions are verifiable. Newer experiences can and frequently do
modify/expand the instructions.
If there is such a thing as eternal life, and if there is a way to achieve
such, then the importance of such an accomplishment greatly exceeds the
importance of giving good customer service.
If there is some being(s) in charge of deciding who is to be eternally
rewarded/punished, she/he/it/they appear to be very inept managers.
Given the undeniable reality of the plurality of many different religions,
the difference in their ethical pronouncements, the differences in their alleged
paths to eternity, the amount of death, heinous suffering, and displacement the
practice of these religions have historically (and in the present) bestowed upon
humankind, etc., it is undeniable that clear, verifiable instructions from some
alleged deity(s) to achieve eternal reward are obviously lacking. (If not, this
discussion would not be occurring.)
In reality, all things considered, alleged gods as a guides to eternal
rewards appear to be colossal bumblers -- certainly less effective than the
poorest of human managers.
Given the human needs that drive humankind towards the plurality of
religious beliefs, it is of very small probability that the words above will
influence anyone to any degree. However, I write them with hope that they may
encourage a few to examine more closely their sexist, homophobic, racist,
pro-slavery, anti-secular, anti-egalitarian, anti-innovation, and/or
anti-liberty points of view.
If you have read this far, thank you. Perhaps I can treat you to a banana
split at the Elk River Dairy Queen.
Wayne
Art Deco (Wayne Fox)
deco@moscow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Tbertruss@aol.com
To: eric@eric-e.com ; vision2020@moscow.com
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:09 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Ted's answer to Eric E.
Eric:
We can agree to disagree, amicably, but you backpedaled rather vigorously
from wording that did not seem to imply as much "between the lines"
interpretation as you now claim the words required. If a code book is needed to
decipher your true meaning, perhaps you could post it on the web?
Where the rubber meets the road, Eric, is that I will not deny your faith
may be the absolute truth, yet your faith demands that you assert my
spirituality, not based on Christ's divinity, is absolutely false!
Here we diverge in ways not trivial that impact the power vectors of
spirituality in how we seek to alter the world!
And you can make whatever you wish of that comment, which implies a tome
or two.
Ted Moffett
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
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
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C44637.BA143A90
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:v xmlns:o><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type =
content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3DMailContainerBody=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; =
COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: =
normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; =
BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: =
none"=20
bgColor=3D#ffffff leftMargin=3D0 topMargin=3D0 name=3D"Compose message =
area"=20
CanvasTabStop=3D"true" acc_role=3D"text">
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Keely, Eric, Others not Bored/Impatient =
with/Offended by this=20
Thread, et al,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Keely, thank you for your thoughtful post. As =
you know=20
you were among those referenced by my earlier post saying that some =
religious=20
beliefs, <EM>per se</EM>, make positive contributions to that of =
their=20
holders and to other's lives without imposing gargantuan =
restrictions on=20
the way other people can aspire, grow, and seek to cope with life. =
I know=20
from our enjoyable personal interactions that you are an empathetic, =
gracious=20
egalitarian. [Only the last of the final three words of the last =
sentence=20
applies to me.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>The issue between us is not so much based on =
behavioral=20
proscriptions, but on logic and epistemology. This is =
because many=20
who hold similar beliefs to yours are neither empathetic,=20
gracious, nor egalitarian.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>In the course of discussing beliefs in any=20
matter, when any statement is made, the hearer wants to know what =
that=20
statement means in discoverable terms and how the hearer can determine =
with some=20
probability if the statement is true.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Upon critical examination the conceptions of the =
various gods=20
in almost all of the tens of thousands of different religions present a =
number=20
of interesting problems of meaning and knowledge . Here are just=20
three:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>1. Many concepts of god, including =
that of=20
most, though not all Christian sects/cults, claim that their alleged god =
is=20
allegedly all-powerful and perfect. Yet upon looking at the tenets =
of=20
these individual faiths, it is clear that numerous human weaknesses, =
failings,=20
and frailties are used to describe these alleged Christian gods. =
For=20
example, " I am a jealous God, therefore, have no other before =
you..." =20
[Hundreds of other examples can be found in the various writings called=20
scripture -- though not all Christians recognize the same writings as=20
scripture.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>If some alleged god is powerful enough to have =
allegedly=20
created the universe, not only would jealousy be a totally unnecessary =
emotion=20
but would seem petty, a sign of great insecurity, and a lack of =
confidence=20
in her/his/its self-sufficiency.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>The problem: Discussions about the ambiguity=20
of this alleged god's existence, purpose, and=20
proscriptions characterize not only this discussion but billions of =
such=20
other discussions, past, present and future. It is an deniable =
fact that=20
among the people of the earth there are millions of different beliefs in =
the=20
properties and proscriptions of the alleged gods.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Given this ambiguity and lack of clearly ascribable=20
probability, the beliefs demanded by this alleged god in =
herself/himself/itself=20
as a condition for an allegedly eternal reward seems not only =
unrealistic,=20
unreasonable, selfish, egomaniacal, and uncomplimentary, but also hardly =
characterizes a being who allegedly is perfect and all-powerful =
and thus=20
would be above such petty, human, confusing,=20
ambiguous demands.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Demands by this alleged god for consideration for =
eternal=20
reward by requiring belief in the light of contradictions, lack of =
unequivocal=20
evidence, extremely barbaric behavior in hers/his/its name =
exhibited by=20
some of this alleged god's most committed adherents is not something one =
would=20
expect of an allegedly perfect, all-powerful being. Ascribing =
these=20
petty, irrational desires and emotions to this allegedly =
perfect,=20
all-powerful god seems grossly insulting. It is not unlike saying =
that X=20
is the perfect husband in one breath and saying that =
X regularly beats=20
his wife in the next.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Keely says that we were allegedly created for a =
relationship=20
with this alleged god.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>If this alleged god is perfect and all-powerful, why =
does=20
she/he/it need a relationship with anything?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Is there something missing in this alleged god's=20
existence? Is it loneliness, lack of adoration and/or =
acknowledgement=20
that drives this god's need to create pathetic beings with a necessary=20
subsidiary psychological dependency relationship with she/he/it? =20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>If so, then such a god is neither perfect nor=20
all-powerful but exhibits great weakness by craving attention so badly =
that the=20
cost of receiving this attention is this veil of tears called =
life=20
filled with outrageous suffering for many.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>2. For purposes of this discussion =
[2],=20
let's assume [1] that the alleged Christian god exists, [2] that =
she/he/it=20
became unhappy at the behaviors and lack of respect toward=20
herself/himself/itself and toward other humans shown by her/his/its =
human=20
creations, and [3] thus sought to change this state of affairs by =
disguising=20
herself/himself/itself as a fellow human with the name of Jesus. =
[Let's=20
assume also that the last clause [3] is =
comprehensible.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Is this something that an allegedly perfect, =
all-powerful god=20
would do?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Obviously, this ploy has been quite =
unsuccessful. A=20
reading of the headlines over the past few weeks gives clear evidence =
that human=20
nature and behavior is little changed since before the advent of=20
Jesus.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>It seems to me that if a smart, knowledgeable, =
determined,=20
all-powerful god wanted to be effective in engendering =
behavioral/attitudinal=20
change, a much better method could have been devised. Here are two =
possibilities:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>A. Instead of Jesus being a human, =
he might=20
have been delivered as a talking zebra. If a zebra were to talk, =
people=20
would be much more inclined to believe that this was truly a miracle and =
consequently would pay much more attention to what was being said and =
would be=20
much more likely to heed the proscriptions given. Making Jesus a =
human=20
hardly distinguishes him from tens of thousands of other religious=20
fanatics. But a talking theological zebra, imagine the=20
impact!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>B. Those even mildly familiar with =
attempting to shape in a positive manner people's behavior know that two =
elements must be present in order to make behavioral change =
probable: =20
clarity of description of the desired behaviors and =
repetition.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Hence, a perfect, all-powerful, kindly, concerned =
god could=20
market his message much more effectively. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Each day at a given time, this god could talk to =
each person=20
for a few moments in their own language, giving exactly the same message =
to=20
all. This could be done in such a way that hers/his/its =
messages were=20
verifiable (e,g., the presence of corresponding sound and/or =
electro-magnetic=20
waves which would be recordable). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>If this were to happen, questions of belief in and =
the need=20
for adhering to this god's proscriptions would be unambiguously =
settled. =20
This would greatly aid all toward earning their eternal reward. =
This=20
method would be certainly superior to whatever is going on at =
present. =20
Gaining eternal reward would no longer be a difficult, =
perplexing guessing=20
game with the odds stacked mightily against the players.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>A serious, logically insurmountable problem with the =
assertion=20
that god intervened on earth disguised as Jesus is the unfortunate =
inconsistency=20
this assertion gives rise to: </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>If god had to intervene to change the way humans =
were=20
behaving, then she/he/it must have bumbled somewhere in the =
design/creation=20
process. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>If things had to be attempted to be changed by god's =
disgruntled intervention, then obviously grave mistakes were made in the =
initial=20
planning/design/creation process. This is not something that =
one=20
would expect of a being defined as perfect, all-powerful, a =
being who=20
would have known what was going to happen in the first place with any =
proposed=20
design.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>If this god knew that some of us were going to be =
irredeemable=20
pricks, but proceeded with his plan anyway, it looks like god was going=20
"nah,nah,nah,nah,nah," too bad for you screw-ups -- no cake and ice =
cream for=20
you (even if it was not your fault, but the fault of my =
design). =20
Humankind being forced to be an unwilling participants in a cosmic =
guessing game=20
in order to win the grand prize is hardly an intelligent design for =
achieving success. Ascribing such an ignorant and =
inconsiderate=20
design to a perfect, all-powerful god seems to be either a colossal =
insult=20
or a thinly disguised expression of egomaniacal ignorance/arrogance of=20
themselves by the ascribers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>If god did not know what was going to happen in the =
beginning,=20
the she/he/it is neither perfect nor all-powerful. If she/he/it =
did know,=20
then what a sadistic monster! This would mean for most of us, =
all our=20
suffering/deprivation is/was for naught -- a compelling argument =
against=20
god's alleged perfect goodness.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>3. The positing by believers of an =
allegedly=20
all-powerful (or even powerful god) poses a problem of knowledge =
impossible to=20
solve.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>If an alleged god is allegedly all-powerful, then =
this god,=20
among other powers, has the power of to deceive =
completely.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>This god, if all-powerful (or even very powerful), =
could=20
easily deceive humankind about anything. She/he/it could deceive =
humankind=20
into believing that she/he/it is good/kind/loving, etc. when such =
was=20
really not the case. She/he/it could even deceive humankind =
into=20
believing contradictory and/or preposterous things.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Given this alleged god's power to deceive, it then =
becomes=20
impossible to have any certain or even probable knowledge about =
her/his/its=20
nature/motives/intentions/feelings/outlook. If this alleged god's=20
deception is possible, then since she/he/it is much more powerful than=20
humankind, it is impossible for humankind to tell if they are being =
deceived or=20
not. There is no way for humankind to evaluate whether they =
are being=20
deceived or not. Hence, there is no way for humankind to=20
evaluate/validate their alleged knowledge of this allegedly all-powerful =
god and=20
his alleged proscriptions and intentions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>The naive might immediately respond: "Not only is =
god=20
all-powerful, but she/he/it is perfectly good also!"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Such a response shows a failure to understand the =
immediately=20
preceding paragraphs. How do you know that this alleged god is =
perfectly=20
good? Among the things an all-powerful god, who allegedly created =
the=20
universe, could do would be to trick you into believing (in spite of =
much other=20
cogent evidence -- wars, sickness, cruelty, etc.) that she/he/it is =
perfectly=20
good. Since god is all-powerful, and hence much more clever than=20
her/his/its humankind groupies, such a deception would be=20
undetectable.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>A very cheering dilemma. Most who have read =
this far=20
will have a headache, if not from the poor, abstruse prose, then for the =
impact=20
of same.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>I doubt that either Keely, Eric, or many others will =
be=20
influenced by any of the above. Most humans have compelling ego,=20
emotional, financial, political, and economic needs and investments that =
prevent=20
them from seriously considering ideas that constitute a viable threat to =
their=20
worldviews and the sanctity of their inner being dependent upon those =
worldviews=20
.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>I have met Keely on several occasions. I have =
enjoyed=20
discussing religion and other topics with her. She is a most=20
likeable, concerned, and generous person. She may not like the =
following,=20
but for what its worth here is my part of my opinion about=20
her:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>If Keely were by some means persuaded that her =
religious=20
beliefs were in error, it would hardly change her general behavior =
or=20
attitude toward her fellow humans at all. She would still be a =
kind,=20
concerned, charitable, open, empathetic, gracious, =
egalitarian person --=20
and that for me is what counts.</FONT></DIV><FONT size=3D4>
<DIV><BR>Wayne</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Art Deco (Wayne Fox)<BR><A=20
href=3D"mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dkjajmix1@msn.com href=3D"mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">keely =
emerinemix</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=3Ddeco@moscow.com=20
href=3D"mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco aka W. Fox</A> ; <A=20
title=3Dvision2020@moscow.com=20
href=3D"mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> ; <A=20
title=3Deric@eric-e.com href=3D"mailto:eric@eric-e.com">Eric =
Engerbretson</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, May 29, 2004 =
7:07=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] =
Wayne, Ted,=20
Eric, etc.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>As Joan's favorite erudite evangelical -- and what a compliment =
that is,=20
coming as it does from the Aphrodite of Erudite -- perhaps I can jump =
in=20
here.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wayne, I've appreciated the respect you've shown me in our =
previous=20
discussions, and I know it will come to no surprise to you that I =
disagree=20
that God commands our worship because he's in any way puerile or =
needy. =20
I believe, as a disciple of Jesus Christ, that God designed us for=20
relationship -- relationship with himself as well as with =
others. Every=20
satisfying relationship I enjoy on earth is a picture of the =
relationship with=20
the Divine that I was created to have and that I desperately sought, =
and that=20
God graciously provides me in Christ.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ted, I've admired many of your postings and regret that Eric's =
responses=20
have annoyed you so. And I admit to more than a little=20
consternation that much of your irritation with Eric stems from his =
continued=20
association with and defense of Doug Wilson and his conduct and=20
doctrine. It's hard for me to read Eric's elucidation of the =
Christian=20
faith without wondering why he would continue to embrace the ministry =
of a man=20
whose conduct and beliefs are, at best, antithetical to the =
gospel. =20
I am, however, grateful that Eric equates the Christian life with =
something=20
other than art, music, poetry, stout beer and good cigars (not to =
mention=20
class privilege, sexism, and serrated wit). But I wonder how his =
apparent soft heart for humankind finds its nurture in the nest of a =
man who=20
gleefully maligns and insults those around him, both inside and =
outside the=20
fold of Christianity, and who has done more than anyone on the Palouse =
to turn=20
people against the faith. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Eric, have you given thought to the possibility that your =
continued=20
embrace of Doug Wilson has had a deleterious effect on your witness =
for the=20
Gospel? Sometimes you need to be known as much for who you =
rebuke=20
as for who you embrace. It's impossible for those who share =
your=20
faith to not gag over what has come from the Kirk of late. =
To=20
imagine that those who don't share your beliefs will somehow swallow =
hard and=20
drink in what you have to say is more than a little=20
unlikely. The cup you're offering tastes burnt and=20
bitter. Pour out the nasty stuff, wash out the cup, =
and refill=20
it with something better. You'll be as good a man for the =
pouring=20
out as for the refilling...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>keely emerine mix </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:eric@eric-e.com">Eric Engerbretson</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco aka W. Fox</A> ; <A=20
href=3D"mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, May 29, 2004 =
11:56=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] =
Ted's answer=20
to Eric E.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Wayne,<BR><BR>Again, great thoughts on your =
part.<BR><BR>I=20
appreciate very much the need to meed the physical needs of the =
world's=20
masses, especially since God commands me in the Bible to feed the =
hungry,=20
and minister to the poor and sick. <BR><BR>I will gladly do these =
things (at=20
the moment, only with my money), to the degree that a person needs =
to be fed=20
and healthy to be able to understand a presentation of the Gospel, =
and then=20
to be helped to live a life pleasing to God.<BR>But humanitarianism =
as an=20
end to itself, is helping only half of the man. The Bible says, =
"What does=20
it profit a man if he gains the world and loses his soul?" =
<BR><BR>What good=20
does it do for me to feed and clothe a man and leave him so that he =
can=20
happily and warmly go spend an eternity without God? As Nick said =
with his=20
Max Planck quote, it is folly to artificially separate a man's =
physicality=20
and spirituality. Any attempts to do so are only illusions, and are =
a=20
band-aid on a bullet hole. That is why I think wholistic medicine, =
and=20
preventative health, and Eastern medicine are on the right track. =
They=20
respect the whole man.<BR><BR>So, yes, I would love to do a Peace =
Corps=20
mission. But to ignore the spirituality of the people I would be =
helping=20
would be to harm them. My Peace Corps mission would emphasize the =
most=20
important "Peace", the peace between God and man.<BR><BR>Far more =
tragic=20
than a poor person starving to death and going to spend eternity =
with God is=20
a healthy, well-clothed person living a long wasteful life and then =
going to=20
spend eternity without God.<BR><BR>Best regards,<BR><BR>Eric=20
E.<BR><BR><BR>On May 28, 2004, at 1:16 PM, Art Deco aka W. Fox=20
wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><?bigger><?bigger>Eric, et=20
al,<?/bigger><?/bigger><BR> <BR><?bigger><?bigger>When =
searching for=20
"the truth" it may be useful to understand that some statements =
are=20
neither true nor false. For=20
example:<?/bigger><?/bigger><BR> <BR><?bigger><?bigger>"The =
square=20
root of blue recrystalizes =
sodomy."<?/bigger><?/bigger><BR> <BR><?bigger><?bigger>Just because =
words can be strung together in an apparently syntactically =
correct=20
sentence doesn't meant the sentence has a comprehensible, literal, =
=
testable meaning.<?/bigger><?/bigger><BR> <BR><?bigger><?bigger=
>In=20
your quest for "the truth" you might watch out for these kind =
of assertions. Religion, philosophy, politics, etc. are =
rife=20
with such statements. These assertions are =
generally=20
recognizable by the practical impossibility of being neither =
unequivocally=20
confirmable nor falsifiable. The latter is often especially =
the=20
case.<?/bigger><?/bigger><BR> <BR><?bigger><?bigger>A parable =
derived=20
from an example written by an apostate Catholic disciple of=20
Wittgenstein may be helpful as an illustration to =
you. <?/bigger><?/bigger><BR><?bigger><?bigger><?/bigger><?/bigger>&=
nbsp;<BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param Times New =
Roman><?bigger><?bigger>Neighbors=20
A & B were having an over-the-back-fence =
discussion:<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><=
?param Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>A: =20
I heard you have a new kind of powerful watchdog or =
something.<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?=
param Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>B: =20
Yes, it is called the =
Odg.<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param =
Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>A: =20
What does it =
do?<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param =
Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>B: =20
It watches over us continually and protects us and our property =
from =
harm.<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param=
Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>A: =20
I haven't seen anything. Where is =
it?<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param =
Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>B: =20
The Odg is =
invisible.<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?=
param Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>A: =20
I have heard any barking or=20
=
anything.<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?p=
aram Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>B: =20
The Odg makes no=20
=
sound.<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?para=
m Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>A: =20
You don't have a fence. How do you keep the Odg =
in?<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param =
Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>B: =20
The Odg stays with us always. It is the loving nature of the =
Odg to=20
do =
so.<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param =
Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>A: =20
Your lawn is immaculate. I don't see any Odg droppings at =
all.<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param =
Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>B: =20
The Odg never eats. Consequently, it makes no =
droppings. It=20
doesn't slobber or have bad breath =
either.<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?par=
am Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>A: =20
Tell me again what it=20
does.<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param=
Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>B: =20
It watches over us and protects us from all harms. It =
requires only=20
unquestioning belief on our part in =
return.<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?par=
am Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>A: =20
But wasn't your home robbed of everything of value, weren't you =
badly=20
beaten up, and wasn't your wife taken for and enjoyed a=20
month-long sexual romp by a motorcycle gang a few months =
ago?<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param =
Times New Roman><?bigger><?bigger>B: =20
Yes, but it must of been good for us, else the Odg would not have =
let it=20
=
happen.<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/fontfamily><BR> <BR><BR><?bigger><?big=
ger> <?/bigger><?/bigger><BR><?bigger><?bigger>Eric,=20
I hope you are a sincere person who wishes to better the =
world. <?/bigger><?/bigger><BR><?bigger><?bigger> <?/bigger><?/=
bigger><BR><?bigger><?bigger>After=20
understanding the above parable and its ramifications, perhaps you =
might=20
consider shifting the focus of your faith and the use of your =
talents from=20
proselytization to working directly, non-judgmentally, and=20
non-theologically to alleviate some of the obvious sufferings in =
the world=20
-- hunger, disease, illiteracy, war, religious strife, crime, =
social=20
disorganization, =
etc.<?/bigger><?/bigger><BR><?bigger><?bigger> <?/bigger><?/bigger><=
BR><?bigger><?bigger>When=20
I lived in Africa as a Peace Corps Volunteer, I meet a number of=20
missionaries and other once very religious people of various =
faiths who=20
came to Africa originally to spread their religious =
beliefs. <?/bigger><?/bigger><BR><?bigger><?bigger> <?/bigger><=
?/bigger><BR><?bigger><?bigger>The=20
pursuit of the alleviation of suffering and the physical =
improvement=20
of the general conditions of life for many of these =
people=20
soon became the meaning of and center for their existence. =
Religious=20
beliefs, if not abandoned for many of these people, became a very =
less=20
important part of their lives. Their faiths, like Albert=20
Schweitzer's were greatly altered. I know because I worked =
with and=20
enjoyed several of these people. They openly and unabashedly =
talked=20
about their spiritual transformation and their determination to =
help those=20
less fortunate than themselves in a multitude of non-spiritual =
ways.<?/bigger><?/bigger><BR><?bigger><?bigger> <?/bigger><?/bigger>=
<BR><?bigger><?bigger>Many=20
formerly very religious persons believed that in the overall =
scheme of the=20
universe as they came to see it, preventing glaucoma or=20
teaching Africans to farm productively enriched =
humankind a=20
great deal more than such self-serving activities like building =
churches,=20
making doubtful converts, or singing=20
=
hymns.<?/bigger><?/bigger><BR><BR><?bigger><?bigger>Wayne<?/bigger><?/big=
ger><BR><?bigger><?bigger> <?/bigger><?/bigger><BR><?bigger><?bigger=
>Art=20
Deco (Wayne Fox)<?/bigger><?/bigger><BR><?color><?param =
0000,0000,EEEE><?bigger><?bigger>deco@moscow.com<?/bigger><?/bigger><?/co=
lor><BR><?fontfamily><?param =
Arial><?smaller><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>-----=20
Original Message =
-----<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR><?fontfamily><?param =
Arial><?smaller><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller><?/x-tad-smaller><B><?x-tad-sma=
ller>From:<?/x-tad-smaller></B><?x-tad-smaller>=20
<?/x-tad-smaller><?color><?param 0000,0000,EEEE><?x-tad-smaller>Eric=20
Engerbretson<?/x-tad-smaller><?/color><?x-tad-smaller> =
<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR><B><?fontfamily><?param =
Arial><?smaller><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>To:<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller>=
<?/smaller><?/fontfamily></B><?fontfamily><?param =
Arial><?smaller><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>=20
<?/x-tad-smaller><?color><?param 0000,0000,EEEE><?x-tad-smaller>Art Deco =
aka W. Fox<?/x-tad-smaller><?/color><?x-tad-smaller> ; =
<?/x-tad-smaller><?color><?param =
0000,0000,EEEE><?x-tad-smaller>vision2020@moscow.com<?/x-tad-smaller><?/c=
olor><?x-tad-smaller>=20
<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR><B><?fontfamily><?param =
Arial><?smaller><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>Sent:<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smalle=
r><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></B><?fontfamily><?param =
Arial><?smaller><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>=20
Friday, May 28, 2004 10:19 =
AM<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR><B><?fontfamily><?param =
Arial><?smaller><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>Subject:<?/x-tad-smaller><?/sma=
ller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></B><?fontfamily><?param =
Arial><?smaller><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>=20
Re:Re:Re:Re: [Vision2020] Ted's answer to Eric =
E.<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Thanks for taking the time to write such a clear =
and=20
well-written bunch o' thoughts, Wayne. Very cogent. And I mean =
that=20
sincerely.<BR><BR>But, regardless of how well it can be proven =
that none=20
of us can prove who is right-- someone still IS closer to the =
Truth, and=20
I'm going to keep trying to find out who they are.<BR><BR>Eric=20
E.<BR><BR><BR>On May 28, 2004, at 9:21 AM, Art Deco aka W. Fox=20
wrote:<BR><BR><BR>All,<BR> <BR>At the risk of sounding like a =
broken=20
record and probably offending almost everyone again, here are a =
few=20
comments on the current Eric E. vs.. other V 2020 posters=20
thread.<BR> <BR>There are tens of thousands of different =
systemic=20
religious beliefs, each contradictory to each of the=20
others. Unless you can present cogent evidence that a=20
contradiction is not always a false statement, this means that =
only one,=20
if any, of these different religious views is true. =
Compounding this=20
problem is the fact that many adherents of many of these religious =
beliefs are, like Eric, absolutely convinced that their way =
is the=20
only absolutely true way.<BR> <BR>The tens of thousands of =
systemic=20
religious beliefs is an understatement. If we consider the =
nuances=20
of individual belief, the are probably billions of different =
religious=20
beliefs.<BR> <BR><B>The problem is that, so far, no method =
has been=20
found that provides a clear, acceptable, universal way to =
decide the=20
truth of particular statements/assertions referencing=20
alleged supernatural beings and =
occurrences.</B><BR> <BR>If=20
there were such a method, this discussion would not be occurring=20
-- not only on V 2020, but in millions of other places. =
There=20
is no argument about the specific gravity =
and the conductibility=20
of copper, the tensile strength of alloy X2314, or other beliefs =
that are=20
used to send humankind to the moon and broadcast that event in=20
real-time.<BR> <BR>The existence of the above problem of =
knowledge should give rational persons a great deal of pause =
before=20
asserting with apodictic rigor the truth of any particular set of=20
superstitious/religious beliefs such as Christianity, Islam, =
Judaism, God=20
as Space Traveler, Gods who Live in a Volcano, Pan, etc. The =
probability of any particular religious/superstitious system being =
true=20
appears miniscule. This pause should also limit =
attempting to=20
control/limit other's lives based solely on these=20
superstitious/religious beliefs. [Other considerations =
appear at the=20
end for those that do not get bored/disgusted before arriving=20
there.]<BR> <BR>With regard to ethical statements, a somewhat =
similar=20
situation exists. However, since all of us must act, there =
are=20
various systems which attempt to provide a practical answers to =
ethical=20
questions. Some of these ethical systems are, in great part, =
empirically based. In these systems, facts are considered =
and=20
ethical truths are subject to testing and to modification based on =
experience.<BR> <BR>Anthropological investigations of many =
different=20
societies appear to demonstrate that ethical beliefs =
generally=20
arise out of practical considerations. These ethical beliefs =
occur=20
before the superstitious/religious foundations which eventually =
are used=20
to propagandize belief in and to buttress obedience to such =
ethical=20
beliefs.<BR> <BR> <BR>Life is a constant, sometimes very =
difficult struggle. An observably contingent universe =
provides many=20
uncertainties and unpleasantries. All of us have various =
means of=20
coping with various parts of this struggle. Many of these =
coping=20
mechanisms involve fantasy. Psychologists call them defense=20
mechanisms. Those who have read modern psychology know there =
are a=20
great number of these mechanisms that have been identified, e.g.,=20
rationalization, projection, reaction formation, =20
etc.<BR> <BR>For example, probably all of us had an imaginary =
friend=20
and/or ascribed to/fantasized about the actions/emotions of real=20
friends. Defense mechanisms allow us to cope with and=20
to alleviate in the short term many unpleasant feelings and =
to defend=20
our personas against unpleasant truths. The use of these =
coping=20
mechanisms when not confused with reality in the long term are =
normal and=20
generally healthy.<BR> <BR>The problems with the use of =
defense=20
mechanisms begin to appear when the person believes the =
fantasies=20
driven or engendered by these defense mechanisms correspond to=20
reality. When the fantasies/delusions reach certain levels =
of=20
unreality, such as believing in contradictory =
statements, believing=20
in existential statements contrary to or not supported by=20
evidence, or, in particular, believing that a particular =
person=20
controls the weather for a region, then such defense mechanisms =
become=20
pathological to various degrees.<BR> <BR>Many =
non-believers such=20
as myself do not find all superstitious/religious beliefs to be=20
"evil." Such beliefs provide solace in times of grief, =
provide moral=20
guidance for some, provide a sense of community/belonging for =
some,=20
provide comfort from the vicissitudes of life's struggle, =
etc. =20
Although the truth of such beliefs is highly doubtful, to the =
extent=20
that religious/superstitious beliefs provide relative peace, =
well-being,=20
individual growth, etc. non- believers are not upset by such=20
matters.<BR> <BR>The problem for non-believers and many =
believers=20
alike arises when religious/superstitious beliefs are use to =
proscribe the=20
actions of others who do not share the =
particular superstitions of=20
the proscriber.<BR> <BR>In plain terms, many see that solely =
using=20
superstition/religion and ignorance to limit the freedom,=20
aspirations, individual growth opportunities, non-criminal life =
styles,=20
etc. of other people is little short of colossal egotism =
and is=20
an logically/epistemologically unwarranted intrusion on personal=20
liberty.<BR> <BR>Eric and his fellow believes are clearly =
free to=20
indulge in, use as coping mechanisms, and to argue for their=20
particular superstitious/religious beliefs. If Eric's =
beliefs=20
provide comfort for him, fine. However, when Eric and his =
fellow=20
travelers use their particular beliefs to condemn, to attempt to =
impose=20
guilt upon, and/or to outlaw the non-criminal freedom of others, =
then=20
because there is little or no logical/epistemological support for =
Eric's=20
beliefs, conflict, often acrimonious and sometimes deadly, =
arises. =20
If Eric were a Christian living in Saudi Arabia, he would =
understand this=20
position much more clearly.<BR> <BR>When gender based, race =
based,=20
sexual orientation based, etc. roles are limited not by a =
discussion of=20
observable consequences but by superstition and ignorance, we all =
lose not=20
only our own freedom of choice, but the contributions those who =
are=20
limited can make to our lives as well as to their =
own.<BR> <BR>If you=20
have had the patience to struggle through the above, thank=20
you.<BR> <BR>In closing, here is one general problem of =
many=20
that arises out of certain kinds of religious/superstitious=20
beliefs.<BR> <BR>General Observation: If one expects =
others to=20
act in a certain manner to achieve certain goals in given =
situations,=20
then clarity of purpose and procedure is =
essential.<BR> <BR>Specific=20
Instance: When desiring employees to provide excellent =
customer=20
service, for example, a good manager carefully =
explains/re-explains to=20
each employee clearly and unequivocally which =
behaviors/attitudes/etc.=20
(and the purposes of such behaviors/attitudes/etc.) are required =
to reach=20
the goal of excellent customer service. The clearer,=20
more careful, more detailed the instruction, the greater =
the=20
probability that the employees will perform correctly. =
Moreover, the=20
instructions given about good customer service are a result of =
years of=20
experimentation and observation -- the results of such =
instructions are=20
verifiable. Newer experiences can and frequently do =
modify/expand=20
the instructions.<BR> <BR>If there is such a thing as eternal =
life,=20
and if there is a way to achieve such, then the importance of such =
an=20
accomplishment greatly exceeds the importance of giving good =
customer=20
service.<BR> <BR>If there is some being(s) in charge of =
deciding who=20
is to be eternally rewarded/punished, she/he/it/they appear to be =
very=20
inept managers.<BR> <BR>Given the undeniable reality of the =
plurality=20
of many different religions, the difference in their ethical=20
pronouncements, the differences in their alleged paths to =
eternity, the=20
amount of death, heinous suffering, and displacement the practice =
of these=20
religions have historically (and in the present) bestowed upon =
humankind,=20
etc., it is undeniable that clear, verifiable instructions =
from some=20
alleged deity(s) to achieve eternal reward are obviously=20
lacking. (If not, this discussion would not be=20
occurring.)<BR> <BR>In reality, all things considered, =
alleged gods=20
as a guides to eternal rewards appear to be colossal bumblers =
--=20
certainly less effective than the poorest of human=20
managers.<BR> <BR>Given the human needs that drive humankind =
towards=20
the plurality of religious beliefs, it is of very small =
probability that=20
the words above will influence anyone to any degree. =
However, I=20
write them with hope that they may encourage a few to examine more =
closely=20
their sexist, homophobic, racist, pro-slavery, anti-secular,=20
anti-egalitarian, anti-innovation, and/or anti-liberty points =
of=20
view.<BR> <BR>If you have read this far, thank you. =
Perhaps=20
I can treat you to a banana split at the Elk River Dairy=20
Queen.<BR><BR><BR>Wayne<BR> <BR>Art Deco (Wayne=20
=
Fox)<BR>deco@moscow.com<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> =
<BR> <BR> <BR>-----=20
Original Message -----<BR><BR><B>From:</B>=20
Tbertruss@aol.com<BR><BR><B>To:</B> eric@eric-e.com ;=20
vision2020@moscow.com<BR><BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 27, 2004 =
11:09=20
PM<BR><BR><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] Ted's answer to Eric=20
E.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Eric:<BR><BR>We can agree to disagree, amicably, =
but you=20
backpedaled rather vigorously from wording that did not seem to =
imply as=20
much "between the lines" interpretation as you now claim the words =
required. If a code book is needed to decipher your true =
meaning,=20
perhaps you could post it on the web?<BR><BR>Where the rubber =
meets the=20
road, Eric, is that I will not deny your faith may be the absolute =
truth,=20
yet your faith demands that you assert my spirituality, not based =
on=20
Christ's divinity, is absolutely false!<BR><BR>Here we diverge in =
ways not=20
trivial that impact the power vectors of spirituality in how we =
seek to=20
alter the world!<BR><BR>And you can make whatever you wish of that =
comment, which implies a tome or two.<BR><BR>Ted=20
Moffett<BR><BR><BR><BR><B><I>The Nuart=20
Theatre</I></B><BR><B><I>208-882-0459 (lobby, no=20
message)</I></B><BR><B><I>208-883-0997 (CCM, leave=20
message)</I></B><BR><B><I>516 S Main, Moscow ID=20
=
83843</I></B><BR><B><I>eric@eric-e.com</I></B><BR><B><I>http://www.ccmboo=
ks.org</I></B><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><B><I><?fontfamily><?param =
Arial><?color><?param 8080,0000,0000><?bigger><?x-tad-bigger><BR><BR>The =
Nuart =
Theatre<?/x-tad-bigger><?/bigger><?/color><?/fontfamily></I></B><B><I><?f=
ontfamily><?param Arial><?color><?param =
9999,9999,9999><BR><?smaller><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>208-882-0459=20
(lobby, no message)<BR>208-883-0997 (CCM, leave message)<BR>516 S =
Main,=20
Moscow ID =
83843<BR>eric@eric-e.com<BR>http://www.ccmbooks.org<BR><BR><?/x-tad-small=
er><?/smaller><?/smaller><?/color><?/fontfamily></I></B><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>=
</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C44637.BA143A90--