Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 23:58:08 -0700 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <200209050658.g856wD189878@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Neal E Westfall <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> writes: > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Dave Hayes wrote: >> [ ... police brutality ...] >> Granted, I was kind of traumatized and this may not be a basis >> everyone can accept. But I do, and at the moment that's all that counts. > Please do not misunderstand. There is indeed no excuse for such > behavior. Personal experiences such as the one you relate above > is where the rubber meets the road and one discovers whether or > not his worldview lives up to whether or not it can withstand the > onslaught of life. I would ask if you really think yours does that > in the face of such wickedness. This is a non-sequitor to me. These events happened. At some point, I had a bit of work to do such that I was not making all policepeople out to be evil villans. They all aren't evil, even if most of them are. ;) >> > However, given your rejection of authority, who are you to condemn >> > police brutality? >> Someone who's lost a friend to it. > And this is exactly why I find it bizzare that someone who has lived > through such an experience would continue to believe that in the end, > it's all pretty meaningless. It's called "controlled folly", and I don't believe it or disbelieve it. I try to keep from belief, and stick to knowledge. I know that none of this life here on Earth is real. Is a character in, say, EverQuest real? Does it have meaning? > According to Christian theology, there is no event that takes place > which does not have a purpose in the ultimate scheme of things. > While many find this abhorrent, it can also be a great comfort in > the face of the horrors of life. To be absolutely truthful, in terms which minds can understand it, everything has meaning and no meaning at the same time. >> First, when any biblical prose comes into debate, unless the people >> are very focused on Truth, it will disintegrate into exact semantic >> meanings of words written over a couple thousand years ago. This is >> not a place to learn truth, but it is a place to steep in >> righteousness. ;) > The two are related. You cannot have righteousness without truth, > nor can you have the truth without righteousness. Hmm, there's semantics here. I'd argue you cannot see the truth without first dropping righteousness. The problem is I don't know what each of us means when we say "righteousness". > Another is your observation that debate over biblical texts can > degerate into arguing over the semantic meanings of the words. > People who are engaged in sin do not want to clearly interpret the > meaning of scripture. The problem is entirely in man, not the > texts. I don't accept what this implies, even though technically what you said is true. First off, we are dealing with words 2000 years old. Imagine if I went back in time and said "Man, that's a killer outfit. Dude, yer stylin, let's hook up and score some babes". Scholars would have a field day attempting to determine just what I meant. We are faced with the same dilemna trying to interpret words which had idiomatic meanings and content way back then that are lost now. Secondly, and more importantly, those words were designed for the people of those ages to help them grow. To presume one and only one set of words works for everyone of all ages, times, races, cultures, and backgrounds is really naive. Each time, place, and person needs the set of words which will help them at that moment. These words are not known until that moment arrives. > I reject the idea that because people have different > interpretations, the conclusion is warranted that nobody has the > correct interpretation. In my view, there is no correct interpretation as our minds can understand it. We will have to agree to disagree. ;) > What you suggest above sounds really pious, Piety is never an end in itself. It comes from operating in a certain manner. ;) > but in the end it leads to confusion, because then you get new cults > forming from every new crack-pot interpretation that comes along. And cults are bad, therefore there is only one interpretation? ;) > As to why we shouldn't sin, the answer is that it is wrong to sin. > The fact that we are unable to not sin does not change that. This > is the fallen state of man, and the reason he needs a savior. Were > he able to stop sinning, no savior would be necessary. That is why > Jesus said that a man who sins is a slave to sin. Sin is that > powerful. In my "worldview", sin would not exist without it's counterpart, Not-Sinning. The real sin is that we classify actions into Sinning and Not-Sinning. ;) There really is only one difference between a sacred being and an evil being. >> In fact, there's another meaning here, and that has to do with what >> "righteousness" is and why it's useless to be in that state (I do it >> above). It's not saying "you are a sinner" per se. It's explaining >> the uselessness of righteous behavior. This behavior has to be >> overcome as a stepping stone on the path to being one with the >> universe. > > Here you are doing what in Biblical interpretation is called > "eisogesis", reading into the text what you want to take out of > it. Just because you give it a fancy name doesn't mean it's true. ;) I don't -want- to take anything out of it, so the premise is inapplicable. >> Zen masters merely try to shut off your brain for you, if you can do >> that then righteous behavior will shut off at the same time. > > And you find this philosophically and ethically defensible? I'm not trying to defend it. It's not being attacked is it? > Without any standards of righteousness, there can be no > non-excusable acts which you referred to earlier. You are presuming that removing the standards will cause man to react by freely participating in orgy after orgy of sin. That's not the case, and if it becomes the case then you haven't really removed the standards. Go read Rev 2:12-17 and get your white stone already. The way it works is this: until we get past righteousness, we come no closer to God. Don't look at me, I didn't make this rule. ;) >> > I really think you are deceiving yourself if you think you are >> > not also deeply entrenched in assumptions. >> >> I don't think that I am not deeply entrenched in assumptions, how >> else could I be communicating here? ;) But, alas, even that is an >> assumption. > > I'm not much impressed with skepticism. I'm not trying to impress you. ;) > But since you admit that it is impossible to not have assumptions (I > prefer the term "presuppositions"), haven't you ever considered that > there may be a set of presuppositions which are in fact the correct > presuppositions to hold? Yes, and I've also considered the fact that there are sets of presuppositions which will prevent you from effectively seeing the truth. Since I have always been a seeker after truth, I choose not to hold any (and man is that hard). >> > Everybody has them, and they are very important. The trick is in >> > adopting the *right* assumptions. >> >> Are you being righteous? ;) How do you know which assumptions are the >> right ones? "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of >> God". > > I make no claim to being righteous. Were it not for God's grace, > I would be in much the same situation as you. And think you I am not aware of God's grace? Tsk. ;) >> > The question to be asked is what presuppositions are >> > transcendentally necessary for experience to be meaningful at all. >> > The reason that both of you are so difficult to argue with is that >> > neither of you seem to think anything is meaningful. >> >> I'll admit, to me this is all a dream. Controlled folly this all is. > > On the other hand, you don't live that way. So say you. > You live as though there is a distinction between dreaming and being > awake. Actually there is. It's which dream I choose to focus on at the moment. I think you misunderstand me, which is not bad. > You get out of bed, go to work, pay the bills, etc. Your > actions falsify what you say you believe. Again, I don't believe anything. Either I know it, I do not know it, I cannot know it, or for the sake of getting things done I'll adopt some faith. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< The coin lost in the river is to be retrived from the river. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200209050658.g856wD189878>