Aldous Huxley's _Point Counter Point_

[j***@go.com]

I'll collapse responses to multiple authors into one article.

You sound like Samuel Johnson, the great literary giant. When he tried
to follow Christ, I think he felt the same way you did. Late in his
life, he was terrified of God's judgment, and did penance like standing
in the street in the rain for hours, to try and atone for his childhood
sins.
One of Johnson's contemporaries said about Johnson, that he "did not
seem to realize the merits of his Redeemer."
Seems like you might have had the same problem back when you were
Christian. You appear to have suffered under a legalistic, prudish
vesion of Christianity........ one that did not take into account the
merits of your Redeemer.
True Christianity is lived only when we realize the true merits of our
Redeemer. His merits have set us free from all sin as well as all lists
of rules. We throw away the shackles of rule-based Christianity, and
are free simply to love God and man. Maybe you should try it.

Would that I were as intellectually brilliant as Johnson.

But I am not in the same situation as he, for multiple reasons:

1) It's not my *childhood* sins that trouble me. It is sins
committed after I became a Christian, in one major case when
I was (legally, at least) fully adult -- and worse, sins that
I did not recognize as such until years later; I thought
at the time that I was doing right. (How many Christians
think they're doing right and never realize that they were
wrong? Maybe I'm luckier than some.)

2) It's not that I'm terrified of God's judgment in the hereafter.
It is rather that God gives no evidence at all in this life, by
any action whatsoever, that He forgives my sins, or cares
about me in the slightest. I've said before, and I must say
it again: The only way I could believe in God's love is if He
*acted* as if He loves me in ways that I, an American born
in the 20th century, can recognize as love without going
through all the theologizing that Paul had to do to convert
Jesus's execution into an expression of love. There are no
"merits" to the Redeemer that I can see.

3) It's not a matter of legalistic, prudish lists of rules.
In at least one case, I believe that fornication with the
woman involved would have been less sinful than what
I actually did. (Not sinless, but not as bad.) It's
a matter of being a truly good man, not of trying
desperately to keep up a pretense of goodness
by following heartless rules -- and of failing
completely at being a good man, going through
the horrific experience of *discovering*, not just
parroting, that one has a "heart [that] is deceitful
above all things, and desperately wicked"
(Jeremiah 17:9), and that God, no matter how
painfully I confess this, leaves me in the lurch.

-----

[quoting me] I hardly have "great ignorance" of Christianity

I very strongly disagree.

After the decades I spent as a Christian, I very strongly
disagree with your disagreement.

Until you have gone through the experience of trusting God,
relying on Him, and being BETRAYED by Him, you have
no call to criticize me. Nor does anyone.

-----

And Zach, who seems the most callous and proud (and,

And Jeffrey's position that if God really loved him, then he would win
the lottery, for example. So I personally view his criticism of his
former faith as rooted in something deeper in his heart to which he
succumbed.

Well, winning the lottery (or even having God run interference
so I could get a decent, permanent job, which the Bible
strongly suggests [e.g., from accounts of Old Testament
battles, not to mention the escape from the Egyptians]
He's supposed to do) would have been a way for God to,
as I wrote above, demonstrate His love in a way that a
modern American would recognize.

As to "something deeper in [my] heart": I think I can quite
reasonably say that the (Hebrews 12:15) "root of bitterness"
therein was most efficiently tended and watered by the
church, and most especially by God.

-----

As I wrote above, I know that most of you don't have a
glimmer of an idea where I'm coming from, because you
haven't had the same life experiences. But I can only
infer that the anger, contempt, and defensiveness I
sense in many replies to my writings are a cover for
FEAR, because I'm saying things that you actually
suspect or believe, but don't dare admit.

-- Jeffrey J. Sargent, ***@go.com

[Simple Simon]

Post by j***@go.com

[quoting me] I hardly have "great ignorance" of Christianity

I very strongly disagree.

After the decades I spent as a Christian, I very strongly
disagree with your disagreement.

Yet you say that G*d betrayed you. Sorry, but that's a non-starter.
Just as the US Patent and Trademark Office will immediately throw out
a patent application for a perpetual motion machine as a non-starter,
indicative as it is of a great ignorance of physics.

Post by j***@go.com
Until you have gone through the experience of trusting God,
relying on Him, and being BETRAYED by Him, you have
no call to criticize me. Nor does anyone.

By any chance have you read "A Grief Observed" by C.S. Lewis?

G*d gave you a situation to grow from, you failed to do it, and you
instead indict G*d for not delivering what you entitled to.

You have clung to your base human life instead letting it go as
Christ clearly instructs us to. You can't have both lives.

Post by j***@go.com
As to "something deeper in [my] heart": I think I can quite
reasonably say that the (Hebrews 12:15) "root of bitterness"
therein was most efficiently tended and watered by the
church, and most especially by God.

A psychologist might rack this up to a frustrated sense of
entitlement, and unresolved childish rage.

Post by j***@go.com
As I wrote above, I know that most of you don't have a
glimmer of an idea where I'm coming from, because you
haven't had the same life experiences. But I can only
infer that the anger, contempt, and defensiveness I
sense in many replies to my writings are a cover for
FEAR, because I'm saying things that you actually
suspect or believe, but don't dare admit.

That might be the case with some folks--maybe--but it isn't with me.
I was a heavy reader of Russell and any other intellectual Christian
critic I could find, for dozens of years. I still might be
classified as an agnostic from the standpoint of many Christians
although the Spirit is real in my life, and is the most important
relationship I have.

I am a believing Christian. I believe that Jesus is G*d's Son, that
he offers us salvation from our inability to save ourselves and a
path to growth in an aspect of our existence that is profoundly more
substantial than, and beyond, whether or not "we got the job".
http://nothingistic.org/library/chuangtzu/chuang35.html

"7. He whose mind is thus grandly fixed emits a Heavenly light. In
him who emits this heavenly light men see the (True) man. When a man
has cultivated himself (up to this point), thenceforth he remains
constant in himself. When he is thus constant in himself, (what is
merely) the human element will leave him, but Heaven will help him.
Those whom their human element has left we call the people of Heaven.
Those whom Heaven helps we call the Sons of Heaven. Those who would
by learning attain to this seek for what they cannot learn. Those who
would by effort attain to this, attempt what effort can never effect.
Those who aim by reasoning to reach it reason where reasoning has no
place. To know to stop where they cannot arrive by means of knowledge
is the highest attainment. Those who cannot do this will be destroyed
on the lathe of Heaven."

Again:

"Those who would by learning attain to this seek for what they cannot
learn. Those who would by effort attain to this, attempt what effort
can never effect. Those who aim by reasoning to reach it reason where
reasoning has no place."

That, my friend, may have been your failure. But it is not too late.

I wish the best for you, and am not the slightest bit afraid of your
perspective on Christianity or arguments against it. Again, from the
earlier quote from Chuang Tzu:

"To know to stop where they cannot arrive by means of knowledge is
the highest attainment. Those who cannot do this will be destroyed on
the lathe of Heaven."

May your heart open to the Spirit of Christ, and save you from an
otherwise certain death.

Cheers.

[b***@juno.com]

Post by j***@go.com
1) It's not my *childhood* sins that trouble me. It is sins
committed after I became a Christian, in one major case when
I was (legally, at least) fully adult -- and worse, sins that
I did not recognize as such until years later; I thought
at the time that I was doing right. (How many Christians
think they're doing right and never realize that they were
wrong? Maybe I'm luckier than some.)

Yes, but it doesn't matter what time of life your sins were committed.
The merits of Christ cover our sins, so that whatever we have done, if
we throw ourselves upon the mercy of God, He WILL forgive us.

And we don't have to "feel" that God has forgiven us. He just does.
"See, I lay in Zion a rock to make men stumble...... and whoever puts
their trust in HIM will never be put to shame."

Christ is both the rock that makes men stumble, and the rock that we
can trust will never put us to shame. He is both a trap for our pride,
and a peaceful resting place for our humility, simultaneously.

Post by j***@go.com
2) It's not that I'm terrified of God's judgment in the hereafter.
It is rather that God gives no evidence at all in this life, by
any action whatsoever, that He forgives my sins, or cares
about me in the slightest. I've said before, and I must say
it again: The only way I could believe in God's love is if He
*acted* as if He loves me in ways that I, an American born
in the 20th century, can recognize as love without going
through all the theologizing that Paul had to do to convert
Jesus's execution into an expression of love. There are no
"merits" to the Redeemer that I can see.

Well, you SHOULD be terrified of his judgment. Although his judgment
will be tempered by mercy, it is still something to fear. I personally
need to cultivate a holy fear myself, by the way.

God doesn't have to play by your rules. He doesn't have to "act" in a
certain way. He might, and He might not. But lucky for both you and I,
He has promised us certain things in eternity....... mercy and
lovingkindness at the end of all things. But as the Patriarch Job can
tell you, God won't always treat us so nicely while we are pilgrims on
the Earth.

If you don't see any "merits" in Christ, then you are at odds with just
about everyone, including the vast majority of atheists. I don't
believe I have ever met a person who says Christ was not at least a
good man.

Of course, the "merits" I meant go much deeper than that. As you are
well aware, I'm sure.

Post by j***@go.com
3) It's not a matter of legalistic, prudish lists of rules.
In at least one case, I believe that fornication with the
woman involved would have been less sinful than what
I actually did. (Not sinless, but not as bad.) It's
a matter of being a truly good man, not of trying
desperately to keep up a pretense of goodness
by following heartless rules -- and of failing
completely at being a good man, going through
the horrific experience of *discovering*, not just
parroting, that one has a "heart [that] is deceitful
above all things, and desperately wicked"
(Jeremiah 17:9), and that God, no matter how
painfully I confess this, leaves me in the lurch.

Just what did you do?

But you don't have to tell me.

Those who actually "discover" rather than just "parrot" the above
sentiment, would probably elicit the following reponse from Jesus: "You
are not far from the Kingdom of God. Now go and sin no more."

[b***@juno.com]

Post by j***@go.com
1) It's not my *childhood* sins that trouble me. It is sins
committed after I became a Christian, in one major case when
I was (legally, at least) fully adult -- and worse, sins that
I did not recognize as such until years later; I thought
at the time that I was doing right. (How many Christians
think they're doing right and never realize that they were
wrong? Maybe I'm luckier than some.)

Yes, but it doesn't matter what time of life your sins were committed.
The merits of Christ cover our sins, so that whatever we have done, if
we throw ourselves upon the mercy of God, He WILL forgive us.

And we don't have to "feel" that God has forgiven us. He just does.
"See, I lay in Zion a rock to make men stumble...... and whoever puts
their trust in HIM will never be put to shame."

Christ is both the rock that makes men stumble, and the rock that we
can trust will never put us to shame. He is both a trap for our pride,
and a peaceful resting place for our humility, simultaneously.

Post by j***@go.com
2) It's not that I'm terrified of God's judgment in the hereafter.
It is rather that God gives no evidence at all in this life, by
any action whatsoever, that He forgives my sins, or cares
about me in the slightest. I've said before, and I must say
it again: The only way I could believe in God's love is if He
*acted* as if He loves me in ways that I, an American born
in the 20th century, can recognize as love without going
through all the theologizing that Paul had to do to convert
Jesus's execution into an expression of love. There are no
"merits" to the Redeemer that I can see.

Well, you SHOULD be terrified of his judgment. Although his judgment
will be tempered by mercy, it is still something to fear. I personally
need to cultivate a holy fear myself, by the way.

God doesn't have to play by your rules. He doesn't have to "act" in a
certain way. He might, and He might not. But lucky for both you and I,
He has promised us certain things in eternity....... mercy and
lovingkindness at the end of all things. But as the Patriarch Job can
tell you, God won't always treat us so nicely while we are pilgrims on
the Earth.

If you don't see any "merits" in Christ, then you are at odds with just
about everyone, including the vast majority of atheists. I don't
believe I have ever met a person who says Christ was not at least a
good man.

Of course, the "merits" I meant go much deeper than that. As you are
well aware, I'm sure.

Post by j***@go.com
3) It's not a matter of legalistic, prudish lists of rules.
In at least one case, I believe that fornication with the
woman involved would have been less sinful than what
I actually did. (Not sinless, but not as bad.) It's
a matter of being a truly good man, not of trying
desperately to keep up a pretense of goodness
by following heartless rules -- and of failing
completely at being a good man, going through
the horrific experience of *discovering*, not just
parroting, that one has a "heart [that] is deceitful
above all things, and desperately wicked"
(Jeremiah 17:9), and that God, no matter how
painfully I confess this, leaves me in the lurch.

Just what did you do?

But you don't have to tell me.

Those who actually "discover" rather than just "parrot" the above
sentiment, would probably elicit the following reponse from Jesus: "You
are not far from the Kingdom of God. Now go and sin no more."

[j***@go.com]

***@juno.com wrote:

<snip>

Post by b***@juno.com
And we don't have to "feel" that God has forgiven us. He just does.
"See, I lay in Zion a rock to make men stumble...... and whoever puts
their trust in HIM will never be put to shame."

If I don't "feel" that God forgives me, it's awfully difficult to
put my trust in Him. If He acts as if He doesn't, then that's
the message I get, pure and simple. As I've written before,
it's a lot more rational to go by what someone does than by
what s/he says, even if that someone is God.

<snip>

Post by b***@juno.com
... But lucky for both you and I,
He has promised us certain things in eternity....... mercy and
lovingkindness at the end of all things.

And why should I believe these alleged promises?

Post by b***@juno.com
But as the Patriarch Job can
tell you, God won't always treat us so nicely while we are pilgrims on
the Earth.

So why bother with living? (That's a serious question, but if you
answer it with more Christian platitudes, that will be useless.
Think about it. Wrestle with it.)

Post by b***@juno.com
If you don't see any "merits" in Christ, then you are at odds with just
about everyone, including the vast majority of atheists. I don't
believe I have ever met a person who says Christ was not at least a
good man.

I've written before about some of the ugly things Christ did.

Post by b***@juno.com
Of course, the "merits" I meant go much deeper than that. As you are
well aware, I'm sure.

This gets into a lot of unconvincing metaphysics and theology.

[I wrote:]

Post by b***@juno.com

It's a matter of being a truly good man, not of trying
desperately to keep up a pretense of goodness
by following heartless rules -- and of failing
completely at being a good man, going through
the horrific experience of *discovering*, not just
parroting, that one has a "heart [that] is deceitful
above all things, and desperately wicked"
(Jeremiah 17:9), and that God, no matter how
painfully I confess this, leaves me in the lurch.

<snip>

Post by b***@juno.com
Those who actually "discover" rather than just "parrot" the above
sentiment, would probably elicit the following reponse from Jesus: "You
are not far from the Kingdom of God. Now go and sin no more."

Thank you for the encouragement. As to what I did, I'll just repeat
that it would look innocent to an outsider.

-- Jeffrey J. Sargent, ***@go.com

[b***@juno.com]

Post by j***@go.com
If I don't "feel" that God forgives me, it's awfully difficult to
put my trust in Him. If He acts as if He doesn't, then that's
the message I get, pure and simple. As I've written before,
it's a lot more rational to go by what someone does than by
what s/he says, even if that someone is God.

Well, maybe you are destined for temporary hell, then. Who cares what
is more "rational?" Don't you realize that "rational" philosophy is
about 2 centuries out of date?

Post by j***@go.com
And why should I believe these alleged promises?

Because otherwise you might as well commit suicide. As Camus said, the
only important question in philosophy is "Is life worth living?"

Post by j***@go.com
So why bother with living? (That's a serious question, but if you
answer it with more Christian platitudes, that will be useless.
Think about it. Wrestle with it.)

Just because something is a platitude, doesn't mean it isn't true. The
question to ask yourself is, how did it become a platitude? Is there
perhaps a kernel of truth in the platitude, that even the person who
just spoke it does not understand? If there was absolutely no truth in
a platitude, then how on earth did it first turn into a platitude?

Believe it or not, what you call a "platitude" is to me the very root
of my hope, my faith, and my love. A platitude is just like a
cliche..... there is some truth in there somewhere.

Post by j***@go.com
I've written before about some of the ugly things Christ did.

Humor me. Give me the short version, if you would.

Post by j***@go.com
This gets into a lot of unconvincing metaphysics and theology.

Unconvincing metaphysics? You mean like the idea that without God, dead
matter sprang to life, became self-aware, and is causing me to type
this and you to read it? Is that the kind of unconvincing metaphysics
you mean?

Post by j***@go.com
Thank you for the encouragement. As to what I did, I'll just repeat
that it would look innocent to an outsider.

Yet you claim you truly discovered your own desperate wickedness? The
mystery grows.

[j***@go.com]

I wonder how this thread (which has wandered far from its
original topic) got split into, I think, 3 separate threads
with the same title. Problems with the moderator's software,
or with Google's?

***@juno.com wrote:
[I wrote:]

Post by j***@go.com
it's a lot more rational to go by what someone does than by
what s/he says, even if that someone is God.

<snip> Who cares what is more "rational?" Don't you realize
that "rational" philosophy is about 2 centuries out of date?

That sounds like what Ayn Rand called "the argument from
intimidation" (see the essay by that title in her collection
_The Virtue of Selfishness_, in which Nathaniel Branden's
essay _Mental Health Versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice_,
a scathing indictment of religion and altruism, also appears
-- check 'em out! You might find them eye-opening). And
anyway, are you saying that you advocate irrationality??

But I'm not talking about philosophy in any exalted sense,
just about ordinary pragmatic living. If someone says one
thing and does another (like a certain "compassionate
conservative"), it does not make sense to believe or trust
that someone, even if that someone is God.

Post by j***@go.com
And why should I believe these alleged promises?

Because otherwise you might as well commit suicide. As Camus said, the
only important question in philosophy is "Is life worth living?"

I've read _The Myth of Sisyphus_. But you didn't answer the
core of my question: On what basis should these "promises"
be considered believable and reliable? Just because they
appear in an ancient book? Does that sound sensible?

Just because something is a platitude, doesn't mean it isn't true. The
question to ask yourself is, how did it become a platitude? Is there
perhaps a kernel of truth in the platitude, that even the person who
just spoke it does not understand? If there was absolutely no truth in
a platitude, then how on earth did it first turn into a platitude?
Believe it or not, what you call a "platitude" is to me the very root
of my hope, my faith, and my love. A platitude is just like a
cliche..... there is some truth in there somewhere.

Trouble is, even if they were believable on an experiential basis
(which I've constantly claimed Christian platitudes are not),
all platitudes age and die. I've recently read Lou Gerstner's book
_Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?_, about the turnaround he
orchestrated in his 9 years as CEO at IBM. IBM had some rules
and platitudes left over from Thomas J. Watson, Sr. (IBM's CEO
from 1914 to 1956 -- yes, 42 years), which may have been excellent
in their time but had mutated into practices that, by the time Gerstner
came aboard in 1993, were killing IBM. In the same way, as I've
written before, the modern church is like the church of Sardis in
Revelation: It thinks it's alive, but it's dead. The platitudes,
as well as many of the practices, are part of that deadness.

Post by j***@go.com
I've written before about some of the ugly things Christ did.

Humor me. Give me the short version, if you would.

1) Cursing the fig tree when he should have known perfectly well
that there wouldn't be figs there in the spring, except maybe a
few stale ones that hadn't been picked or blown off by the wind.

2) The big one: Healing one man at the pool of Bethesda --
and leaving all the rest sick! If you think about it, that's
utterly horrible!

Post by j***@go.com
This gets into a lot of unconvincing metaphysics and theology.

Unconvincing metaphysics? You mean like the idea that without God, dead
matter sprang to life, became self-aware, and is causing me to type
this and you to read it? Is that the kind of unconvincing metaphysics
you mean?

No, I mean like the idea that God cares a rap about us. And this
isn't talk.origins, so let's drop that tangent of yours right now.

All the theology about the exact nature of God and particularly of
Christ, irrespective of whether it's considered orthodox (i.e., the
winners) or heretical (the losers), besides being unconvincing and
unprovable, is also unprofitable. What does it have to do with
enabling and encouraging people to love and grow and be good
human beings?

Yet you claim you truly discovered your own desperate wickedness? The
mystery grows.

Remember that the BIble clearly and repeatedly teaches, and I myself
indicated, that it's a matter of what goes on inside, not the outward
appearance. One can easily discover sin behind a great many
innocent-seeming acts; for all I know, some things in your life might
qualify equally well.

If this horse that we're beating isn't dead, it's certainly on its last
legs.

-- Jeffrey J. Sargent

----

[I don't do anything with either subject or references lines. I just pass
them on. --clh]