NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/rec/arts/sf/misc/2283

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-30 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.misc:2283 rec.humor:24880 alt.folklore.urban:20129 alt.religion.kibology:3271 rec.arts.books:13452
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: [e-mail] (sheila)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.humor,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology,rec.arts.books
Subject: Puritans (Re: Agnostics and Athiests)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:45:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.misc
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Lines: 55

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>Which leads to an interesting point.  If you're predestined, then why be
>good.  You're already guaranteed salvation.  If you're not predestined,
>then you have nothing to lose by being bad.  Hmmmm.
>

O, now we can talk books. If you are really interested in this point,
read some books about the puritans, I guess. Matt, my beloved, took
a history class last summer session and kept bringing home horrible
details about puritans (wait, perhaps I have the wrong group).
I think they believed that god at some point would give them a sign
determining their predestiny.
I wish I could refer you to a book. I havn't read up on this topic.
I seem to remember a book called _The Puritan Dilemma_ which Matt
read for history class, but when I asked him if it was interesting
reading, he said to read _The Way of Duty_ instead. I went to class
with him one day, and his history professor is an interesting teacher.

Matt told me a story about a young lady who was so obsessed with her
destiny that she threw her baby into a well, because she felt that
anyone who did such a thing would certainly not be part of the elect.
Her preacher told her that she still didn't truly know.
I think I will study about this one day, (but I want to study too many
things) because it is interesting to think about the effects of thinking
this way.

When I was a christian I would make up interesting interpretations on
predestination. Such fun thrown away now that I am not. No, I bet I
could still have lots of theological interpitational fun.

btw, it is simply ghastly, no awful, no SINFUL, the talk of lying to
oneself. Terribly terrible atrocious and awful to attempt to believe
something that is not part of one's personal integrity and if I
were a diety I would not respect one who did that.

Has no one mentioned the point that one may choose simply not to
care whether or not a (for example) Judeo-Christian MOnothestic
deity exists, and their attitude is, if Judeo-Christian Monothestic
said Deity exists, I don't care and choose not to worship it because
I have no respect for it. I wash my hands of the whole matter. (nice
that, washing ones hands of the whole matter.)
(one of my conclusions is that any such diety as given in my
example is simply insane. I think it would have OCD. IT is also rather
paranoid. no, I must confess, I don't think I can come up with
these conclusions -- well, simply becuase all the descriptions
that I am making these conclusions from are from descriptions based
on human perceptions, therefore I suppose I shoudl say, the describers
are obsessive and paranoid and crazy and have delusions of grandeur.)
(it is also simply too too annoying that people keep insisting upon
creating such anthropomorphic gods. too too ridiculous.)
(I am so annoyed.)
(I am so annoyed that I am using this annoying tone of voice)
--
stark raving sane!   [e-mail]