[Mb-civic] Self-Agrandizing? Re: To Lyle

[Barbara Siomos]

Personally I think that Lyle and Ian both have a right to speak their
minds as they see fit.... Lyle is NOT trying to win anyone to his side
or point of view merely expressing himself in a debate as he is entitled
to do....

peace,
barbara
>From: "Ian" <ialterman at nyc.rr.com> 
>To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com> 
>Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] Self-Agrandizing? 
>Re: To Lyle    
Al Baraka:
 
Thank you for your wisdom.  Your "dogs and cats" concept does seem
to have hit the nail on the head.  Clearly, Lyle and I are debating at
cross purposes.  It is not simply a matter of neither of us "wooing"
the other to their side; that is clearly not going to happen. 
However, we are also debating from two antithetical positions re the
Judeo-Christian Scriptures (independent of whether or not one
"believes" them).  Herein lies at least part - perhaps a good part -
of why he seems to equate simple "correction" (vis-a-vis what the
Scriptures actually say - again, independent of whether one believes
them or not) with "hammering" (his word).
 
Also, like you, I cannot figure out where he stands: as you note, he
claims to be an atheist, but believes in angels, and also (at least from
what I can tell) supports many of the principles of Jesus'
ministry.  And although he can certainly do so without subscribing
to Jesus' divinity, C.S. Lewis' statement still stands:
 
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would
not be a great moral teacher.  He would either be a lunatic - on a
level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the
Devil of Hell.  You must make your choice.  Either this man was, and
is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse.  You can shut
Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you
can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.  But let us not come
with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. 
He has not left that open to us.  He did not intend to."
 
Lyle subscribes to what many Christians call a "pick and choose"
spirituality.  He has read broadly (as have I), and has chosen which
aspects of which faiths he feels make sense to him (psychologically,
emotionally, spiritually).  At the same time, he has "rejected"
anything in those faiths (especially Christianity) that he feels is
hypocritical, or simply inconsistent.  Out of this he has created a
"personal faith" that he "protects" as "aggressively" as I do mine. 
However, in creating a "pick and choose" spiritual philosophy, he leaves
himself with no "bottom line" or real "foundation" for his faith: it is
simply a mish-mash of things he believes to be true (or untrue) of human
nature and "God" (however he perceives Him).
 
Many of you may see me as misguided for my extremely devout belief
in the Judeo-Christian construct (as I understand that construct;
not as it is practiced by the masses, or taught by the corrupt
leaders).  However, at least there is a "bedrock" upon which I base my
faith, belief, life principles and day-to-day living.  In this
regard, from my perspective, I find it sad that Lyle does not have such
a foundation.  I am not questioning whether his belief system "works"
for him or not; clearly it does.  It is just that, to my mind, the
lack of a specific foundation leads to the sort of moral relativism that
is at least part of the reason why the world is "going to hell in a
handbasket."
 
Again, thank you for your wisdom.  It is refreshing.
 
Peace.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Alexander Harper 
To: mb-civic at islandlists.com 
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] Self-Agrandizing? Re: To Lyle
I am almost - but not quite - speechless over these
exchanges. Intemperate adjectives are being bandied about,
particularly, I fear, by Lyle, who I am sure has every one's best
interests at heart, although what is to be achieved by calling Ian
'mean', for instance, for the moment escapes me. Actually I do not see
how their two viewpoints can easily be reconciled as I am not sure that
they are arguing about the same thing. It is not easy, Lyle, if one is
discussing dogs (for the sake of argument), if you reply with a polemic
about cats. I am not sure either, how you can possibly be an atheist. An
agnostic, maybe, a pantheist, perhaps but not, surely, an atheist. You
certainly seem to have studied a wide and varied range of beliefs and
to have derived some understanding and benefit from many of them and you
seem to be able to see in quite straightforward matters, things, which
are not immediately visible or obvious to less gifted mortals. In that
you have the soul of a poet or a real-estate agent. It occurs to me that
you ought to read about the Albigensian heresy, if you have not already
done so and/or if you have time. Its adherents, the Cathars, had a very
singular view of how to become perfect. I am sure that you would find it
interesting.
I think I will stop here before I start writing in tongues. It seems to
be contagious.
AlBaraka