Is God a Christian?
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
Suzanne Forgach <for...@noao.edu> wrote:
>From article by n-p...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (peal nora c):
>>If christ's was the first blood shed for christianity - what about John
>>the Baptist? Or all the male children of Judea Herod put to death in
>>his search for the christ child? etc. etc. etc.
>
>So shoot me, I mispoke myself. The point is that lots more blood has
>been shed _of_ Christians, than _by_ Christians.
Is God a Christian? If so, then by killing everybody during the Flood[tm],
he, as a Christian, has shed more blood then all the blood _of_ Christians
many times over.
--
=kcoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
="The straights do not need these laws and do not benefit from them." - Rod =
=Canders, on why you should be allowed to discriminate against Gays/Lesbians/*=
fa...@pine.circa.ufl.edu
>In article <1994Jan1.1...@noao.edu>,
>Suzanne Forgach <for...@noao.edu> wrote:
>>
>>So shoot me, I mispoke myself. The point is that lots more blood has
>>been shed _of_ Christians, than _by_ Christians.
>
>Is God a Christian? If so, then by killing everybody during the Flood[tm],
>he, as a Christian, has shed more blood then all the blood _of_ Christians
>many times over.
>--
The issue is not that simple. God then had to deal with a corrupt SYSTEM and
not only individuals (similar in Sodom). A corrupt system will corrupt all
individuals operating within the system for generations to come. In fact,
corruption may get worse for as "smile is contagious", wikedness is also
contagious. God, by being just and wanting to protect the new generations,
he had no choice but to destroy the wicked system. Think about it!
This also explains why Jesus had very harsh words for the Jewish religious
leaders of his time. Of course not all of them were bad and many did good
deeds. But the religious SYSTEM they created became entangled with man-made
rules that controled all aspects of everyday life of ordinary citizens. That is
why Jesus stressed "Love" and not sacrifice.
-- fadi
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
<fa...@pine.circa.ufl.edu> wrote:
>kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>Suzanne Forgach <for...@noao.edu> wrote:
>>>So shoot me, I mispoke myself. The point is that lots more blood has
>>>been shed _of_ Christians, than _by_ Christians.
>>
>>Is God a Christian? If so, then by killing everybody during the Flood[tm],
>>he, as a Christian, has shed more blood then all the blood _of_ Christians
>>many times over.
>
Yes it is.
>God then had to deal with a corrupt SYSTEM and
Who created the SYSTEM? Hint: HIS name starts with a "G".
>not only individuals (similar in Sodom).
God blew Sodom out of the water because the inhabitants were not
friendly to strangers.
>A corrupt system will corrupt all
>individuals operating within the system for generations to come.
Thank you for admitting that your God is corrupt.
>In fact,
>corruption may get worse for as "smile is contagious", wikedness is also
>contagious.
Thank you for admitting that your God is corrupt.
>God, by being just and wanting to protect the new generations,
>he had no choice but to destroy the wicked system.
So, we simple, pathetic, worthless humans can FORCE God into doing things?
When did we get all this power?
>Think about it!
I have. Would you, with your small, puny, worthless human emotions (which
are in the image of God) be able to kill your son because you found out
he was being "wicked"? Yet God, who is FULL OF ETERNAL LOVE FOR ALL
THINGS AND ALL PEOPLE, has no qualms about sqashing HIS CHILDREN into
the dirt for such things as making fun of a bald man's head.
>This also explains why Jesus had very harsh words for the Jewish religious
>leaders of his time. Of course not all of them were bad and many did good
>deeds. But the religious SYSTEM they created became entangled with man-made
>rules that controled all aspects of everyday life of ordinary citizens. That is
>why Jesus stressed "Love" and not sacrifice.
Perhaps your God needed to listen a bit more to Jesus. Maybe then he wouldn't
have strung the poor man up on a cross.
Andrew Ellam
> In article <1994Jan1.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
> kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>> In article <1994Jan1.1...@noao.edu>,
>> Suzanne Forgach <for...@noao.edu> wrote:
>>> So shoot me, I mispoke myself. The point is that lots more blood has
>>> been shed _of_ Christians, than _by_ Christians.
>> Is God a Christian? If so, then by killing everybody during the
>> Flood[tm], he, as a Christian, has shed more blood then all the blood
>> _of_ Christians many times over.
> The issue is not that simple. God then had to deal with a corrupt SYSTEM
> and not only individuals (similar in Sodom). A corrupt system will
> corrupt all individuals operating within the system for generations to
> come. In fact, corruption may get worse for as "smile is contagious",
> wikedness is also contagious.
> God, by being just and wanting to protect the new generations,
> he had no choice but to destroy the wicked system. Think about it!
[snip]
Hang on... god had *no choice* here? Surely god, by definition, can do
anything he likes? How can he be stuck in a position where he has no
choice?
Andy.
Jon Livesey
|>
|> The issue is not that simple. God then had to deal with a corrupt SYSTEM and
|> not only individuals (similar in Sodom). A corrupt system will corrupt all
|> individuals operating within the system for generations to come. In fact,
|> corruption may get worse for as "smile is contagious", wikedness is also
|> contagious. God, by being just and wanting to protect the new generations,
|> he had no choice but to destroy the wicked system. Think about it!
I am thinking about it, and the first thought that comes to mind is
that an omnipotent God never has "no choice". If he can destroy a
whole system, he can reform a whole system.
The second thought that springs to mind isn't very flattering to
you, so maybe I'd better keep it to myself.
jon.
James R. McGowan
>In article <1994Jan1.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1994Jan1.1...@noao.edu>,
>>Suzanne Forgach <for...@noao.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>So shoot me, I mispoke myself. The point is that lots more blood has
>>>been shed _of_ Christians, than _by_ Christians.
>>
>>Is God a Christian? If so, then by killing everybody during the Flood[tm],
>>he, as a Christian, has shed more blood then all the blood _of_ Christians
>>many times over.
>>--
>The issue is not that simple. God then had to deal with a corrupt SYSTEM and
>not only individuals (similar in Sodom). A corrupt system will corrupt all
>individuals operating within the system for generations to come. In fact,
>corruption may get worse for as "smile is contagious", wikedness is also
>contagious. God, by being just and wanting to protect the new generations,
>he had no choice but to destroy the wicked system. Think about it!
You're an idiot. So ALL Americans are at fault for the Vietnam War,
including those who protested, got arrested, laid down on railroad
tracks to stop trains, and blew up various things to stop it?
Take all your money, go buy a brain, and come back AFTER it's installed.
If you have evidence (other than the bible) that everyone (other than
Noah and family) were guilty of something deserving death, present it.
Apparently you need some lessons it how this newsgroup works. Making
blanket stupid statements simply gathers flames. Think and
research or don't post.
>-- fadi
fa...@pine.circa.ufl.edu
>fa...@pine.circa.ufl.edu writes:
>
>>In article <1994Jan1.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>In article <1994Jan1.1...@noao.edu>,
>>>Suzanne Forgach <for...@noao.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>So shoot me, I mispoke myself. The point is that lots more blood has
>>>>been shed _of_ Christians, than _by_ Christians.
>>>
>>>Is God a Christian? If so, then by killing everybody during the Flood[tm],
>>>he, as a Christian, has shed more blood then all the blood _of_ Christians
>>>many times over.
>>>--
>
>>The issue is not that simple. God then had to deal with a corrupt SYSTEM and
>>not only individuals (similar in Sodom). A corrupt system will corrupt all
>>individuals operating within the system for generations to come. In fact,
>>corruption may get worse for as "smile is contagious", wikedness is also
>>contagious. God, by being just and wanting to protect the new generations,
>>he had no choice but to destroy the wicked system. Think about it!
>
>You're an idiot. So ALL Americans are at fault for the Vietnam War,
>
>
You only deserve to be ignored for you are behaving like a jerk.
I'll be ignoring all your posts beginning now.
Bon debarras
--fadi
Keith K Wong
(referring to James McGowan)
: The only IDIOT on the net is YOU. I made a mistake answering your comments.
Heh heh, I can just imagine Fadi sitting at his terminal, red faced,
pounding away at the keyboard.
FYI Fadi, you forgot to refute James' points. Please do so or admit that
you were wrong.
--
o_o o_o O_o o_O O_O O_O @_@
( - ) ( o ) ( o ) ( o ) ( o ) ( O ) ( O )
( | | ) ( | | ) ( | | ) ( | | ) ( | | ) ( | | ) ( | | )
KEITH KUM-TUCK WONG, Medicine 4, University of Western Australia.
"Scriptures: The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished
from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are
based." [Ambrose Bierce]
Dave Batchelor, Space Phys. Data Facil. 301/286-2988
>In article <1994Jan1.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1994Jan1.1...@noao.edu>,
>>Suzanne Forgach <for...@noao.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>So shoot me, I mispoke myself. The point is that lots more blood has
>>>been shed _of_ Christians, than _by_ Christians.
>>
>>Is God a Christian? If so, then by killing everybody during the Flood[tm],
>>he, as a Christian, has shed more blood then all the blood _of_ Christians
>>many times over.
>>--
>
>The issue is not that simple. God then had to deal with a corrupt SYSTEM and
>not only individuals (similar in Sodom). A corrupt system will corrupt all
>individuals operating within the system for generations to come. In fact,
>corruption may get worse for as "smile is contagious", wikedness is also
>contagious. God, by being just and wanting to protect the new generations,
>he had no choice but to destroy the wicked system. Think about it!
>
Exodus story, God manipulated the psyches of individuals repeatedly when it
suited his purpose. I am thinking of God's "hardening the heart" of Egypt's
pharoah whenever he considered releasing the Israelites from slavery. This
is specifically explained as ensuring that the pharoah prolonged Israel's
bondage so that the miracles of the Exodus would impress the Jews and the
world. In fact, God could have adjusted individual minds to "cleanse" any
corrupt system such as you describe. God could have just "hardened the
hearts" of any person against whatever sins the persons were committing.
No need for any floods, if you're a really omnipotent deity!
>This also explains why Jesus had very harsh words for the Jewish religious
>leaders of his time. Of course not all of them were bad and many did good
>deeds. But the religious SYSTEM they created became entangled with man-made
>rules that controled all aspects of everyday life of ordinary citizens. That is
>why Jesus stressed "Love" and not sacrifice.
>
>-- fadi
>
It's a weak Jesus you imagine, who couldn't obtain his father's previously
demonstrated psychomanipulation and bring down such a system.
Regards,
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David Batchelor Space Science Data Operations Office Mail Code 632
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD 20771 USA
batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov * personal opinions only, not NASA policy *
Theorem: Consider the set of all sets that have never been considered.
Hey! They're all gone!! Oh, well, never mind...
Enigma
> The only IDIOT on the net is YOU.
Haven't been on the net very long, have you? :-)
--
/==================================================================\
| Holly McGrath | "We're lost, but we're |
| <eni...@netcom.com> | making good time..." |
\==================================================================/
Jon Livesey
|> In article <jmcgowanC...@netcom.com>, jmcg...@netcom.com (James R. McGowan) writes:
>
> > You're an idiot. So ALL Americans are at fault for the Vietnam War,
>
> The only IDIOT on the net is YOU.
Um, not so fast. I think he's pointing out that guilt by association
is a pretty bad argument. All Americans are not at fault for the
VietNam War.
What you did, when asserting that God had "no choice" except to destroy
entire societies was to attempt to construct an explicit argument in
favour of guilt by association, by insisting that a corrupt system makes
individuals corrupt "for generations to come". That's not a valid
argument: it's just a way of rationalising the killing of individuals
who had no responsibility for the system.
jon.
fa...@pine.circa.ufl.edu
This is incorrect. My argument is not guilt by association nor political
corruption only. In the case of the flood and Sodom (as related in the
bible--whether these stories are literal or not I don't know) the system was
corrupted both MORALLY and politically. Today, if a regime resort to human
sacrifice or canibalism; it will be quikly stopped by an outraged world
community. Unfortunately, in the old days this was not possible. As flames
on the net beget flames; also unstopped wickedness beget more wickedness.
Consider the case of the roman empire, built on a solid structure of greek
philosophy (such as Socrates' just city and Plato's Republic -- both based
on virtue and "thymos"). In a civilized empire or nation, citizens value a
cultural and "spiritual" life over human's primal instincts (what oriental
religions refer to as ascending to higher Shakras). When Roman citizens
began to be exposed to vilence in the arenas, "civilized" Romans demanded
more and more violence, resulting in barbaric slauters of innocents. And
when parents take their young children to the arena, they begin corrupting
the new generation and the system's moral fabric. More violence will always
be expected to entertain the spectators, once they get used to previous
levels. At a certain point (if the Roman Empire did not fall), the moral
and political system can no longer be reformed. According to the bible,
this advanced form of corruption happened in few cases and God had to
interfere to protect the innocents and the future generations. This has
nothing to do with Vietnam!
--fadi
Jon Livesey
|>
|> This is incorrect. My argument is not guilt by association nor political
|> corruption only. In the case of the flood and Sodom (as related in the
|> bible--whether these stories are literal or not I don't know) the system was
|> corrupted both MORALLY and politically. Today, if a regime resort to human
|> sacrifice or canibalism; it will be quikly stopped by an outraged world
|> community. Unfortunately, in the old days this was not possible. As flames
|> on the net beget flames; also unstopped wickedness beget more wickedness.
You have done absolutely nothing to show that an omnipotent God
was unable to reform these societies and that he had "no choice"
except to destroy them.
jon.
James R. McGowan
>The only IDIOT on the net is YOU. I made a mistake answering your comments.
>You only deserve to be ignored for you are behaving like a jerk.
>I'll be ignoring all your posts beginning now.
>Bon debarras
>--fadi
Thank you. I'm sure it will improve the net SNR.
James R. McGowan
>--fadi
Look, Fadi, you got the attributions wrong. That's Jon Livesey accusing
you of using guilt by association, not me. I'm the one who accused you
of being an idiot for doing it. 'Course, if you meant that other post, you'll
never read this. Your loss. I'd like to suggest that you spend some
more reading the group before posting and also read the groups FAQs,
particularly the logic FAQ. I think the standards of evidence and logic
expected in this group are higher than what you are used to.
BTW, if your statements above are generalizations true of our species,
there should be no xian Fundamentalists left in the United States. Our
TV and movies should have made them extinct decades ago. Instead, we
seem to have more than ever. There were far fewer of the in the 1950's
when TV and the movies had much less violence and sex.
James R. McGowan
>Consider the case of the roman empire, built on a solid structure of greek
>philosophy (such as Socrates' just city and Plato's Republic -- both based
>on virtue and "thymos"). In a civilized empire or nation, citizens value a
>cultural and "spiritual" life over human's primal instincts (what oriental
>religions refer to as ascending to higher Shakras). When Roman citizens
>began to be exposed to vilence in the arenas, "civilized" Romans demanded
>more and more violence, resulting in barbaric slauters of innocents. And
>when parents take their young children to the arena, they begin corrupting
>the new generation and the system's moral fabric. More violence will always
>be expected to entertain the spectators, once they get used to previous
>levels. At a certain point (if the Roman Empire did not fall), the moral
>and political system can no longer be reformed. According to the bible,
>this advanced form of corruption happened in few cases and God had to
>interfere to protect the innocents and the future generations. This has
>nothing to do with Vietnam!
>--fadi
Just thought of something. If your argument is right, then how DID things
ever get straightened out after the Roman Empire? I don't remember anyuthing
about your gODD coming in and killing all the Romans?
BTW, if you think the ancient Greeks were paragons of virtue and morality,
I'd like to suggest that your understanding of ancient history and culture
could stand improvment.
Another BTW: A quick way out of a mistake in this group is just to admit
it and move on. We've all made them (including myself) and will again.
Erik van Linstee
: This is incorrect. My argument is not guilt by association nor political
: corruption only. In the case of the flood and Sodom (as related in the
: bible--whether these stories are literal or not I don't know) the system was
: corrupted both MORALLY and politically. Today, if a regime resort to human
Then evry single person in that system was evil? Would it still be
justifiable if only one wasn't? Isn't there a tale somewhere in the
bible where this situation occurs (I think in one of Jesus' stories)
and where the answer would be to save everyone on account of the one?
Your point would make me suggest to start bombing former jougouslavia,
because that is an example of a modern day corrupt system, both
morally and politically.
--
ir. E. van Linstee | Delft University of Technology
Man Machine Consultancy | I'll be back ...
----
We are god, 'cause only we can create the idea of his existence
in our holy brains... (Yello)
----
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the war-room! (P.Sellers)
Dave Batchelor, Space Phys. Data Facil. 301/286-2988
>In article <2g7v6h$h...@tokyo.engr.sgi.com>, liv...@solntze.engr.sgi.com
(Jon Livesey) writes:
>>
>>What you did, when asserting that God had "no choice" except to destroy
>>entire societies was to attempt to construct an explicit argument in
>>favour of guilt by association, by insisting that a corrupt system makes
>>individuals corrupt "for generations to come". That's not a valid
>>argument: it's just a way of rationalising the killing of individuals
>>who had no responsibility for the system.
>>
>>jon.
>
>This is incorrect. My argument is not guilt by association nor political
>corruption only. In the case of the flood and Sodom (as related in the
>bible--whether these stories are literal or not I don't know) the system was
>corrupted both MORALLY and politically. Today, if a regime resort to human
>sacrifice or canibalism; it will be quikly stopped by an outraged world
>community. Unfortunately, in the old days this was not possible. As flames
>on the net beget flames; also unstopped wickedness beget more wickedness.
>
Oh, things almost this bad go on in Bosnia, but it hasn't been "quickly
stopped by an outraged world."
>Consider the case of the roman empire, built on a solid structure of greek
>philosophy (such as Socrates' just city and Plato's Republic -- both based
>on virtue and "thymos").
You exaggerate the adherence of Romans to Greek principles! A lot of
munging went on in the adoption of a few Greek motifs by Romans.
>In a civilized empire or nation, citizens value a
>cultural and "spiritual" life over human's primal instincts (what oriental
>religions refer to as ascending to higher Shakras). When Roman citizens
>began to be exposed to vilence in the arenas, "civilized" Romans demanded
>more and more violence, resulting in barbaric slauters of innocents. And
>when parents take their young children to the arena, they begin corrupting
>the new generation and the system's moral fabric. More violence will always
>be expected to entertain the spectators, once they get used to previous
>levels.
Surely you don't mean that it requires divine intervention to stop every
excalation of violence! Human folks have a history of making peace after
some pretty terrible wars, just this century.
> At a certain point (if the Roman Empire did not fall), the moral
>and political system can no longer be reformed. According to the bible,
>this advanced form of corruption happened in few cases and God had to
>interfere to protect the innocents and the future generations. This has
>nothing to do with Vietnam!
>
>--fadi
European history doesn't support what you say. Even the corruption of
Italy is being attacked by reformist voters and politicians. I suspect
that there is an endless well-spring of reform, a normal human
behavioral response.
Robertc. Moldenhauer
>In article <2g64j4...@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>, fa...@pine.circa.ufl.edu writes (referring to jmcg...@netcom.com):
>
>> The only IDIOT on the net is YOU.
>
>Haven't been on the net very long, have you? :-)
>
>
Did anyone catch Ankerberg last nite? He was talking about rebuilding the
Temple. He said that the whole controversy over where the Temple was located
was PROVEN by the existance of some guy's PhD dissertation and that now Jews
could rebuild the Temple with the Holy of Holies right smack over the rock
within the Dome of the Rock...
Daniel Segard
> He was talking about rebuilding the Temple. He said that the
> whole controversy over where the Temple was located was PROVEN
> by the existance of some guy's PhD dissertation and that now
> Jews could rebuild the Temple with the Holy of Holies right
> smack over the rock within the Dome of the Rock...
I was sort of hoping for a SCUD to "accidently" fall there a few years
ago....
However, I understand that the Holy of Holies was actually located in
what is currently an empty space on the Mount. This was apparently
"proven" because Talmud indicates that if the doors of the Temple were
open you could see directly to where the Holy Place was by siting through
the city gate, through the Temple doors from the Mount of Olives. Doing
that today does not leave you looking at the Dome of the Rock.
In other Temple news the New Temple Builders Association of Tel Aviv,
signed a $9 million dollar contract to purchase the Climax gold mine in
Victor Colorado.
Robertc. Moldenhauer
>
> However, I understand that the Holy of Holies was actually located in
>what is currently an empty space on the Mount. This was apparently
>"proven" because Talmud indicates that if the doors of the Temple were
>open you could see directly to where the Holy Place was by siting through
>the city gate, through the Temple doors from the Mount of Olives. Doing
>that today does not leave you looking at the Dome of the Rock.
That's what I thought too. Last time I was in the Big J, I stood on top of
of the eastern gate trying to line things up. As far as I can tell the eastern
gate faces directly into the "Dome of the Winds", well outside the Dome of
the Rock, a rather nice size temple could fit next to the Dome of the Rock,
of course with all those sacrifices going on it's likely to bring down the
property values considerably.
How does a High Priest get chosen? Is there someone in Jerusalem that claims
to be the high priest?
What about the Ark of the Covenant? Since the Temple was built to hold the
Ark isn't it sort of worthless to build a Temple with out an Ark?
> In other Temple news the New Temple Builders Association of Tel Aviv,
>signed a $9 million dollar contract to purchase the Climax gold mine in
>Victor Colorado.
>
>
So let's here more about the organization!
Daniel Segard
rcmo...@parmesan.cs.wisc.edu (Robertc. Moldenhauer) writes:
> That's what I thought too. Last time I was in the Big J,
> I stood on top of of the eastern gate trying to line
> things up. As far as I can tell the eastern gate faces
> directly into the "Dome of the Winds", well outside the
> Dome of the Rock, a rather nice size temple could fit
> next to the Dome of the Rock,
> of course with all those sacrifices going on it's likely to
> bring down the property values considerably.
sacrifice is so, ummm, "politically incorrect" these days. The Orthodox
minority may go for it, but the rest of Judaism...... Somehow I suspect
the response will be less than favorable.
> How does a High Priest get chosen?
Priesthood. They are already being taught what is needed in Jerusalem.
Of course there is the small matter of needing the ashes of a red heifer
in order to be ordained into that office, but I hear Vendyl Jones is
working on that.
> Is there someone in Jerusalem that claims
> to be the high priest?
> What about the Ark of the Covenant? Since the Temple was
> built to hold the Ark isn't it sort of worthless to build a
> Temple with out an Ark?
centuries. (Depending on whether the stories of the son of King Solomon
and the Queen of Sheeba spiriting the Ark off to Ethiopia are true or
not.)
>> In other Temple news the New Temple Builders Association of Tel
>> Aviv, signed a $9 million dollar contract to purchase the
>> Climax gold mine in Victor Colorado.
>
> So let's here more about the organization!
they are a group of both Christians and Jews. The $9 million contract is
in the form of no-interest bonds payable Jan 1, 2001 (7 years). The radio
reports here were so vague as to almost make it sound like they were
planing to build the Temple on site in Victor. But I would tend to
suspect it deals more with shipping gold from the mine to Jerusalem. We
shall see.
Tony Kimball
: I am thinking about it, and the first thought that comes to mind is
: that an omnipotent God never has "no choice". If he can destroy a
: whole system, he can reform a whole system.
The notion of omnipotence is incoherent, taken naively. Recall the canard,
"Can God make a stone so big that be can't lift it?".
Still, I suspect you are right: I know of no coherent task
that God cannot accomplish.
The classical resort would be to an exoteric Leibnizian theodicy,
"best of all *possible* worlds", but I find that disingenuous myself,
no less than did Voltaire.
Instead I prefer to observe that judgment of good or evil requires
an analysis of motivation, and unless you feel competent to psychoanalyze
God, I suggest it would be odd then to think that you could competently
judge the good or evil of a divine action, assuming you could define
the notion and discern it in reality, as opposed to an action performed
by some other agent (probably not a good assumption either...).
If you do believe yourself competent to psychoanalyze God, I think
you have disqualified yourself from rational discourse :-)
-- Anthony L Kimball -- a...@think.com, a...@msc.edu, {uunet,harvard}!think!alk
"Claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence is not ground
for federal habeas relief." - US Supreme Court, Jan 1993, deciding on the
case of an inmate sentenced to death, who was then executed, May 1993.
Tony Kimball
: What you did, when asserting that God had "no choice" except to destroy
: entire societies was to attempt to construct an explicit argument in
: favour of guilt by association, by insisting that a corrupt system makes
: individuals corrupt "for generations to come". That's not a valid
: argument: it's just a way of rationalising the killing of individuals
: who had no responsibility for the system.
I think this makes unwarranted assumptions. I suspect that the original
poster was not referring to a judgement of corruption being the result of
contamination by association, but of a metaphysical corruption, which
propagated in a very substantial sense through the system, motivating
evil which is then judged not by its associations but by its character.
I don't *think* the poster was providing the fallacious argument you
describe.
fa...@pine.circa.ufl.edu
>In article <2g84nh...@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>, fa...@pine.circa.ufl.edu
> writes...
>>In article <2g7v6h$h...@tokyo.engr.sgi.com>, liv...@solntze.engr.sgi.com
> (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>>
>>>What you did, when asserting that God had "no choice" except to destroy
>>>entire societies was to attempt to construct an explicit argument in
>>>favour of guilt by association, by insisting that a corrupt system makes
>>>individuals corrupt "for generations to come". That's not a valid
>>>argument: it's just a way of rationalising the killing of individuals
>>>who had no responsibility for the system
Dave, I gave the example of Roman's arenas because we are familiar with
the violence that took place in those stadiums from movies and documentaries.
The Roman Empire did not get corrupted beyond reformation neither did any
country in Europe (God did not intervene to punish any European nation or
people.) Not all Romans enjoyed watching humans eaten by wild animals!
It is difficult for us to imagine the violence and moral corruption of
ancient times. For instance, it is now well documented that the Assyrians
used to cut the heads of prisoners and hang them on trees. Their favorite
sport seemed to be speer and bow hunting of "prisoners" in a closed field.
These events are illustrated in painting on temple walls that can be found
in several musuems.
Furthermore, the times of Noah and Sodom and Gomora and much earlier than
the Assyrians. We can reasonably assume that the violence and moral decay
would have been even worse then. Historian talk about widespread practices
of human sacrifice and "sacred" prostitution which can only reflect of
the inhabitants' moral referencers.
From the bible account, this advanced form of corruption happened only
couple of times in Ancient times. It is hard for us to comprehend it
or rationalize it (we cannot even comprehend the Holocaust or the hatred
and atrocities in Bosnia.) We often make the mistake of looking at
historical events with modern eyes and values, or judging God's actions
with human's relative set of values.
--fadi
Mark McCullough
Tony Kimball <a...@strident.think.com> wrote:
>Jon Livesey (liv...@solntze.engr.sgi.com) wrote:
>
>: I am thinking about it, and the first thought that comes to mind is
>: that an omnipotent God never has "no choice". If he can destroy a
>: whole system, he can reform a whole system.
>
>The notion of omnipotence is incoherent, taken naively. Recall the canard,
>"Can God make a stone so big that be can't lift it?".
The entire problem with the idea of omnipotence is that key word
that _anything_ can be done. Is that anything imagninable, or anything
that anything we have observed can do or what?
Just to play xtian rationalizer for a post <gasp!>:
Definition proposal of omnipotence: A being is omnipotent if it
can do any and all things that any finite being can do (positive
qualities only, like it can lift x tons and so on).
This easily gets around the logical paradox of omnipotence.
You could also have varying degrees of omnipotence, such as
the entry level (only able to do all things that all finite beings
can do), and greater levels (such as maybe controlling weather, etc.)
Reading the story of Sodom, it almost seems that the judeo-xtian
deity didn't know exactly when the destructive force would destroy
the city, only that it would be destroyed. Today we easily have
ways to accurately destroy a city (one Megaton warhead will flatten
almost any city), and can time it precisely. But at that time,
nuclear power was not something any finite being on earth could do,
so that was possibly outside the reach of an omnipotent being.
Note the above is only an example, don't flame me for lack of
understanding of that story, or misreading it.
Another possibly degree of omnipotence would be some being capable
of doing something that no finite being could do. (I got the idea
from the concept of many levels of infinity).
Feel free to pick this apart, but it is a possible definition that
IMNSHO gets around the problem nicely by defining omnipotence in a
way that still embraces the concept of all powerful, but avoids
logical paradox. A similar concept can be used for allknowing.
--
Mark McCullough Real programmers don't document. If it was hard
ad...@yar.cs.wisc.edu hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
Robertc. Moldenhauer
> > How does a High Priest get chosen?
>
> He will be choosen from amoung those in training for the Temple
>Priesthood. They are already being taught what is needed in Jerusalem.
>Of course there is the small matter of needing the ashes of a red heifer
>in order to be ordained into that office, but I hear Vendyl Jones is
>working on that.
>
Who can train a priest? If there are no ordained priests how can more
priests be trained.
> The Temple has been without the Ark before. Possibly even for
>centuries. (Depending on whether the stories of the son of King Solomon
>and the Queen of Sheeba spiriting the Ark off to Ethiopia are true or
>not.)
>
The Queen of Sheba (Saba) was from Saba, what is today Yemen, not Ethiopia.
>
Jon Livesey
>
> The Roman Empire did not get corrupted beyond reformation neither did any
> country in Europe (God did not intervene to punish any European nation or
> people.)
You still havn't told us what "corrupted beyond reformation" means.
I hope it's not going to be "If God destroyed them they were corrupted
beyond reformation, otherwise not."
jon.
Jon Livesey
|> Jon Livesey (liv...@solntze.engr.sgi.com) wrote:
|> : What you did, when asserting that God had "no choice" except to destroy
|> : entire societies was to attempt to construct an explicit argument in
|> : favour of guilt by association, by insisting that a corrupt system makes
|> : individuals corrupt "for generations to come". That's not a valid
|> : argument: it's just a way of rationalising the killing of individuals
|> : who had no responsibility for the system.
|>
|> I think this makes unwarranted assumptions. I suspect that the original
|> poster was not referring to a judgement of corruption being the result of
|> contamination by association, but of a metaphysical corruption, which
|> propagated in a very substantial sense through the system, motivating
|> evil which is then judged not by its associations but by its character.
|> I don't *think* the poster was providing the fallacious argument you
|> describe.
Instead of you and me discussing what you think someone else
thinks, why don't we just let him answer for himself?
jon.
Jon Livesey
|> Jon Livesey (liv...@solntze.engr.sgi.com) wrote:
|>
|> : I am thinking about it, and the first thought that comes to mind is
|> : that an omnipotent God never has "no choice". If he can destroy a
|> : whole system, he can reform a whole system.
|>
|> The notion of omnipotence is incoherent, taken naively. Recall the canard,
|> "Can God make a stone so big that be can't lift it?".
|>
|> Still, I suspect you are right: I know of no coherent task
|> that God cannot accomplish.
I think you had better suspect that I am right, since there
is an obvious example of God reforming a system instead of
destroying it, right there in the Bible.
jon.
Kent Sandvik
> Furthermore, the times of Noah and Sodom and Gomora and much earlier than
> the Assyrians. We can reasonably assume that the violence and moral decay
> would have been even worse then. Historian talk about widespread practices
> of human sacrifice and "sacred" prostitution which can only reflect of
> the inhabitants' moral referencers.
With the exception of the biblical tale there's no historical records
showing that those cities were worse or better than any other
ancient city of that time.
It still does not justify the murdering of innocent babies.
--Kent
--
Kent Sandvik
san...@apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
"The world is made of facts, not things"
Daniel Segard
> Who can train a priest? If there are no ordained prists
> how can more priests be trained.
There are strict rules within Judaism on who they can marry, and what they
can do -- even with there being no Temple. Secondly when the Temple was
destroyed many felt that the traditions were in danger of getting lost so
they started writting them down. From this we get Talmud and other works,
these are the textbooks which the Temple Institute is using to train the
priests in Temple duties.
> The Queen of Sheba (Saba) was from Saba, what is today Ymen, not
Ethiopia.
And how far did her empire go? Secondly, you might check what the
"Falashia" (as they are commonly known; actually this is an insulting term
meaning "unwanted stranger") say about how they got to Ethiopia. For that
matter check the Ethiopian national legends about King Solomon. If you
check out your local Ethiopian resterant they quite possibly will have a
wall hanging laying out the legend of the Ark being taken to Ethiopia.
Daniel Segard
san...@apple.com writes:
> With the exception of the biblical tale there's no historical
> records showing that those cities were worse or better than
> any other ancient city of that time.
HAYASHAR does record quite alot of wickedness going on in that city. They
would often kill visitors to their city, or at least steal their goods.
They supposedly had a bed set up in the town square which they measured
visitors with. If the visitors were too long, they were cut to fit, if
they were too short they were stretched. Possibly this is where the Greek
legend of the Procrustian (sp?) Petard came from?
But yes, there are works outside the Bible which refer to the
wickedness of Sodom.
Kent Sandvik
dse...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) wrote:
>
> san...@apple.com writes:
> > With the exception of the biblical tale there's no historical
> > records showing that those cities were worse or better than
> > any other ancient city of that time.
>
> I wouldn't go quite that far in terms of Sodom. The ancient SAFAR
> HAYASHAR does record quite alot of wickedness going on in that city. They
> would often kill visitors to their city, or at least steal their goods.
Sounds like New York to me, or San Francisco, or any city that is bigger
than let's say 100k people.
> They supposedly had a bed set up in the town square which they measured
> visitors with. If the visitors were too long, they were cut to fit, if
> they were too short they were stretched. Possibly this is where the Greek
> legend of the Procrustian (sp?) Petard came from?
> But yes, there are works outside the Bible which refer to the
> wickedness of Sodom.
Same with most cities in US, then again, I'm sure many from New York
would say that the rumors were exaggerated. I would not believe
blindly in the tales of the cities written by ancient authors.
Daniel Segard
san...@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> I wouldn't go quite that far in terms of Sodom. The
>> ancient SAFAR HAYASHAR does record quite alot of
>> wickedness going on in that city. They would often kill
>> visitors to their city, or at least steal their goods.
>
> Sounds like New York to me, or San Francisco, or any
> city that is bigger than let's say 100k people.
with the full consent of the city government, just as a matter of practice.
Bruce Silver
It was written that:
: > The issue is not that simple. God then had to deal with a corrupt SYSTEM
: > and not only individuals (similar in Sodom). A corrupt system will
: > corrupt all individuals operating within the system for generations to
: > come. In fact, corruption may get worse for as "smile is contagious",
: > wikedness is also contagious.
: > God, by being just and wanting to protect the new generations,
: > he had no choice but to destroy the wicked system. Think about it!
: [snip]
: Hang on... god had *no choice* here? Surely god, by definition, can do
: anything he likes? How can he be stuck in a position where he has no
: choice?
: Andy.
Why couldn't it be that God can only do what is best for humanity?
If it is in God's nature only to do good then maybe he/she is locked
into doing what is best for the creation whixh he loves.
Bruce
iW
Kent Sandvik
dse...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Daniel Segard) wrote:
> Perhaps, though in the case of Sodom, this was said to have been done
> with the full consent of the city government, just as a matter of practice.
So, what about a whole nation, such as Idi Amin's Udanda, allowed
cannibalism. Or Stalin's Russia, allowed millions of peasants to
die. Or Nazi Germany, where the population didn't mind about
11 million people killed. Sodom and Gomorra are nothing compared
with modern time crimes towards mankind. And interesting enough
this time God didn't exactly react, even if millions of people
were slaughtered during WW2.
Derek Brouwer
>
>Bruce
Sorry, I wouldn't sell God short by limiting what God can and can't
do. I believe that God maintains the order of creation (everything)
and, therefore, tends not to intervene outside of what is "possible".
If God were to simply suspend the laws of creation (that God set
down, eh?) to fix the situation every time we fucked things up, the
result would be chaos or at least very confusing. I'm of the
opinion that God uses nature and humans (same thing, I think) to
perform the deeds.
Peace,
Derek
********************************************************************
** Derek Brouwer dbro...@advtech.uswest.com **
** --- Standard Disclaimer --- **
** **
** Cogito Ergo Spud "I think, therefore I yam." **
********************************************************************
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
Derek Brouwer <dbro...@advtech.uswest.com> wrote:
>In article <brsCJ8...@netcom.com> b...@netcom.com (Bruce Silver) writes:
>>Why couldn't it be that God can only do what is best for humanity?
>>If it is in God's nature only to do good then maybe he/she is locked
>>into doing what is best for the creation whi[c]h he loves.
>
>do. I believe that God maintains the order of creation (everything)
>and, therefore, tends not to intervene outside of what is "possible".
>If God were to simply suspend the laws of creation (that God set
>down, eh?) to fix the situation every time we fucked things up, the
>result would be chaos or at least very confusing. I'm of the
>opinion that God uses nature and humans (same thing, I think) to
>perform the deeds.
Let's see. Pillars of smoke and fire, parting seas, making the earth
stand still.
Yep. Sure does look like God *never* violates the laws of nature.
--
=kcoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
="The straights do not need these laws and do not benefit from them." - Rod =
=Canders, on why you should be allowed to discriminate against Gays/Lesbians/*=
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
>: Hang on... god had *no choice* here? Surely god, by definition, can do
>: anything he likes? How can he be stuck in a position where he has no
>: choice?
>
>If it is in God's nature only to do good then maybe he/she is locked
>into doing what is best for the creation whixh he loves.
I'll be expecting the miraculous eradication of muscular distrophy.
Jon Livesey
|> In article <brsCJ8...@netcom.com>, Bruce Silver <b...@netcom.com> wrote:
|> >
|> >Why couldn't it be that God can only do what is best for humanity?
|> >If it is in God's nature only to do good then maybe he/she is locked
|> >into doing what is best for the creation whixh he loves.
|>
|> I'll be expecting the miraculous eradication of muscular distrophy.
I was wondering about this in relation to the claims from Ed Peace
that Christians have personal experiences of God, and I found myself
asking, if God operates inside people's heads, what's the simplest
and most obvious benefit that he could bring to the person with whom
he is communicating.
And the answer, it seemed to me, was that he could increase their IQs.
jon.
Corine Y Takiguchi
>>: Hang on... god had *no choice* here? Surely god, by definition, can do
>>: anything he likes? How can he be stuck in a position where he has no
>>: choice?
I've only recently picked up this newsgroup, so I don't know what the
original point was. Could someone summarize?
It seems to be a discussion on God's omnipotence/choice/etc. I used to
think that God could do everything, but I don't believe that anymore. God
is limited by His own character. For example, we know (from what He
has written in His Word) that God is love, that God is perfect (i.e.
without sin), that God is just, etc. Therefore, He cannot do anything
UNloving, sinFUL, or UNjust...or He would no longer be God.
There's a story that illustrates this point more clearly:
There once was a judge who was regarded by all to be a righteous,
just judge -- one who upheld and discerned the law rightly.
One day, a boy was brought into his courtroom. This boy had received a
speeding ticket. Now, according to the law of the land, anyone
guilty of speeding would have to pay a $200 fine, or be sent to jail
for 10 years.
Well, the judge was supposed to pass judgement over this boy...but
there was a problem: the boy was his own son. Because he loved
his son, he did not want his son to have to pay the penalty
(especially since he knew his son did NOT have $200, and would have
to go to jail). Yet, if he simply dismissed the case, he would no
longer be a just judge.
After pondering the matter -- how to satisfy the requirements of love
and justice -- he came upon the solution. As the just judge, he
passed the rightful sentence: "You are guilty, and are fined $200
according to the law". But after saying this, he stepped off the
bench, took off his mantle, and -- as the loving father -- put the
necessary $200 in the hand of his son, so he could pay the fine.
This is the same dilemma God had w/each of us. All of us, in one way or
another, are in the wrong with God. (Romans 3:23) And the wages of sin
(what we earn as a result of our sin) is spiritual death -- Romans 6:23 --
spiritual separation from God, otherwise known as hell. God didn't want
us to face this punishment (His love), but we had earned it (His justice).
So He DID assign this "death penalty"...but came to earth in the form of
Jesus, and took it on Himself, for all who believe.
This is why Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one
comes to the Father, but through Me" -- John 14:6.
We can receive this "way out" that God has provided through Himself, or
continue to do things our own way. In the end, though, we will all stand
before the Judge's seat, and the death penalty will need to be paid for
each person. For those who have received Christ, the penalty has already
been paid by Him. For those who haven't, they'll be paying on their own.
But in all things, God has and will continue to remain true to His
character. He has to. He's God, and He does not change. (James 12:17)
Corine Y. Takiguchi
taki...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
P.S. If anyone wants to talk w/me (seriously) on stuff like this, please
feel free to write me.
============================================================================
| "Nothing spoils fun like finding out it builds character." |
| -- Calvin (Calvin & Hobbes) |
============================================================================
Ken Arromdee
>There's a story that illustrates this point more clearly:
> There once was a judge who was regarded by all to be a righteous,
> just judge -- one who upheld and discerned the law rightly.
> One day, a boy was brought into his courtroom. This boy had received a
> speeding ticket. Now, according to the law of the land, anyone
> guilty of speeding would have to pay a $200 fine, or be sent to jail
> for 10 years.
Then what the judge should do is say "I revoke this law of the land. Nothing
need be done to revoke it, and no substitutions need be made; I made it and I
can revoke it. It was a bad idea and I goofed.
After all, your judge can do anything. The laws come from him; he can revoke
the laws all he wants without having to do anything extra like use sacrifices.
Moreover, this judge knew in advance that the law would send his son to jail
for 10 years. So even if he did need the sacrifices, why didn't he start out
in the first place by making a law which says "all speeders pay a fine or go
to jail, with the exception of those speeders who the judge wants to make
exceptions to"? Why did he wait so long in order to make the exception,
instead of putting exceptions in from the very start?
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes
"There are no good or evil plants. There are only... plants." --Ficus (Quark)
Derek Brouwer
>In article <1994Jan7.1...@advtech.uswest.com>,
>Derek Brouwer <dbro...@advtech.uswest.com> wrote:
>>In article <brsCJ8...@netcom.com> b...@netcom.com (Bruce Silver) writes:
>>Sorry, I wouldn't sell God short by limiting what God can and can't
>>do. I believe that God maintains the order of creation (everything)
>>and, therefore, tends not to intervene outside of what is "possible".
>>If God were to simply suspend the laws of creation (that God set
>>down, eh?) to fix the situation every time we fucked things up, the
>>result would be chaos or at least very confusing. I'm of the
>>opinion that God uses nature and humans (same thing, I think) to
>>perform the deeds.
>
>Let's see. Pillars of smoke and fire, parting seas, making the earth
>stand still.
>
>Yep. Sure does look like God *never* violates the laws of nature.
Emphasis on _tends_.
-d
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
Derek Brouwer <dbro...@advtech.uswest.com> wrote:
>kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>>b...@netcom.com (Bruce Silver) writes:
>>>Sorry, I wouldn't sell God short by limiting what God can and can't
>>>do. I believe that God maintains the order of creation (everything)
>>>and, therefore, tends not to intervene outside of what is "possible".
> ^^^^^
>>>If God were to simply suspend the laws of creation (that God set
>>>down, eh?) to fix the situation every time we fucked things up, the
>>>result would be chaos or at least very confusing. I'm of the
>>>opinion that God uses nature and humans (same thing, I think) to
>>>perform the deeds.
>>
>>Let's see. Pillars of smoke and fire, parting seas, making the earth
>>stand still.
>>
>>Yep. Sure does look like God *never* violates the laws of nature.
>
>Emphasis on _tends_.
Odd how He "tended" to violate the laws of nature back when people
had no idea why the rain fell from the sky, isn't it?
--
=kcoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
=Subscribe to alt.christnet.sex! Start collecting the whole set today! =
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
Corine Y Takiguchi <taki...@mail.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>It seems to be a discussion on God's omnipotence/choice/etc. I used to
>think that God could do everything, but I don't believe that anymore. God
>is limited by His own character. For example, we know (from what He
>has written in His Word) that God is love, that God is perfect (i.e.
>without sin), that God is just, etc. Therefore, He cannot do anything
>UNloving, sinFUL, or UNjust...or He would no longer be God.
Nope. Sorry. Wrong. All He has to do is change the rules so that anything
he does is loving, sinless, and just, and he can feel free to wipe out
the firstborn of all the egyptions.
>There's a story that illustrates this point more clearly:
> There once was a judge who was regarded by all to be a righteous,
> just judge -- one who upheld and discerned the law rightly.
Did this Judge also write all the laws, and have the power to change
any of the laws at any time? If not, this is a poor analogy to God.
> One day, a boy was brought into his courtroom. This boy had received a
> speeding ticket. Now, according to the law of the land, anyone
> guilty of speeding would have to pay a $200 fine, or be sent to jail
> for 10 years.
>
> Well, the judge was supposed to pass judgement over this boy...but
> there was a problem: the boy was his own son. Because he loved
> his son, he did not want his son to have to pay the penalty
> (especially since he knew his son did NOT have $200, and would have
> to go to jail). Yet, if he simply dismissed the case, he would no
> longer be a just judge.
In order for this to make any sense wrt God, the judge would also have
to be able to say "it is no longer a crime to speed", and have it stick.
> After pondering the matter -- how to satisfy the requirements of love
> and justice -- he came upon the solution. As the just judge, he
> passed the rightful sentence: "You are guilty, and are fined $200
> according to the law". But after saying this, he stepped off the
> bench, took off his mantle, and -- as the loving father -- put the
> necessary $200 in the hand of his son, so he could pay the fine.
Except that, as God, he could have just as easily said "You are guilty,
but the court does not see fit to institute punishment."
>This is the same dilemma God had w/each of us.
Nope. Sorry. God, as the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything,
has more than enough power to just forgive all of us regardless of what
we do.
>All of us, in one way or
>another, are in the wrong with God. (Romans 3:23)
What about Job?
>And the wages of sin
>(what we earn as a result of our sin) is spiritual death -- Romans 6:23 --
>spiritual separation from God, otherwise known as hell.
What about Jonah?
>God didn't want
>us to face this punishment (His love), but we had earned it (His justice).
Thank you for admittng that God made all the rules.
>So He DID assign this "death penalty"...but came to earth in the form of
>Jesus, and took it on Himself, for all who believe.
Sorry. Coming to earth, and getting nailed to a tree were not necessary.
All God has to do is acknowledge that He does truly love us, and forgive
us.
>This is why Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one
>comes to the Father, but through Me" -- John 14:6.
And which is why He should have said "Eat, Drink, and be Merry. For
tomorrow we may die."
>We can receive this "way out" that God has provided through Himself, or
>continue to do things our own way. In the end, though, we will all stand
>before the Judge's seat, and the death penalty will need to be paid for
>each person. For those who have received Christ, the penalty has already
>been paid by Him. For those who haven't, they'll be paying on their own.
Why are Christians always so smug when they start talking about how
everybody but them is going to burn in hell?
>But in all things, God has and will continue to remain true to His
>character. He has to. He's God, and He does not change. (James 12:17)
He does not have to. He CHOOSES to. Just like He is the one who will
have to CHOOSE to send people to Hell or not.
--
=kcoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
KENT SANDVIK
Newsgroups: alt.christnet
Subject: Re: Is God a Christian?
Date: 7 Jan 1994 02:12:22 GMT
Message-ID: <sandvik-06...@17.205.4.47>
Organization: Popper was Right After All, Inc.
--Kent
---
Ed Boris
Sounds like you want the easy way out. The World just wants to please itself
not do anything for anyone else, does it? Does anyone make any sacrifices
anymore except for money? We all just want to do whatever we want with no
rules. You can't serve two masters. If we have to make sacrifices to avoid
breaking the laws then we just have to make sacrifices. Gods law is just.
So I guess you would have had God just change His law when Adam and Eve ate
the apple. God should have just said, "oh, you kids. I shouldn't have put
that tree there and temped you like that." huh?
Who are we to question God, The Father Almighty? He made us and gave us
everything. We should be happy and obedient, not constantly testing His love
and mercy. He asks so little of us as it is.
Does your dog have the right to go to the bathroom in the middle
of your living room if he so choses? No, there are certain rules he must live
by. And we have rules we must live by. We can't ask for the rules to change,
we can only ask for forgiveness when we break them.
Ed
Marc VanHeyningen
>Sounds like you want the easy way out. The World just wants to please itself
>not do anything for anyone else, does it?
Who else should The World do something for? Mars?
>Does anyone make any sacrifices anymore except for money?
Yes. Some people still sacrifice other things, like lambs, as the
OT commands.
>We all just want to do whatever we want with no rules.
Naturally we all want to do what we want; the statement is
tautological. Only anarchists want no rules; I haven't seen any in
this hierarchy, though I guess there might be some.
>You can't serve two masters.
Why not? How does this fit with "render unto Caeser that which is
Caesar's and God that which is God's"? And what does it have to do
with wanting to be an anarchist?
>If we have to make sacrifices to avoid breaking the laws then we just
>have to make sacrifices. Gods law is just.
Certainly you'll agree that there are people who honestly disagree
with this assertion.
>So I guess you would have had God just change His law when Adam and Eve ate
>the apple. God should have just said, "oh, you kids. I shouldn't have put
>that tree there and temped you like that." huh?
What bible are you using that says it was an apple?
>Who are we to question God, The Father Almighty?
We are not really questioning God, we are questioning what some of our
fellow human beings claim are properties of God.
>He made us and gave us everything.
Certainly you'll agree that there are people who honestly disagree
with this assertion.
>We should be happy and obedient, not constantly testing His love
>and mercy. He asks so little of us as it is.
Really? I've been told by Christians that He asks everything of us.
>Does your dog have the right to go to the bathroom in the middle of
>your living room if he so choses? No, there are certain rules he must
>live by.
Your dog certainly has the right to go to the bathroom. Making it
clear where and when it is appropriate to do so is the responsibility
of the owner through a consistent system of reward and punishment.
>And we have rules we must live by. We can't ask for the rules to change,
>we can only ask for forgiveness when we break them.
No, a dog can't ask for the rules to change because a dog is, as far
as we know, not capable of linguistic communication and may not be
capable of abstract reasoning. Since we are capable of these things,
we certainly _can_ ask for the rules to change. You assert that we
_may_ not do so.
(This assumes for the moment a number of hypotheticals, such as that
we even know what the rules are.)
--
Marc VanHeyningen mvan...@cs.indiana.edu MIME, RIPEM & HTTP spoken here
Ken Arromdee
>Sounds like you want the easy way out. The World just wants to please itself
>not do anything for anyone else, does it? Does anyone make any sacrifices
>anymore except for money? We all just want to do whatever we want with no
>rules. You can't serve two masters. If we have to make sacrifices to avoid
>breaking the laws then we just have to make sacrifices. Gods law is just.
_Any_ law of God's is just. If God had written his law properly in the
first place, with exceptions, then the law-with-exceptions would be just.
> So I guess you would have had God just change His law when Adam and Eve ate
>the apple. God should have just said, "oh, you kids. I shouldn't have put
>that tree there and temped you like that." huh?
God should have anticipated it in advance and written his law accordingly. He
would not have to wait until after they ate the apple.
> Who are we to question God, The Father Almighty? He made us and gave us
>everything. We should be happy and obedient, not constantly testing His love
>and mercy. He asks so little of us as it is.
He asks so _little_? Devoting my whole life to doing whatever he commands,
is "so little"?
Corine Y Takiguchi
Arromdev's response)
>>God is limited by His own character. For example, we know (from what He
>>has written in His Word) that God is love, that God is perfect (i.e.
>>without sin), that God is just, etc. Therefore, He cannot do anything
>>UNloving, sinFUL, or UNjust...or He would no longer be God.
>
>Nope. Sorry. Wrong. All He has to do is change the rules so that anything
>he does is loving, sinless, and just, and he can feel free to wipe out
>the firstborn of all the egyptions.
"Wip[ing] out the firstborn of all the Egyptians [sic]" was not a change
of the rules on God's part. He is still loving, sinless, & JUST.
All of us have sinned -- i.e. chosen to turn away from God & go our own
way. As a result, all of us deserve (according to the rules/law) to be
completely cut off from God's presence, immediately. This absence of God
is otherwise known as hell/death/whatever.
[To understand this, think of light & darkness. Darkness is the absence of
light. Well, God is like light -- the Author of all good & perfect things
(James 1:17). Hell is the absence of God -- and, therefore, the absence of
all good & perfect things...no wonder it's described as a good place to
avoid in the Bible.]
Well, although we deserve to be cut off from God's presence immediately,
by His grace, He allows us more time. Within this time/life, we are
exposed to a mixture of good & bad -- darkness & light -- so we can
choose. Those who choose to follow God, through the way that Christ
provided through His death, will be with God for all eternity at the end of
their life. Those who choose to continue doing things their own way,
ignoring this Way out, will be separated from Him for all eternity at the
end their life. Either way, we all get what we've chosen.
How can a loving God have it any other way? Why would a loving God FORCE
a person to spend eternity with Him? The answer is clear...a loving God
WOULDN'T...and doesn't.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Nope. Sorry. God, as the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything,
>has more than enough power to just forgive all of us regardless of what
>we do.
What's your definition of "forgiveness"? Forgiveness, in my book, always
includes some sort of price. For example, if you steal my car & damage
it, there is a cost involved: the cost of the damaged car. I can choose
to forgive you, but my doing so does not mean that the costs magically go
away. They remain...but I just choose to swallow the costs myself.
The same "rules" hold true with God. We have sinned against Him, and as a
result, costs have been incurred...that "death penalty" (Romans 6:23a). If He
is to forgive us, He needs to account for these costs...and has done so by
paying the penalty Himself, on the cross. The question is whether we will
receive this "free" gift (free to us, but certainly not to God) or not?
God has done His part -- and has actually gone well beyond what He was
REQUIRED to do. The ball is in our court. ^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>All of us, in one way or
>>another, are in the wrong with God. (Romans 3:23)
>
>What about Job?
Yep, him too. Romans 3:23 says that "all have sinned and fall short of
the glory of God". Read also Psalm 14, esp. verses 1-3.
Read God's questions to Job & Job's confessions to God in chapters 38-42
of the book of Job. Even this godly man realizes his sinfulness, in the
presence of the holy, righteous God.
The prophet Isaiah, too, was a godly man. But when he received a vision
of God in all His holiness & glory, he could do nothing but say:
"Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips...."
-- Isaiah 6:5
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>And the wages of sin
>>(what we earn as a result of our sin) is spiritual death -- Romans 6:23 --
>>spiritual separation from God, otherwise known as hell.
>
>What about Jonah?
I don't understand what you mean by this question. Please clarify.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>So He DID assign this "death penalty"...but came to earth in the form of
>>Jesus, and took it on Himself, for all who believe.
>
>Sorry. Coming to earth, and getting nailed to a tree were not necessary.
>All God has to do is acknowledge that He does truly love us, and forgive
>us.
See above comment on the costs involved in forgiveness.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>This is why Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one
>>comes to the Father, but through Me" -- John 14:6.
>
>And which is why He should have said "Eat, Drink, and be Merry. For
>tomorrow we may die."
Actually, Jesus did say this phrase...in the form of a parable.
"Soul,...take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry," were the words of the
rich fool who made plans to store up his crops & live the rest of his life
in economic security & contentment. God's comment in the parable? "You
fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those
things be which you have provided?" (Luke 12:13-21)
As for "tomorrow we may die": what's with MAY? Considering human
history, there is almost a 100% chance that each of us will die at some
point -- "tomorrow" literally, or in the sense of future. Then, the
question will be: What choices have we made?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Why are Christians always so smug when they start talking about how
>everybody but them is going to burn in hell?
Those who have received Christ as their Lord & Savior may be "smug" (or
assured) in the knowledge that they will be w/God for all eternity. But
in no way does a Christian rejoice in the knowledge that anyone will "burn
in hell". Why do you think we're so anxious to tell others the truth we
have learned?
If I discover that all of humankind is suffering from some fatal disease,
due to our genes &/or lifestyle...and then hear that a cure exists, I will
most certainly try out that cure. And if I discover that it indeed works,
would I be selfish/unloving enough to keep this knowledge to myself,
letting others die? Sure they may mock & ignore me, but perhaps some
might listen...and aren't they worth the pain? What would you do?
Now, if you meant "self-righteous", no one who has received Christ should
ever be self-righteous. The only reason he (or she) has been saved is
purely through the grace of God, and certainly NOT by his own righteousness.
If he had attempted to do it by his own righteousness, he would NOT be saved.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of
yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone
should boast."
-- Ephesians 2:8-9
Paul also speaks on this subject in Philippians 3:3-11.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>But in all things, God has and will continue to remain true to His
>>character. He has to. He's God, and He does not change. (James 12:17)
>
>He does not have to. He CHOOSES to. Just like He is the one who will
>have to CHOOSE to send people to Hell or not.
Again, where we go is directly a result of what we choose. As is now, we
have all chosen to go our own way, rather than God's. If we turn from our
current path (repentance), and turn back to Him through the Way (Jesus) He
has provided, we will be saved.
Hope this helps.
Corine Y. Takiguchi
taki...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
Corine Y Takiguchi
>>
>>You can't serve two masters.
>
>Why not? How does this fit with "render unto Caeser that which is
>Caesar's and God that which is God's"?
It was Jesus who said:
"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love
the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.
You cannot serve God and riches." (Matthew 6:24)
Also, when the Pharisees (in an attempt to trick Jesus) asked Him
whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Ceaser, Jesus had them hold up
the tax money. "Whose image and inscription is this?" He asked. When
they replied "Ceaser's", He said:
"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to
God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:15-22)
In context, it becomes evident that these two statements are NOT
contradictory.
Xian the Desk Lizard
On 9 Jan 1994 06:01:25 GMT, Corine Y Takiguchi gave us:
~"Wip[ing] out the firstborn of all the Egyptians [sic]" was not a change
~of the rules on God's part. He is still loving, sinless, & JUST.
See a later bit for my answer to this. I don't claim to speak for all
atheists, just for me.
~All of us have sinned -- i.e. chosen to turn away from God & go our own
~way. As a result, all of us deserve (according to the rules/law) to be
~completely cut off from God's presence, immediately. This absence of God
~is otherwise known as hell/death/whatever.
Sounds pretty good to me. If all hell is is an absence of YHWH, it would
suit me fine. I've been getting on pretty well without him so far.
~Well, although we deserve to be cut off from God's presence immediately,
~by His grace, He allows us more time.
That's nice of him isn't it? Shame about all the stillborn babies,
those who die within the first couple of days, and of course the ones
who YHWH killed off himself in Egypt... Surely it's not folly to realise
that "original sin" is rubbish. But the whole basis of Christianity is
that doctrine, the idea that we are all born into sin until we are
saved. It's an idea I hate.
~Within this time/life, we are
~exposed to a mixture of good & bad -- darkness & light -- so we can
~choose.
And who are you to say that all good comes from YHWH? I disagree. I
think good is man-made. And I could demonstrate instances of where good
quite obviously didn't come from a god at all, and YHWH in particular.
~Those who choose to follow God, through the way that Christ
~provided through His death, will be with God for all eternity at the end of
~their life. Those who choose to continue doing things their own way,
~ignoring this Way out, will be separated from Him for all eternity at the
~end their life. Either way, we all get what we've chosen.
And why do you assume that there will be an eternity at the end of our
lives at all? Can you not cope with the idea that our perception will
end one day, that suddenly our conscience won't exist any longer. But
hey, it frightens me too, it scares me rigid! Yet the nature of the
beast is that this happens. Better to accept it and live in
intellectual honesty.
~How can a loving God have it any other way? Why would a loving God FORCE
~a person to spend eternity with Him? The answer is clear...a loving God
~WOULDN'T...and doesn't.
Well, the Bronte sisters would disagree with you and their father was a
clergyman. They believed that YHWH was too loving to let any of his
creatures go to Hell, whatever their faults. (And surely capacity to
"sin" is just a by-product of free will. Doesn't that qualify as a
design fault?)
~What's your definition of "forgiveness"? Forgiveness, in my book, always
~includes some sort of price. For example, if you steal my car & damage
~it, there is a cost involved: the cost of the damaged car. I can choose
~to forgive you, but my doing so does not mean that the costs magically go
~away. They remain...but I just choose to swallow the costs myself.
~The same "rules" hold true with God. We have sinned against Him, and as a
~result, costs have been incurred...that "death penalty" (Romans 6:23a).
Yes, but we started sinning before we knew that price, according to your
religion. I know that ignorance is no defence, but if we cannot help
sinning, and we have been sinning since before we knew it was wrong (and
it is surely obvious by now that knowledge of good and evil is learnt!)
then why are we being condemned? There is such a thing as lack of
responsibility, in other words not knowing that what you were doing was
wrong. And it's odd that the death penalty is only used by humans in
the most extreme circumstances, and yet you argue that YHWH will condemn
us to eternal death for the smallest and first of our transgressions.
Some justice.
~If He
~is to forgive us, He needs to account for these costs...and has done so by
~paying the penalty Himself, on the cross. The question is whether we will
~receive this "free" gift (free to us, but certainly not to God) or not?
~God has done His part -- and has actually gone well beyond what He was
~REQUIRED to do. The ball is in our court. ^^^^^^
For Nothing's sake, if he was going to have all this trouble with us,
why did YHWH make us in the first place? He was not required to do
that, he was not required to stick us in the one place we could screw
up. Everything he has supposedly done since has been to try and correct
his creation. His screw-up. Not ours. Only a poor workman blames his
tools.
~>Sorry. Coming to earth, and getting nailed to a tree were not necessary.
~>All God has to do is acknowledge that He does truly love us, and forgive
~>us.
~See above comment on the costs involved in forgiveness.
Oh, come on, you can't have it both ways. God suffering a God-imposed
punishment for the sake of all us little humans? DO ME A FAVOUR! Why
impose the punishment in the first place?
~Actually, Jesus did say this phrase...in the form of a parable.
~"Soul,...take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry," were the words of the
~rich fool who made plans to store up his crops & live the rest of his life
~in economic security & contentment. God's comment in the parable? "You
~fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those
~things be which you have provided?" (Luke 12:13-21)
and the wise man (for he was, make no mistake) said "I care not, for
when I die I will be out of your hands, but my son is well provided for
now."
~Hope this helps.
~ Corine Y. Takiguchi
Well, actually, it makes me pretty sick...
Xian
Laurence Byrne
(Corine Y Takiguchi) wrote (in reply, mainly, to Keith Cochran):
> >Nope. Sorry. Wrong. All He has to do is change the rules so that anything
> >he does is loving, sinless, and just, and he can feel free to wipe out
> >the firstborn of all the egyptions.
>
> "Wip[ing] out the firstborn of all the Egyptians [sic]" was not a change
> of the rules on God's part. He is still loving, sinless, & JUST.
Mass murder as loving & just? I'm looking forward to the justification for
this...
> All of us have sinned -- i.e. chosen to turn away from God & go our own
> way. As a result, all of us deserve (according to the rules/law) to be
> completely cut off from God's presence, immediately. This absence of God
> is otherwise known as hell/death/whatever.
Uh-huh. Except, in this case, the first-born sons weren't answering for
their
own sins, rather for the "sins" of their society as a whole. God toasted
the
sons as a punishment/message to the Egyptians to lay off the Israelites...
this is inexcusable, for not only does it force a subset of the Egyptians
to pay the price for all of them, *regardless of the goodness of any
individual (can you really say that not one of the sons was a good man?)*
it was also a gratuitous choice of a violent option. Why couldn't God have
just gotten his message across by appearing in the sky and telling the
Egyptians what to do? Or even just making all the sons sick for a few days
then allowing them to get better?
Moreover, "this absence of God" *isn't* "otherwise known as hell/death/
whatever." *I* say that death is what happens when the brain and heart
cease to function...you become just so much carbon-based crud. You,
presumably, must believe in something *after* death....that's heaven or
hell.
Death and Hell are definitely not the same thing, and I certainly would
not agree with your definition....I'd also have to say that life is the
"absence of God" as well.
> [To understand this, think of light & darkness. Darkness is the absence of
> light. Well, God is like light -- the Author of all good & perfect things
> (James 1:17). Hell is the absence of God -- and, therefore, the absence of
> all good & perfect things...no wonder it's described as a good place to
> avoid in the Bible.]
Hmm, it's also described as being colder than heaven, but nevertheless...
:)
> Well, although we deserve to be cut off from God's presence immediately,
> by His grace, He allows us more time. Within this time/life, we are
"by His grace"? Since God is the one who set the whole shooting match up
in the first place, knows exactly what choices we will make (by virtue of
omniscience), and gave us our souls that influence our choices, he'd
*better* give us more time unless he wants a 100% failure rate on this
stupid test of worth he seems to have concocted. Question: why did
God create people in this flawed manner, knowing that some of them were
going to "fail" and end up in Hell, and, even worse, knowing exactly
*which ones* were going to fail? You can't legitimately invoke free will
here, since both the circumstances in which these "free" choices have to
be made and the thinking mechanism used to make them were created by God.
> exposed to a mixture of good & bad -- darkness & light -- so we can
> choose. Those who choose to follow God, through the way that Christ
> provided through His death, will be with God for all eternity at the end of
> their life. Those who choose to continue doing things their own way,
> ignoring this Way out, will be separated from Him for all eternity at the
Well, you've no proof for any of this. How do you know God isn't looking
for those with the intelligence or the strength of character to resist
these attempts at eternal blackmail? Remember, skepticism is a gift
from God just as much as worship is.
> end their life. Either way, we all get what we've chosen.
The first born sons of the Egyptians didn't get what they'd
chosen...they got what others had chosen for them.
> How can a loving God have it any other way? Why would a loving God FORCE
> a person to spend eternity with Him? The answer is clear...a loving God
> WOULDN'T...and doesn't.
He certainly forces a number of people to spend eternity writhing
in burning agony, having made them that way....Tough Love, I guess.
Incidentally, I would have thought that a loving God *would* force everyone
to spend eternity with them, since, by definition, he's the greatest thing
in the universe and therefore immensely rewarding to hang out with, and
surely a perfectly benevolent God would want all his creations to be as
happy
as possible, even despite their flaws? Maybe He can't be both perfectly
loving and perfectly just, which makes you wonder just what the
perfection of God means.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Nope. Sorry. God, as the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything,
> >has more than enough power to just forgive all of us regardless of what
> >we do.
>
> What's your definition of "forgiveness"? Forgiveness, in my book, always
> includes some sort of price. For example, if you steal my car & damage
> it, there is a cost involved: the cost of the damaged car. I can choose
> to forgive you, but my doing so does not mean that the costs magically go
> away. They remain...but I just choose to swallow the costs myself.
If you have infinite power at your disposal, there is no effective cost
to swallow. What skin is it off God's nose to fix a Mazda Miata? How
does it hurt God to forgive my "mistakes"?
> The same "rules" hold true with God. We have sinned against Him, and as a
> result, costs have been incurred...that "death penalty" (Romans 6:23a). If He
> is to forgive us, He needs to account for these costs...and has done so by
> paying the penalty Himself, on the cross. The question is whether we will
> receive this "free" gift (free to us, but certainly not to God) or not?
> God has done His part -- and has actually gone well beyond what He was
> REQUIRED to do. The ball is in our court. ^^^^^^
If there's one thing certain about Christianity, it's that *everything*
is free to God. You cannot reconcile omniscience and omnipotence with
paying a high price - when you've got an infinite amount of everything,
nothing is too expensive. It's no good either to try and make out that
God suffered anguish/pain when he sent his son down to Earth and he was
poorly treated...God knew what would happen before it happened (before he
created the universe in the first place, in fact) and could have altered
the course of events if he had wanted to. Why didn't He just create
a better universe in the beginning and avoid all this hassle?
And how is God "REQUIRED" to do anything at all? Who can make the
requirement?
> >Why are Christians always so smug when they start talking about how
> >everybody but them is going to burn in hell?
>
> Those who have received Christ as their Lord & Savior may be "smug" (or
> assured) in the knowledge that they will be w/God for all eternity. But
> in no way does a Christian rejoice in the knowledge that anyone will "burn
> in hell". Why do you think we're so anxious to tell others the truth we
> have learned?
Um, assuming that you "will be w/God for all eternity" is encroachment
upon God's prerogative to "judge the living and the dead." Humility,
y'know. Nothing's guaranteed in this life, or in the next.
And why are you so anxious to tell others? Probably because you suffer
from the common human need to have your choices reinforced by the
choices of others. It's the same reason I feel good when others endorse
my opinions, choice of music, computer etc.
> If I discover that all of humankind is suffering from some fatal disease,
> due to our genes &/or lifestyle...and then hear that a cure exists, I will
> most certainly try out that cure. And if I discover that it indeed works,
> would I be selfish/unloving enough to keep this knowledge to myself,
> letting others die? Sure they may mock & ignore me, but perhaps some
> might listen...and aren't they worth the pain? What would you do?
Although since neither the disease nor the cure have any objective
reality whatsoever, this is a pretty thin argument. And I don't think
that spreading falsehood with good intentions is a particularly
good idea. Besides, isn't the spread of religion in this way dependent
upon your human powers of persuasion, not the strength of Jesus?
> Now, if you meant "self-righteous", no one who has received Christ should
> ever be self-righteous. The only reason he (or she) has been saved is
> purely through the grace of God, and certainly NOT by his own righteousness.
> If he had attempted to do it by his own righteousness, he would NOT be saved.
> "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of
> yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone
> should boast."
> -- Ephesians 2:8-9
Huh? So whether you're good or bad doesn't amount to a hill of
beans in the long run? What happened to taking responsibility for
our own actions?
> Hope this helps.
Hope the help to the help helps. :)
>
> Corine Y. Takiguchi
> taki...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
______________________________________________________________________
Laurence Byrne pendulum swing byr...@husc.harvard.edu
*finger @byrne1.student.harvard.edu for PGP pubkey*
"If only I weren't constrained by propriety..."
Carwil James
>>>
>>>You can't serve two masters.
>>
>>Why not? How does this fit with "render unto Caeser that which is
>>Caesar's and God that which is God's"?
>
>It was Jesus who said:
> "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love
> the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other.
> You cannot serve God and riches." (Matthew 6:24)
>
>Also, when the Pharisees (in an attempt to trick Jesus) asked Him
>whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Ceaser, Jesus had them hold up
>the tax money. "Whose image and inscription is this?" He asked. When
>they replied "Ceaser's", He said:
> "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to
> God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:15-22)
>
>In context, it becomes evident that these two statements are NOT
>contradictory.
Only if the "serve two masters" quote applies to only to "God and riches"
and not any other topic. Or if only to ones you choose it applies to. The
first interpretation is marginally consistent, the second is not.
Fish-E Carwil
--
/\ / Chan | Fish-E Carwil James | President, Physics Counter Culture |
/o \/- bpen | Northwestern Univ. | Future VP, Walt Disney Attractions |
\/ /\- bplah!| "But there is no | "Life's a beach and the tide |
\/ \ | context" | just came in." ~Osadczuk |
Alan D. Trombla
have more details ?
Alan
Alan D. Trombla...@seki.math.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp----University of Tokyo (Math)
Joseph T. Adams
In a previous article, al...@seki.math.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Alan D. Trombla) says:
>Someone was talking about a NAB Bible, a recent translation? Could I
>have more details ?
Two possibilities come to mind.
(1) He or she may have meant the New American _Standard_ Bible (more
properly referred to as NASB)
or
(2) I think there is actually a New American Bible which is a Catholic
version, and should be available in Catholic bookstores.
Myself, I prefer the King James Version, but if you have trouble with the
words, the NKJV, NASB, and NIV are considered good translations and are
readily available in the U.S.
Yours in Christ,
Joe Adams ck...@cleveland.Freenet.edu
Corine Y Takiguchi
KC> Nope. Sorry. Wrong. All He has to do is change the rules so
that anything
KC> he does is loving, sinless, and just, and he can feel free to wipe out
KC> the firstborn of all the egyptions.
>
me>> "Wip[ing] out the firstborn of all the Egyptians [sic]" was not a change
me>> of the rules on God's part. He is still loving, sinless, & JUST.
>
LB> Mass murder as loving & just? I'm looking forward to the justification for
LB> this...
>
me>> All of us have sinned -- i.e. chosen to turn away from God & go our own
me>> way. As a result, all of us deserve (according to the rules/law) to be
me>> completely cut off from God's presence, immediately. This absence of God
me>> is otherwise known as hell/death/whatever.
>
LB> Uh-huh. Except, in this case, the first-born sons weren't answering for
LB> their own sins, rather for the "sins" of their society as a whole.
Again, ALL of us have sinned (Romans 3:23). Yes, even those first-born
sons. ALL of us deserve to be cut off from God...but He may choose to
prolong this punishment (give us an extension) -- but it's not our
right...it's His grace.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LB>Moreover, "this absence of God" *isn't* "otherwise known as hell/death/
LB>whatever." *I* say that death is what happens when the brain and heart
LB>cease to function...you become just so much carbon-based crud. You,
LB>presumably, must believe in something *after* death....that's heaven or
LB>hell.
LB>Death and Hell are definitely not the same thing,
Actually, I explained this use of "death" earlier, but I will clarify
here. The "death" (a.k.a. hell) referred to in Romans 6:23 ("the wages of
sin is death...") is not physical death, but rather, spiritual death --
i.e. spiritual separation from God. This concept is consistent throughout
the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.
It's interesting that you mention it as a point of confusion here. That's
exactly how the serpent conned Eve into eating the fruit (Genesis 3). God had
warned us not to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil:
"You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die."
Satan's (in the serpent) line?
"You will not surely die...."
God was referring to spiritual death & separation from Him, which they did
indeed experience after eating the fruit. (Their appearance & nature was
changed, and their relationship w/God was broken.) But Satan used a play on
words here, talking of physical death -- i.e. "Eating this fruit will NOT
cause you to immediately plop down dead after the first bite hits your
stomach." And in this sense, he was right. Immediate physical death was
not the result/punishment for this act.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
LB>Question: why did
LB>God create people in this flawed manner, knowing that some of them were
LB>going to "fail" and end up in Hell, and, even worse, knowing exactly
LB>*which ones* were going to fail? You can't legitimately invoke free will
LB>here, since both the circumstances in which these "free" choices have to
LB>be made and the thinking mechanism used to make them were created by God.
Valid question. Everything that God does is to His glory -- not because
He is an egomaniac, but because His very nature as a glorious God makes it
so. Why did He create us? Not sure. He certainly didn't NEED us, as He
is complete within His triune Self. Our purpose here as His creation is
to give Him glory through a relationship with Him. In praising Him, we
reach the ultimate fulfillment...although we can choose against this
purpose.
[Before you immediately attack this, set it aside and chew on it for
awhile. If you were allmighty, all-glorious God, and you created
something -- would it be egotistical for the nature of that creation to be
based upon you? Or is it just the nature of creation? And a
natural result of your own glory?]
Yes, we do have some sort of will to choose. God COULD have created
robots who would follow Him & know no else, but in creating man in His own
image, He also gave us free will, just as He has free will. All of us
have used this free will to choose against God (sin), but still, He gives
us another chance through His own sacrifice.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
me>> exposed to a mixture of good & bad -- darkness & light -- so we can
me>> choose. Those who choose to follow God, through the way that Christ
me>> provided through His death, will be with God for all eternity at the
end of
me>> their life. Those who choose to continue doing things their own way,
me>> ignoring this Way out, will be separated from Him for all eternity at the
>
LB>Well, you've no proof for any of this. How do you know God isn't looking
LB>for those with the intelligence or the strength of character to resist
LB>these attempts at eternal blackmail? Remember, skepticism is a gift
LB>from God just as much as worship is.
The proof is in His Word, and also revealed through His own self in the
form of Jesus on earth. I've tried to include as many references as
possible so you can look them up in context.
I'm pretty sure God doesn't base things on intelligence & strength, or I
sure as heck would never know Him. In Proverbs, He says that human
"knowledge" puffs up -- people get too self-righteous & "intellectual" to
consider belief in God a rational thing. That's pretty much where I was
before. If I had stayed there, I'd never have been humbled enough to seek
Him. And I'd never have found Him. No wonder He says we need to be like
children.
And no, skepticism isn't God's gift -- rather, a perversion of God's gift.
He gave us the ability to think & reason, but cynicism/skepticism is a
misuse of this gift, corrupted by sin. It's an area that I struggle w/in
my own life, too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
me>> How can a loving God have it any other way? Why would a loving God FORCE
me>> a person to spend eternity with Him? The answer is clear...a loving God
me>> WOULDN'T...and doesn't.
>
LB>Incidentally, I would have thought that a loving God *would* force everyone
LB>to spend eternity with them, since, by definition, he's the greatest thing
LB>in the universe and therefore immensely rewarding to hang out with, and
LB>surely a perfectly benevolent God would want all his creations to be as
LB>happy
LB>as possible, even despite their flaws?
But if you love someone, set them free. They want this. It hurts me to
see them in pain. But I need to let them follow their desires.
Just because God lets us go, it doesn't mean it makes Him happy -- when He
knows where we're going. But if any come back, He greets them w/the
warmest welcome. (See parables of Prodigal Son, Lost Coin, Lost Sheep, etc.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
me>> Those who have received Christ as their Lord & Savior may be "smug" (or
me>> assured) in the knowledge that they will be w/God for all eternity. But
me>> in no way does a Christian rejoice in the knowledge that anyone will
"burn
me>> in hell". Why do you think we're so anxious to tell others the truth we
me>> have learned?
>
LB>Um, assuming that you "will be w/God for all eternity" is encroachment
LB>upon God's prerogative to "judge the living and the dead." Humility,
LB>y'know. Nothing's guaranteed in this life, or in the next.
Gosh, Laurence, you're beginning to sound like a Puritan. Who would've
thought? :)
But actually, that's contrary to what the Bible says on this matter:
"He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God
does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe
in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have
eternal life." (I John 5:12-13) ^^^^
Also:
"The Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of
God, and if children, then heirs -- heirs of God and joint heirs
with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be
glorified together." (Romans 8:16-17)
So basically, God wants us to be certain that, if we have received Jesus,
we are saved by His grace. And He further assures us through the Holy
Spirit in us.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>And why are you so anxious to tell others? Probably because you suffer
>from the common human need to have your choices reinforced by the
>choices of others.
Because I love you, Laurence. You can spit on me & my beliefs, but still,
if I see you crossing the street about to be hit by a semi, I'd want to
warn you in time. Well, the semi's coming, whether you believe it or not.
And I don't want you to (spiritually) die.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Besides, isn't the spread of religion in this way dependent
>upon your human powers of persuasion, not the strength of Jesus?
Nope. It's not w/in human powers to "convert" anyone. Purely by the
Spirit of God, working in them. Jesus said:
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice
and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he
with Me." (Revelation 3:20)
You can respond to the knock or let Jesus go on knocking, but again, it's
up to you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Now, if you meant "self-righteous", no one who has received Christ should
>> ever be self-righteous. The only reason he (or she) has been saved is
>> purely through the grace of God, and certainly NOT by his own righteousness.
>> If he had attempted to do it by his own righteousness, he would NOT be saved.
>> "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of
>> yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone
>> should boast."
>> -- Ephesians 2:8-9
>
>Huh? So whether you're good or bad doesn't amount to a hill of
>beans in the long run? What happened to taking responsibility for
>our own actions?
If it were within human power to be truly good, it would amount to our own
salvation. But it's not. Our "righteousness" is like filthy rags before
God. It's not enough to "buy" our way into heaven. So you're right.
We're all taking responsibility for our own actions -- the problem of our
own sin. We need to pay for that somehow.
We're all lined up against a huge canyon (eg. Grand Canyon), and God is on
the other side. Everyone wants to reach God & all His goodness. Some may
jump farther than others, but in the end, we all fall. None can make it
on His own. But if we just look off a little to the left, we'll see the
bridge He has lain across the canyon -- Jesus Christ -- so those who want
may cross over. It's His way, or no way.
Kent Sandvik
> All of us have sinned -- i.e. chosen to turn away from God & go our own
> way. As a result, all of us deserve (according to the rules/law) to be
> completely cut off from God's presence, immediately. This absence of God
> is otherwise known as hell/death/whatever.
As we all know the laws of mankind provides options for forgiveness,
for instance we don't kill criminals for criminal activites (I exclude
the death sentences in US, because in many other Western countries
there are no death sentences with the exception of wartime crimes).
Thus sinning and forgiveness is an actual reality -- remembering
from my Lutheran upbringing wasn't this the core message of
Christianity, the forgiveness of sins?
The absense of God works fine for millions of people, so I don't
see any correlations with a psychologically low state and
lack of belief in God or Gods.
Kent Sandvik
(Corine Y Takiguchi) wrote:
> Again, ALL of us have sinned (Romans 3:23). Yes, even those first-born
> sons. ALL of us deserve to be cut off from God...but He may choose to
> prolong this punishment (give us an extension) -- but it's not our
> right...it's His grace.
Note that there are humans who deliberately cut off any connection
with God or Gods, and they don't regret this at all, so there's nothing
negative per see to be disconnected from God.
For instance I have severred my connections with the Nordic and
Finnish Gods, however I don't see any dangers with this.
Laurence Byrne
(Corine Y Takiguchi) wrote (in response to me, LB):
> Laurence Byrne (responding to me, responding to Keith Cochran) writes:
>
[reference is to killing of all 1st born sons of Egyptians]
> LB> Mass murder as loving & just? I'm looking forward to the justification for
> LB> this...
> >
> me>> All of us have sinned -- i.e. chosen to turn away from God & go our own
> me>> way. As a result, all of us deserve (according to the rules/law) to be
> me>> completely cut off from God's presence, immediately. This absence of God
> me>> is otherwise known as hell/death/whatever.
> >
> LB> Uh-huh. Except, in this case, the first-born sons weren't answering for
> LB> their own sins, rather for the "sins" of their society as a whole.
>
> Again, ALL of us have sinned (Romans 3:23). Yes, even those first-born
> sons. ALL of us deserve to be cut off from God...but He may choose to
> prolong this punishment (give us an extension) -- but it's not our
> right...it's His grace.
Right, the doctrine of original sin dictates that the Egyptian sons, as
well
as everyone else in the world, were tainted and therefore liable to
punishment. However, the sin that they (the sons) were being killed for
was *not* "original sin" - it was the sin of the Egyptians in general
oppressing God's Chosen People (viz. the Israelites). Thus, the
sons were being punished for the "sin" of the whole nation of Egypt,
something that I don't think is particularly just.
You may say (in fact, I think you did!) that, since the sons were
sinners
(by virtue of being human) and were therefore living on borrowed time
anyway, it was well within God's rights to dispose of them for his own
ends.
On close inspection, however, this argument just doesn't hold much water;
firstly, the context and the timing of the killing clearly shows that God
was killing them in order to send a message to the Egyptians (so, no matter
how you slice it, they were paying for the actions of others), and secondly
(and probably more significantly) I refuse to accept that punishment for
original sin is 'just' either, since it still involves punishing
individuals
for sins *they did not commit*.
Refusing to grant access to the Kingdom of God to those who denied God
when given the chance to embrace him in life is fair enough (if you buy
into the whole God/judgement thing in the first place, of course), but
there is a big difference between saying that people are not in a state
of grace when born and saying that they may therefore be denied life on
a whim. What if one of the slain Egyptians would have embraced God in later
life?
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> LB>Moreover, "this absence of God" *isn't* "otherwise known as hell/death/
> LB>whatever." *I* say that death is what happens when the brain and heart
> LB>cease to function...you become just so much carbon-based crud. You,
> LB>presumably, must believe in something *after* death....that's heaven or
> LB>hell.
> LB>Death and Hell are definitely not the same thing,
>
> Actually, I explained this use of "death" earlier, but I will clarify
> here. The "death" (a.k.a. hell) referred to in Romans 6:23 ("the wages of
> sin is death...") is not physical death, but rather, spiritual death --
> i.e. spiritual separation from God. This concept is consistent throughout
> the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.
Ok, I hadn't seen the earliest messages in the thread, sorry about that
confusion. I would point out, though, that according to your definition
I'm *already* dead, since I have "spiritual separation from God" (by
dint of denying his existence).
> It's interesting that you mention it as a point of confusion here. That's
> exactly how the serpent conned Eve into eating the fruit (Genesis 3). God had
> warned us not to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil:
> "You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die."
> Satan's (in the serpent) line?
> "You will not surely die...."
Heck, I've never been compared to the serpent before. :)
> God was referring to spiritual death & separation from Him, which they did
> indeed experience after eating the fruit. (Their appearance & nature was
> changed, and their relationship w/God was broken.) But Satan used a play on
> words here, talking of physical death -- i.e. "Eating this fruit will NOT
> cause you to immediately plop down dead after the first bite hits your
> stomach." And in this sense, he was right. Immediate physical death was
> not the result/punishment for this act.
All this, though, is very dependent upon your interpretation of Genesis.
I don't mean to challenge the veracity of your physical death/spiritual
death dichotomy - that certainly survives even when the text is read
metaphorically - but I believe that these verses are poor justifications
for the doctrine of original sin, written as they are in a book of the
Bible that has been discredited as an historical account and was written
as one.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> LB>Question: why did
> LB>God create people in this flawed manner, knowing that some of them were
> LB>going to "fail" and end up in Hell, and, even worse, knowing exactly
> LB>*which ones* were going to fail? You can't legitimately invoke free will
> LB>here, since both the circumstances in which these "free" choices have to
> LB>be made and the thinking mechanism used to make them were created by God.
>
> Valid question. Everything that God does is to His glory -- not because
> He is an egomaniac, but because His very nature as a glorious God makes it
> so. Why did He create us? Not sure. He certainly didn't NEED us, as He
> is complete within His triune Self. Our purpose here as His creation is
> to give Him glory through a relationship with Him. In praising Him, we
> reach the ultimate fulfillment...although we can choose against this
> purpose.
If our purpose is to glorify God, that stinks of vanity on the part of
God - since he's the only one who can witness this glory. Suggesting that
our existence is necessary for God's glory is contrary to the definition
of God as a non-contingent entity. There would appear to be two options:
* God created us because he lacks the ability to appreciate his own work.
Violates omnipotence.
* God created us so that someone else might wonder at his might. Vain.
Either way, it still doesn't explain why we were created in such a way that
a large number of us must necessarily undergo eternal agony because we
don't like the sound of this God.
> [Before you immediately attack this, set it aside and chew on it for
> awhile. If you were allmighty, all-glorious God, and you created
> something -- would it be egotistical for the nature of that creation to be
> based upon you? Or is it just the nature of creation? And a
> natural result of your own glory?]
If I were almighty and all-glorious (what does all-glorious mean when there
is only one being in the universe, which was the case before the formation
of life?) I certainly couldn't care less about the
adulation/worship/respect
of lesser entities that I myself had created. And what do you mean when
you say that "the nature of creation ... is based on God"? I don't
understand this. Certainly, nothing in the universe/creation can bear
any physical resemblance to God, and I'm at a loss to work out what else
you could be referring to.
> Yes, we do have some sort of will to choose. God COULD have created
> robots who would follow Him & know no else, but in creating man in His own
> image, He also gave us free will, just as He has free will. All of us
> have used this free will to choose against God (sin), but still, He gives
> us another chance through His own sacrifice.
I contend that free will granted by the same entity that already knows
the results of the choices made by that free will is not "free" at all.
God knows exactly what fate will befall each and every one of us; since
he's responsible for the design of the universe and the design of the
mechanism of "free will" that we use to make choices, he's directly
responsible for all the misery in this world as well as that which
will befall those who fail the test and go to hell in the next.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> me>> exposed to a mixture of good & bad -- darkness & light -- so we can
> me>> choose. Those who choose to follow God, through the way that Christ
> me>> provided through His death, will be with God for all eternity at the
> end of
> me>> their life. Those who choose to continue doing things their own way,
> me>> ignoring this Way out, will be separated from Him for all eternity at the
> >
> LB>Well, you've no proof for any of this. How do you know God isn't looking
> LB>for those with the intelligence or the strength of character to resist
> LB>these attempts at eternal blackmail? Remember, skepticism is a gift
> LB>from God just as much as worship is.
>
> The proof is in His Word, and also revealed through His own self in the
> form of Jesus on earth. I've tried to include as many references as
> possible so you can look them up in context.
You miss the point. I'm saying that God might be looking for those who
can see through/beyond this devotion-through-fear or however you'd like
to describe it. References within this misleading path are therefore
irrelevant, although the more convincing they appear to be, the
better it will be for those few who will not be fooled and will find
God on their own (perhaps even without meaning to).
Note that, of course, I can't prove that this is the case. On the other
hand, it's impossible to disprove, and I would argue that it's as least
as credible an alternative. Maybe by tempting us with the false gospels
of Christianity, God is looking for those who can use the most important
of all his gifts: independent thought? (Obviously, I don't personally
believe this, but I think it's far more plausible than that we're all
born with sins that we must expiate, or perish.)
> I'm pretty sure God doesn't base things on intelligence & strength, or I
> sure as heck would never know Him. In Proverbs, He says that human
> "knowledge" puffs up -- people get too self-righteous & "intellectual" to
> consider belief in God a rational thing. That's pretty much where I was
> before. If I had stayed there, I'd never have been humbled enough to seek
> Him. And I'd never have found Him. No wonder He says we need to be like
> children.
See above - references within Christianity are meaningless if the whole
point is to get above Christianity. And if belief in God isn't rational,
then the fault is with God for giving us the power of rationality in the
first place. (See also Kirkegaard, while we're in the area).
> And no, skepticism isn't God's gift -- rather, a perversion of God's gift.
> He gave us the ability to think & reason, but cynicism/skepticism is a
> misuse of this gift, corrupted by sin. It's an area that I struggle w/in
> my own life, too.
I don't see how it's possible to separate skepticism from reason/logic.
Skepticism is, after all, nothing more than the questioning of assumptions,
and is essential for the discovery of any logical truth. In any case, once
again, there are only two options:
* There is no intelligence without skepticism. God, being
all-intelligent,
is the Greatest Cynic.
* There can be intelligence without skepticism - this is the type of
intelligence God has. Since we can be cynical and skeptical, we
can do things God can't. I'm sure you don't like the implications
of this. Moreover, this means that God deliberately gave us
the lesser form of intelligence, with cynicism attached....in other
words, he clearly wants some of us to question him and burn in
hell. Ouch.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> me>> How can a loving God have it any other way? Why would a loving God FORCE
> me>> a person to spend eternity with Him? The answer is clear...a loving God
> me>> WOULDN'T...and doesn't.
> >
> LB>Incidentally, I would have thought that a loving God *would* force everyone
> LB>to spend eternity with them, since, by definition, he's the greatest thing
> LB>in the universe and therefore immensely rewarding to hang out with, and
> LB>surely a perfectly benevolent God would want all his creations to be as
> LB>happy
> LB>as possible, even despite their flaws?
>
> But if you love someone, set them free. They want this. It hurts me to
> see them in pain. But I need to let them follow their desires.
You're forgetting that very few of these misguided people *want* pain;
they just don't believe that there *is* pain or happiness under God
after death, and so don't allow it to afffect their actions. Once they
have died, and have been shown the error of their ways, where's the
harm in allowing them to be happy after that?
Besides, even if their desires do lead them towards pain, isn't there
a place in heaven for masochists? :)
> Just because God lets us go, it doesn't mean it makes Him happy -- when He
> knows where we're going. But if any come back, He greets them w/the
> warmest welcome. (See parables of Prodigal Son, Lost Coin, Lost Sheep, etc.)
Unfortunately, parables are merely analogies/metaphors. At least the
Prodigal Son knew that he was forsaking the support of his father and the
safety of his home. If God appeared to me and said "Look, you can leave
me if you want, but don't expect too much after you croak," then the
parallels would be closer. Expecting me to modify my behaviour on the basis
of extraordinarily unlikely probabilities, and then chastising me for not
doing it, is pretty unfair, IMHO. I'm going to another casino.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> me>> Those who have received Christ as their Lord & Savior may be "smug" (or
> me>> assured) in the knowledge that they will be w/God for all eternity. But
> me>> in no way does a Christian rejoice in the knowledge that anyone will
> "burn
> me>> in hell". Why do you think we're so anxious to tell others the truth we
> me>> have learned?
> >
> LB>Um, assuming that you "will be w/God for all eternity" is encroachment
> LB>upon God's prerogative to "judge the living and the dead." Humility,
> LB>y'know. Nothing's guaranteed in this life, or in the next.
>
> Gosh, Laurence, you're beginning to sound like a Puritan. Who would've
> thought? :)
I put it all down to the influence of Massachusetts. :)
> But actually, that's contrary to what the Bible says on this matter:
> "He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God
> does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe
> in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have
> eternal life." (I John 5:12-13) ^^^^
> Also:
> "The Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of
> God, and if children, then heirs -- heirs of God and joint heirs
> with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be
> glorified together." (Romans 8:16-17)
> So basically, God wants us to be certain that, if we have received Jesus,
> we are saved by His grace. And He further assures us through the Holy
> Spirit in us.
Except that we are also liable for what we have done: "And shall come
forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John 5:29) Jesus
also clearly
states that he has the power of judgement: "For as the Father hath life in
himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath
given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of
man." (John 5:26-27). This power of judgment is worthless, if there is a
simple
acid test of salvation. What's more, all the references to those who
will have their sins forgiven if they embrace the Lord in the Bible clearly
refer only to *past* sins; never does it say that new believers have
carte blanche to sin in the future. Instead, the adultress was told to
"go forth, and sin no more."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >And why are you so anxious to tell others? Probably because you suffer
> >from the common human need to have your choices reinforced by the
> >choices of others.
>
> Because I love you, Laurence. You can spit on me & my beliefs, but still,
> if I see you crossing the street about to be hit by a semi, I'd want to
> warn you in time. Well, the semi's coming, whether you believe it or not.
> And I don't want you to (spiritually) die.
On the other hand, if you knocked me to the ground to get out of the way
of an *imaginary* semi, I'd find that perhaps well-meaning on the first
occasion, increasingly irritating on all subsequent occasions. That's how
I feel about proselytisation.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Besides, isn't the spread of religion in this way dependent
> >upon your human powers of persuasion, not the strength of Jesus?
>
> Nope. It's not w/in human powers to "convert" anyone. Purely by the
> Spirit of God, working in them. Jesus said:
> "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice
> and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he
> with Me." (Revelation 3:20)
> You can respond to the knock or let Jesus go on knocking, but again, it's
> up to you.
If the person behind the door lacks presentation skills, however, and I
remain unconvinced, whereas I might have listened to a more
proficient advisor, then it's not really up to me. All of a sudden, there's
a distinctly random element involved. (Note also that this doesn't touch
on why I find it so incredibly difficult to believe in God w/ the
"freewill"
he's supposed to have given me)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Now, if you meant "self-righteous", no one who has received Christ should
> >> ever be self-righteous. The only reason he (or she) has been saved is
> >> purely through the grace of God, and certainly NOT by his own righteousness.
> >> If he had attempted to do it by his own righteousness, he would NOT be saved.
> >> "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of
> >> yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone
> >> should boast."
> >> -- Ephesians 2:8-9
> >
> >Huh? So whether you're good or bad doesn't amount to a hill of
> >beans in the long run? What happened to taking responsibility for
> >our own actions?
>
> If it were within human power to be truly good, it would amount to our own
> salvation. But it's not. Our "righteousness" is like filthy rags before
> God. It's not enough to "buy" our way into heaven. So you're right.
> We're all taking responsibility for our own actions -- the problem of our
> own sin. We need to pay for that somehow.
God had the power to make us so we weren't as prone to sin. All this
trips over that one stumbling-block.
> We're all lined up against a huge canyon (eg. Grand Canyon), and God is on
> the other side. Everyone wants to reach God & all His goodness. Some may
> jump farther than others, but in the end, we all fall. None can make it
> on His own. But if we just look off a little to the left, we'll see the
> bridge He has lain across the canyon -- Jesus Christ -- so those who want
> may cross over. It's His way, or no way.
What about those who died without ever hearing about "His" way? Even
for those who have been exposed to Christianity, how do they know that
what they're hearing is what Jesus meant for them to hear?
James R. McGowan
>It seems to be a discussion on God's omnipotence/choice/etc. I used to
>think that God could do everything, but I don't believe that anymore. God
>is limited by His own character. For example, we know (from what He
>has written in His Word) that God is love, that God is perfect (i.e.
>without sin), that God is just, etc.
You know this? How do you know this?? Because a 5000-year old book
says so? Do you believe Homer completely? How about Aristotle's
physics?
Or has gODD spoken to you personally?
>Therefore, He cannot do anything
>UNloving, sinFUL, or UNjust...or He would no longer be God.
He can't??? Why not? Isn't he omnipotent? His record, in his own book,
seems to indicate the jackass cares little for mortals like I.
"As flies are to little boys, so are we to the gods: they kill us for
their sport." "Hamlet", i believe.
You'd better change brands os snake oil; this one won't sell.
BTW, if you want to preach, take it over to soc.religion.christian.
Those dorks appear to like it.
Wait a minute. He (gODD) made the rule that sin = death in the first
place. It's hardly a scientific law governing the universe ( <- flame bait.)
He also made Satan who allegedly is the author of all this turmoil. Why
doesn't he just destroy him? Why does he ALLOW him to lead me astray?
>This is why Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one
>comes to the Father, but through Me" -- John 14:6.
Suppose he was lying. Allah's going to be pissed.
>We can receive this "way out" that God has provided through Himself, or
>continue to do things our own way. In the end, though, we will all stand
>before the Judge's seat, and the death penalty will need to be paid for
>each person. For those who have received Christ, the penalty has already
>been paid by Him. For those who haven't, they'll be paying on their own.
Prove it. Don't just assert. I want to see some evidence. Bald assertions
are meaningless. Any con man (which all preachers are) can make them.
>But in all things, God has and will continue to remain true to His
>character. He has to. He's God, and He does not change. (James 12:17)
OHH! THANK YOU! So this is the same gODD who was such a royal falming
asshole in the Old Testament, is it? Do you REALLY want the job of
trying to defend him?
> Corine Y. Takiguchi
James R. McGowan
>Sounds like you want the easy way out. The World just wants to please itself
>not do anything for anyone else, does it? Does anyone make any sacrifices
>anymore except for money? We all just want to do whatever we want with no
>rules. You can't serve two masters. If we have to make sacrifices to avoid
>breaking the laws then we just have to make sacrifices. Gods law is just.
I believe I deleted the "Jewels from God's Law" file. It contained bible
citations where gODD commands people to kill other people, often for what
certainly appear to be minor offenses. I'm sure I can reconstruct if you'd
like, though.
If you believe that last sentence, I've got several bridges over San Francisco
Bay for sale.
BTW, we're not questioning gODD. We're questioning your wishful thinking
about what gODD should be.
>Does your dog have the right to go to the bathroom in the middle
>of your living room if he so choses? No, there are certain rules he must live
>by. And we have rules we must live by. We can't ask for the rules to change,
>we can only ask for forgiveness when we break them.
Argument by analogy. And a bad analogy. As far as anyone has been able to
show, dogs do not possess minds capable of abstract reasoning. We do.
If gODD expects obedience, or even respect, from us he is going to have to
justify himself to those minds. Period.
James R. McGowan
>Keith Cochran writes: (and this will hopefully also address Ken
>Arromdev's response)
>>Nope. Sorry. God, as the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything,
>>has more than enough power to just forgive all of us regardless of what
>>we do.
>What's your definition of "forgiveness"? Forgiveness, in my book, always
>includes some sort of price. For example, if you steal my car & damage
>it, there is a cost involved: the cost of the damaged car. I can choose
>to forgive you, but my doing so does not mean that the costs magically go
>away. They remain...but I just choose to swallow the costs myself.
>The same "rules" hold true with God. We have sinned against Him, and as a
>result, costs have been incurred...that "death penalty" (Romans 6:23a).
Do you actually believe this crap? There are costs _ONLY_ because he says
so. In your car analogy, there is a third party involved- -the garage that
does the repair work. Where is the third party here?
Another argument: Does not gODD have access to infinite power and infinite
knowledge? Suppose it takes X units of each to "fix". Well,
X/Q -> 0 as Q -> infinity.
So it costs gODD _nothing_.
Corine Y Takiguchi
>
me>> All of us have sinned -- i.e. chosen to turn away from God & go our own
me>> way. As a result, all of us deserve (according to the rules/law) to be
me>> completely cut off from God's presence, immediately. This absence of God
me>> is otherwise known as hell/death/whatever.
>
KS>As we all know the laws of mankind provides options for forgiveness,
KS>for instance we don't kill criminals for criminal activites (I exclude
KS>the death sentences in US, because in many other Western countries
KS>there are no death sentences with the exception of wartime crimes).
>
KS>Thus sinning and forgiveness is an actual reality -- remembering
KS>from my Lutheran upbringing wasn't this the core message of
KS>Christianity, the forgiveness of sins?
Yes. But my point was that forgiveness comes at a price...which needs to
be swallowed by the forgiver. We may choose NOT to excecute murderers, or
cause robbers to repay 2x what they've stolen, or whatever. (I'm trying to
make this a more reasonable "eye for an eye" human justice system, rather than
suggest that the death penalty would be enforced on all crimes, including
some guy who cheats on his tax forms. :) But in this choice of
"forgiveness", we are causing the victim (or whoever) to forego the
rightful price of the wrong -- i.e. take it on him/herself. For example,
if you stole my pearl necklace & flung it into the ocean, I could forgive
you (i.e. free you from paying damages), but in doing so, I'd have to
take that cost onto myself. ^^^
So yes, God can (and wants to) forgive us. But He can only do so by
taking the cost of the crime (sin) onto Himself -- paying for it Himself
through Jesus. If we refuse to accept this substitute, we pay on our own.
In other words, we refuse to accept the forgiveness.
Corine Y Takiguchi
>
>Note that there are humans who deliberately cut off any connection
>with God or Gods, and they don't regret this at all, so there's nothing
>negative per see to be disconnected from God.
>
>For instance I have severred my connections with the Nordic and
>Finnish Gods, however I don't see any dangers with this.
Exactly. So, if those who believe in Nordic & Finnish gods believe that
your unbelief will send you into eternal separation from their gods, you
don't (and shouldn't) have a problem with that. You can simply sit back
in your knowledge that you have nothing to fear.
James R. McGowan
>Laurence Byrne (responding to me, responding to Keith Cochran) writes:
>KC> Nope. Sorry. Wrong. All He has to do is change the rules so
> that anything
>KC> he does is loving, sinless, and just, and he can feel free to wipe out
>KC> the firstborn of all the egyptions.
>>
>me>> "Wip[ing] out the firstborn of all the Egyptians [sic]" was not a change
>me>> of the rules on God's part. He is still loving, sinless, & JUST.
>>
>LB> Mass murder as loving & just? I'm looking forward to the justification for
>LB> this...
>>
>me>> All of us have sinned -- i.e. chosen to turn away from God & go our own
>me>> way. As a result, all of us deserve (according to the rules/law) to be
>me>> completely cut off from God's presence, immediately. This absence of God
>me>> is otherwise known as hell/death/whatever.
>>
>LB> Uh-huh. Except, in this case, the first-born sons weren't answering for
>LB> their own sins, rather for the "sins" of their society as a whole.
>Again, ALL of us have sinned (Romans 3:23). Yes, even those first-born
>sons. ALL of us deserve to be cut off from God...but He may choose to
>prolong this punishment (give us an extension) -- but it's not our
>right...it's His grace.
You're sick, you know. You need help. This is the sickest post I've seen
in this group.
Go away. Quit reading, quit posting, just go away. Your blindness and
stupidity are beyond hope.
Your joining Booby as the only the second member of my kill file.
Goodbye.
Corine Y Takiguchi
>
> Refusing to grant access to the Kingdom of God to those who denied God
>when given the chance to embrace him in life is fair enough (if you buy
>into the whole God/judgement thing in the first place, of course), but
>there is a big difference between saying that people are not in a state
>of grace when born and saying that they may therefore be denied life on
>a whim. What if one of the slain Egyptians would have embraced God in later
>life?
Since God is all-knowing, He'd know whether they would have embraced Him
later in life or not.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Ok, I hadn't seen the earliest messages in the thread, sorry about that
>confusion. I would point out, though, that according to your definition
>I'm *already* dead, since I have "spiritual separation from God" (by
>dint of denying his existence).
Well, yes. The Bible makes many references to the spiritually dead state
of every human as a result of our sin...until we receive Christ and begin
to walk in newness of life. One example:
"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins..."
-- Paul, to the believers at Ephesus (Eph. 2:1)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>All this, though, is very dependent upon your interpretation of Genesis.
>I don't mean to challenge the veracity of your physical death/spiritual
>death dichotomy - that certainly survives even when the text is read
>metaphorically - but I believe that these verses are poor justifications
>for the doctrine of original sin, written as they are in a book of the
>Bible that has been discredited as an historical account and was written
>as one.
The Genesis account is by no means the only reason for the doctrine of
original sin. Romans (an incredibly deep theological book of the Bible)
states it pretty clearly:
"Therefore, just as through one man [Adam] sin entered the world,
and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all
sinned....Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over
those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the
transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. [Jesus]"
-- Romans 5:12,14
It's better to read the whole thing in context (Romans 5). It starts
making much more sense than just reading a snippet.
[By the way, if anyone doesn't have & wants a Bible, let me know. I have an
extra copy. I also might be able to get free little copies of New
Testaments. Write me personally, if you're interested.]
As for the part about the historicity of Genesis, what exactly did you mean?
>metaphorically - but I believe that these verses are poor justifications
>for the doctrine of original sin, written as they are in a book of the
>Bible that has been discredited as an historical account and was written
>as one.
Did you mean that the book of Genesis has been discredited as a historical
account -- i.e. that it is not really historically accurate? Or that some
have discredited the use of Genesis to argue for original sin, since
Genesis was intended merely as a historical account?
If the former, I'd be interested in your sources/evidence/reasons.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>If our purpose is to glorify God, that stinks of vanity on the part of
>God - since he's the only one who can witness this glory. Suggesting that
>our existence is necessary for God's glory is contrary to the definition
>of God as a non-contingent entity. There would appear to be two options:
You're right. Our existence is not necessary for God's glory. He is
perfect & complete withing Himself (as the Trinity), and didn't NEED
to create us.
And just because our purpose is to glorify God does not imply vanity on
God's part. If I created a robot, its ingenious construction would
glorify me, for its existence would testify to my intellectual genius.
(Of course, if you knew me, you'd be rolling by now, since I'm about as
technologically competent as...a horse. OK, so I'm no literary genius
either. So sue me. :) But the fact that I created this robot doesn't
necessarily mean that I'm an egomaniac.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Either way, it still doesn't explain why we were created in such a way that
>a large number of us must necessarily undergo eternal agony because we
>don't like the sound of this God.
This eternal agony is true of all humans. All of us are sinners, and deep
inside, we know the sin in our own hearts. But we still don't appreciate
having it being pointed out. Which is why we don't find it very pleasant to
come into the presence of a perfect, holy God. (Again, godly Isaiah could
do nothing but declare his own sinful state when he was confronted by a
vision of the glory of God.)
Yet, God wants us to come before Him. He won't ignore the sin. Rather,
He'll acknowledge it...and take it away. It hurts (especially in the
pride arena), but no pain no gain, right?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>And what do you mean when
>you say that "the nature of creation ... is based on God"? I don't
>understand this. Certainly, nothing in the universe/creation can bear
>any physical resemblance to God, and I'm at a loss to work out what else
>you could be referring to.
Romans 1 talks about how all may know God's character because the universe
testifies/bears witness to Him. Moreover, we know from Genesis that man
(i.e. men & women) was created in the image of God. You're right in
saying that this is not in the physical sense, since God is Spirit. But
the Artist's mark is on us through our conscience, our faculties of
reason, our freedom, etc.
When I say that the nature of creation is based on God, I mean that God's
nature (as Artist) makes a definite imprint on His creation. If I paint a
picture (God forbid! -- no pun intended), it would reflect my own
character. So someone looking at the picture could have some sort of notion
as to what I, as artist, am like.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I contend that free will granted by the same entity that already knows
>the results of the choices made by that free will is not "free" at all.
>God knows exactly what fate will befall each and every one of us
Just because He knows what each person will choose, does not mean that
they didn't have a choice. Omniscience and free will are not mutually
exclusive.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>since
>he's responsible for the design of the universe and the design of the
>mechanism of "free will" that we use to make choices, he's directly
>responsible for all the misery in this world as well as that which
>will befall those who fail the test and go to hell in the next.
He allowed us the possibility of choosing misery, but He cannot be held
responsible for our choice.
And whoever said it was a test. It's a decision, pure and simple. Do you
want to follow your Creator and live w/Him forever, or do you want to
do things your own way? It's your decision, and you'll get your desire.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> LB>Well, you've no proof for any of this. How do you know God isn't looking
>> LB>for those with the intelligence or the strength of character to resist
>> LB>these attempts at eternal blackmail? Remember, skepticism is a gift
>> LB>from God just as much as worship is.
>>
me>> The proof is in His Word, and also revealed through His own self in the
me>> form of Jesus on earth. I've tried to include as many references as
me>> possible so you can look them up in context.
>
>You miss the point. I'm saying that God might be looking for those who
>can see through/beyond this devotion-through-fear or however you'd like
>to describe it. References within this misleading path are therefore
>irrelevant, although the more convincing they appear to be, the
>better it will be for those few who will not be fooled and will find
>God on their own (perhaps even without meaning to).
If that's your belief, fine. Personally, I don't think that God is trying
to trick us. It doesn't seem to match His character, as revealed through
creation. (We'll leave His Word aside for this point.)
And FYI, I'm not following God via "devotion-through-fear". I'm not sure
how efective a "devotion-through-fear" method of "conversion" would be. I
might obey my mom out of fear of being punished, but not really believe
she has good intentions for me, etc. Why do I (attempt to) follow God? I
think He deserves my allegiance. He created me, and when I strayed, He
bought me back:
"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still
sinners, Christ died for us." -- Romans 5:8
That convinces me He has pretty good intentions for me.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>See above - references within Christianity are meaningless if the whole
>point is to get above Christianity. And if belief in God isn't rational,
>then the fault is with God for giving us the power of rationality in the
>first place. (See also Kirkegaard, while we're in the area).
If we're talking about God's point of view, it seems to make sense to look
at what He has said in His Word.
And belief in God is rational. He promises that if we seek Him, He will
reveal Himself to us. And it doesn't require a "blind leap of faith".
Faith, yes; but blind, no. He gives us a heck of a lot of evidence.
An honest question: What would convince you that God exists?
If He spoke out of the blue to you? Or would you wonder if your
friends are playing a trick on you?
If He healed you? Or would you see it as a coincidence or the
wonders of modern medicine? Or acknowledge God, but just come
to Him for favors?
Ask yourself honestly what would convince you. After all, He's already
worked tons of miracles...and even rose from the dead. Still, people have
seen, but haven't believed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I don't see how it's possible to separate skepticism from reason/logic.
>Skepticism is, after all, nothing more than the questioning of assumptions,
>and is essential for the discovery of any logical truth.
It may just be a case of semantics. Personally, I see a distinction
between questioning & skeptical. The first implies honest seeking, with a
desire to know the answer. The second implies a pessimistic outlook --
"There probably is no real answer, so let me try to pick everything to
shreds." The questioner gathers evidence, considers them, and chooses the
side with the best evidence. The skeptic comes with a pre-assumption as
to what the end result of the research will be -- a pretty self-fulfilling
approach.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
me>> But if you love someone, set them free. They want this. It hurts me to
me>> see them in pain. But I need to let them follow their desires.
>
>You're forgetting that very few of these misguided people *want* pain;
>they just don't believe that there *is* pain or happiness under God
>after death, and so don't allow it to afffect their actions. Once they
>have died, and have been shown the error of their ways, where's the
>harm in allowing them to be happy after that?
Again, what should God do to prove this. He's sent prophets & priests,
and even Himself to tell people. He's commissioned people to write it
all down, and others to translate it, and still others to bring it to
the remotest parts of the world. How do you want Him to communicate it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
me>> "He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God
me>> does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe
me>> in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have
me>> eternal life." (I John 5:12-13) ^^^^
me>> Also:
me>> "The Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of
me>> God, and if children, then heirs -- heirs of God and joint heirs
me>> with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be
me>> glorified together." (Romans 8:16-17)
me>> So basically, God wants us to be certain that, if we have received Jesus,
me>> we are saved by His grace. And He further assures us through the Holy
me>> Spirit in us.
>
>Except that we are also liable for what we have done: "And shall come
>forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they
>that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John 5:29)
But remember, that "There is none who does good, No, not one" (Psalm
14:3), and "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans
3:23). By this standard alone, all would fall and enter into the
"resurrection of damnation". Thank God (literally :) that He doesn't
leave it at that.
>Jesus also clearly
>states that he has the power of judgement: "For as the Father hath life in
>himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath
>given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of
>man." (John 5:26-27). This power of judgment is worthless, if there is a
>simple acid test of salvation.
There is a simple way of KNOWING how we will be judged (again, that
passage in I John, etc.), but the power of judgement is still in the hands
of the God. When we come before the throne of God on the last day, we
will need to account for that spiritual "death penalty" for our sins (from
previous discussions -- if you missed it & want to know, write me).
On our own merit, we all fall. But for those who have believed on Jesus,
Jesus will stand up for them because He knows them. Their sins have been
covered through the sacrifice of Jesus, so when the Father looks at
them, He no longer sees sin, but purity. These will pass through the
judgement. Those who have not received Jesus will not pass through, as
their sins have not been accounted for.
Also, read vs. 24 of that passage from John 5 you quoted above.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>What's more, all the references to those who
>will have their sins forgiven if they embrace the Lord in the Bible clearly
>refer only to *past* sins; never does it say that new believers have
>carte blanche to sin in the future. Instead, the adultress was told to
>"go forth, and sin no more."
Jesus's sacrifice paid the penalty once, for all (Hebrews 10:14). I don't
need to continue to offer new sacrifices for each sin after receiving
Christ. (Those would be futile.) His death was enough to cover all sins --
past, present, and future.
At the moment a person decides to trust in Christ for his salvation, his
inward sinful nature is changed (II Corinthians 5:17). Yet, he still
continues to sin on earth because of his outward fleshly nature,
which remains dead in sin (Romans 7). (When his fleshly body dies, his
spirit [new nature] will be given a new body, and he will finally be
completely free from sin.)
What do we do about these sins? I John 1:8-9 (John to believers):
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth
is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to
forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Basically, confess them to God -- i.e. agree with God that what you've
done is sin. (He's omniscient...it's not like you're surprising Him here.)
It's like my relationship w/my parents. When I do something against them,
it's not like they cease to be my parents. It's just that the
relationship is somewhat out of sync. To restore the relationship, it
requires my coming to them, confessing what I've done, and experiencing
their forgiveness.
RE: your question on a free license to sin, Paul addresses that very question:
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may
abound?" (Romans 6:1)
"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under
grace?" (Romans 6:15)
[Paul really makes a solid argument through the whole book of Romans, covering
all the bases.] His answer?
"Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?"
(Romans 6:1-2)
So technically speaking, one could take salvation as a free license to
sin. But if a person has this view, have they really been saved? Doesn't
seem like they've died to sin. Sin still reigns in them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>God had the power to make us so we weren't as prone to sin.
Sure, but then we'd be robots. What's the fun of that? Maybe we wouldn't
run the risk of hell, but we also wouldn't have a chance of true glory.
We couldn't experience love, or faithfulness, or poetry, or art, or
beauty. We'd be like the animals, acting on instinct, and without the
true freedom & flavor we experience as humans, who have both consciousness
and will.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>What about those who died without ever hearing about "His" way?
Again, God promises that He will reveal Himself to those who seek Him. He
revealed Himself to Helen Keller -- lost in her isolated world of deafness
& blindness -- by bringing Anne Sullivan (a believer) into her life. He
has reached distant tribes through the work of missionaries, or divine
inspiration, with the same message. God is able. Are people willing?
Corine Y Takiguchi
me>>What's your definition of "forgiveness"? Forgiveness, in my book, always
me>>includes some sort of price. For example, if you steal my car & damage
me>>it, there is a cost involved: the cost of the damaged car. I can choose
me>>to forgive you, but my doing so does not mean that the costs magically go
me>>away. They remain...but I just choose to swallow the costs myself.
>
me>>The same "rules" hold true with God. We have sinned against Him, and as a
me>>result, costs have been incurred...that "death penalty" (Romans 6:23a).
>Do you actually believe this crap? There are costs _ONLY_ because he says
>so. In your car analogy, there is a third party involved- -the garage that
>does the repair work. Where is the third party here?
>Another argument: Does not gODD have access to infinite power and infinite
>knowledge? Suppose it takes X units of each to "fix". Well,
>
> X/Q -> 0 as Q -> infinity.
>So it costs gODD _nothing_.
Throw into the equation the fact that, by our sin, we have fallen an
infinite distance away from God (since a righteous God cannot have sin in
His presence -- His very nature would consume it). What does it cost to
make it up?
Mark McCullough
>>
>>Note that there are humans who deliberately cut off any connection
>>with God or Gods, and they don't regret this at all, so there's nothing
>>negative per see to be disconnected from God.
>>
>>For instance I have severred my connections with the Nordic and
>>Finnish Gods, however I don't see any dangers with this.
>
>Exactly. So, if those who believe in Nordic & Finnish gods believe that
>your unbelief will send you into eternal separation from their gods, you
>don't (and shouldn't) have a problem with that. You can simply sit back
>in your knowledge that you have nothing to fear.
Only one problem. I doubt that Kent has to put up with people telling
him almost every day that Odin will deny him from Valhalla for his
lack of belief. I doubt he gets harassed by followers of Thor for
not going to Thor's services, for not sacrificing to Frey or
Freya for fertility, etc. Why can't xtians leave people alone?
Hardly a week goes by now that I am not harassed by some religious
person for my improper "beliefs". When I was younger, I was
harassed several times a week, almost several times a day by
people who are so indoctrinated by their parents that nonbelief
is bad and evil that they couldn't understand what it means
to be an atheist or agnostic. It's worse for others.
The evangelical nature of many sects of xtianity, combined with
the belief common in xtianity that their way is the one
True (tm) way means that they don't leave others alone much.
--
Mark McCullough Real programmers don't document. If it was hard
ad...@yar.cs.wisc.edu to write, it should be hard to understand.
Xian the Desk Lizard
~Laurence Byrne (responding to me, responding to Keith Cochran) writes:
~Again, ALL of us have sinned (Romans 3:23). Yes, even those first-born
~sons. ALL of us deserve to be cut off from God...but He may choose to
~prolong this punishment (give us an extension) -- but it's not our
~right...it's His grace.
I'm enjoying flaming this bitch's bullshit too much to killfile her. Is
that perverse?
I know that was an offensive statement. The one she made immediately
above it was equally offensive to my ears.
~Actually, I explained this use of "death" earlier, but I will clarify
~here. The "death" (a.k.a. hell) referred to in Romans 6:23 ("the wages of
~sin is death...") is not physical death, but rather, spiritual death --
~i.e. spiritual separation from God. This concept is consistent throughout
~the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.
So you don't actually mean death at all, do you? Unless you mean that
hell is oblivion. I would prefer that to heaven. I don't want to live
for ever! Why do you?
~Valid question. Everything that God does is to His glory -- not because
~He is an egomaniac, but because His very nature as a glorious God makes it
~so. Why did He create us? Not sure. He certainly didn't NEED us, as He
~is complete within His triune Self. Our purpose here as His creation is
~to give Him glory through a relationship with Him. In praising Him, we
~reach the ultimate fulfillment...although we can choose against this
~purpose.
AND GET THIS NEXT BIT:
~[Before you immediately attack this, set it aside and chew on it for
~awhile. If you were allmighty, all-glorious God, and you created
~something -- would it be egotistical for the nature of that creation to be
~based upon you? Or is it just the nature of creation? And a
~natural result of your own glory?]
Hmm... I could only be an almighty and all-glorious God if I had
something to be God OF. So I'd probably create Earth for the purpose...
And thinking about it, why do we assume there is just ONE of these
beings? There could be any number, but if this one had some
psychological problem, he would probably need to create an Earth to
bolster his own ego. That he based his creation upon himself is
egotistical, but no more so than some famous authors...
~Yes, we do have some sort of will to choose. God COULD have created
~robots who would follow Him & know no else, but in creating man in His own
~image, He also gave us free will, just as He has free will. All of us
~have used this free will to choose against God (sin), but still, He gives
~us another chance through His own sacrifice.
Adam and Eve WERE robots. It's just that the snake found a bug... |:>
~The proof is in His Word, and also revealed through His own self in the
~form of Jesus on earth. I've tried to include as many references as
~possible so you can look them up in context.
"His word", as you grandiosely titled it, is so riddled with
inaccuracies and inconsistencies that it is very far from being proof.
Evidence, maybe, but fairly ropey evidence if you ask me.
~I'm pretty sure God doesn't base things on intelligence & strength, or I
~sure as heck would never know Him.
Yep, we'd guessed. |:>
~In Proverbs, He says that human
~"knowledge" puffs up -- people get too self-righteous & "intellectual" to
~consider belief in God a rational thing. That's pretty much where I was
~before. If I had stayed there, I'd never have been humbled enough to seek
~Him. And I'd never have found Him. No wonder He says we need to be like
~children.
Maybe they're right. Maybe your humbling was a small part of a much
larger mental sickness. And in any case, you'd rather expect the bible
to say that, wouldn't you, when it is not arguing from reason?
~And no, skepticism isn't God's gift -- rather, a perversion of God's gift.
~ He gave us the ability to think & reason, but cynicism/skepticism is a
~misuse of this gift, corrupted by sin. It's an area that I struggle w/in
~my own life, too.
Scepticism is the willingness to question everything and not believe
what is found to be silly or wanting. What's so wrong with that? I've
known Christian sceptics. Cynicism is different.
But still fun...
~Because I love you, Laurence. You can spit on me & my beliefs, but still,
~if I see you crossing the street about to be hit by a semi, I'd want to
~warn you in time. Well, the semi's coming, whether you believe it or not.
~ And I don't want you to (spiritually) die.
How can you love Laurence, or me for that matter? You have never even
seen us! Love is rather more than warm fuzzies or good vibes. It's a
bit more active. In any case, Jesus said "Love your neighbour as you
love yourself", and I would question how much any Christian truly loved
themselves. Also, he didn't require that that love be spread about the
world like Marmite.
~>Besides, isn't the spread of religion in this way dependent
~>upon your human powers of persuasion, not the strength of Jesus?
~Nope. It's not w/in human powers to "convert" anyone. Purely by the
~Spirit of God, working in them. Jesus said:
~ "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice
~ and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he
~ with Me." (Revelation 3:20)
~You can respond to the knock or let Jesus go on knocking, but again, it's
~up to you.
Wrong. It's all up to you. Because you have to convince somebody of
the presence of a god before they will let yours get a toe in the door.
~If it were within human power to be truly good, it would amount to our own
~salvation. But it's not. Our "righteousness" is like filthy rags before
~God. It's not enough to "buy" our way into heaven. So you're right.
~We're all taking responsibility for our own actions -- the problem of our
~own sin. We need to pay for that somehow.
I don't know. I wouldn't say it was beyond humanity to be truly good.
(I wouldn't say it was beyond your god to be truly evil. I would say if
your god was around, he and Satan are one and the same...)
~We're all lined up against a huge canyon (eg. Grand Canyon), and God is on
~the other side. Everyone wants to reach God & all His goodness. Some may
~jump farther than others, but in the end, we all fall. None can make it
~on His own. But if we just look off a little to the left, we'll see the
~bridge He has lain across the canyon -- Jesus Christ -- so those who want
~may cross over. It's His way, or no way.
No way.
Xian.
Robert Reay
>Laurence Byrne writes:
>>
>> Refusing to grant access to the Kingdom of God to those who denied God
>>when given the chance to embrace him in life is fair enough (if you buy
>>a whim. What if one of the slain Egyptians would have embraced God in later
>>life?
>
>Since God is all-knowing, He'd know whether they would have embraced Him
>later in life or not.
>
anyone) get born?" If God can know that someone would have embraced
him in the future, why bother with all this life stuff, why not
just take a soul figure out its entire future history, prejudge it
and send it on its way.
--
gre...@mail.csh.rit.edu
"Establish enigmas, not explanations."
Willia...@vos.stratus.com
=>>In article <2gr6g2$g...@netnews.upenn.edu> taki...@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Corine Y Takiguchi) writes:
=>>Laurence Byrne writes:
=>>>
=>>> Refusing to grant access to the Kingdom of God to those who denied God
=>>>when given the chance to embrace him in life is fair enough (if you buy
=>>> [...]
=>>>a whim. What if one of the slain Egyptians would have embraced God in later
=>>>life?
=>>
=>>Since God is all-knowing, He'd know whether they would have embraced Him
=>>later in life or not.
=>>
=>Which leads to the question "Then why even bother letting them (or
=>anyone) get born?" If God can know that someone would have embraced
=>him in the future, why bother with all this life stuff, why not
=>just take a soul figure out its entire future history, prejudge it
=>and send it on its way.
Well..., that wouldn't have been enough fear, for the leaders of
yesteryear, to control the masses, like they did.
--Bill M.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those,
calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the
structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any
foundation in his genuine words."
- Thomas Jefferson, to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurence Byrne
(Corine Y Takiguchi) wrote:
> Laurence Byrne writes:
> >
> > Refusing to grant access to the Kingdom of God to those who denied God
> >when given the chance to embrace him in life is fair enough (if you buy
> >into the whole God/judgement thing in the first place, of course), but
> >there is a big difference between saying that people are not in a state
> >of grace when born and saying that they may therefore be denied life on
> >a whim. What if one of the slain Egyptians would have embraced God in later
> >life?
>
> Since God is all-knowing, He'd know whether they would have embraced Him
> later in life or not.
Yet you're also claiming that God allows us to exercise free will. How can
the dead do this? Moreover, since you can say that God knows whether all
of us would embrace him in later life, why aren't we all equally
slaughtered
upon birth? Surely it wouldn't make any difference?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >All this, though, is very dependent upon your interpretation of Genesis.
> >I don't mean to challenge the veracity of your physical death/spiritual
> >death dichotomy - that certainly survives even when the text is read
> >metaphorically - but I believe that these verses are poor justifications
> >for the doctrine of original sin, written as they are in a book of the
> >Bible that has been discredited as an historical account and was written
> >as one.
>
> The Genesis account is by no means the only reason for the doctrine of
> original sin. Romans (an incredibly deep theological book of the Bible)
> states it pretty clearly:
> "Therefore, just as through one man [Adam] sin entered the world,
> and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all
> sinned....Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over
> those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the
> transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. [Jesus]"
> -- Romans 5:12,14
Since this verse is still based upon the actions of Adam and Eve, and
their position as ancestors of the entire race, it's equally flawed.
(Adam and Eve did not exist. They were not the first two humans.)
> As for the part about the historicity of Genesis, what exactly did you mean?
I meant that Genesis contains what the people of the time believed was the
early history of the world. Obviously, they didn't have the true facts
at their disposal.
> >metaphorically - but I believe that these verses are poor justifications
> >for the doctrine of original sin, written as they are in a book of the
> >Bible that has been discredited as an historical account and was written
> >as one.
>
> Did you mean that the book of Genesis has been discredited as a historical
> account -- i.e. that it is not really historically accurate? Or that some
> have discredited the use of Genesis to argue for original sin, since
> Genesis was intended merely as a historical account?
Both. Genesis is not historically accurate, and I'm saying that since it
was
written as an historical account, and is false, arguments such as the one
for original sin predicated on Genesis's "facts" are invalid.
> If the former, I'd be interested in your sources/evidence/reasons.
(a) It contains two conflicting accounts of the creation of the universe.
(b) The Earth was not created in 7 days.
(c) You can't breed a species of billions from just two ancestors.
(d) Any knowledge at all of the methods of speciation shows that it is
pointless to speak of two individuals within a population being
the only two representatives of a race. There is always a continuum.
(e) The female of a species is not formed by taking the rib from a male
(unless Eden was run like Jurassic Park)
(f) Humans did not walk upon the Earth immediately after its coming into
existence - more like 4.5 billions years later
(g) Since Adam doesn't exist in the form described by Genesis, he certainly
couldn't have lived for 930 yrs (Gen 5:5) - to say nothing of
Methuselah and all those other characters.
(h) There was never a "global flood" with an ark to preserve the flora and
fauna - that's physically impossible.
That's probably enough to be going on with.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >If our purpose is to glorify God, that stinks of vanity on the part of
> >God - since he's the only one who can witness this glory. Suggesting that
> >our existence is necessary for God's glory is contrary to the definition
> >of God as a non-contingent entity. There would appear to be two options:
>
> You're right. Our existence is not necessary for God's glory. He is
> perfect & complete withing Himself (as the Trinity), and didn't NEED
> to create us.
Or to consign many of us to eternal damnation, but he seems to have done
it anyway.
> And just because our purpose is to glorify God does not imply vanity on
> God's part. If I created a robot, its ingenious construction would
> glorify me, for its existence would testify to my intellectual genius.
> (Of course, if you knew me, you'd be rolling by now, since I'm about as
> technologically competent as...a horse. OK, so I'm no literary genius
> either. So sue me. :) But the fact that I created this robot doesn't
> necessarily mean that I'm an egomaniac.
It *does* mean you're an egomaniac, if the only reason you created it was
to have something as testimony to your own glory (and robotic skills).
If there was another reason why God created us, and not merely for
the sake of his glory, then he wouldn't be vain, but you haven't yet
supplied one.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Either way, it still doesn't explain why we were created in such a way that
> >a large number of us must necessarily undergo eternal agony because we
> >don't like the sound of this God.
>
> This eternal agony is true of all humans. All of us are sinners, and deep
> inside, we know the sin in our own hearts. But we still don't appreciate
> having it being pointed out. Which is why we don't find it very pleasant to
> come into the presence of a perfect, holy God. (Again, godly Isaiah could
> do nothing but declare his own sinful state when he was confronted by a
> vision of the glory of God.)
>
> Yet, God wants us to come before Him. He won't ignore the sin. Rather,
> He'll acknowledge it...and take it away. It hurts (especially in the
> pride arena), but no pain no gain, right?
God made us and our hearts - therefore, he gave us the ability to
sin, and did this knowing the fate that would befall many. No matter how
you slice it, God still caused millions to suffer for no good reason
yet uncovered.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >And what do you mean when
> >you say that "the nature of creation ... is based on God"? I don't
> >understand this. Certainly, nothing in the universe/creation can bear
> >any physical resemblance to God, and I'm at a loss to work out what else
> >you could be referring to.
>
> Romans 1 talks about how all may know God's character because the universe
> testifies/bears witness to Him. Moreover, we know from Genesis that man
> (i.e. men & women) was created in the image of God. You're right in
> saying that this is not in the physical sense, since God is Spirit. But
> the Artist's mark is on us through our conscience, our faculties of
> reason, our freedom, etc.
You may know that from Genesis, but I know from evolutionary biology
that the "creation" of man was a long, drawn out process of adaptation
to local environments. I don't see any legitimate reason for distinguishing
between the formation of mental and physical attributes (in other words,
I don't see what reason you have for saying that certain parts of our
makeup were contributed by God, other than that you'd like it to be true).
> When I say that the nature of creation is based on God, I mean that God's
> nature (as Artist) makes a definite imprint on His creation. If I paint a
> picture (God forbid! -- no pun intended), it would reflect my own
> character. So someone looking at the picture could have some sort of notion
> as to what I, as artist, am like.
This is no more than anthropomorphizing God. A human painter can only
paint according to their particular artistic bent (although that doesn't
mean that many can't do very good forgeries of another style). God,
though, could do anything in any style, since presumably he's not
contrained by a particular personality or emotional whim. There is
therefore
no reason to believe that the Book of the Revealed World does properly
reflect the nature of God.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >I contend that free will granted by the same entity that already knows
> >the results of the choices made by that free will is not "free" at all.
> >God knows exactly what fate will befall each and every one of us
>
> Just because He knows what each person will choose, does not mean that
> they didn't have a choice. Omniscience and free will are not mutually
> exclusive.
They are *if the omniscient being is the one controlling the choices*.
If God gave me my soul, knowing what choices I would make with it,
why didn't he give me a different soul? If God in any way influences
the nature of individuals, then free will is an illusion.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >since
> >he's responsible for the design of the universe and the design of the
> >mechanism of "free will" that we use to make choices, he's directly
> >responsible for all the misery in this world as well as that which
> >will befall those who fail the test and go to hell in the next.
>
> He allowed us the possibility of choosing misery, but He cannot be held
> responsible for our choice.
Yes, he can (see above).
> And whoever said it was a test. It's a decision, pure and simple. Do you
> want to follow your Creator and live w/Him forever, or do you want to
> do things your own way? It's your decision, and you'll get your desire.
It certainly sounds like a test to me, since I've apparently been
brought into the world for the sole purpose of making this decision.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> LB>Well, you've no proof for any of this. How do you know God isn't looking
> >> LB>for those with the intelligence or the strength of character to resist
> >> LB>these attempts at eternal blackmail? Remember, skepticism is a gift
> >> LB>from God just as much as worship is.
> >>
> me>> The proof is in His Word, and also revealed through His own self in the
> me>> form of Jesus on earth. I've tried to include as many references as
> me>> possible so you can look them up in context.
> >
> >You miss the point. I'm saying that God might be looking for those who
> >can see through/beyond this devotion-through-fear or however you'd like
> >to describe it. References within this misleading path are therefore
> >irrelevant, although the more convincing they appear to be, the
> >better it will be for those few who will not be fooled and will find
> >God on their own (perhaps even without meaning to).
>
> If that's your belief, fine. Personally, I don't think that God is trying
> to trick us. It doesn't seem to match His character, as revealed through
> creation. (We'll leave His Word aside for this point.)
See above - the physical universe says nothing about a spiritual being.
> And FYI, I'm not following God via "devotion-through-fear". I'm not sure
> how efective a "devotion-through-fear" method of "conversion" would be. I
> might obey my mom out of fear of being punished, but not really believe
> she has good intentions for me, etc. Why do I (attempt to) follow God? I
> think He deserves my allegiance. He created me, and when I strayed, He
> bought me back:
> "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still
> sinners, Christ died for us." -- Romans 5:8
> That convinces me He has pretty good intentions for me.
The fact that if you *don't* follow God you'll feel eternal torment
doesn't affect your decision any? If so, you've certainly got greater
moral fibre than I do.
I would also point out that devotion through fear has been, and still
is, a major part of mainstream Christianity.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >See above - references within Christianity are meaningless if the whole
> >point is to get above Christianity. And if belief in God isn't rational,
> >then the fault is with God for giving us the power of rationality in the
> >first place. (See also Kirkegaard, while we're in the area).
>
> If we're talking about God's point of view, it seems to make sense to look
> at what He has said in His Word.
How do you know it's His Word? Perhaps Christianity is a ruse by another
supernatural being (call it Satan or whatever you will) to lead people
away from the True Nature of God?
> And belief in God is rational. He promises that if we seek Him, He will
> reveal Himself to us. And it doesn't require a "blind leap of faith".
> Faith, yes; but blind, no. He gives us a heck of a lot of evidence.
Certainly no evidence that would stand up in a court of law. And
no one has *ever* arrived at the existence of God through reason alone,
and not for lack of trying. Once you require faith, you can have faith
in just about anything (since, by definition, faith doesn't require
logical thought).
> An honest question: What would convince you that God exists?
> If He spoke out of the blue to you? Or would you wonder if your
> friends are playing a trick on you?
> If He healed you? Or would you see it as a coincidence or the
> wonders of modern medicine? Or acknowledge God, but just come
> to Him for favors?
> Ask yourself honestly what would convince you. After all, He's already
> worked tons of miracles...and even rose from the dead. Still, people have
> seen, but haven't believed.
Maybe if he called me when the phone wasn't plugged in. (Email from
g...@mount.olympus won't cut it.)
"There is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a
sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good sense, education
and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves"
-David Hume, courtesy of the alt.atheism quotes file
It would certainly take a lot to convince me that it was really God.
Amazing, isn't it, how there were so many more miracles in the less
knowledgeable times of 2000 years ago.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >I don't see how it's possible to separate skepticism from reason/logic.
> >Skepticism is, after all, nothing more than the questioning of assumptions,
> >and is essential for the discovery of any logical truth.
>
> It may just be a case of semantics. Personally, I see a distinction
> between questioning & skeptical. The first implies honest seeking, with a
> desire to know the answer. The second implies a pessimistic outlook --
> "There probably is no real answer, so let me try to pick everything to
> shreds." The questioner gathers evidence, considers them, and chooses the
> side with the best evidence. The skeptic comes with a pre-assumption as
> to what the end result of the research will be -- a pretty self-fulfilling
> approach.
That doesn't sound like a fair characterization of skepticism to me.
As far as I can see, "questioning" and "skepticism" are synonyms according
to your description of questioning. There's nothing logically wrong
in requiring a high standard of proof.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> me>> But if you love someone, set them free. They want this. It hurts me to
> me>> see them in pain. But I need to let them follow their desires.
> >
> >You're forgetting that very few of these misguided people *want* pain;
> >they just don't believe that there *is* pain or happiness under God
> >after death, and so don't allow it to afffect their actions. Once they
> >have died, and have been shown the error of their ways, where's the
> >harm in allowing them to be happy after that?
>
> Again, what should God do to prove this. He's sent prophets & priests,
> and even Himself to tell people. He's commissioned people to write it
> all down, and others to translate it, and still others to bring it to
> the remotest parts of the world. How do you want Him to communicate it?
Well, he's certainly not doing enough when a majority of the Earth's
citizens
aren't Christians. Why doesn't he explode the moon, then cause a two-mile
high mountain to appear overnight while simultaneously curing all cancers?
It wouldn't cost him anything.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Jesus also clearly
> >states that he has the power of judgement: "For as the Father hath life in
> >himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath
> >given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of
> >man." (John 5:26-27). This power of judgment is worthless, if there is a
> >simple acid test of salvation.
>
> There is a simple way of KNOWING how we will be judged (again, that
> passage in I John, etc.), but the power of judgement is still in the hands
> of the God. When we come before the throne of God on the last day, we
> will need to account for that spiritual "death penalty" for our sins (from
> previous discussions -- if you missed it & want to know, write me).
>
> On our own merit, we all fall. But for those who have believed on Jesus,
> Jesus will stand up for them because He knows them. Their sins have been
> covered through the sacrifice of Jesus, so when the Father looks at
> them, He no longer sees sin, but purity. These will pass through the
> judgement. Those who have not received Jesus will not pass through, as
> their sins have not been accounted for.
So, why did God create both us and the universe in such a way that we
would require Jesus's intercession? This argument is circular, and
it says a lot about a loving God that causes people to fall by default.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >What's more, all the references to those who
> >will have their sins forgiven if they embrace the Lord in the Bible clearly
> >refer only to *past* sins; never does it say that new believers have
> >carte blanche to sin in the future. Instead, the adultress was told to
> >"go forth, and sin no more."
>
> Jesus's sacrifice paid the penalty once, for all (Hebrews 10:14). I don't
> need to continue to offer new sacrifices for each sin after receiving
> Christ. (Those would be futile.) His death was enough to cover all sins --
> past, present, and future.
>
> At the moment a person decides to trust in Christ for his salvation, his
> inward sinful nature is changed (II Corinthians 5:17). Yet, he still
> continues to sin on earth because of his outward fleshly nature,
> which remains dead in sin (Romans 7). (When his fleshly body dies, his
> spirit [new nature] will be given a new body, and he will finally be
> completely free from sin.)
It makes absolutely no sense to me to talk about people continuing to
sin after their souls have been cleansed. My reading of the text would
be that (i) all sins will be forgiven those who embrace Jesus (ii) *after*
this forgiveness, the onus is on the person not to sin again as much as
possible. (Just how tight the tolerance is on this one, we can't say
for sure.) Only those who make an effort in good faith to use the
the blessing of Jesus, not rely on it, will pass.
>
> What do we do about these sins? I John 1:8-9 (John to believers):
> "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth
> is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to
> forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
> Basically, confess them to God -- i.e. agree with God that what you've
> done is sin. (He's omniscient...it's not like you're surprising Him here.)
> It's like my relationship w/my parents. When I do something against them,
> it's not like they cease to be my parents. It's just that the
> relationship is somewhat out of sync. To restore the relationship, it
> requires my coming to them, confessing what I've done, and experiencing
> their forgiveness.
I believe that the relationship between you and your parents, and you and
God, is so qualitatively different as to defy analogy (w/o needlessly
anthropomorphizing God). You have a free will that is entirely
*independent*
of your parents.
> RE: your question on a free license to sin, Paul addresses that very question:
> "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may
> abound?" (Romans 6:1)
> "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under
> grace?" (Romans 6:15)
> [Paul really makes a solid argument through the whole book of Romans, covering
> all the bases.] His answer?
> "Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?"
> (Romans 6:1-2)
> So technically speaking, one could take salvation as a free license to
> sin. But if a person has this view, have they really been saved? Doesn't
> seem like they've died to sin. Sin still reigns in them.
In accordance with their own understanding of redemption, they have been
saved. Saying that those who sin after salvation weren't really saved
is evasive, to my mind.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >God had the power to make us so we weren't as prone to sin.
>
> Sure, but then we'd be robots. What's the fun of that? Maybe we wouldn't
> run the risk of hell, but we also wouldn't have a chance of true glory.
> We couldn't experience love, or faithfulness, or poetry, or art, or
> beauty. We'd be like the animals, acting on instinct, and without the
> true freedom & flavor we experience as humans, who have both consciousness
> and will.
All I said was less prone, not robots. Why couldn't God have made us
so that we don't find certain immoral things as pleasurable? To my mind,
what you're saying is very close to what *I* would say : that we have
complete freedom of will and pleasure because there is nothing
preprogramming our brains other than simple genetics.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >What about those who died without ever hearing about "His" way?
>
> Again, God promises that He will reveal Himself to those who seek Him. He
> revealed Himself to Helen Keller -- lost in her isolated world of deafness
> & blindness -- by bringing Anne Sullivan (a believer) into her life. He
> has reached distant tribes through the work of missionaries, or divine
> inspiration, with the same message. God is able. Are people willing?
Hmm, you didn't say anything about how we can know whether or not
Jesus is being misrepresented....(which must be the case, there being
more Christian sects than I can count) Besides, missionaries to some
distant tribes is not the same thing as missionaries to *all* distant
tribes.
Dave Batchelor, Space Phys. Data Facil. 301/286-2988
(Corine Y Takiguchi) writes...
>....
>of every human as a result of our sin...until we receive Christ and begin
>to walk in newness of life. One example:
> "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins..."
> -- Paul, to the believers at Ephesus (Eph. 2:1)
> <<< Lots of biblical quotations and exhortations deleted for space>>>
>...has reached distant tribes through the work of missionaries, or divine
>inspiration, with the same message. God is able. Are people willing?
>
> Corine Y. Takiguchi
> taki...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
>
Isn't it clear yet that you can type these sermons all day without any
result? The people who are reading this mostly don't accept the message
you are sending. It's just wasting your time. Please spend your time
on something that might be worthwhile. Do you have a family? Any
friends? Please go and spend some time with someone who cares about you.
Regards,
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David Batchelor Space Science Data Operations Office Mail Code 632
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD 20771 USA
batc...@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov * personal opinions only, not NASA policy *
Theorem: Consider the set of all sets that have never been considered.
Hey! They're all gone!! Oh, well, never mind...
James Felder
Ed Boris <ebo...@dale.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>Sounds like you want the easy way out.
Sounds like you need to maintain a flawed model of the universe, the
basic premise of which is god, I assume the 3-omni Xian flavor here,
exists. You observe something, and must try to get your model of the
universe to agree with the observation. The problem is that a lot of
events occur that don't fit well in your model, like evil and
suffering. So you must layer ad hoc modifications after ad hoc (evil
requires an advisary that god must fight so that evil isn't the
creation of god, etc.). As a last resort, you throw up your hands
and cry "its a mystery", as if that were some kind of explaination.
However, build a model of the universe that doesn't have an
intelligence behind it and suddenly everything begins to fit
together. The resulting natural explainations do nothing for human
comfort, which is why I think most people don't except it. But it
does a much more coherent job of explaining the universe. Best of
all it can be falsified, which allows it to be tested.
If feeling warm and safe and fuzzy all over is your only goal, then
pick any model of the universe that gives you that. If, however, it
is important to you to try and determine how the universe really
works, then you must put your god model up against other models of the
universe, and pick the one that fits best, regardless of your personal
emotions. To me, the god models have almost no explaintory power and
predictive power only rivaled by that of thrown dice.
Jim
>If we have to make sacrifices to avoid
>breaking the laws then we just have to make sacrifices.
If we make sacrifices to avoid breaking laws that don't exist, then we
are foolish.
> Who are we to question God, The Father Almighty?
If I was created, then I was created with a mind. I feel no hesitation
in using that mind. That mind says that with the evidence I have, I
wasn't created. If some creator is unhappy with that, then either I
should be given more information, or have been created differently.
>He made us and gave us
>everything. We should be happy and obedient,
and mindless, and unquestioning, and droolingly Pavlovian, NOT!
not constantly testing His love
>and mercy. He asks so little of us as it is.
Just my intellectual honesty.
Jim
--
James L. Felder jfe...@lerc.nasa.gov
NYMA-SETAR Team Some things you have to believe to see
NASA Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio, 44135
David Bold
|> It came to my notice that fa...@pine.circa.ufl.edu wrote in <2gblgj...@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> from fa...@pine.circa.ufl.edu:
|>
|> : It is hard for us to comprehend it
|> : or rationalize it (we cannot even comprehend the Holocaust or the hatred
|> : and atrocities in Bosnia.) We often make the mistake of looking at
|> : historical events with modern eyes and values, or judging God's actions
|> : with human's relative set of values.
|>
|> You say you cannot comprehend or rationalize(sic) the holocaust and yet
|> that was many years ago and only around 6 million were killed. Have you
|> even tried to rationalise the fact that every year hundreds of millions
|> of animals are murdered purely due to greed? How can it be that you care
|> so much about 6 millions killed way back when and yet are unconcerned
|> about hundreds of millions killed every year? They are not humans, right?
|> Maybe if you could comprehend how most people can be unconcerned about
|> the loss of hundreds of millions of animal lives for greed you would be
|> able to understand why some Nazis were unconcerned about the lives lost
|> in the holocaust.
Gooood line!
David (vegan in an attempt to retain my integrity)
--
There are masked words abroad, I say, which nobody understands, but
which everybody uses, and most people will also fight for, live for,
or even die for, fancying they mean this, or that, or the other, of
things dear to them.
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
Laurence Byrne <byr...@husc.harvard.edu> wrote:
>In article <2gq5hk$b...@netnews.upenn.edu>, taki...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
>(Corine Y Takiguchi) wrote (in response to me, LB):
>> Laurence Byrne (responding to me, responding to Keith Cochran) writes:
>>
>
>[reference is to killing of all 1st born sons of Egyptians]
>
>> LB> Mass murder as loving & just? I'm looking forward to the justification for
>> LB> this...
>> >
>> me>> All of us have sinned -- i.e. chosen to turn away from God & go our own
>> me>> way. As a result, all of us deserve (according to the rules/law) to be
>> me>> completely cut off from God's presence, immediately. This absence of God
>> me>> is otherwise known as hell/death/whatever.
>> >
>> LB> Uh-huh. Except, in this case, the first-born sons weren't answering for
>> LB> their own sins, rather for the "sins" of their society as a whole.
>>
>> Again, ALL of us have sinned (Romans 3:23). Yes, even those first-born
>> sons. ALL of us deserve to be cut off from God...but He may choose to
>> prolong this punishment (give us an extension) -- but it's not our
>> right...it's His grace.
>
>Right, the doctrine of original sin dictates that the Egyptian sons, as
>well
>as everyone else in the world, were tainted and therefore liable to
>punishment. However, the sin that they (the sons) were being killed for
>was *not* "original sin" - it was the sin of the Egyptians in general
>oppressing God's Chosen People (viz. the Israelites).
Whoops! The Pharoh was going to let the Jews go, until God "hardened
his heart".
--
=kcoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
=Subscribe to alt.christnet.sex! Start collecting the whole set today! =
Laurence Byrne
kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) wrote:
> In article <byrne1-09...@byrne1.student.harvard.edu>,
> Laurence Byrne <byr...@husc.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >Right, the doctrine of original sin dictates that the Egyptian sons, as
> >well
> >as everyone else in the world, were tainted and therefore liable to
> >punishment. However, the sin that they (the sons) were being killed for
> >was *not* "original sin" - it was the sin of the Egyptians in general
> >oppressing God's Chosen People (viz. the Israelites).
>
> Whoops! The Pharoh was going to let the Jews go, until God "hardened
> his heart".
Geez, poor call on God's part. Still, we can't all bat 1.000....
Rob Steele
> Sounds like you need to maintain a flawed model of the universe.
[...]
> However, build a model of the universe that doesn't have an
> intelligence behind it and suddenly everything begins to fit
> together.
I know what you mean. I sometimes think reality is stupid.
> The resulting natural explainations do nothing for human
> comfort which is why I think most people don't except it.
They do free you from the demands of the Christian God, which many
people find it worth tons of psychotherapy to be rid of.
> But it does a much more coherent job of explaining the universe. Best of
> all it can be falsified, which allows it to be tested.
Here's a test: How does it account for itself? That is, how does it
account for human beings being able to perceive its truth? I don't
think Naturalism can admit such a thing without revealing a contradiction,
which is about all the testing any ontology can be subject to.
Sorry to jump into the middle of this discussion when I haven't payed
attention to what went before but your last remarks were so provocative.
Under the mercy,
Rob
Ray Ingles
>An honest question: What would convince you that God exists?
This is my canned reply to this (all-too-frequent) question. I truly
mean it.
I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, when this guy walks
up and says, "Excuse me? Mr. Ingles? I understand that you've been meaning
to meet me. Well, by way of introduction..." and he snaps his fingers.
Suddenly, everything gets blurry. I take off my glasses. "Yes, that's
right. You now have 20/15 vision without glasses. You've said before that
if someone could do this, you'd give them your attention for a few hours,
as they explained what was up. Well, do you have a few hours to spare?"
"Uhh, well, uh... sure. Um, excuse me, I've never seen a miracle before."
"No matter. Come, let's sit down over here. Now, about this 'free will'
thing..."
Now, assuming that the answers he gave were clear, cogent, and believable,
he would have a convert!
(Note that the gender of the emissary is unimportant. Actually, a cute
female might even be *more* of a selling point. :-> )
Nothing in this is beyond the power of any deity *I've* heard of. And if
they're interested in my belief, this is a guaranteed conversion. So,
the ball is in It's court...
[deletions]
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>God had the power to make us so we weren't as prone to sin.
>
>Sure, but then we'd be robots.
1) If you don't have the possibility of evil, you don't have free will.
2) God never has done evil, and never will.
Therefore:
3) God does not have free will.
Or am I missing something?
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles ing...@engin.umich.edu
"An apple every eight hours keeps three doctors away." - B. Kliban
John P Fullerton
Jon Livesey <liv...@solntze.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>I think you had better suspect that I am right, since there
>is an obvious example of God reforming a system instead of
>destroying it, right there in the Bible.
What is the chapter and verse for the example?
John Paul Fullerton
Mark Kupferman
: In article <2gr6g2$g...@netnews.upenn.edu> taki...@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Corine Y Takiguchi) writes:
: [deletions]
: >An honest question: What would convince you that God exists?
: This is my canned reply to this (all-too-frequent) question. I truly
: mean it.
: I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, when this guy walks
: up and says, "Excuse me? Mr. Ingles? I understand that you've been meaning
: to meet me. Well, by way of introduction..." and he snaps his fingers.
: Suddenly, everything gets blurry. I take off my glasses. "Yes, that's
: right. You now have 20/15 vision without glasses. You've said before that
: if someone could do this, you'd give them your attention for a few hours,
: as they explained what was up. Well, do you have a few hours to spare?"
: "Uhh, well, uh... sure. Um, excuse me, I've never seen a miracle before."
: "No matter. Come, let's sit down over here. Now, about this 'free will'
: thing..."
: Now, assuming that the answers he gave were clear, cogent, and believable,
: he would have a convert!
Unfortunately, there is one logical complication to that. You are assuming
that you could trust your own sanity. Everyone else certainly would. After
all, there are hundred of people throughout history who have CLAIMED to
have been in the same situation as you described in your example. A few
have been believed: they start their own little religious cults; others
have been ignored: they go off to live in caves; some have been though
mad: you'll find them in psychiatric facilities.
If *you* were in the above described example, would you question your own
sanity? Would you consider the possibility that perhaps you had been
dreaming?
No matter what you do, BELIEF always feeds into it somehow. Either you
believe in God, or you don't. There will *never* be any proof, because
whether he exists or not, we can still explain him away. On the flip side,
if we need a God badly enough, we can make one up and force ourselves to
believe in it.
_________________________________________________________________
Mark Kupferman
cat...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
Ray Ingles
>Ray Ingles (ing...@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
>: In article <2gr6g2$g...@netnews.upenn.edu> taki...@mail.sas.upenn.edu (Corine Y Takiguchi) writes:
>: [deletions]
>: >An honest question: What would convince you that God exists?
>
>: This is my canned reply to this (all-too-frequent) question. I truly
>: mean it.
>
>: I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, when this guy walks
>: up and says, "Excuse me? Mr. Ingles? I understand that you've been meaning
>: to meet me. Well, by way of introduction..." and he snaps his fingers.
>: Suddenly, everything gets blurry. I take off my glasses. "Yes, that's
>: right. You now have 20/15 vision without glasses. You've said before that
>: if someone could do this, you'd give them your attention for a few hours,
>: as they explained what was up. Well, do you have a few hours to spare?"
>: "Uhh, well, uh... sure. Um, excuse me, I've never seen a miracle before."
>: "No matter. Come, let's sit down over here. Now, about this 'free will'
>: thing..."
>
>: Now, assuming that the answers he gave were clear, cogent, and believable,
>: he would have a convert!
>
>Unfortunately, there is one logical complication to that. You are assuming
>that you could trust your own sanity.
>If *you* were in the above described example, would you question your own
>sanity? Would you consider the possibility that perhaps you had been
>dreaming?
You're damn straight I would. But, I am occasionally a lucid dreamer.
I know how to tell if I'm dreaming; read something, look away, and
read it again. If I'm dreaming, it'll change.
Second, that's why I asked for a lasting miracle- the healing of my
eyes. I am, thank goodness, correctable up to 20/18 or so (that's
better than 20/20, BTW). But I need fairly thick glasses. Surgery would
leave detectable traces, and I'd check up on them later. Anything else
would need either *really* advanced technology (not impossible, but
unlikely- and if they're that powerful, they can make me believe anyway)
or a miracle. Since I would expect the corrected vision to last, I would
have demonstrable evidence (at least, to me) that *something* quite out
of the ordinary happened.
Don't forget that I want "clear, cogent, and believable" explanations
as well, over a period of several hours. I want the opportunity to
ask questions (though it might be more convincing if the being answered
my questions before I asked them...) The miracle is just to establish
the credentials of the lecturer, so to speak.
True, I can't be absolutely sure that I'm not being fooled by some
powerful alien being, or that I'm ready for the giggle buggy, but
then, I can't be absolutely sure that entire universe isn't a big
illusion, a la Descartes. What I've described above is what it would
take to convince me that it is prudent to act as if a God existed,
just as I believe that it's prudent to act as if other humans exist.
>No matter what you do, BELIEF always feeds into it somehow. Either you
>believe in God, or you don't. There will *never* be any proof, because
>whether he exists or not, we can still explain him away. On the flip side,
>if we need a God badly enough, we can make one up and force ourselves to
>believe in it.
Well, I would still believe that "supernatural" is a poor word to describe
what a god is like, since anything that exists is part of my definition of
nature. But I think this is pretty good proof.
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles ing...@engin.umich.edu
"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
ron house
>So yes, God can (and wants to) forgive us. But He can only do so by
>taking the cost of the crime (sin) onto Himself -- paying for it Himself
>through Jesus. If we refuse to accept this substitute, we pay on our own.
>In other words, we refuse to accept the forgiveness.
What cost? Who is this 'cost' owed to? God? If so, he is punishing himself
so that he feels satisfied that the penalty has been paid (by him) to himself.
I have often likened the Xian god to a defective computer program (you
know, the sort that sends you bills for $0.00, so you have to write a
cheque for $0 to stop it threatening to sue), and your posting has
reinforced my belief.
--
Ron House. USQ
(ho...@usq.edu.au) Toowoomba, Australia.
Corine Y Takiguchi
>>>
KS>>>For instance I have severred my connections with the Nordic and
KS>>>Finnish Gods, however I don't see any dangers with this.
>>
me>>Exactly. So, if those who believe in Nordic & Finnish gods believe that
me>>your unbelief will send you into eternal separation from their gods, you
me>>don't (and shouldn't) have a problem with that. You can simply sit back
me>>in your knowledge that you have nothing to fear.
>
>Only one problem. I doubt that Kent has to put up with people telling
>him almost every day that Odin will deny him from Valhalla for his
>lack of belief.
>Why can't xtians leave people alone?
>Hardly a week goes by now that I am not harassed by some religious
>person for my improper "beliefs".
>The evangelical nature of many sects of xtianity, combined with
>the belief common in xtianity that their way is the one
>True (tm) way means that they don't leave others alone much.
On behalf of my brothers & sisters in Christ, I want to apologize for any
harassment, "fire and brimstone" attacks, and/or "Bible thumping" you (or
anyone else) has experienced. [I realize this may sound sarcastic, but I
assure you, I am being sincere here.]
While Christians are called to evangelism -- sharing w/others the good
news they have found -- we certainly are not called to harass/offend
others. I once heard of a guy who would intentionally play Christian
music/sermons loudly all day as a method of "evangelism". I don't believe
this type of approach is exactly what Jesus had in mind.
Yet, I disagree with you that all evangelism is wrong. There really are
people who are seeking truth, and who have never heard the message of the
gospel in a clear, understandable way. There are many people who have
heard the gospel, but who have never been given answers to their deepest
questions...and who have a hard time making a "blind leap of faith" (and
rightly so). And the list goes on.
Yes, Christians believe that there is only one way to God. And they want
to share what they have found with others.
Ask yourself what really bugs you about the whole evangelism-thing. Is it
the method that's offensive? (like the aforementioned guy) Or is it the
message? If the former, that can & should be changed. If the latter,
I'm sorry, but I can't change that. My commission to share this message
comes from God, and I must obey Him before men. But Christians have
already been warned that the message they carry is an offensive one to many:
(Jesus speaking:) "If the world hates yu, you know that it hated Me
before it hated you." (John 15:18)
(Paul:) "For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who
are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we
are the aroma of death to death, and to the other the aroma of
life to life...." (II Corinthians 2:15-16)
Corine Y. Takiguchi
taki...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
============================================================================
| "I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it." |
Corine Y Takiguchi
>
me>~Actually, I explained this use of "death" earlier, but I will clarify
me>~here. The "death" (a.k.a. hell) referred to in Romans 6:23 ("the wages of
me>~sin is death...") is not physical death, but rather, spiritual death --
me>~i.e. spiritual separation from God. This concept is consistent throughout
me>~the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.
>
>So you don't actually mean death at all, do you? Unless you mean that
>hell is oblivion. I would prefer that to heaven. I don't want to live
>for ever! Why do you?
Well, it's not a question of exist forever or not. We all will exist
forever (at least the spirit part); it's just a question of where.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You can "kill file" me if you want, Xian. I won't be offended. I'm not
"forcing" you to listen. ;-)
I'm sorry if you disagree w/my theology. I'm not intentionally writing to
offend you. It's quite simple, really. If the discussion is a
theological one, I'm going to respond on the theological level. If
philosophical, philosophical. If historical, historical. If scientific,
scientific. Etc. (At least, I'll give it my best shot.)
That is to say, if someone's talking about the nature of heaven & hell, I'm
not going to say, "But you're wrong, because my school went undefeated in
football this year." ;-)
When someone suggested possible alternatives to the "Lord, liar, lunatic"
reasoning process (eg. Jesus was misquoted, etc.), I attempted to respond
to these alternatives in a rational way. I didn't just write: "Well, the
Bible says you're wrong, so <nyeah>!" That'd sort of defeat the purpose
of the whole discussion.
Corine Y Takiguchi
>
>Genesis is not historically accurate, and I'm saying that since it was
>written as an historical account, and is false, arguments such as the one
>for original sin predicated on Genesis's "facts" are invalid.
>
How do the accounts conflict? The first account (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3) goes
through the 7-day process -- an overview, from God's perspective. Genesis
2:4-7 summarizes the first account, while transitioning to a focus on man.
Then the story is repeated (Genesis 2:8-25), this time with this human focus
-- i.e. God's relationship w/man, detailed descriptions of man's world &
responsibilities, how the different genders were created, etc. This human
focus makes for an appropriate transition to the fall of man, and the rest
of the history.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(b) The Earth was not created in 7 days.
Some Christians believe that the term "day" is metaphorical, representing
periods. Others claim a literal interpretation, as the "scientific proof"
for an old earth has met with conflicting evidence. (Example: Before men
landed on the moon, scientists had calculated that -- given the great age
of the earth & moon, and the average rate at which stellar dust falls to the
earth -- the level of dust on the moon's surface should be extremely deep.
But in reality, the astronauts discovered that there was only a shallow
layer of dust on the moon when they landed.)
On another note, one should also take into account that the creation story
in Genesis does not include the creation of the earth w/in the 7-day period:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1)
[description of earth]
"Then God said, 'Let there be light'...." (Gen 1:3)
Who knows how much time passed between vs. 1 & 3?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(c) You can't breed a species of billions from just two ancestors.
Why not? Remember Malthus? Population increases geometrically.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(d) Any knowledge at all of the methods of speciation shows that it is
> pointless to speak of two individuals within a population being
> the only two representatives of a race. There is always a continuum.
Don't quite understand what you mean here. I'm not a bio major. :)
Seriously, though, I'd appreciate some clarification.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(e) The female of a species is not formed by taking the rib from a male
> (unless Eden was run like Jurassic Park)
Not any more. That was a special case -- performed supernaturally -- to
set up the gender differences between humans at the beginning. Now a days,
it happens the "natural way" (wink, wink).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(f) Humans did not walk upon the Earth immediately after its coming into
> existence - more like 4.5 billions years later
Perhaps so. But this is not necessarily inconsistent w/Genesis. See the 2nd
paragraph in response to (b).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(g) Since Adam doesn't exist in the form described by Genesis, he certainly
> couldn't have lived for 930 yrs (Gen 5:5) - to say nothing of
> Methuselah and all those other characters.
Is your point here that Adam didn't exist in any form, ever? Or that he
didn't exist in a particular form, as described in Genesis? If the
latter, what is this form to which you were referring. (Please cite
references, so I can read in context.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(h) There was never a "global flood" with an ark to preserve the flora and
> fauna - that's physically impossible.
Actually, a number of archaeologists/geologists believe that certain
fossils/rock formations/etc. may have been caused by a huge flood.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
me>> And just because our purpose is to glorify God does not imply vanity on
me>> God's part. If I created a robot, its ingenious construction would
me>> glorify me, for its existence would testify to my intellectual genius.
me>> (Of course, if you knew me, you'd be rolling by now, since I'm about as
me>> technologically competent as...a horse. OK, so I'm no literary genius
me>> either. So sue me. :) But the fact that I created this robot doesn't
me>> necessarily mean that I'm an egomaniac.
>
>It *does* mean you're an egomaniac, if the only reason you created it was
>to have something as testimony to your own glory (and robotic skills).
>If there was another reason why God created us, and not merely for
>the sake of his glory, then he wouldn't be vain, but you haven't yet
>supplied one.
I don't believe God's only reason for creating was to have a testament to His
own glory. I don't know what His reasons were. But perhaps they might be
similar to people who want to have children. Are they egomaniacs who want
to show off their ability to produce, provide for, and bring up children?
Not necessarily. People may desire to have children for a variety of reasons.
God, as Father, may have had similar ones.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>You may know that from Genesis, but I know from evolutionary biology
>that the "creation" of man was a long, drawn out process of adaptation
>to local environments. I don't see any legitimate reason for distinguishing
>between the formation of mental and physical attributes (in other words,
>I don't see what reason you have for saying that certain parts of our
>makeup were contributed by God, other than that you'd like it to be true).
Yet, non-theistic evolution is a theory, just as creation is. Since the
process cannot be replicated, it will never become more than that. Such
is the nature of the scientific method.
I don't believe in non-theistic evolution, because it doesn't account for
the fact that humans have a mind, imagination, a conscience, consciousness,
a sense of humor, etc. These things are not really necessary for
survival. In fact, some may even inhibit survival in certain cases. (For
example, I could just kill off a bunch of competitors, so I could survive
longer/better, but my moral nature inhibits me.) Moreover, I cannot
fathom how such abstract things could result from a "scientific"/concrete
process of evolution...unless another Agent was involved.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
me>> And belief in God is rational. He promises that if we seek Him, He will
me>> reveal Himself to us. And it doesn't require a "blind leap of faith".
me>> Faith, yes; but blind, no. He gives us a heck of a lot of evidence.
>
>Certainly no evidence that would stand up in a court of law. And
>no one has *ever* arrived at the existence of God through reason alone,
>and not for lack of trying. Once you require faith, you can have faith
>in just about anything (since, by definition, faith doesn't require
>logical thought).
When you sat on your chair before logging on, how did you know that the
chair wasn't going to break? You put faith in the chair's power to
support your weight. Why? Well, you based your faith on logic. The
chair has always supported you in the past; it looks sturdy; etc. But in
the end, the decision was one based on faith.
Most of our decisions have a faith element. But the real question isn't
how much faith we have, but how reliable is the object of our faith. I
could have very little faith when I step out on a lake of ice, but if the
ice is 12" thick, I'll stand. On the other hand, my friend might have a
lot of faith when he walks boldly onto a different lake of ice, but if his
ice is only a tenth-of-a-millimeter thin, he'll fall. What to do? The
best option is always to consider ALL the evidence, and make the best
decision possible. But since you don't really KNOW what the outcome will
be, it's really a faith-thing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
me>> An honest question: What would convince you that God exists?
me>> If He spoke out of the blue to you? Or would you wonder if your
me>> friends are playing a trick on you?
me>> If He healed you? Or would you see it as a coincidence or the
me>> wonders of modern medicine? Or acknowledge God, but just come
me>> to Him for favors?
me>> Ask yourself honestly what would convince you. After all, He's already
me>> worked tons of miracles...and even rose from the dead. Still, people
me>> have seen, but haven't believed.
>
>Maybe if he called me when the phone wasn't plugged in. (Email from
>g...@mount.olympus won't cut it.)
Personally, if it happened to me, I'd wonder if my friends were playing a
trick. But there's that skeptic-side of me coming out again. :)
>Well, he's [God] certainly not doing enough [to prove Himself] when a
>majority of the Earth's citizens
>aren't Christians. Why doesn't he explode the moon, then cause a two-mile
>high mountain to appear overnight while simultaneously curing all cancers?
>It wouldn't cost him anything.
Of course, exploding the moon would sort of end up killing us all, since
the gravity balance would be seriously thrown off.
But seriously, can't you picture people just explaining it all away --
some coincidence, or scientifically-explainable phenomenon, etc. After
all, people have had their reasons for not believing in God thrown
off in the past...but they just come up w/a new rationalization for why
their theory still holds.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
me>> "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth
me>> is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to
me>> forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
-- John, writing to believers (I John 1:8-9)
me>> RE: your question on a free license to sin, Paul addresses that very
question:
me>> "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may
me>> abound?" (Romans 6:1)
me>> "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under
me>> grace?" (Romans 6:15)
me>> [Paul really makes a solid argument through the whole book of Romans,
me>> covering all the bases.] His answer?
me>> "Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?"
me>> (Romans 6:1-2)
me>> So technically speaking, one could take salvation as a free license to
me>> sin. But if a person has this view, have they really been saved?
me>> Doesn't seem like they've died to sin. Sin still reigns in them.
>
>In accordance with their own understanding of redemption, they have been
>saved. Saying that those who sin after salvation weren't really saved
>is evasive, to my mind.
In quoting Paul, I wasn't saying that "those who sin after salvation weren't
really saved". That would contradict the first passage from I John.
Rather, the verses from Romans are saying that Christians (those whose
inward sinful natures have been changed by the blood of Christ) wouldn't
have a desire to abuse God's gift by intentionally continuing to sin.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >God had the power to make us so we weren't as prone to sin.
>>
me>> Sure, but then we'd be robots. What's the fun of that? Maybe we
wouldn't
me>> run the risk of hell, but we also wouldn't have a chance of true glory.
me>> We couldn't experience love, or faithfulness, or poetry, or art, or
me>> beauty. We'd be like the animals, acting on instinct, and without the
me>> true freedom & flavor we experience as humans, who have both
consciousness
me>> and will.
>
>All I said was less prone, not robots. Why couldn't God have made us
>so that we don't find certain immoral things as pleasurable?
In the beginning, God made us w/o knowledge of evil...and, thus, we had no
desire for it. But because we wanted to have this knowledge -- even though
God had warned us against it -- we disobeyed, and by this disobedience
brought evil (& temptation to pursue evil) into our world.
I don't think immoral things are pleasurable -- i.e. not FULLY
pleasurable. Why? We can never fully enjoy immorality because of this
inner conscience which tells us it's wrong. Pure pleasure will only come
when we become what we were created to be from the beginning.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Hmm, you didn't say anything about how we can know whether or not
>Jesus is being misrepresented....(which must be the case, there being
>more Christian sects than I can count) Besides, missionaries to some
>distant tribes is not the same thing as missionaries to *all* distant
>tribes.
Since God is omnipotent, He is able to make it such that His message is
uncorrupted. Yes, there are many different Christian denominations, but
these largely differ in terms of traditions/emphases/etc. -- not on how
one receives salvation. Any group/person which preaches an alternative
method of salvation (eg. giving money to buy the leader a BMW --
haha) is preaching a different gospel from Christ's.
And again, an omnipotent God may choose to use missionaries, but by no
means is that His only option. If none are willing to go, He is still
able to reveal Himself to one who is seeking Him...and will. But I
honestly don't think that there are hordes of people actively engaged in
seeking Him.
Corine Y. Takiguchi
taki...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
============================================================================
| "I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it." |
Chris Dollin
Of course, exploding the moon would sort of end up killing us all, since
the gravity balance would be seriously thrown off.
I might believe the first part of that sentence (some of the debris would
head our way), but what's this ``gravity balance'' that would be ``thrown
off''?
[Incidentally, lack of imagination -- as in ``I can't imagine how a
plain physical system would develop morality & a sense of humour'' -- is
evidence for little except lack of imagination. Do you really understand
consciousness so well that you can demonstrate that it cannot be attained
naturally by a physical system?]
--
Regards, | ``In fingers of trees, and valleys of gold | Judy Tzuke
Kers. | I watch as you outshine the charlatan foe.'' | Higher & Higher
Corine Y Takiguchi
>
> 1) If you don't have the possibility of evil, you don't have free will.
> 2) God never has done evil, and never will.
>
> Therefore:
>
> 3) God does not have free will.
Just because God has never done evil & never will, doesn't mean He doesn't
have free will. He knows about evil, but just chooses not to do it. Remember
how the serpent conned Eve in the garden? Eat the fruit, so you can have
knowledge of good & evil like God.
Another example is Jesus. He could've sinned while on earth -- or
Satan wouldn't have wasted his time trying to tempt Him. Yet, He chose
not to.
Corine Y. Takiguchi
taki...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
============================================================================
| "I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it." |
Xian the Desk Lizard
~Unfortunately, there is one logical complication to that. You are assuming
~that you could trust your own sanity. Everyone else certainly would. After
~all, there are hundred of people throughout history who have CLAIMED to
~have been in the same situation as you described in your example. A few
~have been believed: they start their own little religious cults; others
~have been ignored: they go off to live in caves; some have been though
~mad: you'll find them in psychiatric facilities.
~If *you* were in the above described example, would you question your own
~sanity? Would you consider the possibility that perhaps you had been
~dreaming?
~No matter what you do, BELIEF always feeds into it somehow. Either you
~believe in God, or you don't. There will *never* be any proof, because
~whether he exists or not, we can still explain him away. On the flip side,
~if we need a God badly enough, we can make one up and force ourselves to
~believe in it.
Mark, you have missed something. Look again; he actually receives the
20/15 vision and gets to keep it. Every time he asks "Am I mad?" he
need only open his eyes and find the world still as sane and logical as
ever, but in focus... It's not always a question of belief. However,
the argument goes that if a god demonstrates its existence to you in
such a way, faith is no longer required...
Xian.
Xian the Desk Lizard
~Responding to me, Xian writes:
~>
~>So you don't actually mean death at all, do you? Unless you mean that
~>hell is oblivion. I would prefer that to heaven. I don't want to live
~>for ever! Why do you?
~Well, it's not a question of exist forever or not. We all will exist
~forever (at least the spirit part); it's just a question of where.
But if your loving god is so eager to avoid thrusting any kind of
coercion upon souls (as you have argued in previous posts), surely he
will grant me the trivial matter of non-existence forthwith? Or are you
saying that to eradicate me is beyond God's means also?
~You can "kill file" me if you want, Xian. I won't be offended. I'm not
~"forcing" you to listen. ;-)
~I'm sorry if you disagree w/my theology. I'm not intentionally writing to
~offend you. It's quite simple, really. If the discussion is a
~theological one, I'm going to respond on the theological level. If
~philosophical, philosophical. If historical, historical. If scientific,
~scientific. Etc. (At least, I'll give it my best shot.)
Well, reread the context of the killfile remark. And then read the
posting I made just before that. I have no problems with different
theologies, some of my best friends are Christians, but I do try to make
a good case as to why I don't believe them. And I did once, so I am
hardly coming fresh to the debate.
But remember that you pissed me, and a lot of other people, off when you
told us all that the firstborn in Egypt deserved to die, even those
babies who had just been born.
~That is to say, if someone's talking about the nature of heaven & hell, I'm
~not going to say, "But you're wrong, because my school went undefeated in
~football this year." ;-)
~When someone suggested possible alternatives to the "Lord, liar, lunatic"
~reasoning process (eg. Jesus was misquoted, etc.), I attempted to respond
~to these alternatives in a rational way. I didn't just write: "Well, the
~Bible says you're wrong, so <nyeah>!" That'd sort of defeat the purpose
~of the whole discussion.
Well, congratulations, I am pleased to hear it. However, your basic
belief does come down to "Well, the Bible says you're wrong". That's
what it's there for. All the other historical, or philosophical
arguments you invoke are placed on top of that foundation. It works
about as well as putting Windows 3.1 on top of MSDOS...
~ Corine Y. Takiguchi
Xian.
Ivan A Derzhanski
>Just because God has never done evil & never will, doesn't mean He doesn't
>have free will. He knows about evil, but just chooses not to do it.
>Another example is Jesus. He could've sinned while on earth -- or
>Satan wouldn't have wasted his time trying to tempt Him. Yet, He chose
>not to.
(Another example? Weren't God and Jesus supposed to be the same thing?)
So it is possible to have free will, but not to do evil, is it?
Then doesn't it take an idiot (that is, a Christian proselytiser)
to claim that every human being necessarily does evil at one time
or the other just because he has free will?
--
`As the day wears oan, Jesus' disciples say tae him, "It's gettin oan, boss."'
Ivan A Derzhanski (i...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk/chaos.cs.brandeis.edu) (The G/w G/l)
* Centre for Cognitive Science, 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Ray Ingles
>Ray Ingles writes:
>>
>> 1) If you don't have the possibility of evil, you don't have free will.
>> 2) God never has done evil, and never will.
>>
>> Therefore:
>>
>> 3) God does not have free will.
>
>Just because God has never done evil & never will, doesn't mean He doesn't
>have free will. He knows about evil, but just chooses not to do it. Remember
>how the serpent conned Eve in the garden? Eat the fruit, so you can have
>knowledge of good & evil like God.
>
>Another example is Jesus. He could've sinned while on earth -- or
>Satan wouldn't have wasted his time trying to tempt Him. Yet, He chose
>not to.
Sorry, you've walked into the trap. We now know that it is perfectly
possible for a being to have free will, and yet never do evil.
So the "free will" explanation for the existence of evil no longer
applies. God could've created humans in such a way that they had free
will, and yet never chose to do evil.
Yet, God didn't do that. Ergo, God, for some reason, *chose* to create
beings who would do evil. But we are told that God hates evil. I see
a major inconsistency here.
(I'm assuming that it's not just a matter of luck; that is, I'm assuming
that God won't ever choose evil. If it's just that God *hasn't* chosen
to do evil, but *might* tomorrow, we lose God's total-goodness.)
If I come up with a proof that no penguins exist, and yet, we find
penguins, I know that there's a problem with the proof somewhere. I
have just proven, based on Christian assumptions, that no evil can
exist, and yet we see evil. Ergo, unles you can find a flaw in the
logic, one or more of the Christian assumptions must be wrong. God
either:
1) Doesn't want to make humans that don't do evil. (not totally good)
2) Is not able to duplicate his own never-do-evil-ness. (not omnipotent)
3) Doesn't know how to duplicate It's own never-do-evil-ness. (!omniscient)
4) Or just plain doesn't exist...
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles ing...@engin.umich.edu
"Icky icky icky icky fKANG zoop-boing n zowzyin..." -The Knights Who
So Recently Said "NEE!"
Ray Ingles
>Laurence Byrne writes:
[deletions]
>>(b) The Earth was not created in 7 days.
>
>Some Christians believe that the term "day" is metaphorical, representing
>periods. Others claim a literal interpretation, as the "scientific proof"
>for an old earth has met with conflicting evidence. (Example: Before men
>landed on the moon, scientists had calculated that -- given the great age
>of the earth & moon, and the average rate at which stellar dust falls to the
>earth -- the level of dust on the moon's surface should be extremely deep.
>But in reality, the astronauts discovered that there was only a shallow
>layer of dust on the moon when they landed.)
This "moon dust argument" has been discredited for *years*! It is based
on *one* measurement of meteoric dust that used an erroneous method and
came up with an estimate that was orders of magnitude too high. Later,
more accurate measurements have blown this "argument" out of the water.
I can get you references if you doubt...
[deletions]
>>(c) You can't breed a species of billions from just two ancestors.
>
>Why not? Remember Malthus? Population increases geometrically.
They can't possibly hold sufficient genetic diversity to sustain a viable
population. For one thing, there will be very litle diversity in the
immune systems; the kind of evolution that we see today will ensure that
some bug evolves that is fatal to the entire human population early on.
[deletions]
>>(h) There was never a "global flood" with an ark to preserve the flora and
>> fauna - that's physically impossible.
>
>Actually, a number of archaeologists/geologists believe that certain
>fossils/rock formations/etc. may have been caused by a huge flood.
And they have never come up with any evidence to support their position,
and I'm not exaggerating. Hop over to talk.origins and see...
[deletions]
>>You may know that from Genesis, but I know from evolutionary biology
>>that the "creation" of man was a long, drawn out process of adaptation
[deletions]
>Yet, non-theistic evolution is a theory, just as creation is. Since the
>process cannot be replicated, it will never become more than that. Such
>is the nature of the scientific method.
If we can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a crater was caused
by a meteor, why not other things about the past?
As for your claim the evolution cannot be replicated, we have seen all
the pieces of it today, including new species. References upon request.
>I don't believe in non-theistic evolution, because it doesn't account for
>the fact that humans have a mind, imagination, a conscience, consciousness,
>a sense of humor, etc. These things are not really necessary for
>survival.
Well, a mind comes in handy, especially if you don't have anything else
going for you. Imagination, again. A conscience ensures that you can
cooperate with others of your species to the benefit of all; sounds pro-
survival to me. Consciousness is not fully understood, but may be
inevitable, and a snese of humor may be a fluke, but it isn't *anti*-
survival, so why get rid of it?
> In fact, some may even inhibit survival in certain cases. (For
>example, I could just kill off a bunch of competitors, so I could survive
>longer/better, but my moral nature inhibits me.)
Well, they probably won't let you. They'll probably fight back. I'm
pretty sure no one will trust you after that. So that sort of thing
(*senseless* killing) is anti-survival.
> Moreover, I cannot
>fathom how such abstract things could result from a "scientific"/concrete
>process of evolution...unless another Agent was involved.
Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it can't happen. Perhaps
you should read up on evolution. I can recommend some good books...
[deletions]
>When you sat on your chair before logging on, how did you know that the
>chair wasn't going to break? You put faith in the chair's power to
>support your weight. Why? Well, you based your faith on logic. The
>chair has always supported you in the past; it looks sturdy; etc. But in
>the end, the decision was one based on faith.
But God hasn't given me as much evidence about It as I have about the
chair...
Laurence Byrne
(Corine Y Takiguchi) wrote:
> Laurence Byrne writes:
> >
> >Genesis is not historically accurate, and I'm saying that since it was
> >written as an historical account, and is false, arguments such as the one
> >for original sin predicated on Genesis's "facts" are invalid.
> >
> >(a) It contains two conflicting accounts of the creation of the universe.
>
> How do the accounts conflict? The first account (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3) goes
> through the 7-day process -- an overview, from God's perspective. Genesis
> 2:4-7 summarizes the first account, while transitioning to a focus on man.
> Then the story is repeated (Genesis 2:8-25), this time with this human focus
> -- i.e. God's relationship w/man, detailed descriptions of man's world &
> responsibilities, how the different genders were created, etc. This human
> focus makes for an appropriate transition to the fall of man, and the rest
> of the history.
I believe that the first book should be taken as the prevailing view
of the history of the world at the time when Genesis was written, and
the second account (okay, they're not completely synonymous with the
books - Gen 1:1-2:4 is the first account, 2:5-3:22 is the second) is
an attempt to reestablish the primacy of Man in creation, in accordance
with the text's purpose as the basis for religion. The first account
speaks of the creation and population of the Earth as a whole; there
is no mention or allusion to the Garden, and, more significantly, Gen 1:27
refers to the creation of man as male and female, just as all the other
inhabitants of the Earth were created. In the second account, however,
God requires dust or clay as a raw material for the formation of man;
a different verb, a different method of production, an attempt to show
that man is inwardly different from the rest of the animals (something not
borne out by Gen 1:28, where all that is established is that men and women
have dominion over the lesser animals). The differential creation of
male and female is also not even hinted at in the first account, and
represents nothing more than an attempt to justify the roles for the
different genders in society at that time.
In any case, even if you can convince yourself that these two accounts
are descended from the same traditions, that's effectively irrelevant,
since both accounts are contradicted by external knowledge; the point is
merely that the internal consistency of Genesis is questionable. It's
also worth considering (especially in the light of point (b)) that
Gen 4:16-17 refers to Cain and his wife in the land of Nod, after
previously stating in Gen 2:8 that Adam was the only man. Cain is the
son of Adam and Eve...who the hell is Cain's wife? This kind of oversight
only makes sense when Genesis is considered as the synthesis of many
histories, mostly likely in the oral tradition.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >(b) The Earth was not created in 7 days.
>
> Some Christians believe that the term "day" is metaphorical, representing
> periods. Others claim a literal interpretation, as the "scientific proof"
> for an old earth has met with conflicting evidence. (Example: Before men
> landed on the moon, scientists had calculated that -- given the great age
> of the earth & moon, and the average rate at which stellar dust falls to the
> earth -- the level of dust on the moon's surface should be extremely deep.
> But in reality, the astronauts discovered that there was only a shallow
> layer of dust on the moon when they landed.)
This is a completely bogus scientific justification for literalism. (I'm
not saying you're deliberately trying to pull a fast one - I'm just saying
that you should not be convinced by it.) The original calculation
of the rate of dust collection on the moon was taken by measuring
the rate of dust collection on the Earth and extrapolating - fair enough
in principle. Unfortunately, the original measurement of dust
deposition on the Earth by Pettersson was phenomenally inaccurate.
Later, more careful measurements enabled the scientists to correctly
predict the depth of dust on the moon before the Apollo landings;
if I remember correctly, they predicted 8 inches, and the actual depth
was 7.8" (I may have the figures slightly wrong, but the relationship
is clear enough). For more info, check the talk.origins FAQ on the
age of the Earth.
You can interpret it metaphorically, but then you might as well resign
yourself to accepting that Genesis is not an accurate account of the
creation of the universe. It's also interesting to note that Genesis
says that the division between days and nights was established both
on the first day (Gen 1:3-5) and on the third day (Gen 1:13-14).
> On another note, one should also take into account that the creation story
> in Genesis does not include the creation of the earth w/in the 7-day period:
> "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1)
> [description of earth]
> "Then God said, 'Let there be light'...." (Gen 1:3)
> Who knows how much time passed between vs. 1 & 3?
Genesis also clearly states that the Earth had no physical form at this
time - the dry land wasn't formed until the second day, thus placing it
within the 7-day chronology (Gen 1:8-10). Since we have estimated the
age of the Earth at 4.5b years, and most of the rocks composing it at
at least hundreds of millions of years (geologic processes mean that the
average rock on the Earth is not as old as the solar system as a whole)
it is clear that the seven day timeframe is completely invalid. The amount
of time that passed between Gen 1:1 and 1:3 is irrelevant for this purpose.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >(c) You can't breed a species of billions from just two ancestors.
>
> Why not? Remember Malthus? Population increases geometrically.
The argument isn't mathematical, it's biological. Reproducing a species
form two people alone involves incest and inbreeding. I'm sure this
is a cardinal sin, but more importantly it also inevitably causes
genetic degradation, effectively rendering the species unviable. This
is the same reason why many wildlife conservationists believe endangered
species are effectively unsaveable after their numbers drop below about
200...
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >(d) Any knowledge at all of the methods of speciation shows that it is
> > pointless to speak of two individuals within a population being
> > the only two representatives of a race. There is always a continuum.
>
> Don't quite understand what you mean here. I'm not a bio major. :)
> Seriously, though, I'd appreciate some clarification.
It's simple. We know that homo sapiens is descended from a long line
of more primitive hominids. (If you deny this, you'd better have
a really good reason why the fossil record, plus all that we know about
evolution, is incorrect). Evolution necessarily takes place over very
long time periods, far greater than the lifespan of any individual
organism within the species; therefore, it is effectively impossible
to take an individual within a population and say "this is the first
human being!" since he/she will hardly differ at all from the other
members of the population.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >(e) The female of a species is not formed by taking the rib from a male
> > (unless Eden was run like Jurassic Park)
>
> Not any more. That was a special case -- performed supernaturally -- to
> set up the gender differences between humans at the beginning. Now a days,
> it happens the "natural way" (wink, wink).
Now, why would humans need to form different genders supernaturally, when
millions of other species can do it through evolution?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >(f) Humans did not walk upon the Earth immediately after its coming into
> > existence - more like 4.5 billions years later
>
> Perhaps so. But this is not necessarily inconsistent w/Genesis. See the 2nd
> paragraph in response to (b).
It is inconsistent - see above.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >(g) Since Adam doesn't exist in the form described by Genesis, he certainly
> > couldn't have lived for 930 yrs (Gen 5:5) - to say nothing of
> > Methuselah and all those other characters.
>
> Is your point here that Adam didn't exist in any form, ever? Or that he
> didn't exist in a particular form, as described in Genesis? If the
> latter, what is this form to which you were referring. (Please cite
> references, so I can read in context.)
See (d). To say that Adam didn't exist in any form is pointless...maybe
some early caveman did call himself "Adam". Certainly, no one hominid
was picked out as the father of the human race by a supernatural force.
(See (c) and (d)).
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >(h) There was never a "global flood" with an ark to preserve the flora and
> > fauna - that's physically impossible.
>
> Actually, a number of archaeologists/geologists believe that certain
> fossils/rock formations/etc. may have been caused by a huge flood.
There may (in fact, there were) have been large floods in many parts of
the globe. There was never, however, a global flood - if there
had been, the Earth would now be sterile except for those creatures
living in the water. Think, for a moment, about the hundreds of millions
of species living on the Earth, and then say how you're going to fit
them all onto a boat. Don't forget, too, that you need more than
two of each type to establish a good breeding stock. Also, don't forget
that we have evidence of continual human inhabitation of many areas
going back tens of thousands of years...why didn't they drown?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> me>> And just because our purpose is to glorify God does not imply vanity on
> me>> God's part. If I created a robot, its ingenious construction would
> me>> glorify me, for its existence would testify to my intellectual genius.
> me>> (Of course, if you knew me, you'd be rolling by now, since I'm about as
> me>> technologically competent as...a horse. OK, so I'm no literary genius
> me>> either. So sue me. :) But the fact that I created this robot doesn't
> me>> necessarily mean that I'm an egomaniac.
> >
> >It *does* mean you're an egomaniac, if the only reason you created it was
> >to have something as testimony to your own glory (and robotic skills).
> >If there was another reason why God created us, and not merely for
> >the sake of his glory, then he wouldn't be vain, but you haven't yet
> >supplied one.
>
> I don't believe God's only reason for creating was to have a testament to His
> own glory. I don't know what His reasons were. But perhaps they might be
> similar to people who want to have children. Are they egomaniacs who want
> to show off their ability to produce, provide for, and bring up children?
> Not necessarily. People may desire to have children for a variety of reasons.
> God, as Father, may have had similar ones.
People have children because the need to reproduce is genetically encoded
in the human race. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have a human race. You'll
have to do a lot better than that (God obviously doesn't have genes).
BTW, you're also anthropomorphizing God again - just because he might
have described his relationship to us as like that of ourselves to our
fathers, that doesn't mean that he himself is like a father.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >You may know that from Genesis, but I know from evolutionary biology
> >that the "creation" of man was a long, drawn out process of adaptation
> >to local environments. I don't see any legitimate reason for distinguishing
> >between the formation of mental and physical attributes (in other words,
> >I don't see what reason you have for saying that certain parts of our
> >makeup were contributed by God, other than that you'd like it to be true).
>
> Yet, non-theistic evolution is a theory, just as creation is. Since the
> process cannot be replicated, it will never become more than that. Such
> is the nature of the scientific method.
Since we have observed speciation events both in the lab and in the wild,
I think that the evidence for the theory is very strong, especially
when combined with the fossil method. Have you got any alternative
suggestions that don't rely on supernatural intervention? If you
do say that all formation of life is the product of God's intervention,
you've also got to suggest why God would want to deceive us by making us
think that evolution happens...
> I don't believe in non-theistic evolution, because it doesn't account for
> the fact that humans have a mind, imagination, a conscience, consciousness,
> a sense of humor, etc. These things are not really necessary for
> survival. In fact, some may even inhibit survival in certain cases. (For
> example, I could just kill off a bunch of competitors, so I could survive
> longer/better, but my moral nature inhibits me.) Moreover, I cannot
> fathom how such abstract things could result from a "scientific"/concrete
> process of evolution...unless another Agent was involved.
Read Darwin's "The Descent of Man", chapters I-V, on the formation of
higher intellectual capabilities (including a moral sense) through
evolution. Animals are different from human beings in degree, not in
kind.
Incidentally, in your example, it does benefit you not to kill off
all your competitors, since in general terms other human beings do help
you (we being a race that have prospered through sociality and
cooperation).
In certain cases, it does benefit people to kill off competitors...that's
why we have wars, murders, etc.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> me>> And belief in God is rational. He promises that if we seek Him, He will
> me>> reveal Himself to us. And it doesn't require a "blind leap of faith".
> me>> Faith, yes; but blind, no. He gives us a heck of a lot of evidence.
> >
> >Certainly no evidence that would stand up in a court of law. And
> >no one has *ever* arrived at the existence of God through reason alone,
> >and not for lack of trying. Once you require faith, you can have faith
> >in just about anything (since, by definition, faith doesn't require
> >logical thought).
>
> When you sat on your chair before logging on, how did you know that the
> chair wasn't going to break? You put faith in the chair's power to
> support your weight. Why? Well, you based your faith on logic. The
> chair has always supported you in the past; it looks sturdy; etc. But in
> the end, the decision was one based on faith.
The chair has physicality, and can be mathematically proven to have
sufficient rigidity to support my overly-heavy frame, increasingly
difficult though it may be. I merely assumed that the characteristics
of the chair hadn't greatly changed overnight. One day I'll be wrong, and
crash! so what?
> Most of our decisions have a faith element. But the real question isn't
> how much faith we have, but how reliable is the object of our faith. I
> could have very little faith when I step out on a lake of ice, but if the
> ice is 12" thick, I'll stand. On the other hand, my friend might have a
> lot of faith when he walks boldly onto a different lake of ice, but if his
> ice is only a tenth-of-a-millimeter thin, he'll fall. What to do? The
> best option is always to consider ALL the evidence, and make the best
> decision possible. But since you don't really KNOW what the outcome will
> be, it's really a faith-thing.
The objective existence of the ice can be easily proved (assuming that
you believe in a real world outside you consciousness, of course...)
Since the same thing does not apply to God, the analogy fails.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> me>> An honest question: What would convince you that God exists?
> me>> If He spoke out of the blue to you? Or would you wonder if your
> me>> friends are playing a trick on you?
> me>> If He healed you? Or would you see it as a coincidence or the
> me>> wonders of modern medicine? Or acknowledge God, but just come
> me>> to Him for favors?
> me>> Ask yourself honestly what would convince you. After all, He's already
> me>> worked tons of miracles...and even rose from the dead. Still, people
> me>> have seen, but haven't believed.
> >Well, he's [God] certainly not doing enough [to prove Himself] when a
> >majority of the Earth's citizens
> >aren't Christians. Why doesn't he explode the moon, then cause a two-mile
> >high mountain to appear overnight while simultaneously curing all cancers?
> >It wouldn't cost him anything.
>
> Of course, exploding the moon would sort of end up killing us all, since
> the gravity balance would be seriously thrown off.
Couldn't God protect us for the purposes of the demonstration? Wouldn't
that make it all the more convincing?
> But seriously, can't you picture people just explaining it all away --
> some coincidence, or scientifically-explainable phenomenon, etc. After
> all, people have had their reasons for not believing in God thrown
> off in the past...but they just come up w/a new rationalization for why
> their theory still holds.
That only means you just have to make it harder for people to
rationalize, until such time as their rationalizations become
logically absurd.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >God had the power to make us so we weren't as prone to sin.
> >>
> me>> Sure, but then we'd be robots. What's the fun of that? Maybe we
> wouldn't
> me>> run the risk of hell, but we also wouldn't have a chance of true glory.
> me>> We couldn't experience love, or faithfulness, or poetry, or art, or
> me>> beauty. We'd be like the animals, acting on instinct, and without the
> me>> true freedom & flavor we experience as humans, who have both
> consciousness
> me>> and will.
> >
> >All I said was less prone, not robots. Why couldn't God have made us
> >so that we don't find certain immoral things as pleasurable?
>
> In the beginning, God made us w/o knowledge of evil...and, thus, we had no
> desire for it. But because we wanted to have this knowledge -- even though
> God had warned us against it -- we disobeyed, and by this disobedience
> brought evil (& temptation to pursue evil) into our world.
This only stands up if you interpret Genesis literally, which is
impossible to do - see above.
> I don't think immoral things are pleasurable -- i.e. not FULLY
> pleasurable. Why? We can never fully enjoy immorality because of this
They certainly seem to have most of the characteristics of pleasure,
such as neurochemical release....
> inner conscience which tells us it's wrong. Pure pleasure will only come
> when we become what we were created to be from the beginning.
We don't know what we were created to be from the beginning. See the
Genesis criticisms.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Hmm, you didn't say anything about how we can know whether or not
> >Jesus is being misrepresented....(which must be the case, there being
> >more Christian sects than I can count) Besides, missionaries to some
> >distant tribes is not the same thing as missionaries to *all* distant
> >tribes.
>
> Since God is omnipotent, He is able to make it such that His message is
> uncorrupted. Yes, there are many different Christian denominations, but
> these largely differ in terms of traditions/emphases/etc. -- not on how
> one receives salvation. Any group/person which preaches an alternative
> method of salvation (eg. giving money to buy the leader a BMW --
> haha) is preaching a different gospel from Christ's.
So how do we know who are the Real Christians? (I would point out
that very few of even the most blatant money-seekers would claim
that, by donating money, you are directly gaining salvation; rather
they would say that you are helping them to spread The Word, and
therefore helping in God's Work. Which has to be good if you go in
for that sort of thing, but isn't quite the same.)
>
> And again, an omnipotent God may choose to use missionaries, but by no
> means is that His only option. If none are willing to go, He is still
> able to reveal Himself to one who is seeking Him...and will. But I
> honestly don't think that there are hordes of people actively engaged in
> seeking Him.
If they've never heard about him, they can't seek him, by definition.
Claude Marinier
(James Felder) writes:
>
>However, build a model of the universe that doesn't have an
>intelligence behind it and suddenly everything begins to fit
>together. The resulting natural explainations do nothing for human
>comfort, which is why I think most people don't except it. But it
>does a much more coherent job of explaining the universe. Best of
>all it can be falsified, which allows it to be tested.
>
>If feeling warm and safe and fuzzy all over is your only goal, then
>pick any model of the universe that gives you that. If, however, it
>is important to you to try and determine how the universe really
>works, then you must put your god model up against other models of the
>universe, and pick the one that fits best, regardless of your personal
>emotions. To me, the god models have almost no explaintory power and
>predictive power only rivaled by that of thrown dice.
>
>Jim
For many, a universe governed by God, who "does not make exceptions and
does not take a bribe", is very uncomfortable because we are accountable to
Him. This discomfort is, in my case as with many Christians, compensated by
the knowledge that He is ready to forgive me. The conflict comes when I
must choose who will be in control of my life. I am confident of His good
intentions for me; all I have to do is look at the cross and see how much
He loves us all. "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up
for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?"
(Romans 8:32) See also Luke 11:9-13 where we can see that God only gives
good things. Yes, it is His definition of good; He created us, He knows
best.
Claude Marinier
Claude Marinier
kcoc...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>Whoops! The Pharoh was going to let the Jews go, until God "hardened
>his heart".
Pharaoh was given many opportunities to let the children of Israel go.
After he refused several times, God "hardened his heart" to prevent him
from backing down from his chosen position when he saw more of the power of
God. God's power fully displayed removes all possibility of free choice.
God does not reveal Himself that way because He wants you to choose for
yourself. He knows how to reveal Himself, He wants very much to reveal
Himself, He has a lot invested in this (His Son died).
Claude Marinier
Ed McCreary
C> Laurence Byrne writes:
>
>Genesis is not historically accurate, and I'm saying that since it was
>written as an historical account, and is false, arguments such as the one
>for original sin predicated on Genesis's "facts" are invalid.
>
>(a) It contains two conflicting accounts of the creation of the universe.
C> How do the accounts conflict? The first account (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3) goes
C> through the 7-day process -- an overview, from God's perspective. Genesis
C> 2:4-7 summarizes the first account, while transitioning to a focus on man.
C> Then the story is repeated (Genesis 2:8-25), this time with this human focus
C> -- i.e. God's relationship w/man, detailed descriptions of man's world &
C> responsibilities, how the different genders were created, etc. This human
C> focus makes for an appropriate transition to the fall of man, and the rest
C> of the history.
There not the same. The order of creation is different and it flatly
contradicts every piece of scientific evidence I''ve seen.
C> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(b) The Earth was not created in 7 days.
C> Some Christians believe that the term "day" is metaphorical, representing
C> periods. Others claim a literal interpretation, as the "scientific proof"
C> for an old earth has met with conflicting evidence. (Example: Before men
C> landed on the moon, scientists had calculated that -- given the great age
C> of the earth & moon, and the average rate at which stellar dust falls to the
C> earth -- the level of dust on the moon's surface should be extremely deep.
C> But in reality, the astronauts discovered that there was only a shallow
C> layer of dust on the moon when they landed.)
Oops, this was discredited years ago. I don't think Henry Morris and
the boobs over the Institute for Creation Research use this argument
anymore. (I wouldn't be surprised if they did though. I've heard that
they still bring up the Paluxy river tracks in talks.)
C> On another note, one should also take into account that the creation story
C> in Genesis does not include the creation of the earth w/in the 7-day period:
C> "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1)
C> [description of earth]
C> "Then God said, 'Let there be light'...." (Gen 1:3)
C> Who knows how much time passed between vs. 1 & 3?
Except light existed before the earth, so unless you allow negative time
to exist between 1 & 3...
C> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(c) You can't breed a species of billions from just two ancestors.
C> Why not? Remember Malthus? Population increases geometrically.
Inbreeding. There's not enough genetic diversity in two individuals
to start a new population. I seem to remember 200-500 being the lower
limit, but that may just be a guess.
.... (d) deleted....
>(e) The female of a species is not formed by taking the rib from a male
> (unless Eden was run like Jurassic Park)
C> Not any more. That was a special case -- performed supernaturally -- to
C> set up the gender differences between humans at the beginning. Now a days,
C> it happens the "natural way" (wink, wink).
Well, gender existed for millions of years before we balding apes came
around. One little slice of Occam's razor works for me.
... (f),(g) deleted...
C> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(h) There was never a "global flood" with an ark to preserve the flora and
> fauna - that's physically impossible.
C> Actually, a number of archaeologists/geologists believe that certain
C> fossils/rock formations/etc. may have been caused by a huge flood.
No competent ones I'd guess. There a plently of local floods that may
affect *local* geology, but there's *no* evidence, nada, zip, to indicate
a global flood. Besides, you couldn't build a boat large enough to hold
all of the species in the world.
C> Yet, non-theistic evolution is a theory, just as creation is. Since the
C> process cannot be replicated, it will never become more than that. Such
C> is the nature of the scientific method.
Actually, evolution is defined as a change in alle frequency over time.
Since alle frequency has been observed in nature, evolution is a fact.
Now there are theories floating around to account for how this change
occurs. Also, see the work done with fruit flies. Evolution has been
replicated. Speciation has been observed in nature and replicated in the
lab. Pretty good evidence if you ask me.
C> I don't believe in non-theistic evolution, because it doesn't account for
C> the fact that humans have a mind, imagination, a conscience, consciousness,
C> a sense of humor, etc. These things are not really necessary for
C> survival. In fact, some may even inhibit survival in certain cases. (For
C> example, I could just kill off a bunch of competitors, so I could survive
C> longer/better, but my moral nature inhibits me.) Moreover, I cannot
C> fathom how such abstract things could result from a "scientific"/concrete
C> process of evolution...unless another Agent was involved.
Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it isn't true. There's still
a *lot* of work to be done with evolutionary theory. Not all of the questions
have been answered and I doubt they ever will. That doesn't mean there aren't
answers or that we shouldn't look for them.
P.S. I've chopped a lot out to conserve space. If I cut out important
context or changed the meaining of what you wrote, it was unintentional
and I apologize. I tried not to but it's possible.
--
Eddie McCreary e...@twisto.compaq.com
Compuserve 72652,1174
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be
one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear."
Thomas Jefferson