"Good" vs. "Evil": are they as absolute as they're portrayed?
Omnificent Deleterious Boil on Humanity's Butt
Here I go again...... =>
Well, to preface this, I think it'd be fair to say that I'm a moral
relativist. Not in the extreme, kill-or-be-killed sense that most people
probably see it as, but more along the lines of the following....
I was given a hypothetical situation in my high school AP English class
and asked how I'd respond to it, and I'd like to see how you folks view
it, and then see how you feel about the same issues in the Marvel sense.
The scenario is this: You're the leader of a religious group in a country
in which that religion has been banned. Since it's outlaw, you've taken
the group underground and practice your beliefs secretly and quietly,
withoug distrubing anyone outside of the group. Your beliefs are nothing
short of benign, and yet you've been labled by the ruling government as
"dangerous dissidents." Unfortunately, you are one day arrested for
perpetrating the vague "crime against the state," which is punishable only
by death. However, the leaders offer you an alternative. You have the
choice between being executed or denouncing your faith and returning to
your home, never to practice your religion again. What do you choose?
I won't influence your decision by explaining my view now, so I'll just
continue.
To relate this back to the xbooks, it seems that the Marvel staffers have
always held the position "once a villain always a villain." They've
continuously ignored Magneto's inherent nobility, always reverting him
back to "type" every time he reforms; they condemned Sunspot from the
beginning as someone who would inevitably turn out evil, and look! he
did; they paint Doom as an evil madman who's only content with war and
destruction; and they routinely condemn any and all people in the
government who participate in the Sentinel programs, even though
realistically the humans have plenty to fear from the mutant community as
a whole (ie a world like Alter-X). True, there have been successful
reforms, such as Rogue, Wolverine, and possibly Sabretooth and Mystique.
But on the whole, these are rare cases.
On the opposite side of the coin, there are beings such as Charles
Xavier, who has been built up so much over the years as a saint that
it's hard to imagine he's ever done anything wrong. There are also such
folks as Spider-Man and Captain America, who are supposed to be the
epitomes of all-around morality....
My point is, is it really that cut and dry? Are certain beings
inherently good, or unavoidably evil? Is there such thing as the
untarnished purity of the Silver Surfer, or the unchecked evil of
Selene? Are certain characters beyond redemption (ie Magneto), or possibly
even beyond temptation (ie Xavier)?
Alter-X gave us a glimpse into the minds of the X-Staff. Kitty and
Colossus, once paragons of virtue (maybe not *that* extreme), have become
hardened psychopaths. Gam-butt's still the "noble thief," but once
soft-spoken Blink is now a bold, confident fighting machine. We've seen
many flips in personalities, but these can be attributed to the way these
people grew up. Are *any* x-characters capable of change? Claremont
showed us the evolution of a more ruthless Storm, a repentant (in the
end) Maddie, and the moral relativism of Rachel vs. Selene.
My question is this:
Are the characters, as they stand now, forever chained to their past, or
are they capable of breaking free of their stereotypical "good vs. evil"
roles and becoming more believable human beings?
I'd better stop now or I'll keep writing to the day I die. =>
Graeme MacD.
Wow that was long....
--
Official Blink Fan Club Liason to the Animal Kingdom
Official A&L Fan Club's Associate Director of Dysfunctional Spleens
Official VBFC Head Manager of the Space-Time Continuum
"It wasn't my butt that got me these jobs, it was my talent."
David R. Henry
>My point is, is it really that cut and dry? Are certain beings
>inherently good, or unavoidably evil? Is there such thing as the
>untarnished purity of the Silver Surfer, or the unchecked evil of
>Selene? Are certain characters beyond redemption (ie Magneto), or possibly
>even beyond temptation (ie Xavier)?
Mike Ellis has an interesting theory on the Absolute Nature of Evil
in the Marvel Universe. Let's all pine with puppy-dawg eyes until he
posts it up again.
>My question is this:
>
>Are the characters, as they stand now, forever chained to their past, or
>are they capable of breaking free of their stereotypical "good vs. evil"
>roles and becoming more believable human beings?
Always vote for the chains. You'll be wrong about humanity less often.
--
David R. Henry-Rogue Fan Club /// Vote NO on soc.religion.scientology mod.
"All you of Earth are IDIOTS!"-P9fOS / What was the question? -- Kate Bush
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu * Evolution: Give it some time, it'll grow on ya.
Blaze
(Christopher Andrew Campbell) wrote:
> To cut to the chase, of course not. Good and Evil don't exist per se; they
> are standards that shift with perspective.
hmmm. I'm assuming you're not of the religous persuasion, so I'll avoid
projecting my own opinions too harshly here. However, those of us who do
believe in God (and there are a lot more than you probably think, I'll
wager) maintain that there is such a thing as absolute morality. Please
don't respond with arguments of "God did such-and-such in the Bible here";
I'm perfectly willing to debate this, but this newsgroup really doesn't
want to hear it.
But I agree whole-heartedly that characters (and real people, of course)
aren't born good or evil. Born sinful, yes, but that's going back to the
religous tangent. Good and evil are a matter of what choices an
individual makes, and whether they agree with one's morality or not. And
everyone has choices. Some are harder to make than others, true, but
that's what ethics classes are all about.
The whole point of alter-X, really, was to give us a chance to see
characters in different environments and how their subsequent choices
might be influenced. Graeme originally asked if anyone's really beyond
redemption -- and as a nun pointed out to Archangel once in UXM, no one is
beyond that. We all have choices, but some people are just more ready to
stand for the right ones than others are. Characters like Magneto,
Cyclops, Jean Grey, and Logan have been depicted in both timelines as
individuals of phenomenal strength and willpower -- and when they believe
in something, they stand by it, no matter what others do around them.
Characters like Havok, Colossus, and Mystique, OTOH, have been seen to be
somewhat variable in matters of personal conviction (at least recently, in
Colossus' case), and an environment like Apocalypse's North America had
much more of an effect on their personalities than it did on others'.
This is really what Alter-X was all about -- letting us see the same
characters and personalities under different environments and exploring
whether they would stand, bend, or break under those harsher winds. To
this end, at least, I think Alter-X was a success.
I'll still be happy to see everyone with their own hairstyles back, though. ;)
Blaze ---- http://ux4.cso.uiuc.edu/~m-blase/x-page.html
It is true that August Mobius was a difficult and opinionated
man. But he was not so rigid that he could only see one side
to every question. -- Michael Stueben
Christopher Andrew Campbell
>In article <D7oKH...@boss.cs.ohiou.edu>, ccam...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
>(Christopher Andrew Campbell) wrote:
>
>> To cut to the chase, of course not. Good and Evil don't exist per se; they
>> are standards that shift with perspective.
>
>hmmm. I'm assuming you're not of the religous persuasion, so I'll avoid
>projecting my own opinions too harshly here.
No, I'm not, but I have plenty of faith. I'm just not religious, is all.
>However, those of us who do
>believe in God (and there are a lot more than you probably think, I'll
>wager) maintain that there is such a thing as absolute morality.
There are probably less than I think, actually. I dare you to define
absolute morality. I dare anyone to define it. It can't be done, because
as perspective and circumstances shift and definition of morality becomes
null and void.
>Please don't respond with arguments of "God did such-and-such in the Bible
>here"; I'm perfectly willing to debate this, but this newsgroup really
>doesn't want to hear it.
I don't blame them. I don't either. I never debate the bible, simply
because I don't think it is a valid source for information pertaining to
necessary beings or morality in general, any more than the Koran or the
Tao Te Ching or the Vishnu (sp?) or any other religious or philosophical
work is.
I know this is sorta off topic, but we have people debating the merits of
Ireland vs. Scotland here, so...
>But I agree whole-heartedly that characters (and real people, of course)
>aren't born good or evil. Born sinful, yes, but that's going back to the
>religous tangent. Good and evil are a matter of what choices an
>individual makes, and whether they agree with one's morality or not. And
>everyone has choices. Some are harder to make than others, true, but
>that's what ethics classes are all about.
Exactly. Our morality is something that we define. In some situations it
takes a tremendous will to define it in a positive, constructive manner--but
it can be done. I think some of the heros in Alter-X -- Magneto, Sabretooth,
Quicksilver, Sunfire -- aren't as virtuous or principled in the mainstream
reality simply because the need isn't there. Things aren't that bad.
However, when it comes down to the crunch they'll do their damnedest to
create a positive environment before pursuing their own goals. These are
the folks who want a place in the world around them before they deal with
their own interests. Others are self-sufficient enough that they don't
need this. They're not interested so much in fitting in as gaining their
piece of the pie. These are folks like the Beast, Havok, Cannonball, etc.
It is interesting, I'll give it that.
>This is really what Alter-X was all about -- letting us see the same
>characters and personalities under different environments and exploring
>whether they would stand, bend, or break under those harsher winds. To
>this end, at least, I think Alter-X was a success.
I think it's also interesting to see how agenda's change. Some break
under the gentler winds of real X - Pietro, Sabes, Paris, etc. It could
be argued that with more freedom in real X they just run wild. Kinda like
a kid with lax parents vs. a kid with strict ones. For a lot of
characters, Alter-X helped define and flesh out their personalities. For
others, it was a total waste of time simply because the character changes
weren't believeable, no matter the circumstances.
>I'll still be happy to see everyone with their own hairstyles back, though. ;)
Eh, whatever. I'll just be glad to see Gambit in a coma.
--
Rival There is no greater Calamity than Lavish Desires.
There is no greater guilt than discontentment.
And there is no greater disaster than Greed.
ccam...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching 46
Angela M.
> Graeme writes:
>
> >My question is this:
> >
> >Are the characters, as they stand now, forever chained to their past, or
> >are they capable of breaking free of their stereotypical "good vs. evil"
> >roles and becoming more believable human beings?
>
> Always vote for the chains. You'll be wrong about humanity less often.
>
> --
> David R. Henry-Rogue Fan Club /// Vote NO on soc.religion.scientology mod.
^^^^^
I find this statement highly ironic coming from a fan of Rogue. Now, I
realize the statement might have been made in reference to reality, but
the question was phrased to be for the X-universe.
David, if you really feel this way about X-characters, life the currently
reforming Sabertooth, and the ever fluxuating Magneto, I wonder when you
started reading the series. Rogue was definately a *bad* guy. In fact,
the series did a great deal to sympathize us to the plight of Carol
Danvers who had her mind wiped by Rogue. When Rogue sought out the X-men
for help on her problem, not many people were real happy with her
addition to the team: characters and readers alike (if I remember the
letter collumns correctly :).
Anyway, if you weren't just being fascietious, then I wonder why you like
Rogue if you have been reading since before her introduction.
(NOTE: This is not meant to be a flame in anyway shape or form :). As I
said, I found this ironic and I wanted to comment on it. I personally
think Rogue is a great character and she is one of my favorites...)
*****************************************************************************
Angela M. Murray |"Blue canary in the outlet by
Nazareth College of Rochester, NY |the lightswitch, who watches over
Art Education * (ammu...@orion.naz.edu)|you?" -They Might Be Giants
*****************************************************************************
___
___
Angela M.
> Kraig Blackwelder (kdb...@nwu.edu) wrote:
>
> > Oh, puhlease. How about taking a philosophy class or two before
> > trying to address this age-old debate. Nothing worse than seeing a
> > sloppy, naive philosophical discussion. It's like watching a nine year
> > old trying to perform brain surgery: ugly, messy, and the results are
> > pathetic.
>
> Way to endear yourself to this newsgroup, Kraig. It probably hasn't
> occurred to you yet that people actually like to discuss issues like
> this, whether they have taken a class on it or not. Does taking a
> philosophy class make you any more intelligent? It might give you
> some info, but not necessarily the tools needed to work with that
> info.
Right on the money Vod! This guy is the type that gives educated people
the bad reputation of being snobs. Just becuase people may not have the
vocabulary to dicuss philosoply, or the historical knowledge of what has
gone before, does not mean they do not have the right to discuss issues
like this. Hell, most "scholars" I know of don't even really add
anything new to the discussion, they just rehash what they've been taught
in class.
This type of elitist snobbery is really insulting. If Kraig had half as
much sense as he does balls, then he should have added what the
"educated" philospher feels on these issues, NOT insulted people trying
to further and explore their own beliefs.
> Besides, I'm pretty certain you've never taken a class in bad manners
> but look how proficient you are!
ROTFL :)
Kraig Blackwelder
(Christopher Andrew Campbell) wrote:
> In article <m-blase-2704...@un-mac17.cso.uiuc.edu>
m-b...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Blaze) writes:
> >In article <D7oKH...@boss.cs.ohiou.edu>, ccam...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
> >(Christopher Andrew Campbell) wrote:
> >
> >> To cut to the chase, of course not. Good and Evil don't exist per se; they
> >> are standards that shift with perspective.
> >
> >hmmm. I'm assuming you're not of the religous persuasion, so I'll avoid
> >projecting my own opinions too harshly here.
>
> No, I'm not, but I have plenty of faith. I'm just not religious, is all.
>
> >However, those of us who do
> >believe in God (and there are a lot more than you probably think, I'll
> >wager) maintain that there is such a thing as absolute morality.
>
> There are probably less than I think, actually. I dare you to define
> absolute morality. I dare anyone to define it. It can't be done, because
> as perspective and circumstances shift and definition of morality becomes
> null and void.
Oh, puhlease. How about taking a philosophy class or two before trying
to address this age-old debate. Nothing worse than seeing a sloppy, naive
philosophical discussion. It's like watching a nine year old trying to
perform brain surgery: ugly, messy, and the results are pathetic.
Kraig
Blaze
> In article <D7pKn...@boss.cs.ohiou.edu>, ccam...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
> (Christopher Andrew Campbell) wrote:
>
> > In article <m-blase-2704...@un-mac17.cso.uiuc.edu>
> m-b...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Blaze) writes:
> > >However, those of us who do
> > >believe in God (and there are a lot more than you probably think, I'll
> > >wager) maintain that there is such a thing as absolute morality.
> >
> > There are probably less than I think, actually. I dare you to define
> > absolute morality. I dare anyone to define it. It can't be done, because
> > as perspective and circumstances shift and definition of morality becomes
> > null and void.
I know I said I wouldn't drag this out, but...
Defining an absolute morality is easy. Mine's God. _Strictly_ defining
this morality is something trickier, although the Ten Commandments and "Do
unto others" are generally good places to start. A perfect God is the
only possible source of an absolute morality, though, for exactly the
reasons you stated -- human perspective tricky ethical circumstances keep
us from being able to define one that we can adhere to.
personally, I have to believe in the absolute morality of a living God.
If I didn't, I'd have to acknowledge tha morality is completely relative,
and that the actions of individuals like Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, and David
Koresh are perfectly acceptable. I'd have no real right to impose my own
beliefs on any of them, nor them on me. And this is the sort of thing I
really can't handle.
anyways. I _promise_ the newsgroup at large I won't get into this any
further. Anyone who remembers the UXM#208 thread from last semester knows
they don't want anything like that started up again. ;)
The Vodkinator
: > >> To cut to the chase, of course not. Good and Evil don't exist per se; they
: > >> are standards that shift with perspective.
: > >
: > >hmmm. I'm assuming you're not of the religous persuasion, so I'll avoid
: > >projecting my own opinions too harshly here.
: >
: > No, I'm not, but I have plenty of faith. I'm just not religious, is all.
: >
: > >However, those of us who do
: > >believe in God (and there are a lot more than you probably think, I'll
: > >wager) maintain that there is such a thing as absolute morality.
: >
: > There are probably less than I think, actually. I dare you to define
: > absolute morality. I dare anyone to define it. It can't be done, because
: > as perspective and circumstances shift and definition of morality becomes
: > null and void.
: Oh, puhlease. How about taking a philosophy class or two before trying
: to address this age-old debate. Nothing worse than seeing a sloppy, naive
: philosophical discussion. It's like watching a nine year old trying to
: perform brain surgery: ugly, messy, and the results are pathetic.
: Kraig
Way to endear yourself to this newsgroup, Kraig. It probably hasn't
occurred to you yet that people actually like to discuss issues like
this, whether they have taken a class on it or not. Does taking a
philosophy class make you any more intelligent? It might give you
some info, but not necessarily the tools needed to work with that
info.
Besides, I'm pretty certain you've never taken a class in bad manners
but look how proficient you are!
Jennifer A. Vodvarka -- "The Vodkinator" | University of Illinois Alumnus!
Email address: vo...@netcom.com | "Kiss, kiss sweety darling!" -- AbFab
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethleham
to be born?" -- W.B. Yeats |VBFC Member|
Christopher Andrew Campbell
>Kraig Blackwelder (kdb...@nwu.edu) wrote:
>: > >However, those of us who do
>: > >believe in God (and there are a lot more than you probably think, I'll
>: > >wager) maintain that there is such a thing as absolute morality.
>: >
>: > There are probably less than I think, actually. I dare you to define
>: > absolute morality. I dare anyone to define it. It can't be done, because
>: > as perspective and circumstances shift any definition of morality becomes
>: > null and void.
>
>: Oh, puhlease. How about taking a philosophy class or two before trying
>: to address this age-old debate. Nothing worse than seeing a sloppy, naive
>: philosophical discussion. It's like watching a nine year old trying to
>: perform brain surgery: ugly, messy, and the results are pathetic.
I have, actually. Several. However, since you seem to think you're so
competant in the subject, do it. Define absolute morality. Set a
standard of good and evil that will apply in all conditions. Either that,
or shut up and quit being rude.
>: Kraig
>Way to endear yourself to this newsgroup, Kraig. It probably hasn't
>occurred to you yet that people actually like to discuss issues like
>this, whether they have taken a class on it or not. Does taking a
>philosophy class make you any more intelligent? It might give you
>some info, but not necessarily the tools needed to work with that
>info.
Thanks, Vod. Very true.
>Jennifer A. Vodvarka -- "The Vodkinator" | University of Illinois Alumnus!
>Email address: vo...@netcom.com | "Kiss, kiss sweety darling!" -- AbFab
>"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethleham
> to be born?" -- W.B. Yeats |VBFC Member|
Christopher Andrew Campbell
>
>> In article <D7pKn...@boss.cs.ohiou.edu>, ccam...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
>> (Christopher Andrew Campbell) wrote:
>>
>> > In article <m-blase-2704...@un-mac17.cso.uiuc.edu>
>> m-b...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Blaze) writes:
>
>> > >believe in God (and there are a lot more than you probably think, I'll
>> > >wager) maintain that there is such a thing as absolute morality.
>> >
>> > There are probably less than I think, actually. I dare you to define
>> > absolute morality. I dare anyone to define it. It can't be done, because
>> > null and void.
>
>
>I know I said I wouldn't drag this out, but...
>
>Defining an absolute morality is easy. Mine's God. _Strictly_ defining
>this morality is something trickier, although the Ten Commandments and "Do
>unto others" are generally good places to start. A perfect God is the
>only possible source of an absolute morality, though, for exactly the
>reasons you stated -- human perspective tricky ethical circumstances keep
>us from being able to define one that we can adhere to.
Okay, it was the strict sense I was referring to. The trick here is, we
can say God is an absolute morality but we can't define what that is, so
it really doesn't help us when dealing with ethical issues. We can start
with the Ten Commandments, but these were related by humans, and I refuse
to believe in divine inspiration. Certainly not for just one bloody text
from two thousand years past. Also, there are just too many situations
where the Ten Commandments do not apply. Thou shalt not kill. When? Is
not killing always just? What about self defense? What if it's to stop a
killer from killing again?
To bring this back to xbooks, let's look at two popular villains: Magneto
and Sabretooth. Are they evil? Magnus has killed a lot of people in the
past, even forgetting Fatal Attractions. Come to think of it, he's broken
lots of commandments. And yet, many of us refuse to accept him as a
villain, because of his goals. OTOH, Sabretooth is a villain in the
purest form. Putting aside his abused childhood (which plays a big part
in the motivations of many serial killers, BTW), this guy's a butcher.
Yet we do not think of him in the same context as Magneto, because they
have different motivations. In this example at least, the concept of an
absolute morality fails just because it treats the same action differently
under different circumstances.
>personally, I have to believe in the absolute morality of a living God.
>If I didn't, I'd have to acknowledge tha morality is completely relative,
>and that the actions of individuals like Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, and David
>Koresh are perfectly acceptable. I'd have no real right to impose my own
>beliefs on any of them, nor them on me. And this is the sort of thing I
>really can't handle.
Morality *is* completely relative, but the people you mentioned are off
their collective rocker. Relativism doesn't necessarily have to embrace
insanity, y'know? Now, folks like the PLO and the IRA have legitemate
moral stances. I disagree completely with their methods (as I'm sure most
of you do), but I understand what they're fighting for, and if you see
things from their perspective it makes a lot of sense. That doesn't in
any way justify what they're doing, but it does make some sense of it all.
>anyways. I _promise_ the newsgroup at large I won't get into this any
>further. Anyone who remembers the UXM#208 thread from last semester knows
>they don't want anything like that started up again. ;)
I liked that threat. I like discussions like this. They can certainly be
on topic, and they're things we can all benefit from. People can just
skip it if they're not interested.
The Brain
>Defining an absolute morality is easy.
It is? Then why isn't there any?
Mine's God.
Really? You mean, God came down to you and told you the moral truth? I
would suppose so, since I can't see any other way you could know god's
mind.
_Strictly_ defining
>this morality is something trickier, although the Ten Commandments and
"Do
>unto others" are generally good places to start.
Why? Are you seriously suggesting that we base our lives solely on some
ancient book, one which includes many moral laws which are inherently
immoral?
A perfect God is the
>only possible source of an absolute morality,
But if there is a perfect God (perfet meaning 'all good' and 'all
powerful'), then how do you explain the shitty state the world is in
today?
But that's the fault of the traditional Western anthropomorphic view of
God, which sees it as basically a supreme being, which human qualities,
such as morality, can be attributed to.
though, for exactly the
>reasons you stated -- human perspective tricky ethical circumstances
keep>us from being able to define one that we can adhere to.
What about the fact that the answer is not always black and white; that
in many situations, most in fact, have both good and evil consequences?
Most actions are not absolutely right or wrong, but a combination of the
two.
>personally, I have to believe in the absolute morality of a living God.
>If I didn't, I'd have to acknowledge tha morality is completely
relative,
>and that the actions of individuals like Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, and
David
>Koresh are perfectly acceptable. I'd have no real right to impose my
own
>beliefs on any of them, nor them on me. And this is the sort of thing
I
>really can't handle.
>
No, that is not what moral relativism is about; it's about rejecting the
faulty idea of black and white morality, and seeing that your point of
view may not necessarily be right. What makes an action wrong is
whether or not one knowingly causes harm to another. But, in many
situations, this must be done for the greater good. There is such a
thing as having to choose the lesser of two evils. Morality cannot be
absolute.
Take this situation. You are a German citizen during World War II. You
have to agree to the government to turn over the locations of any knnown
Jews. However, you are actually hiding Jews in your house. The Ten
Commandments, I believe, say that you should not lie or make false
promises. But if you don't lie in this situation, you will be
indirectly condemning people to death. But what should you do? I, for
one, would lie and make false promises in order to preserve life.
Either way, however, my actions would partially be wrong, and partially
right. No absolute right or wrong.
>anyways. I _promise_ the newsgroup at large I won't get into this any
>further. Anyone who remembers the UXM#208 thread from last semester
knows
>they don't want anything like that started up again. ;)
>
Wasn't there then.
Sorry, Marty, but I really have a problem with you people who base
morality on myths and superstition instead of reasoning. As an example,
the Bible does condemn homosexuality. However, there is absolutely no
harm done by a sexual relationship between consenting same-sex partners.
I can see no way in which it can be seen as wrong; therefore, I must
condemn the Bible's teaching, since my own reasoning and conscience tell
me that the Bible's wrong here, and I listen to my own conscience on
moral decisions, not someone else's.
The Brain (jmpr...@midway.uchicago.edu)
Well, I think I've lived up to my alias there...
Joshua M Jeffryes
: anyways. I _promise_ the newsgroup at large I won't get into this any
: further. Anyone who remembers the UXM#208 thread from last semester knows
: they don't want anything like that started up again. ;)
Refresh my ailing memory, what _was_ the UXM#208 thread? I vaguely
remember something like that...
I think the Aili controversy wiped all other threads out of my active memory.
J. Spectre - Internet: going out of our way to bring people together so
they can get really ticked off at each other.
--
***************************jmj...@nic.smsu.edu****************************
"They may interfere. They may irritate. I know only that their actions
will be random and unintelligent." -Doom, Doom 2099 #29
"They should die." -David Copperfield
**************************HAPPINESS IS MANDATORY***************************
David R. Henry
>personally, I have to believe in the absolute morality of a living God.
>If I didn't, I'd have to acknowledge tha morality is completely relative,
>and that the actions of individuals like Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, and David
>Koresh are perfectly acceptable. I'd have no real right to impose my own
>beliefs on any of them, nor them on me. And this is the sort of thing I
>really can't handle.
Oh, Blaze, you were doing so well up until there.
"God so loved the world that he made up his mind to damn a large majority
of the human race." --Robert G. Ingersoll
--
David R. Henry-Rogue Fan Club // Now featuring the theme song from "Soap."
Michael Ellis
>Blaze (m-b...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) allegedly said:
>: anyways. I _promise_ the newsgroup at large I won't get into this any
>: further. Anyone who remembers the UXM#208 thread from last semester knows
>: they don't want anything like that started up again. ;)
>
>Refresh my ailing memory, what _was_ the UXM#208 thread? I vaguely
>remember something like that...
Hmm, I'd say 'Mike vs. Lou Duchez', except that was the UXM#208 thread
the time before last.
Basically, it's 'was Wolvie right when he stabbed Rachel through the
heart to stop her from killing Selene'.
I'll spare you the end result, other than that I was right. Nyah.
--
Michael K. Ellis
mke...@mordor.com
David R. Henry
>>>Are the characters, as they stand now, forever chained to their past, or
>>>are they capable of breaking free of their stereotypical "good vs. evil"
>>>roles and becoming more believable human beings?
>>
>> Always vote for the chains. You'll be wrong about humanity less often.
>I find this statement highly ironic coming from a fan of Rogue. Now, I
>realize the statement might have been made in reference to reality, but
>the question was phrased to be for the X-universe.
>David, if you really feel this way about X-characters, life the currently
>reforming Sabertooth, and the ever fluxuating Magneto, I wonder when you
>started reading the series. Rogue was definately a *bad* guy.
No offense, Angie, but Rogue really hasn't changed her colors much. Ahem!
Argh. Bad puns strike hard and early, I see.
In her originally-intended original appearance, the "unpublished" issues
of Claremont's Ms. Marvel, Rogue was set up as a villain, yes, but a
confused and sympathetic one. She was apparently going to be used in a
manner to take Danvers powers away from her for a while, perhaps be the
"substitute" Ms. Marvel, and then Danvers could learn that it's the
personality, not the powers, that make the hero -- much the same plot
that Claremont used for Storm, not surprisingly, which makes me think I'm
on the right track.
Rogue was thus in the same sort of character box as Wolverine -- a
near-villain, but one who's innate nobility and strength of spirit wins
her over to the good side. For that matter, she was much the same sort
of character as Claremont's Magneto, even more so than Wolvie -- near
the end of his run, Claremont's Wolverine was no longer dangerous, no
longer the beast that could just as easily cut into his teammates as
the enemy (which was, in my opinion, a loss to the title, but c'est la).
He had become some sort of bushido wise man friendly uncle to the team
instead.
Yes, her appearances in the X-Men were written to have you sympathize
with Carol. Who wouldn't, in the situtation? But Claremont was fond
of putting characters in who seemed out of place, or doing things that
seemed to "ruin" the book, but instead gave it new focus -- like
Cyclops leaving the team, or Storm losing her powers. About his only
strikeout in this area would be Australia.
But it's important not to just look at the chaining to the past question
as evil to good. Is there any chance that any of the X-Men will seriously
change their viewpoints or ideas? Really? Probably not. Claremont was
able to write Scott out of the picture, but X-Factor brought him back
in. Iceman is still fighting crime. Iceman will still be fighting crime
twenty years from now. They've recently made Colossus leave the X-teams,
but the complaints over that weren't that Colossus had a change of heart,
but that it was done in an underhanded, evil, and stupid way -- in short,
the writers decided "Colossus is going to leave the team," and forced
his character to do so, instead of discovering, through the course of
storytelling, that Colossus would probably be leaving the team right now.
I love and appreciate all characters who can show change over time.
Such characters do show up, even in Marvel comics, now and then. However,
if asked where the smart money would lie, I'd vote with the chains,
every time.
"The end's uncertain but the future is always near."
--Richard Darwin, "Buddha Roadkill"
Timothy C Ellerbee
: Blaze writes:
: >personally, I have to believe in the absolute morality of a living God.
: >If I didn't, I'd have to acknowledge tha morality is completely relative,
: >and that the actions of individuals like Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, and David
: >Koresh are perfectly acceptable. I'd have no real right to impose my own
: >beliefs on any of them, nor them on me. And this is the sort of thing I
: >really can't handle.
: Oh, Blaze, you were doing so well up until there.
: "God so loved the world that he made up his mind to damn a large majority
: of the human race." --Robert G. Ingersoll
God doesn't damn people. People who reject God go to Hell, which is,
basically, A Place Without God. In otherwords, you have to spend
eternity out of his presence. This is a Bad Thing.
Genevieve "Only the Good Die Young" Hoog
(bummin' on Bemo's account)
Angela M.
> No offense, Angie, but Rogue really hasn't changed her colors much. Ahem!
> Argh. Bad puns strike hard and early, I see.
Urhg. I HATE being called Angie. :P I'm not sure why, but that
diminutive of my name has always annoyed me. I much much more prefer
simply Ang :).
> In her originally-intended original appearance, the "unpublished" issues
> of Claremont's Ms. Marvel, Rogue was set up as a villain, yes, but a
> confused and sympathetic one. She was apparently going to be used in a
> manner to take Danvers powers away from her for a while, perhaps be the
> "substitute" Ms. Marvel, and then Danvers could learn that it's the
> personality, not the powers, that make the hero -- much the same plot
> that Claremont used for Storm, not surprisingly, which makes me think I'm
> on the right track.
I think I'm going to end up sticking my foot in my mouth, but did
Claremont create Rogue? I guess because my first experiences with her
were in other titles (Avengers and Rom) I never connected the fact of who
might have created her. It makes sense, he created Mystique and the
other newer members of the Brotherhood. Wow. I just never really thought
about it.
> Yes, her appearances in the X-Men were written to have you sympathize
> with Carol. Who wouldn't, in the situtation? But Claremont was fond
> of putting characters in who seemed out of place, or doing things that
> seemed to "ruin" the book, but instead gave it new focus -- like
> Cyclops leaving the team, or Storm losing her powers.
Or practicly killing off Kitty and Kurt. Or sending Prof X off into
space with Lillandra. The book really did seem to have a continuing
dynamic to it.
> But it's important not to just look at the chaining to the past
> question as evil to good. Is there any chance that any of the X-Men
> will seriously change their viewpoints or ideas? Really? Probably not.
> Claremont was able to write Scott out of the picture, but X-Factor
> brought him back.
>
> I love and appreciate all characters who can show change over time.
> Such characters do show up, even in Marvel comics, now and then. However,
> if asked where the smart money would lie, I'd vote with the chains,
> every time.
Okay, I can see your point. I think my problem stemmed from the lack of
explanation behind the comment to the original post. It seemed as if you
were simply saying that a bad guy will always be a bad guy, but then I
noticed you were a fan of Rogue. Now I think I understand where that
statement came from, and in relation to Marvel (especially now) I
wholeheartedly agree. Real change is not a lasting thing in comics. And
even when you do progress a character in a certain direction, all it
takes is a single change in creative staff to wipe it out.
I wasn't trying to flame you, I was just curious as to the appearant
dichotomy in you statement and you .sig. Thanks for answering :).
Joshua M Jeffryes
Distribution:
Michael Ellis (mke...@ritz.mordor.com) allegedly said:
: jmj...@nic.smsu.edu (Joshua M Jeffryes) writes:
: >Refresh my ailing memory, what _was_ the UXM#208 thread? I vaguely
: >remember something like that...
: Basically, it's 'was Wolvie right when he stabbed Rachel through the
: heart to stop her from killing Selene'.
: I'll spare you the end result, other than that I was right. Nyah.
Isn't that the one I did the "how I would write Wolverine and Selene"
bit? Or was that another one? I definately have a vauge memory of
exceedingly long posts, with I and some other fellow arguing against DRH
and maybe you. Hell, I'm not even sure I remember what/which side I was
arguing. Anyone else remember?
J. Spectre - by gum, I still think Wolverine and Selene should...
***************************jmj...@nic.smsu.edu****************************
"Imagine something humorous in this in this space." -B. Thrailkill
"...this made me feel like I needed to throw up." -Ed Cates
"...you know those circumstances, they'll get you." -J. Garton
*******************YOU ARE IN ERROR, THERE IS NO SCREAMING*****************
Kevin White
>On Tue, 2 May 1995, David R. Henry wrote:
>
>Urhg. I HATE being called Angie. :P I'm not sure why, but that
>diminutive of my name has always annoyed me. I much much more prefer
>simply Ang :).
As in 'rhymes with mange'? Sorry, but I've always had a problem
with 'Ang' as a nickname; it desperately needs a vowel to end the sound.
However, I also have no problem with the name 'Angela', so at
least I do have _something_ to call you.
[DRH's commentary on the unpublished Ms. Marvel plots deleted.]
>I think I'm going to end up sticking my foot in my mouth, but did
>Claremont create Rogue? I guess because my first experiences with her
>were in other titles (Avengers and Rom) I never connected the fact of who
>might have created her. It makes sense, he created Mystique and the
>other newer members of the Brotherhood. Wow. I just never really thought
>about it.
Yup. Claremont was writing Avengers, Ms. Marvel and Spiderwoman
at the same time as the X-Men and New Mutants. Rogue's first appearance,
for those of you heathens who don't know already, was Avengers Annual
#10.
--
Experimental, highly unstable test .sig
Do not approach closer than 0.7 microns.
Kevin White - whit...@uidaho.edu
The Vodkinator
: God doesn't damn people. People who reject God go to Hell, which is,
: eternity out of his presence. This is a Bad Thing.
: Genevieve "Only the Good Die Young" Hoog
Unfortunately, people damn people too. I've already been told by several
overzealous friends of mine that I'm going to end up in hell if I don't
accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Gee, and I thought that just
being Catholic was gonna do me in. =)
Jennifer A. Vodvarka -- "The Vodkinator" | University of Illinois Alumnus!
Email address: vo...@netcom.com | "Kiss, kiss sweety darling!" -- AbFab
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethleham
to be born?" -- W.B. Yeats |VBFC Member and co-root of evil|
Chris Baldwin
: God doesn't damn people. People who reject God go to Hell,
But God is the one who set up the system this way. And considering
that God is supposed to be omniscient, he damn well knew that some of
the people he was creating would be damned.
: which is,
: basically, A Place Without God. In otherwords, you have to spend
: eternity out of his presence. This is a Bad Thing.
So what's the problem. I don't believe in God anyway, so why
should I care if I am forced to be some place without him?
--
"We have reason to believe that man first walked upright to free his
hands for masturbation." -- Lily Tomlin
David R. Henry
>Urhg. I HATE being called Angie. :P I'm not sure why, but that
>diminutive of my name has always annoyed me. I much much more prefer
>simply Ang :).
Gotcha, Ang. Is that a long "A" or a short "A"?
>I think I'm going to end up sticking my foot in my mouth, but did
>Claremont create Rogue?
Yup. Claremont created Rogue.
>Okay, I can see your point. I think my problem stemmed from the lack of
>explanation behind the comment to the original post. It seemed as if you
>were simply saying that a bad guy will always be a bad guy, but then I
>noticed you were a fan of Rogue. Now I think I understand where that
>statement came from, and in relation to Marvel (especially now) I
>wholeheartedly agree. Real change is not a lasting thing in comics.
I'm glad we can agree. Welcome to xbooks!
"If I wanted a growth experience, I'd touch the She-Hulk." --Rogue
Blaze
Baldwin) wrote:
> Timothy C Ellerbee (tell...@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote:
> : God doesn't damn people. People who reject God go to Hell,
>
> But God is the one who set up the system this way. And considering
> that God is supposed to be omniscient, he damn well knew that some of
> the people he was creating would be damned.
Not again... All right, I didn't want to spin this out among the entire
newsgroup, but some people here clearly need to understand a few things
about what Christianity really believes.
God didn't "set up the system" this way. God (according to Christianity)
is perfect, and created humans that way. When we sin, we become that
which God abhors, something that's against everything He is. He can't
accept us into His presence in Heaven this way, anymore than you could be
expected to spend the rest of your life at the bottom of the ocean. The
whole point of Christ is that God still loved us enough to send Jesus to
die and go to Hell in our place, so all you have to do -- and this isn't a
condition, it's just logic -- is believe in Him as the Son of God and that
your sins are forgiven.
> : which is,
> : basically, A Place Without God. In otherwords, you have to spend
> : eternity out of his presence. This is a Bad Thing.
>
> So what's the problem. I don't believe in God anyway, so why
> should I care if I am forced to be some place without him?
"Now how can you argue with logic like that?" -- Night Thrasher. I won't
even bother to point out the obvious contradiction in the above statement.
The Brain
>Not again... All right, I didn't want to spin this out among the
entire
>newsgroup, but some people here clearly need to understand a few things
>about what Christianity really believes.
>
>God didn't "set up the system" this way. God (according to
Christianity)
>is perfect,
But, if God is perfect and all-powerful, why is there evil?
and created humans that way. When we sin, we become that
>which God abhors, something that's against everything He is. He can't
>accept us into His presence in Heaven this way, anymore than you could
be
>expected to spend the rest of your life at the bottom of the ocean.
The
>whole point of Christ is that God still loved us enough to send Jesus
to
>die and go to Hell in our place, so all you have to do -- and this
isn't a
>condition, it's just logic -- is believe in Him as the Son of God and
that
>your sins are forgiven.
So, the Christian God is perfect, yet will only forgive you if you
believe in a particular mythology. And most of the world cannot be
forgiven simply because they don't happen to have been raised Christian,
or may have been raised so but refuse to have faith in a superstition
for which there is no evidence for the existence of.
But then, that's what faith is. It's belief in the truth of something
even though you have no proof, or even evidence, for it to be so.
Personally, I'm too smart for that.
And why is God 'He' in all of your statements? That's another problem
that I have with Christianity, and traditional Western religions in
general. The Western view of God is too anthropomorphic, sort of an
all-powerful, individual 'superman'; an individual, seperate from the
universe, who created it and controls, and to whom human characteristics
such as morality and emotions can be ascribed. And, while always being
anthropomorphic, why must God always be masculine?
>> : which is,
>> : basically, A Place Without God. In otherwords, you have to spend
>> : eternity out of his presence. This is a Bad Thing.
>>
>> So what's the problem. I don't believe in God anyway, so why
>> should I care if I am forced to be some place without him?
>
>"Now how can you argue with logic like that?" -- Night Thrasher. I
won't
>even bother to point out the obvious contradiction in the above
statement.
>
But I did bother to point out some of the obvious contradiction in the
basic tenents of Christianity.
I do believe in God, but not in the mythology and dogma of any
particular organized religion; in fact, many religious peoples, in
hearing my beliefs, call me an atheist. I believe in God as basically
being the fundamental truth of the universe; that is, I believe that
there is, ultimately, some meaning to the universe, to existence;
something beyond ourselves, and it is that higher meaning that I call
God.
The Brain (jmpr...@midway.uchicago.edu)
Keeper of the Transformers and Beast flames
anthony edward davis
>m-b...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Blaze) wrote:
>>newsgroup, but some people here clearly need to understand a few things
>>about what Christianity really believes.
>>God didn't "set up the system" this way. God (according to
>>Christianity) is perfect,
>But, if God is perfect and all-powerful, why is there evil?
There is evil because God gave us the greatest gift of all:
Free will. Without free will, we would never make the choice to love God,
or not to love God; it would be dictated to us. God, by giving us free will,
allows us to make the choice to follow His commands, or to not follow Him.
Sin is defined as not following God's will.
> and created humans that way. When we sin, we become that
>>which God abhors, something that's against everything He is. He can't
>>accept us into His presence in Heaven this way, anymore than you could
>be expected to spend the rest of your life at the bottom of the ocean.
>The whole point of Christ is that God still loved us enough to send Jesus
>to die and go to Hell in our place, so all you have to do -- and this
>isn't a condition, it's just logic -- is believe in Him as the Son of God and
>that your sins are forgiven.
>So, the Christian God is perfect, yet will only forgive you if you
>believe in a particular mythology. And most of the world cannot be
>forgiven simply because they don't happen to have been raised Christian,
>or may have been raised so but refuse to have faith in a superstition
>for which there is no evidence for the existence of.
>
>But then, that's what faith is. It's belief in the truth of something
>even though you have no proof, or even evidence, for it to be so.
>Personally, I'm too smart for that.
There is evidence outside of the Bible to prove that Christ
actually did walk the earth. Belief in Christ makes perfect sense:
As humans, we are sinful. God is holy, and thus cannot tolerate
unholiness, or sinfulness, in His presence. This leaves two options:
Either man makes himself righteous, or God does. However, because man is
sinful, he can't make himself unsinful, because no amount of good deeds
would ever match up to God's holiness. Thus, God had to provide the way,
as He did when He sent Christ to be our Saviour. The only thing man has
to do is accept the gift that God gave to him in Christ, and aceept Him
as our Saviour.
>I do believe in God, but not in the mythology and dogma of any
>particular organized religion; in fact, many religious peoples, in
>hearing my beliefs, call me an atheist. I believe in God as basically
>being the fundamental truth of the universe; that is, I believe that
>there is, ultimately, some meaning to the universe, to existence;
>something beyond ourselves, and it is that higher meaning that I call
>God.
Yes, but this is but one aspect to God. God is also perfect, loving,
our creator, Lord, and saviour.
Well, that's about all for now- I gotta get to work. Later.
-Tony!
Still Keeper of the Great Lakes Avengers flame
(look for the FAQ on RACX)
Marty Blase
<m-b...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Let's take this to e-mail. I'll be brief; I'm not trying to evangelize
> here.
oops. sorry, gang -- alien newsreader wouldn't cancel that.
Timothy C Ellerbee
: Timothy C Ellerbee (tell...@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote:
: : God doesn't damn people. People who reject God go to Hell,
: But God is the one who set up the system this way. And considering
: that God is supposed to be omniscient, he damn well knew that some of
: the people he was creating would be damned.
It's the fine line that has to be walked as people with free will. Hell
was originally set up to be a place for Satan and the fallen angels.
Humans who choose *there's that free will thing again* to reject God end
up there because it's the only place that exists without God around. God
doesn't ENJOY having His children reject him, ya know... (Please bear in
mind that I am speaking as a fairly devout Roman Catholic, and these are
my beliefs. I can't speak for anybody else besides me and mine.)
: : which is,
: : basically, A Place Without God. In otherwords, you have to spend
: : eternity out of his presence. This is a Bad Thing.
: So what's the problem. I don't believe in God anyway, so why
: should I care if I am forced to be some place without him?
Well, it's your decision not to believe in God. All I can say is, if
you're wrong about it, you're screwed. (Of course, one could say that if
my beliefs happen to be wrong, and there is no God, well, I won't be
around to find out anyway) And, if He does exist, then to be
sent to a place without Him would be severly unpleasant. In my belief
system, God is the source of goodness and love. Thus, I'd rather be with
God than without. Once again, I'm not trying to force my views on
anybody, I'm just trying to clarify some stuff.
Genevieve "Icky Icky Icky Ptang Ptang ZOOOP! waaaaahhhh" Hoog
Timothy C Ellerbee
Distribution:
The Vodkinator (vo...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : God doesn't damn people. People who reject God go to Hell, which is,
: : basically, A Place Without God. In otherwords, you have to spend
: : eternity out of his presence. This is a Bad Thing.
: : Genevieve "Only the Good Die Young" Hoog
: Unfortunately, people damn people too. I've already been told by several
: overzealous friends of mine that I'm going to end up in hell if I don't
: accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Gee, and I thought that just
: being Catholic was gonna do me in. =)
:) I just spent the afternoon talking with a born-again who was trying
earnestly to tell me how wrong Catholics were in their interpretation of
God's Word. I won a Coke off him because I got all his Bible Quiz
questions right :)
People have no right to tell others that they're damned. Just throw the
"Judge not, lest you be judged" back at them, and it should shut 'em up!
Genevieve "Check out the big brain on Brad!" Hoog
Paul O'Brien
> There's a book by Josh McDowell called "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?"
>It basically says that Christ was one of two things: either the Son of God,
>or a mere human. If He were a mere human, then his claims that He was God
>means one of two things: he knew He was wrong, and was a liar, or He
>truly beleived what he was saying, and was insane. Had He been either of
>these, not as many people would have followed Him as they did, nor would
>they have killed Him.
I've heard of the book. While I have no intention of attacking
your religion, I feel I should point out the following:
* People do follow lunatics and liars. Does the name "Koresh"
ring a bell?
* The book omits option 3 - Jesus was a perfectly normal man but
the Bible is a distorted account of his life. I tend to this
view, personally.
Paul O'Brien
pr...@festival.ed.ac.uk, elf...@srv0.law.ed.ac.uk
Two million? What's he playing at? I don't like it.
Marty Blase
<jmpr...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> A lot of the actions which the old testament God performed, such as the
> flood or the plagues on the Egyptians, I would certainly consider to be
> evil. And there are many cases when people cannot follow all the
> commandments; morality is not always absolute.
That's not evil in those cases, it's judgement. If you think of God's
actions that way, then the entire business with Hell in the first place
would be considered evil as well. God is just the same way a judge who
condemns a murderer to a life sentence is -- it's not intended as cruelty.
> Personally, I do not believe in God as having a will per se, but as
> simply existing.
understandable, but if you consider God as just some cosmic machine who
created the entire universe and then left everything alone, the whole
motivation behind religion becomes pretty moot.
Marty Blase
O'Brien) wrote:
> * People do follow lunatics and liars. Does the name "Koresh"
> ring a bell?
Jesus had a following of thousands who witnessed his miracles. (assuming
you accept the Gospel as valid, of course.)
> * The book omits option 3 - Jesus was a perfectly normal man but
> the Bible is a distorted account of his life. I tend to this
> view, personally.
The problem with this is that if you believe the apostles distorted the
Gospels to invent miracles, then they didn't do a very good job of it.
All four Gospels refer to the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand,
which had plenty of witnesses to corroborate or deny it's occurence. The
trail was about as public as you can get, and Jesus was verifiably
deceased by a sword through his side when he was placed in the tomb. His
tomb had a tremendous stone rolled in front of it, sealed with the seal of
the Roman government, and guarded heavily. And the first people who
reported the resurrection were two women, who in that culture would have
been considered the least reliable sources for this kind of information.
No one would have believed these books if the disciples had made all if it
up, but the Christian church managed to grow tremendously anyways.
I'm trying not to carry this on too long in the newsgroup, so I _promise_
you guys this will be my last non-e-mail response on this thread.
Really. ;)
Nick Demmon
The Brain <jmpr...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
I agreed with most of your post, with one exception:
>to whom human characteristics
>such as morality and emotions can be ascribed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you, or anyone else, can describe the christian god as described in
the old testament as 'moral', then I'd like to hear your definition of
moral behavior (and why it includes randomly killing large amounts of
people on a regular basis).
-nick who is
Marty Blase
here.
>But, if God is perfect and all-powerful, why is there evil?
Human choice. (I'm speaking from the Christian perspective here.) We
choose to sin; God gave us all free choice to do what we want to do. He
can't do that and force us not to sin at the same time.
>So, the Christian God is perfect, yet will only forgive you if you
>believe in a particular mythology. And most of the world cannot be
>forgiven simply because they don't happen to have been raised Christian,
>or may have been raised so but refuse to have faith in a superstition
>for which there is no evidence for the existence of.
The Christian perspective on salvation is that our sin condemns us, but
Jesus died to take our place for our punishment. In order to do that,
though, He would have to be God made flesh; another sinful man couldn't
take our place this way. But if you don't believe Jesus was God, then you
don't believe He had the power to do this for us, and you don't believe
you're saved. It's fairly logical, actually, although it's short-
circuited if you don't believe in God in the first place.
>But then, that's what faith is. It's belief in the truth of something
>even though you have no proof, or even evidence, for it to be so.
>Personally, I'm too smart for that.
According to Paul's letters, God's presence is plain from the creation.
Darwinistic evolution claims that random mutation is able to create higher
life-forms from something that wasnt' there before, and the Big Bang
theory basically says the same thing about the universe. I personally
have trouble with both theories, and use them as evidence in an omnipotent
Creator.
>And why is God 'He' in all of your statements? That's another problem
>that I have with Christianity, and traditional Western religions in
>general.
It's simply a matter of reverence, the same way you'd refer to Clinton as
"Mr. President" to his face.
The Western view of God is too anthropomorphic, sort of an
>all-powerful, individual 'superman'; an individual, seperate from the
>universe, who created it and controls, and to whom human characteristics
>such as morality and emotions can be ascribed. And, while always being
>anthropomorphic, why must God always be masculine?
Anthropomorphic means shaped like man. Genesis states God created man in
His image, so it's actually the other way around. And as for why God is
always masculine? Simply because He's refered to as our Father in every
Biblical reference, including by Christ himself. Of course, He doesn't
have a physical gender like the rest of us, though, although Christ did.
Perhaps He simply chose a male identity because of ancient (and current)
cultural considerations; I really can't say.
>I do believe in God, but not in the mythology and dogma of any
>particular organized religion; in fact, many religious peoples, in
>hearing my beliefs, call me an atheist. I believe in God as basically
>being the fundamental truth of the universe; that is, I believe that
>there is, ultimately, some meaning to the universe, to existence;
>something beyond ourselves, and it is that higher meaning that I call
>God.
No problem; you're far from the only believer in God I've known who
doesn't subscribe to the organized religions they've encountered. The
Bible encourages membership in a church, though, because a group of
believers can help reinforce and encourage each other's faith. Belief is
the only thing required of us, though, not membership.
If you'd like to hear more about Christ and how he applies to one's belief
in God, I'll be happy to share some with you. I won't force anything I
believe on you, though. Let me know whatever you think.
--
Marty Blase
m-b...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
The Brain
>In article <D80vK...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>The Brain <jmpr...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>I agreed with most of your post, with one exception:
>
>>such as morality and emotions can be ascribed.
>
>If you, or anyone else, can describe the christian god as described in
>the old testament as 'moral', then I'd like to hear your definition of
>moral behavior (and why it includes randomly killing large amounts of
>people on a regular basis).
>
that good and evil exist as polar opposites and actions can be called
one or the other; and that people consider moral consequences before
acting (at least sometimes.) My concept of God, being an idea or a
force instead of a physical reality, has no morality, similar to how an
earthquake or the weather has none; it simply IS.
The Brain
>In article <D80vK...@midway.uchicago.edu> I said:
>>m-b...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Blaze) wrote:
>>>newsgroup, but some people here clearly need to understand a few
things
>>>about what Christianity really believes.
>>>God didn't "set up the system" this way. God (according to
>>>Christianity) is perfect,
>
>Free will. Without free will, we would never make the choice to love
God,
>or not to love God; it would be dictated to us. God, by giving us free
will,
>allows us to make the choice to follow His commands, or to not follow
Him.
>Sin is defined as not following God's will.
But how do we know God's will? And is God's will always good?
A lot of the actions which the old testament God performed, such as the
flood or the plagues on the Egyptians, I would certainly consider to be
evil. And there are many cases when people cannot follow all the
commandments; morality is not always absolute.
Personally, I do not believe in God as having a will per se, but as
simply existing.
>> and created humans that way. When we sin, we become that
>>>which God abhors, something that's against everything He is. He
can't
>>>accept us into His presence in Heaven this way, anymore than you
could
>>be expected to spend the rest of your life at the bottom of the ocean.
>>The whole point of Christ is that God still loved us enough to send
Jesus
>>to die and go to Hell in our place, so all you have to do -- and this
>>isn't a condition, it's just logic -- is believe in Him as the Son of
God and
>>that your sins are forgiven.
>
>>So, the Christian God is perfect, yet will only forgive you if you
>>believe in a particular mythology. And most of the world cannot be
>>forgiven simply because they don't happen to have been raised
Christian,
>>or may have been raised so but refuse to have faith in a superstition
>>for which there is no evidence for the existence of.
>>
>>But then, that's what faith is. It's belief in the truth of something
>>even though you have no proof, or even evidence, for it to be so.
>>Personally, I'm too smart for that.
>
> There is evidence outside of the Bible to prove that Christ
>actually did walk the earth.
Well, I believe that Christ walked the Earth. But I also believe that
he was just a good man, and a great moral philosopher, not a
supernatural being.
Belief in Christ makes perfect sense:
>As humans, we are sinful. God is holy, and thus cannot tolerate
>unholiness, or sinfulness, in His presence. This leaves two options:
>Either man makes himself righteous, or God does. However, because man
is
>sinful, he can't make himself unsinful, because no amount of good deeds
>would ever match up to God's holiness. Thus, God had to provide the
way,
>as He did when He sent Christ to be our Saviour. The only thing man
has
>to do is accept the gift that God gave to him in Christ, and aceept Him
>as our Saviour.
Really? I've also heard that, in order to escape damnation, one must
accept Mohammed as Allah's greatest prophet and live according to the
word of the Koran. And I've also heard that one must find enlightenment
by following the eight-fold path in order to break the neverending cycle
of suffering in endless reincarnations. Why should I believe any one of
these, or any other dogma, over all the others?
>>I do believe in God, but not in the mythology and dogma of any
>>particular organized religion; in fact, many religious peoples, in
>>hearing my beliefs, call me an atheist. I believe in God as basically
>>being the fundamental truth of the universe; that is, I believe that
>>there is, ultimately, some meaning to the universe, to existence;
>>something beyond ourselves, and it is that higher meaning that I call
>>God.
>
> Yes, but this is but one aspect to God. God is also perfect, loving,
>our creator, Lord, and saviour.
But would a perfect and loving God destroy the entire worls in a giant
flood? Personally, I think God is 'beyond' being able to be called such
human qualities as 'perfect' and 'loving', much as the universe itself
is. I consider God to be more an idea or a force than a being.
>Well, that's about all for now- I gotta get to work. Later.
And I've got to read the 'Brothers Karamozov'. Later.
Nathan T Nolan
readers not theology. Please take it to email and off racx. There are
precious few topics a conversation (even one on internet) should not go.
REligion is one of these topics. Politics is another. Please people
lets keep the atmosphere here light and cherry. Let's not be at each
others throats. Believe me I'm not one to back down from touchy
subjects, but I only get involved when I feel like doing so. Here I want
to discuss comic books not the nature of god. Last time, please stop
before it starts to get real ugly, and people are realy offended.
Nathan Nolan Keeper of the New Mutants Flame
anthony edward davis
>ada...@cis.ohio-state.edu (anthony edward davis) wrote:
>But how do we know God's will? And is God's will always good?
our conscience. Also, through prayer and meditation on God's Word. And,
yes, God's will is always good, for there is no evil in God, and all that
comes from Him is good.
>A lot of the actions which the old testament God performed, such as the
>flood or the plagues on the Egyptians, I would certainly consider to be
>evil. And there are many cases when people cannot follow all the
>commandments; morality is not always absolute.
>Personally, I do not believe in God as having a will per se, but as
>simply existing.
These are cases of punishment to those who did not listen to God
or the prophets He sent, to provide for us proof of His power. They also show
that He truly cares for those who love Him (He spared Noah and his family, and
the Jews, His own chosen people.) Did God kill these people? In a sense,
yes, but they died because of the decisions they had made in their own lives.
Also, all life ultimately comes from God, so it was His to take back if He
wanted.
Also, if everybody followed God's commandments, there is no case
in which those commandments could not be followed. It is only in times
of someone disobeying God's command that a situation becomes "morally
ambiguent."
>> There is evidence outside of the Bible to prove that Christ
>>actually did walk the earth.
>
>Well, I believe that Christ walked the Earth. But I also believe that
>he was just a good man, and a great moral philosopher, not a
>supernatural being.
There's a book by Josh McDowell called "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?"
It basically says that Christ was one of two things: either the Son of God,
or a mere human. If He were a mere human, then his claims that He was God
means one of two things: he knew He was wrong, and was a liar, or He
truly beleived what he was saying, and was insane. Had He been either of
these, not as many people would have followed Him as they did, nor would
they have killed Him.
> Belief in Christ makes perfect sense:
>>As humans, we are sinful. God is holy, and thus cannot tolerate
>>unholiness, or sinfulness, in His presence. This leaves two options:
>>Either man makes himself righteous, or God does. However, because man is
>>sinful, he can't make himself unsinful, because no amount of good deeds
>>would ever match up to God's holiness. Thus, God had to provide the way,
>>as He did when He sent Christ to be our Saviour. The only thing man has
>>to do is accept the gift that God gave to him in Christ, and aceept Him
>>as our Saviour.
>
>Really? I've also heard that, in order to escape damnation, one must
>accept Mohammed as Allah's greatest prophet and live according to the
>word of the Koran. And I've also heard that one must find enlightenment
>by following the eight-fold path in order to break the neverending cycle
>of suffering in endless reincarnations. Why should I believe any one of
>these, or any other dogma, over all the others?
Why believe? Because none of these other great teachers, no matter
how much truth they spoke, _ever_ claimed to actually be God, as Christ did.
This goes back to my earlier argument, of how can an imperfect man reach
a perfect God? He can't. Thus, only the perfect man, a God-man, could
possibly serve as our saviour.
well, that's about all for now. I betcha RACX is probably getting a little
tired of this. why don't you e-mail me or blaze about this. We certainly
don't want to become the next Marlon Shows.
-Tony
Keeper of the Great Lakes Avengers flame
Timothy C Ellerbee
<D80vK...@midway.uchicago.edu> <3o9e8e$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:
Marty Blase (m-b...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: Let's take this to e-mail. I'll be brief; I'm not trying to evangelize
: here.
If you do, please include me in the discussion...
: According to Paul's letters, God's presence is plain from the creation.
: Darwinistic evolution claims that random mutation is able to create higher
: life-forms from something that wasnt' there before, and the Big Bang
: theory basically says the same thing about the universe. I personally
: have trouble with both theories, and use them as evidence in an omnipotent
: Creator.
Personally, I look at science and see that there is a point at which
scientists shrug and go, "Well, I can't explain it, but it happened
somehow..." I have no problems with believing in both God and evolution...
: The Western view of God is too anthropomorphic, sort of an
: >all-powerful, individual 'superman'; an individual, seperate from the
: >universe, who created it and controls, and to whom human characteristics
: >such as morality and emotions can be ascribed. And, while always being
: >anthropomorphic, why must God always be masculine?
: Anthropomorphic means shaped like man. Genesis states God created man in
: His image, so it's actually the other way around. And as for why God is
: always masculine? Simply because He's refered to as our Father in every
: Biblical reference, including by Christ himself. Of course, He doesn't
: have a physical gender like the rest of us, though, although Christ did.
: Perhaps He simply chose a male identity because of ancient (and current)
: cultural considerations; I really can't say.
A tidbit I picked up by reading a news article a couple of months back,
in regards to a group who's trying to prove that the Gosple's are really
allegorical tales made up by early Christian's - women in those days ahd
a lot less credibility. If Jesus had been female, chances are she
wouldn't have been listened to at all, never become a threat to the
Sanhedran, never have been crucified. (the discussion was, btw, in
regards to the fact that if the Gosples had been fabricated, it wouldn't
have been a woman, Mary Magdalene, who was the first to know that Christ
was resurrected...the fact that she was female would have cast doubts on
her story)
Gracious...sorry, I didn't mean to tangent off like that, but I think it
does have some relevance :)
--Genevieve "So I did my chain-mail backwards. It still looks nifty!" Hoog
(bummin' on Bemo's account)
BEMO
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\ Res Ipsa Loquitor \/ CAPTAIN BEMO /
/ Dr Raouol Duke /\ HELL TOUPEE tell...@osf.gmu.edu\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
new smaller sig
Timothy C Ellerbee
: ada...@cis.ohio-state.edu (anthony edward davis) wrote:
: >In article <D80vK...@midway.uchicago.edu> I said:
: >>m-b...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Blaze) wrote:
: >Sin is defined as not following God's will.
: But how do we know God's will? And is God's will always good?
Prayer. ALso scripture. And yes, in my belief, it is. Sometimes humans
are too limited to see the bigger plan God has for us, but I place my
trust in him. Whether I see it or not, I believe God is working in my
best interest. It's hard to accept sometimes, but it's what I believe.
: A lot of the actions which the old testament God performed, such as the
: flood or the plagues on the Egyptians, I would certainly consider to be
: evil. And there are many cases when people cannot follow all the
: commandments; morality is not always absolute.
The Egyptians were plagued due to the fact that they refused to do God's
will, namely "Let my people go." They were, at that point, holding a
whole bunch of Isralites as slave labor. You can't say Moses didn't warn
them :) And what commandments do you have problems with? Or, rather,
which would people have difficulty following? Morality has many aspects
to it, but, in the end, there are certain things that are either right or
wrong.
: Personally, I do not believe in God as having a will per se, but as
: simply existing.
Well, I have problems with that. If God simply exists, as you said in an
earlier post, as an earthquake does, well, what's the point of calling
Him God? Just title him Papa Nature, or something...it's science over
theology. I wish I could remember that quote by Einstein, paraphrased it
goes something like, "Religion without science is crippled, Science
without Religion is blind."
: Really? I've also heard that, in order to escape damnation, one must
: accept Mohammed as Allah's greatest prophet and live according to the
: word of the Koran. And I've also heard that one must find enlightenment
: by following the eight-fold path in order to break the neverending cycle
: of suffering in endless reincarnations. Why should I believe any one of
: these, or any other dogma, over all the others?
Again, this is your option. I follow the Catholic religion because I
have found it to be the one that most satisfys the longings of my heart.
I've lived in a few other countries, and had lengthy theological
discussions with people from many other faiths. Personally, I have
problems with the "if you're not Christian you all go to hell," but
that's something I'm working out in my own way. Paul says *damn, no
Bible handy to look up the verse* that, in the end, we're going to find
out the truth anyhow (refering to the end of the world, where everything
will be made clear), so there's really no use arguing amongst yourselves.
: But would a perfect and loving God destroy the entire worls in a giant
: flood? Personally, I think God is 'beyond' being able to be called such
: human qualities as 'perfect' and 'loving', much as the universe itself
: is. I consider God to be more an idea or a force than a being.
Firstly, nearly every religion has a flood mythos, a point I find
telling. I don't take every Biblical story, especially some of the
Genesis stories, to be word-for-word true. And translations prove
difficult...for example, the original words for Adam and Eve were
plural...indicating a community of people. Secondly, there are
indications in the story that these people weren't the only group
around. At any rate, God didn't destroy the entire world - He kept the
only good that remained on it, and, afterwards, apologised and made a
covenant with us that He'd never do it again.
--Genevieve "I have knees! I have knees! YIPPIE!" Hoog
Christopher Andrew Campbell
>In article <D81DG...@midway.uchicago.edu>, The Brain
><jmpr...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>> A lot of the actions which the old testament God performed, such as the
>> flood or the plagues on the Egyptians, I would certainly consider to be
>> evil. And there are many cases when people cannot follow all the
>> commandments; morality is not always absolute.
>
>actions that way, then the entire business with Hell in the first place
>would be considered evil as well. God is just the same way a judge who
>condemns a murderer to a life sentence is -- it's not intended as cruelty.
Faith in God, or lack thereof, only goes so far. I'm sorry, but I don't
want anything to do with a God who will butcher the globe because it
doesn't conform to His ideals. Especially if said God is also supposed to
be perfectly kind and loving. That's hypocrisy of the highest order.
>
>> Personally, I do not believe in God as having a will per se, but as
>> simply existing.
>
>understandable, but if you consider God as just some cosmic machine who
>created the entire universe and then left everything alone, the whole
>motivation behind religion becomes pretty moot.
I disagree. Religion has a number of social and political roles that have
nothing at all to do with belief. My beliefs are very strong, and yet
they have nothing at all to do with religion. Similarly, the Catholic Church
has had little to do with belief for much of its history. Religion is not
by necessity linked to belief. They often occur together, but the one is
not necessary for the other.
--
Rival There is no greater Calamity than Lavish Desires.
There is no greater guilt than discontentment.
And there is no greater disaster than Greed.
ccam...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching 46
Alasdair Watson
about now you might want to run for cover. I'm going to restrain my urge
to simply say nasty things about Religions in general, but I am going to
say things that certain kinds of religious people may not wish to hear.
Who knows? I may even wind up like Barbie.
Oh, and Blaze, it's nothing personal, you just seem like a person who is
reasonable enough to deal with what I'm going to say in a sensible manner.
Blaze writes:
> God didn't "set up the system" this way. God (according to Christianity)
> is perfect, and created humans that way.
Point one : If god created us perfect, then how did we wind up this way?
> When we sin, we become that which God abhors, something that's against
everything He is. He can't > accept us into His presence in Heaven this way,
Why not? He's omnipotent isn't he. He can do anything.
> whole point of Christ is that God still loved us enough to send Jesus to
> die and go to Hell in our place,
He also loved us enough to set up heaven as an "Angels only club". Show me
a man who can get through life without sinning, and I'll show you someone
that isn't human.
> so all you have to do -- and this isn't a
> condition, it's just logic -- is believe in Him as the Son of God and that
> your sins are forgiven.
Hmmm, I'm a Satanist. I don't deny the existence of god, and I believe that
Jesus was god incarnate. I simply reject god. But I do believe in him, and
I do accept that he died for the "sins" of a bunch of idiots. Does this mean
I'll go to heaven.
So why do I reject god? It's simple. He's a git. He creates us, then
damns us. Nice guy. Yes, god did damn man. He gave us free will then
excpected us not to use it. He set a bunch of conditions that we cannot
hope to keep to as the requirements for his little club.
Similar things are true of almost any Judaeo-Christian religion.
You will note that at no point have I drawn on any of the practices of
any religion, as they are nothing to do with god himself. I have a degree
of respect for god. Not much, but it's there. I have no respect at all
for the views of people who are blind, regarding their religion (concerning
their religion. I can respect their views outside of that). They are weak
willed enough to try and please a being who really doesn't seem to have much
regard for it's creation, and in some cases indulge in far nastier things
that they even blamed the Devil Worpshippers and/or Satanists for. And no
thoase last two terms are not interchangable. The Devil Worshippers are
every bit as bad as the other religions. They are also daft enough to throw
away the greatest gift god ever gave man. Free Will.
> > So what's the problem. I don't believe in God anyway, so why
> > should I care if I am forced to be some place without him?
>
> "Now how can you argue with logic like that?" -- Night Thrasher. I won't
> even bother to point out the obvious contradiction in the above statement.
Now here we agree. If you are going to argue against religion, meet it on
it's own terms, or stay away.
--
Alasdair Watson - I didn't intend to offend, but I won't apologise if I did.
Alasdair Watson
Tony! writes :
> There is evil because God gave us the greatest gift of all:
> Free will. Without free will, we would never make the choice to love God,
> or not to love God; it would be dictated to us. God, by giving us free will,
> allows us to make the choice to follow His commands, or to not follow Him.
> Sin is defined as not following God's will.
So what you're basically saying is that god gave us free will, then told
us not to use it. He's great, ain't he?
Here's an appropriate quote for that one :
"When the church and its leaders sought new ways to bleed us,
It didn't take them long to find
That fear of perdidition beats nuclear fission at making the mill wheels
grind" - Skyclad, Brimstone Ballet.
Basically, religious people follow god because they're scared of him. Now
me, I've never let anything intimidate me, so I have a life of true free
will.
> >Personally, I'm too smart for that.
Agreed. I have knowledge, not faith.
> Yes, but this is but one aspect to God. God is also perfect, loving,
> our creator, Lord, and saviour.
OK, if god is loving (and as the bible says omnipotent), why hasn't he done
something about all the crap round here? And I won't accept the answer
"It's man's fault, not god's". I'm not talking about who's fault it is, I
want to know why he hasn't helped us.
--
Alasdair Watson - see my reply to Blaze for my .sig
Paul O'Brien
>God doesn't damn people. People who reject God go to Hell, which is,
>basically, A Place Without God. In otherwords, you have to spend
>eternity out of his presence. This is a Bad Thing.
Why?
Joshua M Jeffryes
Distribution:
[+ We're leaking coolant on 7 decks, the Borg have destroyed half of
Starfleet, and the pop machines are all out of Mt. Dew! How could it
get any worse?+]
{} Incoming hail, captain, I'm putting it on screen {}
(% We-are-the-master-race-we-obey-no-one-exterminate-exterminate! %)
Aha, a thread even MORE virulant, opinionated, and in danger of flame
than Spidey vs. X-Men!
Timothy C Ellerbee (tell...@osf1.gmu.edu) allegedly said:
: It's the fine line that has to be walked as people with free will. Hell
: was originally set up to be a place for Satan and the fallen angels.
: Humans who choose *there's that free will thing again* to reject God end
: up there because it's the only place that exists without God around. God
: doesn't ENJOY having His children reject him, ya know... (Please bear in
: mind that I am speaking as a fairly devout Roman Catholic, and these are
: my beliefs. I can't speak for anybody else besides me and mine.)
On rejection: what about people who've never heard of this crazy Christ
guy and his religion? Sure, it's swell, but not too many Tibetans or
dedicated Chinese have heard of it (most don't have TVs, and have never
met a Christian). They aren't rejecting anything. So what happens to them?
: : So what's the problem. I don't believe in God anyway, so why
: : should I care if I am forced to be some place without him?
: Well, it's your decision not to believe in God. All I can say is, if
: you're wrong about it, you're screwed. (Of course, one could say that if
: my beliefs happen to be wrong, and there is no God, well, I won't be
: around to find out anyway) And, if He does exist, then to be
: sent to a place without Him would be severly unpleasant.
But, assuming that say, the laws of physics are not directly operated by
this God fellow, then Hell would still operate according to them. And
since there is no evidence to suggest the natural state of things is a
flaming torture pit full of demonic imps, I imagine Hell would just be
the same as here, only without the evangelists. Not to shabby. Of
course, you could argue that since the ultimate incarnation of evil
dujore is living there, and is trying to make things unpleasant for
everyone else, it's not all that great. I don't believe in any such
fellow though, and there's no real evidence to show he's all that bad.
So Hell really couldn't be that nasty, so far as I see it.
Here's the one I love to stump the thumpers with: you raise a child on a
deserted island. A gorilla cares for him until he is able to fend for
himself (this is entirely doable, maternal instincts working very nicely
across primate species, and the needs being the same). Food is airdropped
in occasionally, with warm blankets and simple clothes. This human will
never have contact with any sort of religion or society. Is this human
then doomed to Hell?
BTW...no claiming he would be inspired by direct message from the
divine. I think it has been empiraclly proven quite well that isolated
people do not, on the whole, receive messages from God. Sure, he could,
but it would be assuming external intervention, and that is not allowed
by the hypothesis.
--
J. Spectre - I believe in God. Just not yours.
***************************jmj...@nic.smsu.edu****************************
"Imagine something humorous in this in this space." -B. Thrailkill
"...this made me feel like I needed to throw up." -Ed Cates
"...you know those circumstances, they'll get you." -J. Garton
*******************YOU ARE IN ERROR, THERE IS NO SCREAMING*****************
anthony edward davis
>While I have no intention of attacking
>your religion, I feel I should point out the following:
>ring a bell?
Yes, it does. <flips through Bible...> Ah, here it is...
1 John 4:1 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits
to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out
into the world." There's also quite a few other references in the Bible
to show that there are false prophets, and people will follow them, as they
did Koresh.
I will admit that people do follow lunatics and liars. However,
lunatics and liars aren't raised from the dead three days after they're
crucified.
>* The book omits option 3 - Jesus was a perfectly normal man but
>the Bible is a distorted account of his life. I tend to this
>view, personally.
If the Bible were _that_ distorted about Christ's claim to be God,
it would have been proven false a long time ago. However, all four Gospels
_do_ say that Christ claimed to be God, so it is quite reasonable to
believe he actually did say this. Thus, the Lord, liar, lunatic argument.
-Tony!
anthony edward davis
>On rejection: what about people who've never heard of this crazy Christ
>guy and his religion? Sure, it's swell, but not too many Tibetans or
>dedicated Chinese have heard of it (most don't have TVs, and have never
>met a Christian). They aren't rejecting anything. So what happens to them?
People have an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong.
This is called a conscience. Everyone, at one time or another, has
violated their conscience, and done something they know to be wrong.
Everyone also has a concept of God. That's why there is religion in the
first place (if no one had a sense of God, why would anyone feel a need to
worship Him?) It's only natural to assume this God cares for the people He
created, and that this God is perfect. A loving God would want us to be a
part of Him, but we cannot, for we are imperfect by our doing wrong. (if
the perfect contains the imperfect, it is no longer perfect. Thus, there
is only one way to rectify this situation: Man must become perfect. Rather
reasonable, eh? Now, since man cannot reach this perfectness by himself,
God must do it for him. Christianity is based on the fact that God did
provide a way, and that way is Jesus. The person who's never heard of
Christ should recognize that God would provide a plan of salvation,
whether or not they know the means of this plan. It is in trusting God
for a plan of salvation that people will be able to be with Him.
<whew>
-Tony!
Keeper of the Great Lakes Avengers flame
(email me at ada...@cis.ohio-state.edu for follow-ups)
anthony edward davis
>Blaze writes...
>> God didn't "set up the system" this way. God (according to Christianity)
>> is perfect, and created humans that way.
>Point one : If god created us perfect, then how did we wind up this way?
>> When we sin, we become that which God abhors, something that's against
>everything He is. He can't > accept us into His presence in Heaven this way,
>Why not? He's omnipotent isn't he. He can do anything.
Because if the perfect contained the imperfect, it wouldn't be
perfect anymore.
>> whole point of Christ is that God still loved us enough to send Jesus to
>> die and go to Hell in our place,
>He also loved us enough to set up heaven as an "Angels only club". Show me
>a man who can get through life without sinning, and I'll show you someone
>that isn't human.
There is such a man...Jesus Christ. He was both God and man.
It is because he was a man that he could be the ultimate sacrifice for us.
We are made "angels" through Him- our debt of sin is cancelled through
Christ, so we can get into that great "Angels only club" in the sky. :)
>> so all you have to do -- and this isn't a
>> condition, it's just logic -- is believe in Him as the Son of God and that
>> your sins are forgiven.
>Hmmm, I'm a Satanist. I don't deny the existence of god, and I believe that
>Jesus was god incarnate. I simply reject god. But I do believe in him, and
>I do accept that he died for the "sins" of a bunch of idiots. Does this mean
>I'll go to heaven.
Hmmm...nope, sorry. Blaze forgot to mention that part of having
your sins forgiven is repentence- recognizing you have fallen short, and
being, for lack of better words, truly sorry about it. A Satanist would
not repent.
>So why do I reject god? It's simple. He's a git. He creates us, then
>damns us. Nice guy. Yes, god did damn man.
Nope. Man damned man.
-Tony!
Keeper of the Great Lakes Avengers flame
(email me at ada...@cis.ohio-state.edu)
anthony edward davis
(thanks for including the "!")
>> There is evil because God gave us the greatest gift of all:
>>Free will. Without free will, we would never make the choice to love God,
>>or not to love God; it would be dictated to us. God, by giving us free will,
>>allows us to make the choice to follow His commands, or to not follow Him.
>>Sin is defined as not following God's will.
>So what you're basically saying is that god gave us free will, then told
>us not to use it. He's great, ain't he?
What I'm saying is that God gave us free will so that we may choose
to do what is right, rather than having it forced upon us. He never said
don't use it, he just said don't use it for the wrong reasons. Example one:
"Hey, Adam and Eve- you can do anything you want, you're living in Paradise.
Just don't eat from those couple of trees. That's all I ask of you."
And we all know where that led.
>Basically, religious people follow god because they're scared of him. Now
>me, I've never let anything intimidate me, so I have a life of true free
>will.
Not I, said the cat. I follow God because I love Him. I love Him
because He loved me first, and was willing to send His own son to die for
me even though I was imperfect, and didn't love Him.
>Agreed. I have knowledge, not faith.
I have both, and it's a wonderful thing.
>> Yes, but this is but one aspect to God. God is also perfect, loving,
>> our creator, Lord, and saviour.
>OK, if god is loving (and as the bible says omnipotent), why hasn't he done
>something about all the crap round here? And I won't accept the answer
>"It's man's fault, not god's". I'm not talking about who's fault it is, I
>want to know why he hasn't helped us.
Wait. He'll do something about it. In fact, when He does, it'll
be like nothing ever imagined. Try to fathom a world without evil.
Nice place, huh. Just something to keep in mind...
anthony edward davis
>tell...@osf1.gmu.edu (Timothy C Ellerbee) writes:
>>God doesn't damn people. People who reject God go to Hell, which is,
>>basically, A Place Without God. In otherwords, you have to spend
>>eternity out of his presence. This is a Bad Thing.
>Why?
Because God is what holds this whole universe together. God is
everything that is good. An existance without God would be well...a
Bad Thing.
Amethyst
ada...@cis.ohio-state.edu "anthony edward davis" writes:
> These are cases of punishment to those who did not listen to God
> or the prophets He sent, to provide for us proof of His power. They also show
> that He truly cares for those who love Him (He spared Noah and his family, and
> the Jews, His own chosen people.) Did God kill these people? In a sense,
> yes, but they died because of the decisions they had made in their own lives.
> Also, all life ultimately comes from God, so it was His to take back if He
> wanted.
First how can you rely on the teachings of one book. What proof do we have
that any of it actually happened? There is an episode of Red Dwarf that
makes a very good point in one of its jokes. The joke is that archaeologists
discover a missing page of the Bible and are carbon dating it. If it is
verified it will fit at the beginning and reads, "To my darling Candy. All
events contained within are completely fictitious."
> Also, if everybody followed God's commandments, there is no case
> in which those commandments could not be followed. It is only in times
> of someone disobeying God's command that a situation becomes "morally
> ambiguent."
>
You can't just not disobey the Commandments. For instance, Thou shalt not
covet another mans wife. Since when have people been able to choose who
they fall in love with? Are you supposed to not associate at all with
married people incase you should chance to fall in love with one of them?
Of course its all right for me cause I'm a woman and it doesn't say anything
about not coveting another womans husband does it.
In my opinion organised religion is the cause of the majority of the worlds
problems. I have nothing against religion, but when it starts getting really
organised with x thousand rules and regulations its out of control and it
gets people killed.
--
Lady Amethyst | 21 West Cres, Troon, Scotland.
Keeper of the Labyrinth Flame | amet...@jadzia.demon.co.uk
"Your eyes can be so cruel, |
Just as I can be so cruel." | Outside its raining but inside its wet.
The Brain
>I wrote:
>: ada...@cis.ohio-state.edu (anthony edward davis) wrote:
>: >In article <D80vK...@midway.uchicago.edu> I said:
>: >>m-b...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Blaze) wrote:
>
>: >Sin is defined as not following God's will.
>
>: But how do we know God's will? And is God's will always good?
>
>Prayer. ALso scripture. And yes, in my belief, it is. Sometimes
humans
>are too limited to see the bigger plan God has for us, but I place my
>trust in him. Whether I see it or not, I believe God is working in my
>best interest. It's hard to accept sometimes, but it's what I believe.
So, God has a 'plan' for all of us humans? That's one aspect of
Christian theology, and my Catholic upbringing, that I've always had
triuble with, and would scare me back when I believed it. You've
mentioned free will before; well, I'd at least like to hope that I have
it. But if everything that occurs is really just part of 'God's plan',
then where does it go? I'd like to believe that I control my own
destiny, not some supernatural being. And I certainly would not call a
God who manipulates people and controls our actions 'good' at all.
There is no fate.
>The Egyptians were plagued due to the fact that they refused to do
God's
>will, namely "Let my people go." They were, at that point, holding a
>whole bunch of Isralites as slave labor. You can't say Moses didn't
warn
>them :) And what commandments do you have problems with? Or, rather,
>which would people have difficulty following? Morality has many
aspects
>to it, but, in the end, there are certain things that are either right
or
>wrong.
First of all, I would certainly call the vengeful god of the old
testament evil.
>: Personally, I do not believe in God as having a will per se, but as
>: simply existing.
>
>Well, I have problems with that. If God simply exists, as you said in
an
>earlier post, as an earthquake does, well, what's the point of calling
>Him God? Just title him Papa Nature, or something...
Well, why not? God, nature, the cosmos, even 'the force'; I use all
these words sometimes to describe the same concept. Also, why 'he'?
Why is God always thought of as anthropomorphic and masculine?
it's science over
>theology. I wish I could remember that quote by Einstein, paraphrased
it
>goes something like, "Religion without science is crippled, Science
>without Religion is blind."
Yes; but then, Einstein, like myself, did not believe in any particular
religion, but his own view of God. I don't know if science and theology
have to be necessarily against each other; but, if mythology tells me
something that is contradicted by the laws of physics (like that one man
was able to feed thousands with a couple fish and loaves of bread) I
won't believe it. I don't believe in miracles or 'divine intervention'.
>Again, this is your option. I follow the Catholic religion because I
>have found it to be the one that most satisfys the longings of my
heart.
Well, that's why I don't follow any religion; after thirteen years (was
it really that long?) in Catholic schools, I've found that no religion
comes close to satisfying the longing of my heart; I supose that
Buddhism comes the closest, though I have problems with its fatalism and
rather depressing views of nature.
>I've lived in a few other countries, and had lengthy theological
>discussions with people from many other faiths. Personally, I have
>problems with the "if you're not Christian you all go to hell," but
>that's something I'm working out in my own way.
I always did, too; that was one of the first things that began to steer
ne away from Christianity, even as far back as fifth or six grade.
Paul says *damn, no
>Bible handy to look up the verse* that, in the end, we're going to find
>out the truth anyhow (refering to the end of the world, where
everything
>will be made clear), so there's really no use arguing amongst
yourselves.
Well, I hope that, someday, I do find out the truth; but I'd like that
day to come while I'm still alive, though who knows how far off modern
science is from contemplating the deepest mysteries of the Universe?
>: But would a perfect and loving God destroy the entire worls in a
giant
>: flood? Personally, I think God is 'beyond' being able to be called
such
>: human qualities as 'perfect' and 'loving', much as the universe
itself
>: is. I consider God to be more an idea or a force than a being.
>
>Firstly, nearly every religion has a flood mythos, a point I find
>telling.
Yes; it tells that many aspects of Christian mythology came from the
same background as most other modern religions. Many other religions
also have temptation stories, and stories of a great hero or god who was
killed then came back to life, to name a few similarities; I'd
reccommend that people read Joseph Cambell , who's done some great work
on comparative mythology.
I don't take every Biblical story, especially some of the
>Genesis stories, to be word-for-word true.
Well, I don't take any Bible story to be word-for-word true,
particularly the old testament. Like most other mythology, the Bible
stories were handed down by mouth for centuries before being written,
though many may contain seeds of truth; who knows, there may have really
been a Moses, though I doubt it.
\
And translations prove
>difficult...for example, the original words for Adam and Eve were
>plural...indicating a community of people. Secondly, there are
>indications in the story that these people weren't the only group
>around. At any rate, God didn't destroy the entire world - He kept the
>only good that remained on it, and, afterwards, apologised and made a
>covenant with us that He'd never do it again.
The whole flood myth is very interesting, in that, at the end, god
basically admits to the world that 'he' made a mistake. A god who does
this certainly does not appear to be perfect in my book. Also, in the
Adam & Eve myth, god denies knowledge to 'his' creations, punnishing
them when they decide to take it. This is another act of god in the
Bible which I see as wrong, the denial of knowledge to humanity.
The Brain (jmpr...@midway.uchicago.edu)
Keeper of the Transformers and Beast flames.
Iain Brown
>
> There's a book by Josh McDowell called "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?"
>It basically says that Christ was one of two things: either the Son of God,
>or a mere human. If He were a mere human, then his claims that He was God
>means one of two things: he knew He was wrong, and was a liar, or He
>truly beleived what he was saying, and was insane. Had He been either of
>these, not as many people would have followed Him as they did, nor would
>they have killed Him.
I'm sorry but this theory just doesn't work for me. Lets take the
example of Mohammed, he claimed that Jesus was just another prophet of
Allah. You have claimed this is not the case, therefore he was either mad
or lying. Yet he still managed to get many followers.
Iain
--
Iain Brown
ma2...@bath.ac.uk
Keeper of the Generation NeXt Flame
Jordan Davis
: >On rejection: what about people who've never heard of this crazy Christ
: >guy and his religion? Sure, it's swell, but not too many Tibetans or
: >dedicated Chinese have heard of it (most don't have TVs, and have never
: >met a Christian). They aren't rejecting anything. So what happens to them?
: the perfect contains the imperfect, it is no longer perfect. Thus, there
: is only one way to rectify this situation: Man must become perfect. Rather
: reasonable, eh? Now, since man cannot reach this perfectness by himself,
: God must do it for him. Christianity is based on the fact that God did
: provide a way, and that way is Jesus. The person who's never heard of
: Christ should recognize that God would provide a plan of salvation,
: whether or not they know the means of this plan. It is in trusting God
: for a plan of salvation that people will be able to be with Him.
Buddhists generally believe there is a method or pathway to reach
salvation as well, but it does not involve Christ. In your view is this
less valid. This is part of the problem I have with most organized
religions in the world. Many of the churches spend time arguing about
why other religions versions are the wrong way to achieve salvation.
In my estimation, as long as these people are striving for a similar
and IMO laudable goal, then God shouldn't punish them for taking
slightly different routes. In my conception,
God is basically a benevolent entity, and as long as you strive to
be a good and whole person that should be enough. I find it hard to
understand (and I've had some of my Catholic friends argue this with
me) how God could accept into heaven someone who had led a bad life,
but had confessed his sins and been forgiven at the end, and not
accept someone who led a good life but failed to recognize Christ
as the one true savior. To me this makes no sense, and so this is
why I choose to practice my brand of faith independently of any
formal organization. Sorry, Tony, I'm not trying to imply that you
condemn others for their difference in faith, but there are huge
numbers of folks who do. To me this smacks of insecurity plain
and simple. For true faith you don't need anyone to believe but
yourself.
JD - this is the second and last post I'll make to this thread
jod...@ucdavis.edu
Nyx Nshade
<sigh>
<Well, it's your decision not to believe in God. All I can say is, if
you're wrong about it, you're screwed.>
Yes, but one has to wonder why simply being in a place sans God is such a
horrible, evil thing. I'd assume it's because...
<In my belief system, God is the source of goodness and love.>
Which I suppose would make it uncomfortable. I guess. NOT that I believe
in goodness or love anyway. >:)
Nyx
Fan of everything Magnus, except his helmet, and especially his hair.
"Now, like clouds, like rain, I'm drowning and I blame it all on you. I'm
lost... God save me." (Lauren Christy)
Nyx Nshade
that I have with Christianity, and traditional Western religions in
general.>
You, amice, need Tori Amos interviews.
Nyx Nshade
> should I care if I am forced to be some place without him?
>"Now how can you argue with logic like that?" -- Night Thrasher. I
won't
>even bother to point out the obvious contradiction in the above
statement.
Well, I guess whether or not there's a contridiction depends on the way
you look at it. My interpretation was "Why should I bother to worry about
being in a place without God, if I don't believe in God?"
Now, obviously, if one doesn't believe in God, one believes we're
*already* in a place without him. But that's not the point. The point is,
an atheist wouldn't worry about going to Hell, because as far as an
atheist is concerned, such a place doesn't exist.
Nyx Nshade
<snip>
What I want to know is, if God created humans as perfect, why would any of
them use their free will to *choose* evil? A perfect being would never do
such a thing.
>But then, that's what faith is. It's belief in the truth of something
>even though you have no proof, or even evidence, for it to be so.
>Personally, I'm too smart for that.
<There is evidence outside of the Bible to prove that Christ actually did
walk the earth.>
But not to prove that he was the son of a virgin and God. The man could
certainly walk on earth without being the son of God.
<Belief in Christ makes perfect sense: As humans, we are sinful. God is
holy, and thus cannot tolerate unholiness, or sinfulness, in His presence.
This leaves two options: Either man makes himself righteous, or God does.
However, because man is sinful, he can't make himself unsinful, because
no amount of good deeds would ever match up to God's holiness. Thus, God
had to provide the way, as He did when He sent Christ to be our Saviour.
The only thing man has to do is accept the gift that God gave to him in
Christ, and aceept Him as our Saviour.>
It only makes sense if you actually believe that God exists. And frankly,
even if I did, I'd be hard pressed to believe the "man is sinful and can
never live up to the holiness of God, and thus the only way to save
oneself is to accept Jesus as a savior" jazz. That lacks logic. It made
sense up until the "However, because man is sinful" part... There's an
illogical jump for you.
If God created man as perfect, why did they choose evil? Why is *every*
human being, straight from te womb, automatically considered sinful, and
thus lacking the ability to save themself? An infant certainly hasn't
chosen evil or commited any sins. What if said infant grew up without ever
commiting a single sin? Does that mean he doesn't need a savior, because
he didn't do anything wrong? If not, why not?
Timothy C Ellerbee
: v$i...@portal.gmu.edu>:
: Distribution:
: Timothy C Ellerbee (tell...@osf1.gmu.edu) allegedly said:
To make sure...it's me, Genevieve, posting on his account :)
: : It's the fine line that has to be walked as people with free will. Hell
: : was originally set up to be a place for Satan and the fallen angels.
: : Humans who choose *there's that free will thing again* to reject God end
: : up there because it's the only place that exists without God around. God
: : doesn't ENJOY having His children reject him, ya know... (Please bear in
: : mind that I am speaking as a fairly devout Roman Catholic, and these are
: : my beliefs. I can't speak for anybody else besides me and mine.)
: On rejection: what about people who've never heard of this crazy Christ
: guy and his religion? Sure, it's swell, but not too many Tibetans or
: dedicated Chinese have heard of it (most don't have TVs, and have never
: met a Christian). They aren't rejecting anything. So what happens to them?
This happens to be a problem with me. I'm not satisfied in my mind that
other religions are automatically doomed to Hell. I've seen a muslim
friend of mine go through a wonderful deepening of her faith from
something superficial to something that made an impact in her life, and
there is no way I could condem her. In addition, I don't believe I have
any right to say "you're going to Hell" to ANYBODY, regardless. I'm not
God, nor do I play him on teevee. When the world ends, the truth will be
made known, whatever that truth is. If I'm wrong about my beliefs, I'm
sure I'll find out the real story. If you're wrong, ditto. I didn't get
into this thread to post an "We're better than you" article, just to
clarify a few of my beliefs. There is a bunch of misinformation out
there on all sides.
: : : So what's the problem. I don't believe in God
anyway,
so why : : : should I care if I am forced to be some place without him?
: : Well, it's your decision not to believe in God. All I can say is, if
: : you're wrong about it, you're screwed. (Of course, one could say that if
: : my beliefs happen to be wrong, and there is no God, well, I won't be
: : around to find out anyway) And, if He does exist, then to be
: : sent to a place without Him would be severly unpleasant.
: But, assuming that say, the laws of physics are not directly operated by
: this God fellow, then Hell would still operate according to them. And
: since there is no evidence to suggest the natural state of things is a
: flaming torture pit full of demonic imps, I imagine Hell would just be
: the same as here, only without the evangelists. Not to shabby. Of
: course, you could argue that since the ultimate incarnation of evil
: dujore is living there, and is trying to make things unpleasant for
: everyone else, it's not all that great. I don't believe in any such
: fellow though, and there's no real evidence to show he's all that bad.
: So Hell really couldn't be that nasty, so far as I see it.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure we're operating on the same wavelength here. How
do the laws of Physics affect the existance or non-existance of Hell??
That's like me saying "Heaven is eighty-three point nine thousand
lightyears from earth, and it's easier to get there if you take a left
turn past Orion." You say that Hell would be just like here, except
without the evangelists...well, it *can't* be, by my definition. God is
actively working in our world, and he has a presence here. So if Hell is
a place without God, than it cannot be like our existance now. You can't
define Heaven and Hell by scientific terms. As to not believing in
Satan, well, personally I hope that not all of the evil in the world is
of human-origin, but that's your option.
: Here's the one I love to stump the thumpers with: you raise a child on a
: deserted island. A gorilla cares for him until he is able to fend for
: himself (this is entirely doable, maternal instincts working very nicely
: across primate species, and the needs being the same). Food is airdropped
: in occasionally, with warm blankets and simple clothes. This human will
: never have contact with any sort of religion or society. Is this human
: then doomed to Hell?
Personally, I don't think so. I'd be more inclined to think that after
the person died, God would show him the whole deal, and then the person
would have the chance to make the decision then. Again, I believe that
God is actively working in our (the human race) behalf, and so wouldn't
wantonly throw away an innocent soul. The whole foundation of
Christianity is that God loved us enough to die for us, and I don't think
He'd shrug and go, "Oh, well," and hit the "Damnation" button on his
computer.
: BTW...no claiming he would be inspired by direct message from the
: divine. I think it has been empiraclly proven quite well that isolated
: people do not, on the whole, receive messages from God. Sure, he could,
: but it would be assuming external intervention, and that is not allowed
: by the hypothesis.
Hermits might be ticked off at that statment. What is the empiricle
proof, please? I thought that many people deliberatly go to quiet places
to seek revelations. The "still, small voice of God" is hard to hear in
hustle and bustle.
--Genevieve "It's demerol and tequila, you ass!"
Timothy C Ellerbee
: In article <3o9t01...@hammond.cis.ohio-state.edu>
: ada...@cis.ohio-state.edu "anthony edward davis" writes:
(snip!)
: First how can you rely on the teachings of one book. What proof do we have
: that any of it actually happened? There is an episode of Red Dwarf that
: makes a very good point in one of its jokes. The joke is that archaeologists
: discover a missing page of the Bible and are carbon dating it. If it is
: verified it will fit at the beginning and reads, "To my darling Candy. All
: events contained within are completely fictitious."
There is outside proof about the historical existance of Jesus, coming
from, I believe, Roman texts. Secondly, I don't think that everything in
the Bible is to be taken as word-for-word true...as in the Genesis
stuff. I think I posted regarding this earlier. The Koran, various
Buddhist texts, the Book of Mormon...most religions have some sort of
sacred writings, and most will defend them vehemently.
: You can't just not disobey the Commandments. For instance, Thou shalt not
: covet another mans wife. Since when have people been able to choose who
: they fall in love with? Are you supposed to not associate at all with
: married people incase you should chance to fall in love with one of them?
: Of course its all right for me cause I'm a woman and it doesn't say anything
: about not coveting another womans husband does it.
If you were dating some guy that I was madly in love with, would you be
pleased if I made a few blatant passes at him and said, "Well, I fell in
love with him, it's not my fault?" No. You'd be mightly pissed off.
God knows that people mess up sometimes. If you fall for somebody elses
love-relationship, God expects you to use some self-restraint, some
prayer, and perhaps some other forms of guidance. If the situation
changes...ie. the couple breaks up, or something, then you're free to
act. This is how you follow the Commandments...it's not a "do or die"
type of thing. And, most importantly, even if you do mess up big time,
God will forgive you.
: In my opinion organised religion is the cause of the majority of the worlds
: problems. I have nothing against religion, but when it starts getting really
: organised with x thousand rules and regulations its out of control and it
: gets people killed.
In my opinion, corruption and abuse both within and without organized
relitions is the cause of most of the worlds problems. WE aren't perfect
creatures. But I believe religion is a Good Thing (tm).
--Genevieve "If everybody else out there is wanting me to shut up, just
let me know..." Hoog
(bummin' on Bemo's account)
David R. Henry
>I dare you to define absolute morality.
"Puff the Magic Dragon"
--
David R. Henry-Rogue Fan Club // This sig is only 222 characters long, ok?
"All you of Earth are IDIOTS!"-P9fOS / What was the question? -- Kate Bush
dhe...@plains.nodak.edu * Evolution: Give it some time, it'll grow on ya.
David R. Henry
I saw Pascal's Wager pop up in it. Sorry, Pascal's Wager makes me worf
my tribbles.
Jenny Hoog writes:
>Well, it's your decision not to believe in God. All I can say is, if
>you're wrong about it, you're screwed. (Of course, one could say that if
>my beliefs happen to be wrong, and there is no God, well, I won't be
>around to find out anyway) And, if He does exist, then to be
>sent to a place without Him would be severly unpleasant.
You're forgetting a few possibilities, ma'am. Here's one:
"All I can say is, what if you're wrong, and the real God is running
the whole Christianity thing as a hoax, and those who follow it are
going to be damned?"
It's just as possible as your choice, just as logical, and doesn't
really require the Christian god to become any more bloodthirsty than
it already is.
Me, I believe completely in Azathoth. Any god whose response to his
worshippers is "Piss off, I don't need you" has the right attitude
towards running this universe business.
Cthulhu loves the little children,
all the children of the world.
Boiled, basted, poached, or fried.
As a main dish or a side.
Cthulhu loves the little children of the world.
David R. Henry
> We can know God's will through something that is always with us:
>our conscience. Also, through prayer and meditation on God's Word. And,
>yes, God's will is always good, for there is no evil in God, and all that
>comes from Him is good.
So your god cannot create evil? That means your god is not all-powerful,
since there is something outside its power, right? So if your god
is not all-powerful there, is there something else that your god is
hiding from you that makes it less than all-powerful?
>These are cases of punishment to those who did not listen to God
>or the prophets He sent, to provide for us proof of His power. They also show
>that He truly cares for those who love Him (He spared Noah and his family, and
>the Jews, His own chosen people.) Did God kill these people? In a sense,
>yes, but they died because of the decisions they had made in their own lives.
Ah. So when your god killed the babies in Egypt (Passover), he did so because
the babies had made plenty of evil decisions in their lives. Nice thing,
your god. Remember, folks, Cthulhu only likes full-grown adult sacrifices.
More blood! Do you want a crazed baby-killer, or just a sleepy-headed
octopus shaman with time on his side? I know where my belief is resting.
>Also, all life ultimately comes from God, so it was His to take back if He
>wanted.
What a selfish attitude for an all-loving being to have.
> There's a book by Josh McDowell called "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?"
Yes, there is. It's one of the largest crocks of shit this side of
Scientology. I recommend it to anyone looking for kindling or to replace
the Sears catalog in their outhouse.
> Why believe? Because none of these other great teachers, no matter
>how much truth they spoke, _ever_ claimed to actually be God, as Christ did.
Hey, the Pharaohs claimed they were gods. So did the Mayan priest-kings.
Should we consider them viable alternatives to Christ, then, or just
good company?
We were given it to read as a set book in my first year in grammar school as
an exercise in analysing bad arguments.
--alt.atheism on C. S. Lewis' _A Case For Christianity"
David R. Henry
>The problem with this is that if you believe the apostles distorted the
>Gospels to invent miracles, then they didn't do a very good job of it.
There's a standing reward of many thousands of dollars by some
Australian group, if I remember, to the first person who can reconcile
the accounts of Christ's resurrection in the Gospel without resorting
to blatant retcons. You may want to check with alt.atheism if you
want to claim the prize.
>All four Gospels refer to the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand,
>which had plenty of witnesses to corroborate or deny it's occurence. The
>trail was about as public as you can get, and Jesus was verifiably
>deceased by a sword through his side when he was placed in the tomb.
The same argument can be used this way: All of New York City saw the
Fantastic Four fight Galactus. After all, the story itself said many
thousands of people saw it. And the Marvels limited series backed up
the corroboration! I better stop, I feel like I'm trespassing in the
research areas of Josh McDowell.
David R. Henry
>Firstly, nearly every religion has a flood mythos, a point I find
>telling.
Not picking on the rest of Genevieve's post, but clarifying:
Most early people developed cultures around the superhighways of their
time: watercourses. That every culture with a religion should have
stories about floods, therefore, is not particularly amazing.
Now if you want to talk amazing, there's always Velikovsky. :-)
Giant Space Comets Feed Millions While Impersonating Dragons! Woo!
And you thought Marvel retcons were bad.
>At any rate, God didn't destroy the entire world - He kept the
>only good that remained on it, and, afterwards, apologised and made a
>covenant with us that He'd never do it again.
How kind of it.
To keep up on the comparitive religion theme I've been stressing on
this thread, my religion (apathetic Cthulhu) holds that humanity is
insignificant, the world will eventually be reconquered by alien
beings of mind-staggering staggeringness, and that dreams are the
way to go, go, go.
Along the shore the cloud waves break,
The twin suns sink behind the lake,
The shadows lengthen
In Carcosa.
Strange is the night where black stars rise,
And strange moons circle through the skies,
But stranger still is
Lost Carcosa.
--from "Cassilda's Song," in the King in Yellow
David R. Henry
>My concept of God, being an idea or a
>force instead of a physical reality, has no morality, similar to how an
>earthquake or the weather has none; it simply IS.
Aristotleans of the world unite, eh?
David R. Henry
>If God created man as perfect, why did they choose evil? Why is *every*
>human being, straight from te womb, automatically considered sinful, and
>thus lacking the ability to save themself?
This one I think I can answer. The Nicene convention, where the doctrines
of the church were, um, voted upon. I heartily recommend Credo,
Chaosium's game of dueling early-Christian dogmas, for anyone wanting
a fun game and a quick overview of Christian beliefs. You, too, can end
up with a Catholic Church that worships John the Baptist as the incarnation
of the Sun (both of which were actual Christian beliefs, and both
of which have "won" as our official Creed in Credo).
Alasdair Watson
than 2 of us will get the joke) writes:
> The Egyptians were plagued due to the fact that they refused to do God's
> will, namely "Let my people go."
And that just about sums up my problem with Christianity. Do what god
says or burn in hell.
> You can't say Moses didn't warn them :)
So if I warn someone I'm going to kill them, that makes it all right does
it? Although I admit the Egyptians were stupid not to cotton on to what
was happening.
> Or, rather, which would people have difficulty following?
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours [whatever, ox, wife etc.]. Are
you honestly telling me that you have never been jealous of anyone for
any reason?
Not only that, but a scant couple of verses earlier Moses was told
"I AM a jealous god". So it's one rule for the one, another for the other
is it?
Besides, it's not so much the commandments as the seven deadly sins I have
problems with. To my certain konwledge, I've commited every one. I'd
be willing to bet that most of you have commited most of them.
> Morality has many aspects to it, but, in the end, there are certain things
> that are either right or wrong.
Yep. Christianity is just confused about right and wrong that's all. Tell
me, how can something that feels good, and doesn't hassle anyone else be
wrong?
> : of suffering in endless reincarnations. Why should I believe any one of
> : these, or any other dogma, over all the others?
>
> Again, this is your option. I follow the Catholic religion because I
I hate to point it out, but you haven't answered his question. What makes
your religion (or any other) more valid than the rest?
> discussions with people from many other faiths. Personally, I have
> problems with the "if you're not Christian you all go to hell," but
Well, at least we agree on this.
> Firstly, nearly every religion has a flood mythos, a point I find
> telling. I don't take every Biblical story, especially some of the
> Genesis stories, to be word-for-word true. And translations prove
> difficult...for example, the original words for Adam and Eve were
> plural...indicating a community of people. Secondly, there are
> indications in the story that these people weren't the only group
> around. At any rate, God didn't destroy the entire world - He kept the
> only good that remained on it, and, afterwards, apologised and made a
> covenant with us that He'd never do it again.
Yep. Almost every mythology has one. Want to know where they all got it
from? The earliest know mythology - The Sumerians. And they we lost of
fun. After all, they learned everything from a spaceman.
--
Alasdair Watson - "They're building a tower of Babel in Brussels, it's called
Euromisery" - Skyclad, Desperanto (A song for Europe).
Alasdair Watson
> Because God is what holds this whole universe together. God is
> everything that is good. An existance without God would be well...a
> Bad Thing.
Why?
Please don't just say something would be good or bad, explain why it would
be either. It'll save bandwidth in the long run.
--
Alasdair Watson - Ten to one this question's already been answered and I
didn't spot it.
Alasdair Watson
> (thanks for including the "!")
No problem. Anything for an intelligent debate.
> What I'm saying is that God gave us free will so that we may choose
> to do what is right, rather than having it forced upon us. He never said
> don't use it, he just said don't use it for the wrong reasons. Example one:
> "Hey, Adam and Eve- you can do anything you want, you're living in Paradise.
> Just don't eat from those couple of trees. That's all I ask of you."
> And we all know where that led.
If already discussed free will elsewhere.
> Not I, said the cat. I follow God because I love Him. I love Him
> because He loved me first, and was willing to send His own son to die for
> me even though I was imperfect, and didn't love Him.
God loved you so much, he damned you, then redeemed you in a manner such
that you still could not get into heaven. (I'm assuming you're a normal
person, and cannot possibly repent every single one of your sins.)
> >Agreed. I have knowledge, not faith.
> I have both, and it's a wonderful thing.
I'm assuming that we're still talking about god here. Faith is believing
something exists, despite a lack of proof. Knowledge is knowing something
exists, ie. having proof of it. How can you have both?
> Wait. He'll do something about it. In fact, when He does, it'll
> be like nothing ever imagined. Try to fathom a world without evil.
> Nice place, huh. Just something to keep in mind...
OK, I'll wait. (Even if only because the Beast is supposed to be born soon.
That'll be fun. I'll get to see the son of the Devil on Earth). However
a world without evil is a world with struggle and conflict, and all the
nifty things the make human beings human. I'll pass on the world without
evil thanks.
--
Alasdair Watson - Standard no offence intended .sig goes here.
Alasdair Watson
> >Point one : If god created us perfect, then how did we wind up this way?
> God gave us free will, as you have shown later on...
Yes, he gave us free will, but if we were perfect in the first place that
shouldn't have mattered, since we would have made perfect choices, and
therefore remained perfect. So my question stands.
> >> When we sin, we become that which God abhors, something that's against
> >everything He is. He can't accept us into His presence in Heaven this way,
> >Why not? He's omnipotent isn't he. He can do anything.
> Because if the perfect contained the imperfect, it wouldn't be
> perfect anymore.
I'm not sure I follow that. I'm saying that god can do anything, and he
should therefore be able to tolerate those that are less than him. Why
can't he?
And besides :
God is omnipotent right? And a part of omnipotence is omnipresence, ie.
God is present in all things, perfect and imperfect. The imperfect cannot
contain the perfect without becoming perfect of itself. However the world
around us has many imperfections. Now if god is in all things, and they are
unable to contain the perfect, it follows then that god must be imperfect.
So why should I worship something that is imperfect?
> There is such a man...Jesus Christ. He was both God and man.
> It is because he was a man that he could be the ultimate sacrifice for us.
> We are made "angels" through Him- our debt of sin is cancelled through
> Christ, so we can get into that great "Angels only club" in the sky. :)
Ah, but you later state that repentance is required to enter heaven, so it
can't just be Christ on the door to let us in. Can you honestly say (and
I mean with absolute honesty) you repent every sin you have ever commited?
Do you think there is anyone who can?
> Hmmm...nope, sorry. Blaze forgot to mention that part of having
> your sins forgiven is repentence- recognizing you have fallen short, and
> being, for lack of better words, truly sorry about it. A Satanist would
> not repent.
Bugger. That's me up the creek then. And, as I've said, just about
everyone else as well.
> >So why do I reject god? It's simple. He's a git. He creates us, then
> >damns us. Nice guy. Yes, god did damn man.
> Nope. Man damned man.
Erm, when. I don't ever recall damning myself. The bible tells us to
use the gifts god gave us. So I did. And apparently I'm damned for it.
Ah, but you used the gift of free will incorrectly, you cry! How is
it possible to use free will incorrectly. Free will is the ability
to choose between one or more equal options. If one of those options is
"wrong" then one is not suposed to choose it, ie. there are not 2 equal
options. Since god gave us 2 options, and one of those is "wrong", we
cannot exercise free will. But since we have free will, and as a gift from
god we must use it, we either choose the wrong option, and wind up in hell,
or don't use it, and by not doing what god tells us, wind up in hell.
--
Alasdair Watson - I didn't intend to cause offence, but I'm not apologising.
Alasdair Watson
> I wasn't going to respond to this gentle little bit of propaganda until
> I saw Pascal's Wager pop up in it. Sorry, Pascal's Wager makes me worf
> my tribbles.
Eh? What are tribbles, and how does one go about worfing them? And is it
fun?
> You're forgetting a few possibilities, ma'am. Here's one:
>
> "All I can say is, what if you're wrong, and the real God is running
> the whole Christianity thing as a hoax, and those who follow it are
> going to be damned?"
I'm reminded of a Rowan Atkinson sketch. He's playing the devil, and
is calling of a register of all the different kinds of people who
should have arrived in Hell.
"Now, who's next? Ah yes, the Christians. I'm so sorry, but the
Jews were right."
> Me, I believe completely in Azathoth. Any god whose response to his
> worshippers is "Piss off, I don't need you" has the right attitude
> towards running this universe business.
Quite. If god is that powerful, why does he need/want man to worship him?
--
Alasdair Watson - No offence, blah, blah, blah.
Blaze
Henry) wrote:
> Remember, folks, Cthulhu only likes full-grown adult sacrifices.
> More blood! Do you want a crazed baby-killer, or just a sleepy-headed
> octopus shaman with time on his side? I know where my belief is resting.
It's these kinds of statements that reassure me that the world's going to
turn out all right after all. Religions like this truly make me wonder
whether Christianity is the right way to go after all. Heck, who really
needs unconditional love for one's fellow man anyways?
*sarcastic mode off*
Blaze ---- http://ux4.cso.uiuc.edu/~m-blase/x-page.html
It is true that August Mobius was a difficult and opinionated
man. But he was not so rigid that he could only see one side
to every question. -- Michael Stueben
Blaze
alas...@belmonte.demon.co.uk wrote:
> David R. Henry writes:
> > Me, I believe completely in Azathoth. Any god whose response to his
> > worshippers is "Piss off, I don't need you" has the right attitude
> > towards running this universe business.
>
> Quite. If god is that powerful, why does he need/want man to worship him?
Love? Just a hunch.
Michael A. Collins
There are religion special interest groups, talk to them!!!!! If you are not gonna talk to about the -men, then don't talk!! Got it, dork!! Gees, thve of some moronic idiots! I don't like it , bub!! MORON, IDIOT, GEEK, DORK,
ETC.
Katherine E. Martin
Mr. Collins comments:
hey, stupid! What the hack did that reply have to with the X-men? Huh?
There are religion special interest groups, talk to them!!!!! If you are not gonna talk to about the -men, then don't talk!! Got it, dork!! Gees, thve of some moronic idiots! I don't like it , bub!! MORON, IDIOT, GEEK, DORK,
ETC.
Pardon me, but are we reading the same newsgroup? I mean, this is
racx, the same newsgroup that talked about _JEM_ for a week (or more, even.).
I mean, it's getting a little lengthy, but at least there's nothing about
basements in it...
kate (look ma, no sig!)
Christopher Andrew Campbell
>Joshua M Jeffryes (jmj...@nic.smsu.edu) wrote:
>: v$i...@portal.gmu.edu>:
>To make sure...it's me, Genevieve, posting on his account :)
>
>: deserted island. A gorilla cares for him until he is able to fend for
>: himself (this is entirely doable, maternal instincts working very nicely
>: across primate species, and the needs being the same). Food is airdropped
>: in occasionally, with warm blankets and simple clothes. This human will
>: never have contact with any sort of religion or society. Is this human
>: then doomed to Hell?
>
>Personally, I don't think so. I'd be more inclined to think that after
>the person died, God would show him the whole deal, and then the person
>would have the chance to make the decision then.
So, wait a sec, if this is the case, why wouldn't this God person do this
for everyone? I mean, given all the bullshit that's running around you
can hardly blame people for being skeptical of any organized belief
system; I would think that God would show everyone the whole deal after
they died, and give them the chance to make their decisions then. So it
really doesn't matter one way or the other what we do now, since we have
to wait to get all the facts before we can make a good decision anyway.
So since God hasn't seen fit to reveal all to us now, why should I believe
anyone?
>Hermits might be ticked off at that statment. What is the empiricle
>proof, please? I thought that many people deliberatly go to quiet places
>to seek revelations. The "still, small voice of God" is hard to hear in
>hustle and bustle.
Well, sure, but if you're hermiting you obviously can't learn of Christ
and all that; so, hermits may be getting revelations aplenty that have
absolutely nothing at all to do with this Christ person. In fact, it's
entirely possible that the rest of us are thoroughly deluded and they are
the only ones who have a clue what's going on!
--
Rival There is no greater Calamity than Lavish Desires.
There is no greater guilt than discontentment.
And there is no greater disaster than Greed.
ccam...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching 46
Christopher Andrew Campbell
>Rival writes:
>
>>I dare you to define absolute morality.
>
>"Puff the Magic Dragon"
Well, there ya go.
Christopher Andrew Campbell
>
>Me, I believe completely in Azathoth. Any god whose response to his
>worshippers is "Piss off, I don't need you" has the right attitude
>towards running this universe business.
Me, I gotta wonder if this God person even notices...
Christopher Andrew Campbell
>The Brain writes:
>
>>My concept of God, being an idea or a
>>force instead of a physical reality, has no morality, similar to how an
>>earthquake or the weather has none; it simply IS.
>
>Aristotleans of the world unite, eh?
Hey now, no need to get nasty. :)
Christopher Andrew Campbell
>hey, stupid! What the hack did that reply have to with the X-men? Huh?
>There are religion special interest groups, talk to them!!!!! If you are not gonna talk to about the -men, then don't talk!! Got it, dork!! Gees, thve of some moronic idiots! I don't like it , bub!! MORON, IDIOT, GEEK, DORK,
>ETC.
Now THAT was mature. Moving right along...
Jane Griffin
Joshua M Jeffryes <jmj...@nic.smsu.edu> wrote:
>v$i...@portal.gmu.edu>:
>Distribution:
>
>
>
>Aha, a thread even MORE virulant, opinionated, and in danger of flame
>than Spidey vs. X-Men!
Joy. :) At least more people are contributing. :)
>
>Timothy C Ellerbee (tell...@osf1.gmu.edu) allegedly said:
>
>
>But, assuming that say, the laws of physics are not directly operated by
>this God fellow, then Hell would still operate according to them. And
>since there is no evidence to suggest the natural state of things is a
>flaming torture pit full of demonic imps, I imagine Hell would just be
>the same as here, only without the evangelists. Not to shabby. Of
>course, you could argue that since the ultimate incarnation of evil
>dujore is living there, and is trying to make things unpleasant for
>everyone else, it's not all that great. I don't believe in any such
>fellow though, and there's no real evidence to show he's all that bad.
>So Hell really couldn't be that nasty, so far as I see it.
>
Actually I think Hell is the version WITH the evangelists. :)
As far as hell goes, I like George Bernard Shaw's version. Of course I
feel no personal interest...
>--
>J. Spectre - I believe in God. Just not yours.
>
Jane Griffin
Jane Griffin
Jordan Davis <szj...@chip.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>anthony edward davis (ada...@cis.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3ocnka$1l...@nic.smsu.edu> jmj...@nic.smsu.edu (Joshua M Jeffryes) writes:
>
>
>God is basically a benevolent entity, and as long as you strive to
>be a good and whole person that should be enough. I find it hard to
>understand (and I've had some of my Catholic friends argue this with
>me) how God could accept into heaven someone who had led a bad life,
>but had confessed his sins and been forgiven at the end, and not
>accept someone who led a good life but failed to recognize Christ
>as the one true savior. To me this makes no sense, and so this is
>why I choose to practice my brand of faith independently of any
>formal organization.
Actually it used to happen all the time, prior to the Protestant
Revolution. St. Augustine was big among them; in fact he wrote a book
about it. Of course nobody would admit to not believing in God once
Christianity had taken over Europe. Jews had a particularly bad time
over that, since they believed in God, just not the right model.
>
>JD - this is the second and last post I'll make to this thread
> jod...@ucdavis.edu
Jane Griffin
Vorpal Bunny(TM)
[Mr Collins's crap chopped]
: Pardon me, but are we reading the same newsgroup? I mean, this is
: racx, the same newsgroup that talked about _JEM_ for a week (or more, even.).
: I mean, it's getting a little lengthy, but at least there's nothing about
: basements in it...
I strongly suggest that you do NOT insult the almighty JEM!! Her
wrath be oh fearsome indeed. Those who shall tempt her fury shall
sorely regret it.
This is your only warning.
B-)
--
\\ \\ /\ "I'm Ronald McDonald, of the Clan McDonald.." /\
\\-\\ \/ Daily Orange Staff Writer "Quip _IS_ a \/
( X-X) /\ The Keeper of the Forbush Man Flame valid word in /\
{_^_} \/ [ho...@syr.edu] http://web.syr.edu/~holee/ newswriting!" \/
Katherine E. Martin
>I strongly suggest that you do NOT insult the almighty JEM!! Her
>wrath be oh fearsome indeed. Those who shall tempt her fury shall
>sorely regret it.
I assure you, the thought never crosssed my mind. Well, it might have
briefly, but it never got as far as my tongue. Or my fingers.
I mean, I could insult Grimlock with more luck.
'specially since he's not Truly out-*mmmmph*
My joke just ran away.
>This is your only warning.
"Please, sir, may I have some more?"
-kate, who promises to post something on topic
soon...
Blaze
(Michael A. Collins) wrote:
> hey, stupid! What the hack did that reply have to with the X-men? Huh?
> There are religion special interest groups, talk to them!!!!! If you
are not gonna talk to about the -men, then don't talk!! Got it, dork!!
Gees, thve of some moronic idiots! I don't like it , bub!! MORON, IDIOT,
GEEK, DORK,
> ETC.
Dear Newbie:
I didn't want this thread to get as far off tangent as it has, but it
started innocently and on-topic enough. I simply felt it was my duty as a
Christian to point out the religous perspective on the notion of absolute
morality. Unexpectedly, more than a few people started raising old
arguments about the existence of God, etc. in response, and before I knew
it me and a couple others were knee-deep in Christian apologetics, despite
our now-intense efforts to confine them to e-mail.
That is life. And this is Usenet. Welcome aboard. Now stop being so
rude and post something of your own if you want this newsgroup to get back
on-topic.
Michael Ellis
>Personally, I look at science and see that there is a point at which
>scientists shrug and go, "Well, I can't explain it, but it happened
>somehow..." I have no problems with believing in both God and evolution...
Personally, I look at science and see that the point at which scientists
shrug and go, 'Well, I can't explain it, but it happened somehow' keeps
changing, year in and year out. Just because we don't understand it *yet*
doesn't mean we won't someday. Chalking it all up to 'God' in the meantime
is a cop-out at best, and a blatant excuse for ignorance (or forcing your
worldview upon someone else) at worst. If there is a God, then I doubt she
minds us looking.
--
Michael K. Ellis
mke...@mordor.com
The Brain
>It's these kinds of statements that reassure me that the world's going
to
>turn out all right after all. Religions like this truly make me wonder
>whether Christianity is the right way to go after all. Heck, who
really
>needs unconditional love for one's fellow man anyways?
Certainly not your average Christian. At least, unless that 'fellow
man' also happens to be a fellow Christian. After all, since heretics
are offonsive to the Lord, they must be either wiped out in glorious
crusades or forced to convert to the one true Chuch through any means
necessary, as the holy Inquisition was set up to do.
The Brain (jmpr...@midway.uchicago.edu)
My sarcastic mode off now....
Keeper of the Transformers and Beast flames.
Keeper of the
Timothy C Ellerbee
: tell...@osf1.gmu.edu (Timothy C Ellerbee) wrote:
: >I wrote:
: >: ada...@cis.ohio-state.edu (anthony edward davis) wrote:
: >: >In article <D80vK...@midway.uchicago.edu> I said:
: >: >>m-b...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Blaze) wrote:
: >
: humans
: >are too limited to see the bigger plan God has for us, but I place my
: >trust in him. Whether I see it or not, I believe God is working in my
: >best interest. It's hard to accept sometimes, but it's what I believe.
: So, God has a 'plan' for all of us humans? That's one aspect of
: Christian theology, and my Catholic upbringing, that I've always had
: triuble with, and would scare me back when I believed it. You've
: mentioned free will before; well, I'd at least like to hope that I have
: it. But if everything that occurs is really just part of 'God's plan',
: then where does it go? I'd like to believe that I control my own
: destiny, not some supernatural being. And I certainly would not call a
: God who manipulates people and controls our actions 'good' at all.
: There is no fate.
Here is where the freewill/predestination argument comes into play. I
don't believe that God manipulates our actions. Mary, when the angel
came a'calling, had the free ability to say "No, what are ya, crazy?"
I'm speaking of something more long-term...as in, "stick with Me, kid,
and it'll all work out all right in the end."
: >The Egyptians were plagued due to the fact that they refused to do
: God's
: >will, namely "Let my people go." They were, at that point, holding a
: >whole bunch of Isralites as slave labor. You can't say Moses didn't
: warn
: >them :) And what commandments do you have problems with? Or, rather,
: >which would people have difficulty following? Morality has many
: aspects
: >to it, but, in the end, there are certain things that are either right
: or
: >wrong.
: First of all, I would certainly call the vengeful god of the old
: testament evil.
Which specific acts, please?
: >Well, I have problems with that. If God simply exists, as you said in
: an
: >earlier post, as an earthquake does, well, what's the point of calling
: >Him God? Just title him Papa Nature, or something...
: Well, why not? God, nature, the cosmos, even 'the force'; I use all
: these words sometimes to describe the same concept. Also, why 'he'?
: Why is God always thought of as anthropomorphic and masculine?
"He" is used because Jesus constantly called God "Father." God is beyond
all gender...but it's easier to say He...personally, I don't like the
sound of "It" do you? :) And, as somebody else brought up, God made us
in His image in my faith-system, so it's nto anthropomorphic...we don't
make Him like us, He made us like Him. And to describe God as "nature"
or "the cosmos" takes away the personal, thinking element of God. Would
nature sacrifice for our benefit?
: Yes; but then, Einstein, like myself, did not believe in any particular
: religion, but his own view of God. I don't know if science and theology
: have to be necessarily against each other; but, if mythology tells me
: something that is contradicted by the laws of physics (like that one man
: was able to feed thousands with a couple fish and loaves of bread) I
: won't believe it. I don't believe in miracles or 'divine intervention'.
Ah, well, this is a difficulty, then. I believe in miracles out of
faith. I believe one happens at every celebration of the Mass. I
believe I have witnessed one, outside of a church environment. I believe
that God can make impossible things happen.
: Well, I hope that, someday, I do find out the truth; but I'd like that
: day to come while I'm still alive, though who knows how far off modern
: science is from contemplating the deepest mysteries of the Universe?
I don't happen to trust science to convey the deepest mysteries of the
Universe. Remember that science is something that humans do, and we make
mistakes every now and then...and it wasn't *that* long ago that the
earth was thought to be the center of the universe.
: >Firstly, nearly every religion has a flood mythos, a point I find
: >telling.
: Yes; it tells that many aspects of Christian mythology came from the
: same background as most other modern religions. Many other religions
: also have temptation stories, and stories of a great hero or god who was
: killed then came back to life, to name a few similarities; I'd
: reccommend that people read Joseph Cambell , who's done some great work
: on comparative mythology.
Yes, the New Testament has many influcences form other cultures. But the
New Testament changed a lot...and it had contemporary writers around to
add vermisilitude to the statments contained therein. The oldest copy
of a Gosple has recently been discovered, it dates to about sixty or
seventy years after Christ, it is very similar to the four gosple's we
have in use now, and the time period was such that eyewitnesses were
still around to say "what the...that didn't happen" to anything in there.
*whew..can you say RUN-ON-SENTENCE? I knew you could!*
: basically admits to the world that 'he' made a mistake. A god who does
: this certainly does not appear to be perfect in my book. Also, in the
: Adam & Eve myth, god denies knowledge to 'his' creations, punnishing
: them when they decide to take it. This is another act of god in the
: Bible which I see as wrong, the denial of knowledge to humanity.
I see the flood mythos as an example of what happens when God gets really
ticked off. Two of God's aspects are Mercy and Justice. What happened
to the world during the flood was Justice. But Noah prevailed upon him
to use Mercy from there on in.
Ooh...I can hardly wait till somebody brings up Job :) :)
--Genevieve "Aigh, forgot to indicate that this post was edited...I
didn't take anything important out, though, and if I did you can yell at
me" Hoog
(bummin' on Bemo's account(
Timothy C Ellerbee
Ah. Put it this way. I believe that everything has to have a beginning
point. For me, that point is God. I hardly see that as a cop-out on my
part, and as for ignorance...well, I'll just ignore that in the hopes
that you really weren't calling me ignorant. If you were, that's for
another discussion. And as for forcing my worldview on anybody else, I'm
hardly doing that. And did I once say that all science should be
immedeatly halted so that we could all go meditate? Hardly. I was
nearly a biology major, I wanted to be a scientist. *the fact that I
can't do chem and I can write kick-ass english papers was what changed my
course in life*
--Genevieve "Je Ne l'Ose Dire" Hoog
(bummin' on Bemo's account)
The Brain
>There is outside proof about the historical existance of Jesus, coming
>from, I believe, Roman texts.
And I certainly believe that Jesus was a real, historical MAN. I see no
evidence from any source othe than the Bible that he was a supernatural
being, however.
Secondly, I don't think that everything in
>the Bible is to be taken as word-for-word true...
And I don't think that anything in the Bible is word-for-word true. The
Gospels weren't written until some 50 years after Jesus died, and all of
his original followers were also dead by this time. The stories of
Jesus' life had changed over time and been modified by his followers,
most of whom had not become Christian until after he was dead. And the
Gospels themselves weren't written primarily for the purpose of telling
Jesus' story, but to get more converts.
as in the Genesis
>stuff. I think I posted regarding this earlier. The Koran, various
>Buddhist texts, the Book of Mormon...most religions have some sort of
>sacred writings, and most will defend them vehemently.
Yes; and I take them all to be just as invalid historically, but very
important for understanding the mythology behind their cultures.
<snip>
>In my opinion, corruption and abuse both within and without organized
>relitions is the cause of most of the worlds problems. WE aren't
perfect
>creatures. But I believe religion is a Good Thing (tm).
Well, I think religious fanatacism is the cause of most of the world's
problems. Look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, the slaughter of the
Indians in the last century, some of the radical Islamic terrorism of
today; all are examples of horrible atrocities committed in the name of
God.
Overall, religion causes good, but for the wrong reasons. Like the
legal system, religion causes people to not do evil, not for the sake of
being good, but out of fear; in religion's case, fear of eternal
damnation instead of prison. Of course, religion also encourages people
to hope for a better life after death instead of challenging the corrupt
system in order to better the situation here on Earth. Marx was right;
it is the 'opium of the masses'.
The Brain (jmpr...@midway.uchicago.edu)
The Brain
>hey, stupid! What the hack did that reply have to with the X-men?
Huh?
>There are religion special interest groups, talk to them!!!!! If you
IDIOT, GEEK, DORK,
>ETC.
Sorry, but for this guy to understand me I'll have to speak in his
language:
Hey, dorkface! Learn to hit 'return' every 75 or so characters!
And if you weren't such a moronic idiot, you'd realize that if you don't
like off-topic stuff, you can just set a killfile for it!
Remember, asswipe, if you've been too stupid to notice, we here at RACX
go off-topic a lot! If you don't like it, kill it, stupid!
The Brain (jmpr...@midway.uchicago.edu)
Who will now go back to speaking as somone with his actual, above-90 IQ.
Keepeer of the Transformers and Beast flames.
Timothy C Ellerbee
: Well, I think religious fanatacism is the cause of most of the world's
: problems. Look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, the slaughter of the
: Indians in the last century, some of the radical Islamic terrorism of
: today; all are examples of horrible atrocities committed in the name of
: God.
Fanatics of every stripe are the cause of most of the worlds problems.
If the religious teachings of Islam and Christianity were followed truly
(I can't quote a relevant saying from Islam, because I haven't read the
Koran to any depth, but we have "This is
the greatest commandment - love thy n eighbor as thyself," and "turn the
other cheek." I worked in an office that was staffed mainly by Muslims,
and when the Oklahoma bombing occured, many were very upset that their
religion was being shown as one of hate and violence. The words "they
aren't true Muslims...our religion is one of peace" came up several times.
: Overall, religion causes good, but for the wrong reasons. Like the
: legal system, religion causes people to not do evil, not for the sake of
: being good, but out of fear; in religion's case, fear of eternal
: damnation instead of prison. Of course, religion also encourages people
: to hope for a better life after death instead of challenging the corrupt
: system in order to better the situation here on Earth. Marx was right;
: it is the 'opium of the masses'.
That is such a *silly* quote. If religion were the "opate of the masses"
then we would all be sitting on our duffs, staring into candleflames and
saying the rosary obsessively. My religion takes me to orphanages,
homeless shelters, and other outreach programs. And if religion made
people refuse to challenge the corrupt system, well then all the groups
that emigrated to the New World to get away from restrictions on their
religion would have never done so. You tell me in one paragraph that
religion is a breeding ground for violent actions, and then in the next
tell me that it's the (i *think* opate is the right quote*) opate and
thus religious people are all passive types.
Genevieve "...slowly pieces of this multitude lose their grip on the
curtain of living / and slip down off the stage, unapplauded." Hoog
Timothy C Ellerbee
: ce...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael A. Collins) wrote:
(rant clipped)
: Sorry, but for this guy to understand me I'll have to speak in his
: language:
: Hey, dorkface! Learn to hit 'return' every 75 or so characters!
: And if you weren't such a moronic idiot, you'd realize that if you don't
: like off-topic stuff, you can just set a killfile for it!
: Remember, asswipe, if you've been too stupid to notice, we here at RACX
: go off-topic a lot! If you don't like it, kill it, stupid!
: The Brain (jmpr...@midway.uchicago.edu)
: Who will now go back to speaking as somone with his actual, above-90 IQ.
Thank you, Brain :)
Genevieve "Shake your moneymaker" Hoog
Jane Griffin
Timothy C Ellerbee <tell...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>The Brain (jmpr...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>
>That is such a *silly* quote. If religion were the "opate of the masses"
>then we would all be sitting on our duffs, staring into candleflames and
>saying the rosary obsessively. My religion takes me to orphanages,
>homeless shelters, and other outreach programs. And if religion made
>people refuse to challenge the corrupt system, well then all the groups
>that emigrated to the New World to get away from restrictions on their
>religion would have never done so. You tell me in one paragraph that
>religion is a breeding ground for violent actions, and then in the next
>tell me that it's the (i *think* opate is the right quote*) opate and
>thus religious people are all passive types.
>
>Genevieve "...slowly pieces of this multitude lose their grip on the
>curtain of living / and slip down off the stage, unapplauded." Hoog
>
of, but in politics. No successful religion has come up against the
state and won. Christianity had a hard time in the early years, because
it was a religion of pacifism and morality above the state. This
situation did not turn around until it had become subverted into a
religion that supported established government. It is not a coincidence
most religions are connected to the state; many earlier religions were
run by the same people, for example Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Religion tells you not to rebel, to not attack your neighbors (law and
order), to submit to higher authority. In the middle ages, it was
thought that heaven was as stratified as earth was; the peasants would
still be tilling the fields.
Dominant religions tend to reflect their cultures. Early Christians
would not recognize any version of Christianity today. The Bible hasn't
changed (much) but the intrepretation of it has. The same, I would
suspect, goes for Islam. And the intrepretation, especially in times
before mass media, reflects a bias that supports the authorities. It is
not coincidental that Protestantism emerged just as it was useful to have
a myth of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.
Jane Griffin
Who majored in medieval European history
Michael Ellis
I'm calling you ignorant then. Not stupid, but ignorant. There's a
significant semantic difference between the two. You don't know what
comes before 'everything' as you put it. You have faith that it's
'God', but you don't *know* that. Therefore, since you do not know it,
you're ignorant of the truth. (You might be right, but you're still
ignorant.)
It should salve your pride some in that I'm about as ignorant as you
are in the matter of what happened 'prior' to the 'Beginning'. It's
entirely possible that it was 'God', or the Universe itself is like
an Escher painting, the snake that eats its own tail, or a whatever
paradox you care to mention. ('I am the Alpha and the Omega' is,
in itself, a paradox which fits in nicely with the above.)
And I don't wish to slight you with the accusation that you, yourself,
think that we should immediately halt all research and go meditate.
(In the field of, say, chemical warfare, however, this might be a
productive thing to do.)
But, when it comes right down to it, if you believe that 'God created
everything', any research you do into the Universe is akin to a rat
exploring its own (large, complex, and quite secure) cage. The most you
can hope for is to get to know your cage better. You're certainly not
equipped to get a deep understanding of the research assistant who runs
the damn thing. If you're lucky, though, you might get into His good
graces, and get moved to a nicer cage when you pass on (or get merged
with the research assistant. Pleasant thought). A rat contemplating
the beauty and elegance of the wheel in its cage is still a rat
contemplating a wheel.
Frankly, I'd like to think that we're better than rats. Perhaps we
aren't, but there's no reason to let that stop us, and I have better
things to do in life than to have my view of the universe sit neatly
in a cage.
Joshua M Jeffryes
: In article <D829y...@festival.ed.ac.uk>, pr...@festival.ed.ac.uk (Paul
: O'Brien) wrote:
: > * People do follow lunatics and liars. Does the name "Koresh"
: > ring a bell?
: Jesus had a following of thousands who witnessed his miracles. (assuming
: you accept the Gospel as valid, of course.)
Then what about Mohammed, Buddha, and Confuscious? Where they liars, or
just insane? And Quetzalcoatl, a great political/spiritual leader, or
just some nut?
Akhenaton led the entire Egyptian empire in worship of him and his father,
Aton. Since this encompassed thousands upon thousands of people, by your
arguement, Aton is the true God, and Akhenaton is his only Son.
J. Spectre - I really hate religious sorts who have no knowledge of the
world they actually live in.
***************************jmj...@nic.smsu.edu****************************
"Imagine something humorous in this in this space." -B. Thrailkill
"...this made me feel like I needed to throw up." -Ed Cates
"...you know those circumstances, they'll get you." -J. Garton
*******************YOU ARE IN ERROR, THERE IS NO SCREAMING*****************
Joshua M Jeffryes
: : But, assuming that say, the laws of physics are not directly operated by
: : this God fellow, then Hell would still operate according to them. And
: : since there is no evidence to suggest the natural state of things is a
: : flaming torture pit full of demonic imps, I imagine Hell would just be
: : the same as here, only without the evangelists. Not too shabby.
: I'm sorry, I'm not sure we're operating on the same wavelength here. How
: do the laws of Physics affect the existance or non-existance of Hell??
Because they have to. Here's a lesson in why discussions like this are
just plain silly; arguements require logic, or they are simply strings of
words with no impact. Logic requires empirical evidence. There is no
empirical evidence of any divine power or supernatural entity. Therefor,
one cannot discuss it.
It is also important to realize that the "God made it that way" arguement
is unassailable. I can claim that the universe was created five minutes
ago by gerbils. You might say that is ridiculous, but you say that
because the gerbils created you to do so. They also created all of our
memories, planted fake fossils in the ground, made copies of lots of fake
old magazines, even put false old posts on newsreaders. Cunning fellows,
those gerbils.
In the above arguement (the "Five Minute Gerbil" arguement), you cannot
defeat me. No matter what you say, I can claim the gerbils did it to
look that way, and you are simply doing their bidding in disagreeing with
how things really are. The same goes for religion. Unless we apply the
scientific method to religion, which means there is no God (because there
is no evidence for any God), we cannot argue it. It is based on nothing
other than opinion.
: without the evangelists...well, it *can't* be, by my definition. God is
: actively working in our world, and he has a presence here.
Show me a video tape of God in action. Or a photograph. Even an audio
recording, I'll take any evidence of something happening that can only be
explained by the action of a supernatural being. Until that happens, you
cannot argue that God has a prescence here.
: define Heaven and Hell by scientific terms. As to not believing in
: Satan, well, personally I hope that not all of the evil in the world is
: of human-origin, but that's your option.
Well, hope away. As someone who is intimately familiar with what we
define as "evil," I can confidently state that there is no such thing.
People are simply short-sighted, greedy, and often fall into
psychological traps that encourage anti-social behavior. There is no
evil. Evil is a concept created by tiny little minds with no training in
psychology.
: Hermits might be ticked off at that statment. What is the empiricle
: proof, please? I thought that many people deliberatly go to quiet places
: to seek revelations. The "still, small voice of God" is hard to hear in
: hustle and bustle.
Well, review the records of various psychological and military
institutes. Many many people have been in isolation, and strangely
enough, none have had personal visits by God. That God, he's a cagey
sort. And no claiming the "oh, well they just were ignoring the message"
arguement. That is copping out, and no more valid than if I claim we can
all shoot beams of cosmic energy from our fingers, but no one has really
really tried to yet.
J. Spectre - hmm... I need a new sig.
Joshua M Jeffryes
: >Firstly, nearly every religion has a flood mythos, a point I find
: >telling.
Oh, well in that case, please provide me with a complete listing of the
world's religions, and a statistical breakdown of which ones have flood
myths.
Major mythologies that did NOT have floods (to my immediate knowledge):
Norse
Egyptian (floods were good things in Eygpt)
Many Native American mythologies
Most African mythologies
Inuit
Floods were big deals in ancient days. They were also the major source
of destruction from nature. It is only natural then that ancient humans
would incorporate them into myths. They simply didn't have much else to
use as material.
And remember that most mythologies also have sun gods. This in no way
indicates there must be a sun god.
J. Spectre - remember kids, get educated!
--
***************************jmj...@nic.smsu.edu****************************
"Imagine something humorous in this in this space." -B. Thrailkill
****************************HAPPINESS IS MANDATORY**************************
Joshua M Jeffryes
: Aristotleans of the world unite, eh?
Absolutely nothing wrong with Aristotealan thought. Hell of a lot better
than Platonic.
J. Spectre - this is not a post, it is the concept of a post