Freedom

[Max Webb]

In article <> gor...@uw-june.UUCP (Gordon Davisson) writes:
>In article <117@omepd> m...@omepd.UUCP (Max Webb) writes:
>>*flame on*
>>Mr Zimmerman is indulging in what we in the midwest used to call 'bear-baiting'.
>Even if God does exist and control the afterlife, all Paul's done is examine
>the evidence available to him (incomplete and inconsistent as it is), and
>reach what he thinks is the most reasonable conclusion about God based on
>it. If he's wrong, and God is a reasonable fellow, then why would a
>reasonable God want to punish him for that?

Either you haven't read my reply to gary, or it hasn't reached you. The
implication was not that Paul is headed to hell. The implication is that
his viewpoint might change and he might regret this game of 'bearbaiting'.
After all, i find it hard to believe that Paul really believes that God exists
as the 'damager god'. If at some time, he should change his mind about the
existence of a good God, and arrive at a different understanding of the
motives attributed to Him in the bible, then paul will regret the fact that
he has poured out screen after screen of namecalling of God. As i posted
in my reply to Gary, i doubt if there is 'regret' in hell. Regret, on some
level, implies repentance, and repentance implies the presence of God in
the conscience, whereas Hell is simply the eternal version of life without
God. I suspect, that in hell there will not be regret, but self-justification
and the kind of name-calling of God.

>On the other hand, if God is egotistical, petty, and vindictive enough, He
>probably will subject Paul to eternal torture. The question Paul faces in
>this case is which is more important to him: his comfort, or his integrity.
>He would seem to have chosen the second, and I must applaud his bravery in
>doing so.

I would say that Paul seems to have chosen an effective way of attacking
christians, by slandering something they love, more than their church, more
(if they are christians) than themselves. I wonder if that isn't the real
reason for his posting - to arouse the response - rather than a real belief
in the sadism of God. I understand the motive - as i clearly stated, i used
to do it myself.

>I have a question for you, Max: Why do you worship God? Is it because you
>think he's an All Right Guy (or some stronger version therof), or because
>you're afraid of what he might do to you if you don't worship him? If the
>latter is the case, I must say that I find Paul's term 'whorshipper'
>singularly appropriate.
>Human: Gordon Davisson

Ignoring the personal attack, i worship him the same way i draw near to
a fire when i am cold. He is the source of all life and truth.
To hate him is dry up and die, to cut off your own source of life.

And that is why it is so meaningless to talk about God arbitrarily throwing
people into hell. When i stay out of the sun, why does the sun punish me
by taking my tan away?

Here, in time, we have a choice, because things/people change. In eternity,
nothing changes. So if you go out filled with hate and closed off to God
He has no way to help you - you shall have to starve without Him forever.

Max

[Ken Arromdee]

>>>Mr Zimmerman is indulging in what we in the midwest used to call 'bear-baiting'.
>>Even if God does exist and control the afterlife, all Paul's done is examine
>>the evidence available to him (incomplete and inconsistent as it is), and
>>reach what he thinks is the most reasonable conclusion about God based on
>>it. If he's wrong, and God is a reasonable fellow, then why would a
>>reasonable God want to punish him for that?
>
>Either you haven't read my reply to gary, or it hasn't reached you. The
>implication was not that Paul is headed to hell. The implication is that
>his viewpoint might change and he might regret this game of 'bearbaiting'.
>After all, i find it hard to believe that Paul really believes that God exists
>as the 'damager god'.

I find it hard to believe that Jesus was actually God or was born of a
virgin. But I am aware that other people do hold the belief even though I
consider it absurd, and I do not assume that anyone who claims to hold that
belief doesn't really believe it. This is known as "religious tolerance".
Why don't you seem to tolerate Paul's?

>
>I would say that Paul seems to have chosen an effective way of attacking
>christians, by slandering something they love, more than their church, more
>(if they are christians) than themselves. I wonder if that isn't the real
>reason for his posting - to arouse the response - rather than a real belief
>in the sadism of God. I understand the motive - as i clearly stated, i used
>to do it myself.

Here we go again. If Paul believes what he is saying, he isn't "slandering"
anyone. It seems as though you are projecting your own motives on someone
else; just because you used to do it yourself for selfish reasons doesn't mean
that everyone else who does the same thing does it for the same reasons.

>Ignoring the personal attack, i worship him the same way i draw near to
>a fire when i am cold. He is the source of all life and truth.
>To hate him is dry up and die, to cut off your own source of life.

It sounds as though you are saying that if you hate God, you will die.
Please clarify this; I have no idea what you're really trying to say here.
--
Kenneth Arromdee | |
BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM, INS_AKAA at JHUVMS -|------|-
CSNET: ins_...@jhunix.CSNET -|------|-
ARPA: ins_akaa%jhu...@hopkins.ARPA -|------|-
UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} -|------|-
!jhunix!ins_akaa | |