Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

WHY does a GOD of LOVE send MAN to HELL?

16 views

Skip to first unread message

David Rutledge

unread,

Jan 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/24/97

This whole thread is being propagated mainly by people who don't really
understand the facts on EITHER side. All I ever hear from people who don't
believe in the Christian God is:

1. "Christianity is just a fabrication to scare people into a moral code by
making them fear hell."

Wrong. Catholicism, maybe. But not Christianity. There's no need to
confess to some guy in a box. No rosary. No praying to patron saints. No
Purgatory. No having to remember every sin you commit for fear of losing your
salvation and going to hell. The ideas of Catholicism were invented by
aritocrats and the wealthy to keep the populous under control during the
middle ages, when almost NOBODY in Europe could read the scripture for
themselves.
Christianity is the only religion that says not only do you not have
to earn your salvation from hell, but that YOU CAN'T EARN SALVATION FROM HELL!
You must believe that Christ is God, and that you are incapable of saving
yourself. You must acknowledge that He died in your place, and that He came
back to life and ascended into heaven. After that, trying to turn from your
evil ways isn't something you HAVE to do, it's something you WANT to do. If
you don't even try to not sin then that just shows that you don't really
belive that Jesus died for you, so you never became a Christian in the first
place. By the way, FEAR OF HELL IS NOT A VIABLE REASON FOR BECOMING A
CHRISTIAN. Your salvation can only come from an acceptance of the truth of
God I have explained here.

The idea of Mary being important goes all the way back Babylon, where
a legend said that a ray of light impregnated a woman after her husband's
death. Mary is only mentioned in the Bible in a couple of places, and
absolutely NEVER in such a way as to make her look holy. The Bible merely
says that Mary was "Blessed among women". Hey, she gave birth to the physical
body of God. That's a blessing. But she was still just a woman. Praying to
her is ridiculous. In fact, Revelation makes a reference to a "system of
mother and child worship that has existed throughout the ages, controlling
governments and leading people astray". Sounds like Catholicism to me...

2. "How could a loving God send man to hell?"

Here's the biggie for this thread. First of all, the hell spoken of in the
Bible is not the hell we commonly think of in today's society. Hell was not
created for mankind. Hell was created for Satan and his daemons. I believe
that it is the "Lake of Fire" mentioned throughout the Bible where Satan and
his daemons are thrown in and consumed at the last judgement. Yes, on that
day Satan and the other fallen angels are to be judged along with every man
and woman who ever lived. Until that day, nobody is in heaven or hell.
Everyone is judged at once and is sentenced accordingly. Hell is not a place
where Satan torments souls. Hell is a place where Satan is tormented along
side the humans who chose his way. The Bible says that the lost are, "thrown
into the lake of fire where there WILL BE weeping and gnashing of teeth".
Notice the stress on WILL BE. It hasn't happened yet. So, is the lake of
fire a place of eternal torment or a place where worthless souls who knowingly
rejected their creator are sent to be destroyed? Who knows?

Okay. So I didn't really answer the question, but everybody really knows the
answer. God doesn't send people to hell, they choose to go there. That means
that the natives in Papua New Guinea can be saved also. The Bible says that
we are held accountable for what we know. The ignorant of Christ are not
blindly sent to hell. If they belive the principals of morality (Stealing,
killing, etc.) and accept the existence of the one true God then they can be
saved, too. Who knows how God reveals Himself to remote tribes? The point
is, He does, and the Bible says it.

By the way, believing in God doesn't save you. "Believing in Christ" is a
misnomer. The Bible says, "You belive in Christ? Good! Even the Daemons
believe, and shudder". So belief is not the way. It is faith. Faith, of
course, is believing in that which you can not necessarily see. Falling and
expecting somebody to catch you. Sitting in a chair and expecting it to hold
you up. All of these are acts of faith. But the saving faith is the faith
that Christ is God, and that he took the form of man and died for us, since we
are so depraved that we are incapable of paying the debt that we owe to our
creator.

So, if you were wondering how a loving God could send man to hell, now you
know that he doesn't. And by reading what I have typed here, you are now
accountable for the knowledge you have received. So on the day of judgement,
if you have not taken the leap of faith in Jesus as the one true way to
salvation, you know you will be without excuse, and that God is just in
whatever He does with you. Remember, it doesn't matter what we think is
right. God can't be wrong, because he made the rules. God may not always
seem fair, but he is always just. There is a BIG difference.

I welcome any responses to this posting. Sorry if I posted this in your
newsgroup and you haven't had any previous parts of this thread. I just added
a few more groups that I thought might want to join in on the conversation,
and I also removed a few that had no place in the field of discussion.

David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com)

Stephen Douglas Guilliot

unread,

Jan 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/24/97

On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, David Rutledge wrote:

> This whole thread is being propagated mainly by people who don't really
> understand the facts on EITHER side. All I ever hear from people who don't
> believe in the Christian God is:
>
> 1. "Christianity is just a fabrication to scare people into a moral code by
> making them fear hell."
>
> Wrong. Catholicism, maybe. But not Christianity. There's no need to
> confess to some guy in a box. No rosary. No praying to patron saints. No
> Purgatory. No having to remember every sin you commit for fear of losing your
> salvation and going to hell. The ideas of Catholicism were invented by
> aritocrats and the wealthy to keep the populous under control during the
> middle ages, when almost NOBODY in Europe could read the scripture for
> themselves.

<snip>

>
> So, if you were wondering how a loving God could send man to hell, now you
> know that he doesn't. And by reading what I have typed here, you are now
> accountable for the knowledge you have received. So on the day of judgement,
> if you have not taken the leap of faith in Jesus as the one true way to
> salvation, you know you will be without excuse, and that God is just in
> whatever He does with you. Remember, it doesn't matter what we think is
> right. God can't be wrong, because he made the rules. God may not always
> seem fair, but he is always just. There is a BIG difference.
>

> David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com)
>
>
No scare tactic huh...?
So you mean that if I "sign up" I'll go to heaven, but if I don't
I'll go to the lake of fire.
It doesn't take a priest in a confession box to perform a scare
tactic. You just did it. This explains why christians feel very guilty
about thinking non-christian things. *They don't want to go to hell, do
they?*
--Steve

David Rutledge

unread,

Jan 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/24/97

In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970124...@unicorn.it.wsu.edu>, Stephen Douglas Guilliot <guil...@wsunix.wsu.edu> wrote:

> No scare tactic huh...?
> So you mean that if I "sign up" I'll go to heaven, but if I don't
>I'll go to the lake of fire.
> It doesn't take a priest in a confession box to perform a scare
>tactic. You just did it. This explains why christians feel very guilty
>about thinking non-christian things. *They don't want to go to hell, do
>they?*
> --Steve
>

Great work there. You convieniently snipped out the part where I explained
that faith in Christ was the only thing that saved a person from hell. That
means that "thinking about non-christian things" is nothing to worry about,
even though it might bother a Christian when they do so, since they are TRYING
to do what Christ said to do. There is nothing that a Christian can do that
can take salvation away from them. So it doesn't even matter that every sin
from lying to murdering is seen as equal in the eyes of God, because he won't
send you to hell for it anyway if you are truly a Christian. Wooooooooo!
Sounds scary to me!

If you mean that if you keep living in sin and don't accept Him then
Christianity is a scare tactic, then you're right. But it's not intentional.
I'm not scared of cars, but if I chose to stand in the middle of the road
instead of getting out of the way, I would be. Car's, like the path to
salvation, aren't meant to scare you, but they should scare you if you ignore
them and treat them with disrespect.

David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com)

Bob Weigel

unread,

Jan 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/25/97

Generally for asking stupid questions....just kidding. God allows
us all to make our own choices. If we "remain in spirit deceased",
we will enter eternity that way. God is love. If you hate God...
that means you're full of hate. Does God MAKE people go to war?
No. They do it because they are full of hatred. Simple 'nuf. I
am glad not to be spending eternity with a bunch of people who want
to kill each other...personally. If you want to, just keep on asking
stupid questions. I think it would be better to try the hypothetical
assumption that God is love, and you are the one with a problem....but
hey! I'm just making that assessment by reading history, and how
people generally are you know...you can draw your own conclusions. I
give you ABSOLUTE FREEDOM of choice. wouldn't want to make you look
silly or anything no sirrrreee not me, huhuhhhh! -Bob

Matthias Watkins

unread,

Jan 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/25/97

> Generally for asking stupid questions....just kidding. God allows

The question is not at all trivial or simple.. it seems to me.. it relates
driectly to the nature of God and his actions and "attitude" toward
humanity.. this is one of those question that I have NEVER heard
adequately answered.. I think that all Christians are bothered by this
seeming paradox (me included).. and throw answers out in an attempt to
"absolve" God of this.. the fact is.. we just don't and can't understand
God's plan/purpose/etc.. Ihave personally given up trying to explain God..
he is unfathomable.. the whole issue of theodicy confounds me.. why is
their evil?.. why do we have free coice (if we do)? I didn't ask for a
choice.. and to tell you the truth.. I don't want one.. the old argument
that God doesn't want automatons justr doesn't make sense.. that's just
giving God human traits.. we can only be reasurred that God does love us..
and means the best for us.. how or why or when or where that will come
about from all this suffering and evil on the Earth is anybody's guess but
God's.. it's what makes trusting him a true and almost heroic act of
faith,

peace,
matt

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/25/97

Do you have any idea what this looks like?

"Honey, why are you staying with that abusive husband?"
"He loves me!"
"But he beats you! Look, you're black and blue!"
"Yes, but he loves me!"
"How do you know that?"
"He tells me he loves me."
"Why would he cause you such pain if he loves you?"
"I don't know. It's beyond my understanding. I trust him."
"Why do you trust him?"
"Because he told me to. I have to have faith."
"Why?"
"Because if I don't, I won't have anything to live for."

What can you say? What can a person outside of an abusive relationship,
do to convince the victims inside of it that the logic doesn't work?

You can't. But every once in a great while you see someone who
_almost_ gets it, but not quite. And it fills me with rage and
frustration, because they're SO FUCKING CLOSE. Worse, if you try to
point out the flaws, they'll rush to defend their abuser, making it
all the less likely that they'll ever take that final step.

To that end, this post is probably counter productive. But sometimes
you just have to let it out.

jason
r.m.c resident atheist

--
"The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/

steve eric cisna

unread,

Jan 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/25/97

Without doubt, this is the best post I have read all week. Just thought
you might want to know.

Steve

Del

unread,

Jan 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/25/97

> David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com) wrote:

[...]

> So, if you were wondering how a loving God could send man to hell, now you
> know that he doesn't.

Just like if I hold a gun to your head and you refuse
to give me your wallet it is your fault I must shoot
you. It is your decision.

And by reading what I have typed here, you are now accountable for

> the knowledge you have received. So on the day of judgement [sic],

> if you have not taken the leap of faith in Jesus as the one true way to
> salvation, you know you will be without excuse, and that God is just in
> whatever He does with you.

I will have no excuse because David Rutledge
(da...@chickasaw.com), God's spokesman & official
interpreter of the Bible, the earthly arbiter of right
and wrong, has revealed these things me.

Gosh it is an honor to even meet someone as amusingly
pretentious as you! It is something to tell my grand
kids.

Remember, it doesn't matter what we think is
> right.

So you mean it's possible that you are (gasp!) full of
shit? Oh of course not! You probably meant it doesn't
matter what *I* or anyone else thinks is right. What
you think is right *DOES* matter.

> God can't be wrong, because he made the rules.

Just like I make the rules if I hold a gun to your
head. Might makes right. Whatever he says is good is
good - even genocide. He makes the rules after all.

I do appreciate you admitting that right and wrong are
completely subjective to your god - and thus also to
you.

I trust you will never make allusions to anyone else's
"situational ethics?" Your god doesn't like hypocrisy.

> God may not always
> seem fair, but he is always just. There is a BIG difference.

Really! Then explain this BIG difference to us, oh wise
one.

Jacob Alexander Glazeski

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com) wrote:
<big....snip about how humans get into hell, same old, same old...>
:
: So, if you were wondering how a loving God could send man to hell, now you
: know that he doesn't. And by reading what I have typed here, you are now
: accountable for the knowledge you have received. So on the day of judgement,
: if you have not taken the leap of faith in Jesus as the one true way to

: salvation, you know you will be without excuse, and that God is just in

: whatever He does with you. Remember, it doesn't matter what we think is
: right. God can't be wrong, because he made the rules. God may not always

: seem fair, but he is always just. There is a BIG difference.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Here I was, pleasantly and contentedly
ignorant, moral and just, honest and loving, and here you have to come
and ruin my chances of salvation by telling me that I must have faith
in Christ for the key of eternity! Why didn't you put this at the
beginning of the post, so that I could skip it, and still be saved?
Shoot.
NOW what am I going to do? Can I forget what you wrote, or plead
insanity or something?
Pretty please?
:
: I welcome any responses to this posting. Sorry if I posted this in your

: newsgroup and you haven't had any previous parts of this thread. I just added
: a few more groups that I thought might want to join in on the conversation,
: and I also removed a few that had no place in the field of discussion.

'Tis sweet of you, really.
Pray for me, will you?
I'm conducting an experiment...
:
: David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com)

Mark

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

Stephen Douglas Guilliot <guil...@wsunix.wsu.edu> wrote in article

> No scare tactic huh...?
> So you mean that if I "sign up" I'll go to heaven, but if I don't
> I'll go to the lake of fire.
> It doesn't take a priest in a confession box to perform a scare
> tactic. You just did it. This explains why christians feel very guilty
> about thinking non-christian things. *They don't want to go to hell, do
> they?*
> --Steve

Steve: I believe the point of conflict is the view of who is establishing
the "rules." If Christianity is correct then the one and only true divine
being made the rules. THIS is what makes them correct. If the "church" made
the rules then you are correct it is an ethical code (much like our
judicial system by the way) that uses the ultimate punishment to ensure
obedience. However, as Blaise Pascal argued centuries ago. If Christianity
is wrong and you have accepted its "system" you loose nothing. You have
lived a moral and ethical life which can only contribute to the betterment
of your fellow man. If Christianity is correct though you have found
redemption and eternal life.

Secondly I would like to clarify that God does NOT send anyone to Hell.
According to Christain histography humanity sends itself to Hell. Romans
1-2 indicates that there is a testimonty by nature itself to the presence
of the divine. All through the Bible mankind has had encounter after
encounter with God yet has chosen (or failed) to reveal this truth to
others -- condemning them but their silence. If any one institution is to
blame for the eternal death of a person's soul it is the church in its
broader context (all those who have carried the truth) for not sharing the
truth found fullest in Christ. But, ultimately (unless you hold to a
reformed view of the elect) the responsibility falls on the individual who
rejects the knowledge presented on the slavific hope in Jesus of Nazareth.

respectfully yours,

mark sadler, fort worth, texas.

David Rutledge

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

In article <32EAE7...@earthlink.net>, jfa...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com) wrote:
>
>[...]

>> So, if you were wondering how a loving God could send man to hell, now you
>> know that he doesn't.
>

>Just like if I hold a gun to your head and you refuse
>to give me your wallet it is your fault I must shoot
>you. It is your decision.
>

No. Its more like God created this big gun, and all of humanity is standing
in front if it out of choice and/or ignorance. God says, "Hey. This gun is
going to go off, and I can't move it. Please step aside". Everybody hears
it, but as humans it kind of feels intoxicating to be standing there in the
face of danger, so most people stay. Others, knowing that they will otherwise
die and that there's a lot more interesting stuff to do, move out of the way.

> And by reading what I have typed here, you are now accountable for

>> the knowledge you have received. So on the day of judgement [sic],

>> if you have not taken the leap of faith in Jesus as the one true way to
>> salvation, you know you will be without excuse, and that God is just in
>> whatever He does with you.
>

>I will have no excuse because David Rutledge
>(da...@chickasaw.com), God's spokesman & official
>interpreter of the Bible, the earthly arbiter of right
>and wrong, has revealed these things me.
>
>Gosh it is an honor to even meet someone as amusingly
>pretentious as you! It is something to tell my grand
>kids.

I love these kinds of comments. It makes us both feel good, you know? On the
one hand, you get the satisfaction of blowing off a little steam and trying to
hurt my feelings, and I get the satisfaction of knowing that the only rebuttal
you could come up with were some cheap shots at my character.

Hmmmm... I didn't realize that I made up or interpreted the plan of salvation
that God laid out in black and white over and over in the Bible. I'm sorry if
it appeared that way. Here. Let me just give some straight scripture so my
personal opinion won't be getting in the way:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal
power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what
has been made, so that men are without excuse." -- Romans 1:20

"But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing
up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous
judgment will be revealed." -- Romans 2:5

That's just a couple of relevant scriptures that were on the page I opened my
Bible up to, believe it or not. Take them at face value. I make no
commentary on them.

>
> Remember, it doesn't matter what we think is
>> right.
>

>So you mean it's possible that you are (gasp!) full of
>shit? Oh of course not! You probably meant it doesn't
>matter what *I* or anyone else thinks is right. What
>you think is right *DOES* matter.
>

It is entirely possible that I'm wrong in my ideas about heaven and hell.
That's why I said, "I believe" at the beginning of that paragraph. What
anybody believes is just opinion. So you're gonna hand me that line about
Christians being hypocrites, right? Oh, and I suppose you started reading my
original post ready to change your beliefs if what I wrote made sense to you?
You probably read the first paragraph and started figuring out how you could
try to tear it apart, regardless of what I had to say.

> > God can't be wrong, because he made the rules.
>

>Just like I make the rules if I hold a gun to your
>head. Might makes right. Whatever he says is good is
>good - even genocide. He makes the rules after all.
>

God made the laws. He made them and now He follows them. A true judge
doesn't bend the law for anyone. God is the judge. We are His children.
Much to His dismay we show up our father's court room with charges against us.
For every crime there is only one penalty: death. The price for the crime
has to be paid. For those of us who are sorry for our crimes and have asked
for His help, Jesus steps in and says, "I speak for this person. I will die
in his place."

>I do appreciate you admitting that right and wrong are
>completely subjective to your god - and thus also to
>you.
>
>I trust you will never make allusions to anyone else's
>"situational ethics?" Your god doesn't like hypocrisy.
>

I think you know that this is not what I said, and that you are trying to
twist my words. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. All I said
was that God made the rules, so we have no right to question them. If God had
said that murder was good, then everyone in the world would know that murder
was good. But he didn't, and everybody knows deep inside of them that murder
is wrong. We cannot call God unjust. God is justice incarnate. Are you
trying to make God conform to our made up morals as humans?

>> God may not always
>> seem fair, but he is always just. There is a BIG difference.
>

>Really! Then explain this BIG difference to us, oh wise
>one.

I knew somebody would ask. I don't see a wise one here, so I'll try to
explain what the Bible says about it in the wise one's absence.

We humans like to be fair. Its a word we made up. It basically means that if
somebody is being good, we think they deserve good stuff, and if somebody is
being bad, they deserve bad things to happen to them. But still, little kids
get raped and killed, and OJ Simpson kills 2 people (maybe) and gets away
scott-free.
We don't understand. "How could this happen? What kind of God would allow
this!!!?!?!" we say. It's simple.
You already know that the reason we are given a choice between loving God or
ignoring Him is because love, by nature, cannot be forced. So we are allowed
to do whatever we want. But since God allows this, He has to allow bad things
to happen to good people and good things to happen to bad people, because if
He didn't He would be witholding somebody's free will from them. In the same
way he has to allow bad thing to exist, because without the bad we would never
know what good was. Without sadness we would never have joy. You know, Yin
and Yang. Order and Chaos. This is not a new idea.

So, even though according to the law God has laid out He must send the
unrepentant to hell along with Satan and the demons, we as humans say it isn't
"fair". A confusion between justice and fairness is probably what started
this whole thread to begin with. LIFE IS SOMETIMES PAINFUL. But as a
Christian there is so much to learn from the bad things that happen on this
Earth that we can rejoice in it. Pain makes us stronger.

"...for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of
trials. These have come so that your faith -- of greater worth than gold,
which perishes even though refined by fire -- may be proved genuine and may
result in praise, glory, and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed." -- 1 Peter
1:6-7

Please understand that I am not interested in proving you or anybody wrong.
I'm not trying to sound boastful or "Holier than Thou". I'm just trying to
present the truth as I understand it. Thanks for reading my post and I
appreciate your response.

David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com)

Shusoran

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

Do you really even think God f*cking cares?? I don't. The world is full
of d*cks, jerks, *ssholes, criminals and all sorts of other unsavory
characters, some of who masquerade as nice people. What it ends up
boiling down to is this: most people are bastards. and God doesn't give
a flying f*ck what happens. He's left it to all of us to live our pissy
little short mortal lives while He sits in His little Heaven, while
everyone else suffers. It's ridiculous.

I don't think God, if such a being exists, really cares who goes to
Heaven and who doesn't. It's all at His whim what happens to us after we
die.

Maybe the immortal vampire has an advantage in that he doesn't ever have
to face God.

Ok, now for the disclaimer. I'm drunk, haven't slept in a *long* time,
and I'm bitter. So my thoughts of course are tempered by said
circumstances, and may exaggerate how much I actually believe this to be
true, or even what I'm saying, although I do find God conspicuously
absent in what goes on in the universe.

-Shusoran

I am not expendible, I'm not stupid, and I'm not going.

Del wrote:
>
> > David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com) wrote:
>
> [...]
> > So, if you were wondering how a loving God could send man to hell, now you
> > know that he doesn't.
>
> Just like if I hold a gun to your head and you refuse
> to give me your wallet it is your fault I must shoot
> you. It is your decision.
>

> And by reading what I have typed here, you are now accountable for
> > the knowledge you have received. So on the day of judgement [sic],
> > if you have not taken the leap of faith in Jesus as the one true way to
> > salvation, you know you will be without excuse, and that God is just in
> > whatever He does with you.
>
> I will have no excuse because David Rutledge
> (da...@chickasaw.com), God's spokesman & official
> interpreter of the Bible, the earthly arbiter of right
> and wrong, has revealed these things me.
>
> Gosh it is an honor to even meet someone as amusingly
> pretentious as you! It is something to tell my grand
> kids.
>

> Remember, it doesn't matter what we think is
> > right.
>
> So you mean it's possible that you are (gasp!) full of
> shit? Oh of course not! You probably meant it doesn't
> matter what *I* or anyone else thinks is right. What
> you think is right *DOES* matter.
>

> > God can't be wrong, because he made the rules.
>
> Just like I make the rules if I hold a gun to your
> head. Might makes right. Whatever he says is good is
> good - even genocide. He makes the rules after all.
>

> I do appreciate you admitting that right and wrong are
> completely subjective to your god - and thus also to
> you.
>
> I trust you will never make allusions to anyone else's
> "situational ethics?" Your god doesn't like hypocrisy.
>

Confetta1

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

>jason
>r.m.c resident atheist

my dear jason,

you never cease to amaze me.

one of the most difficult things i've ever had to do was remove myself
from an abusive marriage relationship. i did not want to raise my
daughter in that type of environment, even though i knew he (her dad)
would never harm her in any way.

do you know who gave me the strength to do this? God, because He loves
me. that was 11 1/2 years ago and i still find my strength in Him. He
provides for us. when He said He would supply ALL of our needs, He meant
it. when He said His grace is sufficient no matter what it is we're
dealing with, He meant it.

Jesus got me to a point where i was empty enough of patricia in order to
receive a holiness from Him i never would have known. that was an act of
grace and one that has changed me forever.

Jesus is so real to me but i know you just don't understand that. and
maybe it's not your fault. God hardened pharoh's heart until He deemed it
was time... saul of tarsus bowed down before Jesus and called Him
Lord--IN HIS TIME!

i was a prodigal who, by the grace of God, returned to the fold. it is
the most freeing, liberating experience i have ever known and i am
indebted to Him forever.

peace,

patricia

ci...@d0sb15.fnal.gov

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

In article <5cf5nv$c...@picard.chickasaw.com>, da...@chickasaw.com (David Rutledge) writes:

>In article <32EAE7...@earthlink.net>, jfa...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>> David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com) wrote:

>>> So, if you were wondering how a loving God could send man to hell, now you
>>> know that he doesn't.

>>Just like if I hold a gun to your head and you refuse
>>to give me your wallet it is your fault I must shoot
>>you. It is your decision.

>No. Its more like God created this big gun, and all of humanity is standing

>in front if it out of choice and/or ignorance. God says, "Hey. This gun is
>going to go off, and I can't move it.

A new twist to "can God create a rock he cannot lift?"..

>Please step aside". Everybody hears
>it, but as humans it kind of feels intoxicating to be standing there in the
>face of danger, so most people stay. Others, knowing that they will otherwise
>die and that there's a lot more interesting stuff to do, move out of the way.

[lots of nonsense]

Celeborn

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

David Rutledge wrote:
>
> In article <32EAE7...@earthlink.net>, jfa...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >> David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com) wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >> So, if you were wondering how a loving God could send man to hell, now you
> >> know that he doesn't.
> >
> >Just like if I hold a gun to your head and you refuse
> >to give me your wallet it is your fault I must shoot
> >you. It is your decision.
> >
>
> No. Its more like God created this big gun, and all of humanity is standing
> in front if it out of choice and/or ignorance. God says, "Hey. This gun is
> going to go off, and I can't move it. Please step aside". Everybody hears
> it, but as humans it kind of feels intoxicating to be standing there in the
> face of danger, so most people stay. Others, knowing that they will otherwise
> die and that there's a lot more interesting stuff to do, move out of the way.

I fail to see the difference- a threat is a threat is a threat. Simply
because it's pre-prepared doesn't somehow excuse the user.

(In fact, similar cases have been tried in court, where someone set
traps- say, a shotgun on a string - for intruders in their own homes.
The decision- 'homicide.')

> >
> > Remember, it doesn't matter what we think is
> >> right.
> >
> >So you mean it's possible that you are (gasp!) full of
> >shit? Oh of course not! You probably meant it doesn't
> >matter what *I* or anyone else thinks is right. What
> >you think is right *DOES* matter.
> >
> It is entirely possible that I'm wrong in my ideas about heaven and hell.
> That's why I said, "I believe" at the beginning of that paragraph. What
> anybody believes is just opinion. So you're gonna hand me that line about
> Christians being hypocrites, right? Oh, and I suppose you started reading my
> original post ready to change your beliefs if what I wrote made sense to you?

I don't know about anyone else, but my beliefs are subject to
modification if I find problems with it, or someone else can present
something better.

> You probably read the first paragraph and started figuring out how you could
> try to tear it apart, regardless of what I had to say.

No, the whole thing was read (regardless of much content-free noise).
But looking for fundamental problems in a new thesis should be the first
thing one does- or do you reccomend accepting everything one hears at
face value?

> > > God can't be wrong, because he made the rules.
> >
> >Just like I make the rules if I hold a gun to your
> >head. Might makes right. Whatever he says is good is
> >good - even genocide. He makes the rules after all.
> >
> God made the laws. He made them and now He follows them. A true judge
> doesn't bend the law for anyone.

Glad you brought up this point. It's been pointed out that the
Judeo-Christian God DOESN'T follow his own rules- the genocide example,
for instance. This is THE basic problem with your diatribe, and the main
thrust of this thread- this diety of yours is on a lower moral plane
than many humans- even me, and I'm hardly a paragon. Why, then, do you
insist on trumpeting how 'good' he is?

> God is the judge. We are His children.
> Much to His dismay we show up our father's court room with charges against us.
> For every crime there is only one penalty: death. The price for the crime
> has to be paid. For those of us who are sorry for our crimes and have asked
> for His help, Jesus steps in and says, "I speak for this person. I will die
> in his place."

How is that again? I seem to have missed just why it was neccessary in
the first place, or why someone else could be held responsible for our
actions (scapegoating), or even why so many innocents are lumped in with
people who might be lacking in the moarls department.

While we're on it- what is one (relatively quick) death compared to the
billions that have followed?

> >I do appreciate you admitting that right and wrong are
> >completely subjective to your god - and thus also to
> >you.
> >
> >I trust you will never make allusions to anyone else's
> >"situational ethics?" Your god doesn't like hypocrisy.
> >
>
> I think you know that this is not what I said,

You said:

> > > God can't be wrong, because he made the rules.

> and that you are trying to twist my words.

The only way this wouldn't be situational is if the diety you are
describing here was the ultimate paragon of virtue. We've already shown
that to be false.

> What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.

Who decides? I'd take Ghandi before Jehovah.

All I said
> was that God made the rules, so we have no right to question them.

...and this is the problem I've got with the mainstream Christian ethic.
What happened to Free Will? I've heard it bandied about by Xtian
Apologists everywhere, but it apparently is functionally equivilent to
voting in China- 'Make a choice- but MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE or else!'

Of course we have the right to question laws that are imposed on us!
Every thinking being does! Have you no self-respect? Sorry-too many of
us do.

> If God had
> said that murder was good, then everyone in the world would know that murder
> was good. But he didn't, and everybody knows deep inside of them that murder
> is wrong. We cannot call God unjust. God is justice incarnate.

Genocide is never acceptable- there is no way in hell that cold-blooded
murder of innocents can be- in any way- construed as 'moral' when the
protagonist is somehow supposed to be omnipotent.

> Are you trying to make God conform to our made up morals as humans?

Yes- the same ones many imperfect humans can do a very good job of
following- and he's not even up to that.

Neither do I.

> so I'll try to
> explain what the Bible says about it in the wise one's absence.
>
> We humans like to be fair. Its a word we made up. It basically means that if
> somebody is being good, we think they deserve good stuff, and if somebody is
> being bad, they deserve bad things to happen to them. But still, little kids
> get raped and killed, and OJ Simpson kills 2 people (maybe) and gets away
> scott-free.
> We don't understand. "How could this happen? What kind of God would allow
> this!!!?!?!" we say. It's simple.
> You already know that the reason we are given a choice between loving God or
> ignoring Him is because love, by nature, cannot be forced.

What is that hell thing, then, if not coercion? Why is it even mentioned
as 'the wages of sin?'

I'm sorry, Dave, but the threat of eternal pain for making the wrong
decision is completely incompatible with the concept of 'free will,' or
even your concept of love, by nature, not being forced.

Sorry.

steve eric cisna

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, David Rutledge wrote:

> In article <32EAE7...@earthlink.net>, jfa...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >> David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com) wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >> So, if you were wondering how a loving God could send man to hell, now you
> >> know that he doesn't.
> >
> >Just like if I hold a gun to your head and you refuse
> >to give me your wallet it is your fault I must shoot
> >you. It is your decision.
> >
>
> No. Its more like God created this big gun, and all of humanity is standing
> in front if it out of choice and/or ignorance. God says, "Hey. This gun is
> going to go off, and I can't move it.

I thought god was powerful enough to do whatever he wanted. You're
telling me that he couldn't disable the gun?

Please step aside". Everybody hears
> it, but as humans it kind of feels intoxicating to be standing there in the
> face of danger, so most people stay. Others, knowing that they will
otherwise
> die and that there's a lot more interesting stuff to do,

Like live in a place with no differing opinions and no change and kissing
god's feet all day. Sounds interesting to me.

move out of the way.
>
> > And by reading what I have typed here, you are now accountable for
> >> the knowledge you have received. So on the day of judgement [sic],
> >> if you have not taken the leap of faith in Jesus as the one true way to
> >> salvation, you know you will be without excuse, and that God is just in
> >> whatever He does with you.
> >
> >I will have no excuse because David Rutledge
> >(da...@chickasaw.com), God's spokesman & official
> >interpreter of the Bible, the earthly arbiter of right
> >and wrong, has revealed these things me.
> >
> >Gosh it is an honor to even meet someone as amusingly
> >pretentious as you! It is something to tell my grand
> >kids.
>
> I love these kinds of comments. It makes us both feel good, you know? On the
> one hand, you get the satisfaction of blowing off a little steam and trying to
> hurt my feelings, and I get the satisfaction of knowing that the only rebuttal
> you could come up with were some cheap shots at my character.

My rebuttals are usually aimed at the character of your god.

>
> Hmmmm... I didn't realize that I made up or interpreted the plan of salvation
> that God laid out in black and white over and over in the Bible. I'm
sorry if
> it appeared that way. Here. Let me just give some straight scripture so my
> personal opinion won't be getting in the way:
>
> "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal
> power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what
> has been made, so that men are without excuse." -- Romans 1:20
>
> "But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing
> up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous
> judgment will be revealed." -- Romans 2:5

But you're assuming that the bible is correct. What gives you the right
to do that?

>
> That's just a couple of relevant scriptures that were on the page I opened my
> Bible up to, believe it or not. Take them at face value. I make no
> commentary on them.

My commentary is that they're just one more ancient myth just like
thousands of other ancient myths.

>
> >
> > Remember, it doesn't matter what we think is
> >> right.
> >
> >So you mean it's possible that you are (gasp!) full of
> >shit? Oh of course not! You probably meant it doesn't
> >matter what *I* or anyone else thinks is right. What
> >you think is right *DOES* matter.
> >
>
> It is entirely possible that I'm wrong in my ideas about heaven and hell.
> That's why I said, "I believe" at the beginning of that paragraph. What
> anybody believes is just opinion. So you're gonna hand me that line about
> Christians being hypocrites, right?

I wasn't. That line's getting a bit old. I prefer the line about
christians being delusional cultists.

Oh, and I suppose you started reading my
> original post ready to change your beliefs if what I wrote made sense
to you?
> You probably read the first paragraph and started figuring out how you could
> try to tear it apart, regardless of what I had to say.

What you had to say wasn't exactly original. It's been torn apart before
and it will be torn apart again.

Have you ever read the Bhagavad-Gita? How about the Book of Law? Have
you read any religious texts other than your precious bible? If you
have, were you prepared to change your beliefs if they made sense? I
doubt it. (By the way, they both claim to be inspired by god too.)

What about the works of Stephen Hawking or Carl Sagan? Would you change
your beliefs if their theories make sense?

>
> > > God can't be wrong, because he made the rules.
> >
> >Just like I make the rules if I hold a gun to your
> >head. Might makes right. Whatever he says is good is
> >good - even genocide. He makes the rules after all.
> >
>
> God made the laws. He made them and now He follows them.

I thought killing was against the rules. Isn't he going to personally
slaughter everyone who doesn't kiss his feet? I thought there was a rule
about giving without expecting anything in return. Does god follow that?

A true judge
> doesn't bend the law for anyone. God is the judge. We are His children.
> Much to His dismay we show up our father's court room with charges
against us.
> For every crime there is only one penalty: death.

Why did god make it that way? If he's truly just, he would come up with
some way to make things a bit less murderous. Do you think that a
five-year-old who steals a pack of gum from a candy store should get the
death penalty? I didn't think so. Sounds a bit insane, doesn't it?

The price for the crime
> has to be paid.

Penalties are supposed to be paid by the criminals, not anyone else.

For those of us who are sorry for our crimes and have asked
> for His help, Jesus steps in and says, "I speak for this person. I will die
> in his place."

That's really not fair either. You said yourself that people have to pay
for their sins. Letting someone else pay for you just isn't the same
thing.

Anyway, since jesus is a deity who can't really die, how is his temporary
death payment for anything?

>
> >I do appreciate you admitting that right and wrong are
> >completely subjective to your god - and thus also to
> >you.
> >
> >I trust you will never make allusions to anyone else's
> >"situational ethics?" Your god doesn't like hypocrisy.
> >
>
> I think you know that this is not what I said, and that you are trying to
> twist my words. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.

That's what I love about christians. They're so bipolar, completely
incapable of seeing the many shades of gray in every situation.

All I said
> was that God made the rules, so we have no right to question them.

Why not? Who put this guy in charge? What makes him so morally superior
to us?

If God had
> said that murder was good, then everyone in the world would know that murder
> was good. But he didn't, and everybody knows deep inside of them that murder
> is wrong.

What I'm sure you meant to say was that ancient societies knew that
murder was wrong, so they wrote stories in which god told them so to
explain how they knew that.

> We cannot call God unjust.

Why not? What makes him so just?

> God is justice incarnate.

To be incarnate means to have a physical form, which god doesn't have.
But what makes you say that god is justice incarnate? The fact that he
doles out the death penalty for every crime?

Are you
> trying to make God conform to our made up morals as humans?

Like not killing defenseless children and not throwing temper tantrums
which end with the entire earth underwater? Then yes, I think he should
conform to these rules.

>
> >> God may not always
> >> seem fair, but he is always just. There is a BIG difference.
> >
> >Really! Then explain this BIG difference to us, oh wise
> >one.
>
> I knew somebody would ask. I don't see a wise one here,

Me neither.

so I'll try to
> explain what the Bible says about it in the wise one's absence.
>
> We humans like to be fair. Its a word we made up. It basically means
that if
> somebody is being good, we think they deserve good stuff, and if somebody is
> being bad, they deserve bad things to happen to them.

True. That's why I think Inquisitors and Conquistadors who gleefully
murder as many people as they can should be punished, while Buddhist and
Hindu monks who never hurt anyone in their life and happily do things for
the people around them should be rewarded.

Do you think Gandhi should go to hell?

But still, little kids
> get raped and killed,

At the hands of god, sometimes. Just look at the passover.

and OJ Simpson kills 2 people (maybe) and gets away
> scott-free.
> We don't understand. "How could this happen? What kind of God would allow
> this!!!?!?!" we say. It's simple.

> You already know that the reason we are given a choice between loving God or
> ignoring Him is because love, by nature, cannot be forced.

Going back to the gun analogy, if I hold a gun to your head and demand
all your money, am I not sort of forcing you to give it to me?

So we are allowed
> to do whatever we want. But since God allows this, He has to allow
bad things
> to happen to good people and good things to happen to bad people, because if
> He didn't He would be witholding somebody's free will from them.

What about good people who are killed in earthquakes and fires? How does
this have anything to do with free will?

In the same
> way he has to allow bad thing to exist, because without the bad we
would never
> know what good was.

This is a cop-out. The only reason it's like this is because of the way
the world works. According to you, god created the earth. Couldn't he
have created it so we'd know happiness when we see it?

> Without sadness we would never have joy.

Then I imagine heaven would be one hell of a boring place after the first
few minutes.

You know, Yin
> and Yang. Order and Chaos. This is not a new idea.
>
> So, even though according to the law God has laid out He must send the
> unrepentant to hell along with Satan and the demons, we as humans say
it isn't
> "fair".

Damn right.

A confusion between justice and fairness is probably what started
> this whole thread to begin with. LIFE IS SOMETIMES PAINFUL. But as a
> Christian there is so much to learn from the bad things that happen on this
> Earth that we can rejoice in it. Pain makes us stronger.

Then I would imagine that the legions of hell would be a great deal
stronger than the people in heaven.

>
> "...for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of
> trials. These have come so that your faith -- of greater worth than gold,
> which perishes even though refined by fire -- may be proved genuine and may
> result in praise, glory, and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed." -- 1 Peter
> 1:6-7
>
> Please understand that I am not interested in proving you or anybody wrong.
> I'm not trying to sound boastful or "Holier than Thou".

Well, you are.

I'm just trying to
> present the truth as I understand it.

How do you know that this is the truth?

Steve

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

Confetta1 <conf...@aol.com> wrote:
> steiners @prienet.com (Jason and Heather) wrote:
> >
> > What can a person outside of an abusive relationship,
> > do to convince the victims inside of it that the logic doesn't
> > work?
> >
> > You can't. But every once in a great while you see someone who
> > _almost_ gets it, but not quite. And it fills me with rage and
> > frustration, because they're SO FUCKING CLOSE. Worse, if you try
> > to point out the flaws, they'll rush to defend their abuser,
> > making it all the less likely that they'll ever take that final
> > step.
>

> my dear jason,
>
> you never cease to amaze me.
>
> one of the most difficult things i've ever had to do was remove
> myself from an abusive marriage relationship. i did not want to
> raise my daughter in that type of environment, even though i knew
> he (her dad) would never harm her in any way.
>
> do you know who gave me the strength to do this? God, because He
> loves me. that was 11 1/2 years ago and i still find my strength
> in Him. He provides for us. when He said He would supply ALL of
> our needs, He meant it. when He said His grace is sufficient no
> matter what it is we're dealing with, He meant it.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

jason
r.m.c resident atheist

Mike Grello

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

Jason and Heather <stei...@primenet.com> wrote in article
<5cdvbt$l...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>...

> Do you have any idea what this looks like?
>
> "Honey, why are you staying with that abusive husband?"
> "He loves me!"
> "But he beats you! Look, you're black and blue!"
> "Yes, but he loves me!"
> "How do you know that?"
> "He tells me he loves me."
> "Why would he cause you such pain if he loves you?"
> "I don't know. It's beyond my understanding. I trust him."
> "Why do you trust him?"
> "Because he told me to. I have to have faith."
> "Why?"
> "Because if I don't, I won't have anything to live for."
>

> What can you say? What can a person outside of an abusive relationship,

> do to convince the victims inside of it that the logic doesn't work?
>
> You can't. But every once in a great while you see someone who
> _almost_ gets it, but not quite. And it fills me with rage and
> frustration, because they're SO FUCKING CLOSE. Worse, if you try to
> point out the flaws, they'll rush to defend their abuser, making it
> all the less likely that they'll ever take that final step.
>

> To that end, this post is probably counter productive. But sometimes
> you just have to let it out.
>

> jason
> r.m.c resident atheist
>
>
> --
> "The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
> like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go
without
> restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
> BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941
http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/
>

[followups cut, because I respect others privacy]
You are presenting Gods viewpoint, I guess. This is exactly how I feel
when I try to
explain to people how loving God is (though it never fills me with rage,
fruits of the
Spirit, you know). Cool argument though, no matter what the response you
can say
"I told you so". I hope you have something more substantive than John R.
Rice to base
your anger on, however; I don't know of any Christian who hasn't been
lobotomized who
doesn't find his writings ludacrist. The one bewailing us no longer
stoning recalcitrant
children is a lot more effective though.

--
hug a commie for Christ,
Mike <--- the last Jesus freak
the voice of the religious LEFT
put the CHRIST back into Christianity
http://www.scsn.net/users/mgrello/
e-mail: mgr...@scsn.net

Del

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

False analogy. You claim your god created the universe.
He is not some innocent bystander as you portray him
here. You said it: HE MAKES the rules.

My analogy however is very apt. If you disagree then
show me why yours is better.

> > And by reading what I have typed here, you are now accountable for
> >> the knowledge you have received. So on the day of judgement [sic],
> >> if you have not taken the leap of faith in Jesus as the one true way to
> >> salvation, you know you will be without excuse, and that God is just in
> >> whatever He does with you.
> >
> >I will have no excuse because David Rutledge
> >(da...@chickasaw.com), God's spokesman & official
> >interpreter of the Bible, the earthly arbiter of right
> >and wrong, has revealed these things me.
> >
> >Gosh it is an honor to even meet someone as amusingly
> >pretentious as you! It is something to tell my grand
> >kids.
>
> I love these kinds of comments.

You do?

> It makes us both feel good, you know?

It does?

On the
> one hand, you get the satisfaction of blowing off a little steam and trying to
> hurt my feelings,

Well at least I didn't say obey my words or you're
going to hell.

> and I get the satisfaction of knowing that the only rebuttal
> you could come up with were some cheap shots at my character.

Why would you assume I am required to rebut _your_
claims? You assert it - without a lick of supporting
evidence - and it becomes the default until someone
rebuts it?? Hey I am not the one making the claims here
pal - you are.

> Hmmmm... I didn't realize that I made up or interpreted the plan of salvation
> that God laid out in black and white over and over in the Bible.

You're just relaying the truth to us poor ignorant
ones who don't have the insight you possess.

I'm sorry if
> it appeared that way. Here. Let me just give some straight scripture so my
> personal opinion won't be getting in the way:
>
> "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal
> power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what
> has been made, so that men are without excuse." -- Romans 1:20

> "But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing
> up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous
> judgment will be revealed." -- Romans 2:5

>
> That's just a couple of relevant scriptures that were on the page I opened my
> Bible up to, believe it or not. Take them at face value.
I make no
> commentary on them.

Ok now you do the same:

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous
in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who
will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles,
who do not have the law, do by nature things required
by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though
they do not have the law, since they show that the
requirements of the law are written on their hearts,
their consciences also bearing witness, and their
thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."
--Romans 2:13-15

and re: the law

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and
faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows
in their distress and to keep oneself from being
polluted by the world." -- James 1:26-27

Just face value now.

What brought this shocking humility about? You
entertained no such doubt in previous discourse.

> That's why I said, "I believe" at the beginning of that paragraph.

In the message I was answering you didn't say "I
believe" except once:

"I believe that it is the "Lake of Fire" mentioned
throughout the Bible where Satan and his daemons are
thrown in and consumed at the last judgement."

I don't think this applies. No, rather you jumped right
in:

This whole thread is being propagated mainly by people
who don't really understand the facts on EITHER side.
All I ever hear from people who don't believe in the
Christian God is:

1. "Christianity is just a fabrication to scare people
into a moral code by making them fear hell."

Christianity is the only religion that says not only do

you not have to earn your salvation from hell, but
that YOU CAN'T EARN SALVATION FROM HELL! You must
believe that Christ is God, and that you are incapable
of saving yourself. You must acknowledge that He died
in your place, and that He came back to life and
ascended into heaven. After that, trying to turn from
your evil ways isn't something you HAVE to do, it's
something you WANT to do. If you don't even try to
not sin then that just shows that you don't really
belive that Jesus died for you, so you never became a
Christian in the first place. By the way, FEAR OF
HELL IS NOT A VIABLE REASON FOR BECOMING A CHRISTIAN.
Your salvation can only come from an acceptance of the
truth of God I have explained here.

----- End Quote -----

You throw around a lot of absolutes: all, must, never,
nobody, only, every, etc.

> What anybody believes is just opinion.

And you do it again! Ironic huh? Anyway your assertion
here is flat out wrong. The name of the president of
the US is Clinton is NOT my opinion. It is a fact. And
"fact" is precisely the tone you conveyed - and wish to
convey in the above.

Hey knock yourself out. Just please don't deny it. And
please don't expect it to carry any weight with me.

So you're gonna hand me that line about
> Christians being hypocrites, right? Oh, and I suppose you started reading my
> original post ready to change your beliefs if what I wrote made sense to you?
> You probably read the first paragraph and started figuring out how you could
> try to tear it apart, regardless of what I had to say.

My my. A straw man _and_ an ad hominem. Feeling a
little defensive aren't we?

I love these kinds of comments. It makes us both feel
good, you know? On the one hand, you get the
satisfaction of blowing off a little steam and trying
to hurt my feelings, and I get the satisfaction of
knowing that the only rebuttal you could come up with
were some cheap shots at my character.

Looks like I didn't have to call you a hypocrite!

> > > God can't be wrong, because he made the rules.
> >
> >Just like I make the rules if I hold a gun to your
> >head. Might makes right. Whatever he says is good is
> >good - even genocide. He makes the rules after all.
> >
>
> God made the laws. He made them and now He follows them.

HE follows them?? Like "thou shalt not kill" you mean?

> A true judge
> doesn't bend the law for anyone. God is the judge.

Your true judge bends the "laws" for himself and or his
"chosen people" about every other page in the Bible.
Maybe you should check it out some time.

> We are His children.

Tell me what you would think of a parent who had a
"chosen" child, one that he played favorites with over
his other children.

Tell me about a parent who would say: If you do not
obey me it shows you do not love me and you will suffer
an eternity of punishment for it.

Tell me about a parent who would dole out an infinite
punishment for a finite transgression?

"We are told that this god, who prescribes forbearance
and forgiveness of every fault, exercises none himself,
but does the exact opposite; for a punishment which
comes at the end of all things, when the world is over
and done with, cannot have for its object either to
improve or to deter, and is therefore pure vengeance."
-- Authur Schopenhauer, "The Christian System.

And if you wish to claim God is not responsible, we
send ourselves to hell or some such, then you are
saying that your god is bound by rules he has no
control over. This means your god is not omnipotent.
It's that or he is not omni-benevolent. Take your pick.

Regardless, any human parent who treated his real
children like your god supposedly treats his "children"
would be locked up for life.

> Much to His dismay we show up our father's court room with charges against us.
> For every crime there is only one penalty: death. The price for the crime
> has to be paid. For those of us who are sorry for our crimes and have asked
> for His help, Jesus steps in and says, "I speak for this person. I will die
> in his place."

If your god made man then he is responsible for mans
nature.

And your god is manifestly unjust. He both forgives the
guilty and punishes the innocent. Right from the
beginning, he promises to visit "the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children and the children's children,
to the third and fourth generation" -- Exodus 34:7

Your god calls for capital punishment for a stranger
picking up sticks on the Sabbath Num. 15:32-36. That's
fair and just don't you think? Of course Moses was a
murderer and so was David but hey, when you make the
rules then whatever you do and say is fair and just -
by definition.

BTW I can't help but notice that you have broken the
Sabbath by posting to me. Does that mean you burn in
hell or just get capital punished?

Don't tell me: Those old rules don't apply to you any
more right? If number 4# is no longer in effect how
about #6?

I am? Didn't you say:

"God can't be wrong, because he made the rules."

If you didn't mean: whatever your god says is right
_is_ right, then what did you mean?

> What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.

So your god is bound by some higher set of rules?
What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong - even
to your God? Am I twisting your words again? Please
correct me if I err. I have no desire - and certainly
no need - to twist ANYTHING you say. I insist that you
correct me, in fact, whenever I have misunderstood your
words. I will not give you that excuse. But at the same
time you will have to explain EXACTLY WHAT you do mean.
No denials without that are acceptable.

> All I said
> was that God made the rules, so we have no right to question them.

Why is that? Because he says so? What's he going to do
if I do question them? I can guess your answer. Didn't
Hitler do something very much like this? Gee what a
concept: Hitler was godlike!

If God had
> said that murder was good, then everyone in the world would know that murder
> was good.

"Cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood."
-- Jeremiah 48:10

> But he didn't, and everybody knows deep inside of them that murder
> is wrong.

Not everyone. The sixth commandment says "thou shalt
not kill." But just a few chapters later, in Exodus
32:27 we find "slay every man his brother." In fact the
bible is literally filled with killings and mass
murders, committed, commanded or condoned by God.

I also dispute that the proper interpretation of the
sixth commandment is "thou shalt not murder." Murder is
to kill unlawfully, maliciously, or premeditatedly. But
the Ten Commandments supposedly _are_ the law. To say
the commandment means "murder" would be saying "it is
unlawful to kill unlawfully" which is tautological.

Also the Hebrew word used here for kill -"ratsach"- is
also used elsewhere to mean something other than
murder. Numbers 35:27 shows that the word can mean
justified killing: "If the revenger of blood kill
[ratsach ] the slayer [ratsach ] he shall not be guilty
of blood." The word was used to denote capital
punishment (Numbers 35:30-31) and even for killing by
animals! (Proverbs 22:13).

In other words this is just one of many glaring
contradictions in the Bible: God said "thou shalt not
kill" and then went on to incite and excuse precisely
that.

I don't want to hear about it being "war" either. In
Joshua 11:19-20 your God hardens the hearts of all the
tribes local to "chosen people" so they would NOT make
peace with Israel. Why? So that

"they should come against Israel in battle, that He
might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive
no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the Lord
had commanded Moses."

God takes away their free will so Israel has an excuse
to kill them all - men, women, and babies.

Oh and since you like to presume what I am going to say
I'll do the same: spare me your observations that I've
got a lot of "anger" or bullshit to that effect. I'm
not mad - I'm disgusted.

> We cannot call God unjust. God is justice incarnate.

1 Sam 15:3 Now go, attack the Amakelites and totally
destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare
them: put to death men and women, children and infants,
cattle and sheep, camel and donkeys.

2 Sam 12:13 14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast
given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to
blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall
surely die.

Hosea 9:16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up,
they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth,
yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.

II Kings 2: 23 -24 Then he [Elisha] went up from there
to Bethel; and as he was going up the road some youths
mocked him, and said to him, "go up, you baldhead! Go
up, you baldhead!"

So he turned around and looked at them and pronounced a
curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female
bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the
youths

----

You were saying...?

> Are you
> trying to make God conform to our made up morals as humans?

Your god doesn't exist. Get over it.

> >> God may not always
> >> seem fair, but he is always just. There is a BIG difference.
> >
> >Really! Then explain this BIG difference to us, oh wise
> >one.
>
> I knew somebody would ask. I don't see a wise one here, so I'll try to
> explain what the Bible says about it in the wise one's absence.
>
> We humans like to be fair. Its a word we made up. It basically means that if
> somebody is being good, we think they deserve good stuff, and if somebody is
> being bad, they deserve bad things to happen to them. But still, little kids
> get raped and killed, and OJ Simpson kills 2 people (maybe) and gets away
> scott-free.
> We don't understand. "How could this happen? What kind of God would allow
> this!!!?!?!" we say. It's simple.
> You already know that the reason we are given a choice between loving God or
> ignoring Him is because love, by nature, cannot be forced. So we are allowed
> to do whatever we want. But since God allows this, He has to allow bad things
> to happen to good people and good things to happen to bad people, because if
> He didn't He would be witholding somebody's free will from them.

How would preventing earthquakes or other natural
disasters impinge on anyone's free will? Why couldn't
your god allow free choice but stop someone when they
chose to do evil? How would it have impinged on
anyone's free will if your God gave Hitler a heart
attack?

Are you saying that 6,000,000 Jews had to die because
for god to give Hitler a heart attack would violate his
free choice to commit genocide?

If that's what you are saying then you are also saying
that prayer is useless. Your god intervening would
certainly screw up somebodies free will.

The free will thing doesn't wash anyway. Your god has
taken free will away from people and punished them for
what he forced them to do - the aforementioned Joshua
11 passage is but one example.

In the same
> way he has to allow bad thing to exist, because without the bad we would never
> know what good was.

So what? That doesn't mean "good" would not exist. It
just means we wouldn't notice it - maybe. Besides even
if recognizing good was that important, all that would
be necessary is just the slightest amount of evil.

Anyway if you wish to claim that evil is necessary (and
thus it is a good thing that we have it) I'll listen to
your arguments.

> Without sadness we would never have joy.

Might not recognize it. But that doesn't mean you
wouldn't have it. That's like saying without darkness
there would be no light. Hardly true.

But maybe you're right - we've never tried it.

So if you are does that mean there is no good and no
joy in Heaven? Or does it mean Heaven will have evil
and sorrow?

> You know, Yin
> and Yang. Order and Chaos. This is not a new idea.
>
> So, even though according to the law God has laid out He must send the
> unrepentant to hell along with Satan and the demons, we as humans say it isn't
> "fair".

It is no more unfair that most everything else he does.

Sort of a self sealing argument too. Everything is good
- even bad things.

> "...for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of
> trials. These have come so that your faith -- of greater worth than gold,
> which perishes even though refined by fire -- may be proved genuine and may
> result in praise, glory, and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed." -- 1 Peter
> 1:6-7

I think "Peter" was talking about a different kind of
faith than what your supposed god expects today. Peter
didn't need any faith that a god _existed_ did he?

> Please understand that I am not interested in proving you or anybody wrong.
> I'm not trying to sound boastful or "Holier than Thou". I'm just trying to
> present the truth as I understand it. Thanks for reading my post and I
> appreciate your response.
>
> David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com)

You're welcome.

Nyte

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

to leg...@rage.org

:::poking her head out fer a sec:::

...uummm.... would now be a bad time to bring up LEGION at
http://vampire.rage.org ???

:::ducks before the bibles are tossed:::

Dream,
Nyte-
--
--------=> Vampires OnLine <=--------
" .... grab hold my hand ...
lest you lose your footing ... "
----=> http://vampire.rage.org <=----

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

Mike Grello <mgr...@scsn.net> wrote:
>
> You are presenting Gods viewpoint, I guess. This is exactly how I
> feel when I try to explain to people how loving God is (though it
> never fills me with rage, fruits of the Spirit, you know). Cool
> argument though, no matter what the response you can say "I told
> you so".

It wasn't really meant as an argument, more an expression of
opinion and frustration.

Thanks for noticing that it was non-falsifiable though. Your
observation provided me with a wry chuckle. It's nice to see
Christians really _do_ understand that a non-falsifiable hypothesis
is worthless. Of course, they never apply that to their own faith,
but at least we know it's a just matter of mere inconsistency and not
ignorance. (And yes, I am damning with faint praise.)

I found a really good example of this on the web yesterday. An
article by Bob Passantino, titled "Fantasies, Legends, and Heroes:
What You Know May Not Be So and How To Tell The Difference". [1] In
it, Bob gives some excellent advice on evaluating claims about cults.
Unfortunately, he specifically exempts his own religion from such
examination by suggesting that Christian theology should serve as a
touchstone for all the rest.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

> I hope you have something more substantive than John R. Rice to base
> your anger on, however; I don't know of any Christian who hasn't
> been lobotomized who doesn't find his writings ludacrist. The one
> bewailing us no longer stoning recalcitrant children is a lot more
> effective though.

What you're talking about is my signature file, and didn't really
have anything to do with the opinions expressed in the post. I use
that quote because it has personal significance and irony, not
because it is particularly damning example of Christian thought.

jason
r.m.c resident atheist

[1] http://www.power.net/users/aia/Apologetics/Fantasy.html

Sean Armster

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

On 25 Jan 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:

> > love us.. and means the best for us.. how or why or when or where
> > that will come about from all this suffering and evil on the Earth
> > is anybody's guess but God's.. it's what makes trusting him a true
> > and almost heroic act of faith,

I'm afraid that Matt seems to have fallen into the sinkhole
of blind faith. God is neither so cruel nor so unloving of His
creatures that He does not give them some collateral upon which to
base their trust. Recall that each of the great persons in scripture
based their faith upon the fact that God had appeared to them before,
had extended His kindness (and also justice) to them before.

>
> Do you have any idea what this looks like?
>
> "Honey, why are you staying with that abusive husband?"
> "He loves me!"
> "But he beats you! Look, you're black and blue!"
> "Yes, but he loves me!"
> "How do you know that?"
> "He tells me he loves me."
> "Why would he cause you such pain if he loves you?"
> "I don't know. It's beyond my understanding. I trust him."
> "Why do you trust him?"
> "Because he told me to. I have to have faith."
> "Why?"
> "Because if I don't, I won't have anything to live for."

Or, one could see it like this. In this twisted and
psychotic world laden with the greed and self-righteousness
of men who think nothing of playing god over others, perhaps
the only thing that keeps civilization from sliding headlong
into oblivion is God's demonstrated _intent_ to save mankind
from eating himself alive. The person who insists on having
"blind faith" in a world that has done nothing but disappoint
is countered by the call of Christ, who implores "Come to
me, and I will give thee rest, for my yoke is easy, my
burden light" . Yes; why trust the philosophers and the
scientists to deliver the promised jewel of the Enlightenment:
a changed human nature, the improvement of the self, when
people seem to become more and more self-destructive
as we go into the next century ? Not that science and
philosophy are useless (you have to be able to think critically
before you can do theology), but that perhaps they are being
brought to bear upon problems that they were never meant to
solve.

And beyond any other considerations, we're quite justified in
seeing it either way.

>
> What can you say? What can a person outside of an abusive relationship,
> do to convince the victims inside of it that the logic doesn't work?
>

My query exactly. Man tends not to see the goodness of God
for several reasons, the chief being that he is usually so infatuated
with himself and his own accomplishments as to disregard any
other consideration.

> You can't. But every once in a great while you see someone who
> _almost_ gets it, but not quite. And it fills me with rage and
> frustration, because they're SO FUCKING CLOSE. Worse, if you try to
> point out the flaws, they'll rush to defend their abuser, making it
> all the less likely that they'll ever take that final step.
>

And, who gave you the right to insist upon the persuasion
of every other free agent to _your_ point of view ? If you value
personal freedom for yourself as much as you imply, you might
try granting the same to others who are quite capable of coming
to their own conclusions on the matter. I hate to say it, but,
I'm afraid that your arrogance on the matter is insufferable.

Is this what drives your vehement disgust with God ? It
doesn't sound like you have any particular row against any one
here.

SandalSurfer ><>

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

Matthias Watkins <mwat...@barney.gonzaga.edu> wrote:
> >
> > "Honey, why are you staying with that abusive husband?"
>

> Also, surely there must be a better analogy than this. You're an
> athiest right? You wouldn't believe that the abusive husband
> existed. Wouldn't a better one be something like.. a woman is
> drowning because a flood has carried her house away and she can't
> swim.. the objective observer (you) can see that this is merely a
> tragic situation with no discernable cause, but the woman maintains
> that her husband caused it.. and that he had a good reason for
> doing so and trusted him to know best.. this said as various pieces
> of flotsam batter her and she goes under every once in a while..
> all the while.. you know that she was never married..

That's fairly good. What I was trying to capture is that Christians
are debasing themselves, worshipping a God that may or may not exist.
If he doesn't, then there's no reason to do so. If he does, by all
moral standards, he's evil, and you're worshipping that evil and
calling it "good".

And yes, I saw your post saying that God does not have to follow his
own standards. If that's the case, the next question is, "So how do
you tell the difference between an evil god and a good god?" What
standard DO you judge god(s) by? Might? Should we worship God just
because he's all-powerful?

> The point of all this is, what exactly do you believe? Is science
> the answer?

It depends upon your question.

> Or, in the spirit of postmoderism, have you rejected that last
> bastion of reason too? What are the athiests saying nowadays?

Atheists are saying all sorts of things. The only thing we have
in common is a disbelief in gods. To assume that there's one atheistic
outlook is as silly as assuming there's only one form of theism.

For that reason, all of my answers will be my own. Other atheists
may, no, WILL disagree with me.

> I am not being sarcastic but merely innately curious. Sartre and
> Neitzche both acknowledged that the non-existence of God has dire
> and unavoidable consequences. I belive Sartre called is the
> forlorness (or maybe despair) of existentialism.

I agree. It's always easier to believe a pleasant fairy tale than
to face reality head-on. We must always remember that the way a
statement makes us feel has nothing to do with its truth or falsehood.

> On the other hand, with God not cluttering up our perception, we
> are completely free to create ourselves, right?

Completely? No. I'm not free to create myself as a being that can
fly unassisted. If I take a header off the top of the Bank of
America building, I will hit the ground at some 120-180mph, regardless
of how I've "created" myself.

But within certain limits, we are free. What's more, without a God
cluttering our perception, we are free to explore those limits, to
find out what they _really_ are, and to find ways around them if
they exist. (ie. Hang gliders and parachutes!)

> Frankl said that the Will to Meaning is the fundamental drive in
> the human soul. So, is there meaning without God?

Sure.

> And if so, is that meaning subjective or objective?

Meaning, by definition, is subjective. It is an idea. Ideas exist
only in the mind. Minds differ. Now, Christians like to believe
that God has a meaning for them, but even that meaning (if it existed)
would just be _God's_ subjective meaning, and would not exist as
a thing in and of itself outside his mind.

> Is it different for every person?

It could be. Practically speaking, some people do share the same idea
of meaning. Can't be avoided in a population of 5 billion +.

> Does humanity have a uniting purpose? What does it mean to be a
> human being? (I wish with all my heart that I knew the answer to
> this one.)

At the lowest level, our bodies are adapted to the singular task
of passing our genes on to the next generation. The only universal
purpose is to survive and reproduce. And that is what we will
do. In the meantime, we have a few years to fill.

How we fill it, what meaning we wish to assign to our transient
state, is completely up to us. What meaning do _you_ want?

> Is theological literature in vain or is it part of the attempt of
> man to find meaning in this seeming meaninglessness?

In my opinion, the latter.

It's a perfectly legitimate pursuit, too. I'm just opposed to it
when it concludes that man is worthless and needs to waste his
precious time worshipping a non-existant and (if he were to exist)
amoral god.

> What exactly is truth?

Ideas which do not contradict reality.

> I don't really have any answers either, and the ones I think I have
> are invaribly proved wrong.

I can tell you from experience that it's not difficult to discover
truth, as long as you don't have to make the truths you find conform
to some theology.

In fact, much of theology is little more than an effort to reconcile
the truth with religious beliefs. (ie. The problem of evil, which
spawned this whole thing, is the problem of reconciling the existance
of pain with the existance of a loving god. Once you eliminate the
a priori belief in a loving god, the problem goes away. Pain by
itself is just truth, and you don't need to explain the truth, just
deal with it.)

> Alfred North Wihtehead said it all came down to this: you can
> either believe that the universe has order or that it doesn't. If
> you choose the former, than God must exist in some form.

Alfred North Whitehead was an idiot. Behind his statement is the
assumption that the thing that we know as order (and I'd appreciate
it if you'd provide a definition for order) can only come from
consciousness. He merely restated the argument from design, which is
fallacious precisely because of that assumption.

> Teilhard de Chardin speculated that evolution was the process of
> God gaining awareness. (Very interesting, but in my opinion wrong.)

Not if you believe Valentine Michael Smith's assertion that "Thou
art God!" ;)

It's certainly true that the idea of god didn't exist until we evolved
enough of a consciousness for our minds to hold ideas. If you believe
that god _is_ nothing more than an idea, then de Chardin was correct.

> Anyway, I'm rambling, and I'm not meaning to say that I have any of
> these answers merely because I believe in God. But, I was just
> interested in how an athiest approaches them.

Now ya know.

jason
r.m.c resident atheist

Shell

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

Matthias Watkins wrote:

> The point of all this is, what exactly do you believe? Is science

> the answer? Or, in the spirit of postmoderism, have you rejected that last

> bastion of reason too? What are the athiests saying nowadays?

(massive, major snip of Sarte, Whitehead and more)

God knows. (hey, a little joke, okay?)

To take your questions seriously: I believe what I must. I believe that
my next breath will not poison me. I think there's some reason to
believe the tentative conclusions the scientific method has led us to,
regarding our world. Beyond that everything becomes...ah, problematic.
Meaning? What is that, exactly? Do you seek certainty? Do you seek some
larger purpose for existence? Why is that necessary? Can you not leave
these things as food for speculation, but basically insoluble at the
present time? Why must you have some CERTAIN, GIVEN meaning, some
overarching significance to your life and human existence? I think we
can have some opinion on these points, but to insist on once-for-all
God-given certainty is...childish.

We live in a human society, and like it or not we measure all by our
human measure. We would like some larger entity to say "yes, this is so"
but we have no real evidence to think this is the case. Except for our
wishes, and wishes ain't evidence.

It's not pretty. It's not final. And it gives us no real answers. But we
can work with it if we're strong. And we need not despair. I don't.

> peace
> matt

Back atcha.
Shell
--
Either this wallpaper goes or I do.
-Last words of Oscar Wilde

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

Sean Armster <arm...@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
> On 25 Jan 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:
>
> Or, one could see it like this. In this twisted and psychotic world

> laden with the greed and self-righteousness men who think nothing
> of playing god over others, perhaps only thing that keeps

> civilization from sliding headlong into oblivion is God's
> demonstrated _intent_ to save mankind from eating himself alive.

Speculation and assertion. Do you have anything to back it up with?
Or is this another example of wishful thinking?

> The person who insists on having blind faith" in a world that has
> done nothing but disappoint is countered by the call of Christ, who
> implores "Come to me, and I will give thee rest, for my yoke is
> easy, my burden light" .

Yes. Reality is harsh, and religion promises ease and rest if you
only wish hard enough. But the universe does not respect our wishes.

> Yes; why trust the philosophers and the scientists to deliver the
> promised jewel of the Enlightenment: a changed human nature, the
> improvement of the self,

Dunno, about you, but my philosophy is more about working within
human nature, not changing it. Fortunately, there is room for
improvement within that nature.

> when people seem to become more and more self-destructive as we go

> into the next century? Not that science and philosophy are useless

> (you have to be able to think critically before you can do
> theology), but that perhaps they are being brought to bear upon
> problems that they were never meant to solve.

Again, you're engaging in sheer speculation. Who does the meaning that
you refer to?

> And beyond any other considerations, we're quite justified in
> seeing it either way.

You _may_ see it either way, but as I've said before, the universe
remains singularly unimpressed by our wishes and views. If your
view contradicts reality, guess which one will win? If we wish to
better our lives, it's a good idea to find out what reality actually
_is_, not what we wish it to be.

> > You can't. But every once in a great while you see someone who
> > _almost_ gets it, but not quite. And it fills me with rage and
> > frustration, because they're SO FUCKING CLOSE. Worse, if you try
> > to point out the flaws, they'll rush to defend their abuser,
> > making it all the less likely that they'll ever take that final
> > step.
>
> And, who gave you the right to insist upon the persuasion
> of every other free agent to _your_ point of view ? If you value
> personal freedom for yourself as much as you imply, you might
> try granting the same to others who are quite capable of coming
> to their own conclusions on the matter. I hate to say it, but,
> I'm afraid that your arrogance on the matter is insufferable.

People _may_ do anything they please. They can even engage in self-
destructive acts if they like. However, as a social animal, I have a
measure of sympathy for people who engage in those acts. Although
I'm willing respect their freedom to do so, it still makes me feel
bad to watch it happen.

As a social animal, I'm also aware that certain ideas and the acts
they inspire are destructive of others as well as those who hold
them. Those I am completely opposed to, because they represent a
threat to myself and the society I live in. A philosophy of ignorance
and the debasement of humanity before an evil God fits this category.

> Is this what drives your vehement disgust with God ? It
> doesn't sound like you have any particular row against any one
> here.

You're right. I don't particularly dislike anyone in r.m.c. I do
greatly dislike some of the ideas they hold, and the reasons are
explained above.

Matthias Watkins

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

> > is anybody's guess but God's.. it's what makes trusting him a true
> > and almost heroic act of faith,

> Do you have any idea what this looks like?

> "Honey, why are you staying with that abusive husband?"

> "He loves me!"
> "But he beats you! Look, you're black and blue!"
> "Yes, but he loves me!"
> "How do you know that?"
> "He tells me he loves me."
> "Why would he cause you such pain if he loves you?"
> "I don't know. It's beyond my understanding. I trust him."
> "Why do you trust him?"
> "Because he told me to. I have to have faith."
> "Why?"
> "Because if I don't, I won't have anything to live for."

> What can you say? What can a person outside of an abusive relationship,

> do to convince the victims inside of it that the logic doesn't work?

> You can't. But every once in a great while you see someone who

> _almost_ gets it, but not quite. And it fills me with rage and
> frustration, because they're SO FUCKING CLOSE. Worse, if you try to
> point out the flaws, they'll rush to defend their abuser, making it
> all the less likely that they'll ever take that final step.

> To that end, this post is probably counter productive. But sometimes

> you just have to let it out.

OK.. I know you're right and it sounds absolutely ridiculous to an
athiest.. and anything I say is just gonna sound like whinig justification
(but God loves us.. we just have to trust him).. but I can't say anything
else.. I won't take the wimpy way out.. GOD himself condemns people to
Hell.. yes yes yes.. it's ridiculous to say that we as humans do that.. we
could never have such power.. I also don't believe in "free will" as
such.. if God is God.. and if I beieve he has a plan for the world.. than
how can I have free will.. what if I made a choice counter to God's plan..
damn.. I would've destroyed the whole cosmic order.. whoops.. therefore
all evil and all good and all suffering and all joy are caused by and
sanctioned by God.. I say this so that you can see that I'm not wimping
out and saying it's all our fault (whine whine whine).. no way.. God is in
control.. but.. again this will make absolutely and completely no sense to
you at all.. I trust God to know what he's doing.. I believe that the
world has a purpose.. I can in no way justify God's methods to myself or
anyone.. but really.. he is God.. how could I presume to justify his
actions anyway.. he is beyond my understanding.. I know this is the
truth.. and I trust him.. and I DO believe that he loves me and wants the
best for me.. that's all I can say.. the Bible says that this belief only
comes to people that God chooses.. because HE/IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO HUMAN
SENSE.. we could never see/believe unless he made us... but anyway.. I've
reambled about this forever.. and I can tell you're either laughing or
shaking your head in disgust.. also,
About the law.. I've seen this in a few posts and I'd like to add
my two cents... GOD is not account able to his own law.. that is
ridiculous too.. he created the law for US.. in effect, the law is simply
a methodology that describes the best way to live well as an individual
in human society.. we would be best off if we always followed the law..
this makes sense because God wanted it to make sense.. don't murder
because it's bad for society.. don't commit adultry because of the risks
of disease/unwanted children that come from this.. don't steal because
that again is bad for society.. etc.. it makes sense.. and secular
philosphers came to the same conclusions when formulating their own laws..
when seen in this way, the issue of right/wrong becomes good for me/bad
for me.. so you can see how it's ridiculous that God would hold himself
accountable to these laws.. anyway..
I'm still searching.. still seeking.. and everytime I think I
understand God or what he means for us, he yanks out the rug from
underneath me so to speak.. in fact the more I learn.. the less I know
about God.. and.. interestingly enough.. the more I trust him.. an
interesting seeming paradox..

peace
matt

"some say that doubt's disappointing
but i say, 'to question is to understand'"
--Grammatrain

Matthias Watkins

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

> "Honey, why are you staying with that abusive husband?"
> "He loves me!"
> "But he beats you! Look, you're black and blue!"
> "Yes, but he loves me!"
> "How do you know that?"
> "He tells me he loves me."
> "Why would he cause you such pain if he loves you?"
> "I don't know. It's beyond my understanding. I trust him."
> "Why do you trust him?"
> "Because he told me to. I have to have faith."
> "Why?"
> "Because if I don't, I won't have anything to live for."

Also, surely there must be a better analogy than this. You're an athiest

right? You wouldn't believe that the abusive husband existed. Wouldn't a
better one be something like.. a woman is drowning because a flood has
carried her house away and she can't swim.. the objective observer (you)
can see that this is merely a tragic situation with no discernable cause,
but the woman maintains that her husband caused it.. and that he had a
good reason for doing so and trusted him to know best.. this said as
various pieces of flotsam batter her and she goes under every once in a
while.. all the while.. you know that she was never married..

Something like that.. you get the picture. Anyway it was very
clever to use the woman/husband analogy (Christ/the Church). I wish I was
that smart.

The point of all this is, what exactly do you believe? Is science
the answer? Or, in the spirit of postmoderism, have you rejected that last

bastion of reason too? What are the athiests saying nowadays? I am not

being sarcastic but merely innately curious. Sartre and Neitzche both
acknowledged that the non-existence of God has dire and unavoidable

consequences. I belive Sartre called is the formlorness (or maybe despair)
of existentialism. On the other hand, with God not cluttering up our
perception, we are completely free to create ourselves, right? Frankl said

that the Will to Meaning is the fundamental drive in the human soul. So,

is there meaning without God? And if so, is that meaning subjective or
objective? Is it different for every person? Does humanity have a uniting

purpose? What does it mean to be a human being? (I wish with all my heart

that I knew the answer to this one.) Is theological literature in vain or

is it part of the attempt of man to find meaning in this seeming

meaninglessness? What exactly is truth? I don't really have any answers
either, and the ones I think I have are invaribly proved wrong. Alfred

North Wihtehead said it all came down to this: you can either believe that
the universe has order or that it doesn't. If you choose the former, than

God must exist in some form. Teilhard de Chardin speculated that evolution

was the process of God gaining awareness. (Very interesting, but in my

opinion wrong.) Anyway, I'm rambling, and I'm not meaning to say that I

have any of these answers merely because I believe in God. But, I was just
interested in how an athiest approaches them.

peace
matt

Matthias Watkins

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

@taurus.oac.uci.edu>:
Distribution:

> I'm afraid that Matt seems to have fallen into the sinkhole
> of blind faith. God is neither so cruel nor so unloving of His
> creatures that He does not give them some collateral upon which to
> base their trust. Recall that each of the great persons in scripture
> based their faith upon the fact that God had appeared to them before,
> had extended His kindness (and also justice) to them before.

I'm sorry.. maybe I said it wrong.. I really am not into believing
something because it's there.. first of all I have the Bible.. which is
pretty convincing in itself.. second I've seen plenty to convince me that
God does really exist.. if seen people.. friends.. who were completely out
of control changed completely almost instantaneously.. also.. the message
that the Bible preaches: love, love, love, makes intellectual sense to
me.. as does the fact that life and humanity is completely meaningless
without God.. I really don't just trust blindly.. I'm known among my
friends as The Skeptic.. so just wanted to clear that up,

peace
matt

stufnten

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

On 27 Jan 1997, Matthias Watkins wrote:

> The point of all this is, what exactly do you believe? Is science
> the answer? Or, in the spirit of postmoderism, have you rejected that last
> bastion of reason too? What are the athiests saying nowadays? I am not
> being sarcastic but merely innately curious. Sartre and Neitzche both
> acknowledged that the non-existence of God has dire and unavoidable
> consequences.

Many people disagree with them on many points; I disagree with them on
some.

> I belive Sartre called is the formlorness (or maybe despair)
> of existentialism. On the other hand, with God not cluttering up our
> perception, we are completely free to create ourselves, right? Frankl said
> that the Will to Meaning is the fundamental drive in the human soul. So,
> is there meaning without God? And if so, is that meaning subjective or
> objective? Is it different for every person? Does humanity have a uniting
> purpose?

There is no Big M Meaning. If you feel a spiritual void in that area, give
life a small m meaning of your own.

> What does it mean to be a human being? (I wish with all my heart
> that I knew the answer to this one.)

Look in the mirror. That's about the whole of it.

> Is theological literature in vain or
> is it part of the attempt of man to find meaning in this seeming
> meaninglessness?

Not in vain. The latter.

Um, just checking, but you do refer to religious teachings as opposed to
resulting philosophical discussion, correct? Well, if so, then it results
from the latter bit of you statement, in part. The other part arises from
a social 'need' for a self-preserving moral code. Well, not so much need
as requirement for survival. A society without a belief that murder or
lying (for example) was wrong would quickly deteriorate.

A concept like the christian one that not believing in god is wrong arises
from the realization that this would persuade others to prescribe to the
moral code, thus preserving the society as a whole.

> What exactly is truth?

I hate epistemology.

> Alfred
> North Wihtehead said it all came down to this: you can either believe that
> the universe has order or that it doesn't. If you choose the former, than
> God must exist in some form.

I here revert to the catchall non sequitur....

At any rate, the issue of order/chaos is not important in my mind.

Teilhard de Chardin speculated that evolution
> was the process of God gaining awareness. (Very interesting, but in my
> opinion wrong.) Anyway, I'm rambling, and I'm not meaning to say that I
> have any of these answers merely because I believe in God. But, I was just
> interested in how an athiest approaches them.

Well I'm an atheist and that's how I approach them. Others are likely to
differ.

stufnten, Toby
***
reason is, and ought to be, the servant of the passions -Hume
http://members.tripod.com/~Tesseract

GreyAngel

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

In article <01bc0b58$300b3640$d90337a6@MarkD_Sadler>, "Mark" <mdsa...@juno.com> wrote:

Because the god of "love" only loves himself =)

David Rutledge

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

In article <32EB88...@this.address>, Celeborn <NoS...@this.address> wrote:
>David Rutledge wrote:

>> >> So, if you were wondering how a loving God could send man to hell, now you
>> >> know that he doesn't.
>> >
>> >Just like if I hold a gun to your head and you refuse
>> >to give me your wallet it is your fault I must shoot
>> >you. It is your decision.
>> >
>>
>> No. Its more like God created this big gun, and all of humanity is standing
>> in front if it out of choice and/or ignorance. God says, "Hey. This gun is
>> going to go off, and I can't move it. Please step aside". Everybody hears
>> it, but as humans it kind of feels intoxicating to be standing there in the
>> face of danger, so most people stay. Others, knowing that they will
> otherwise
>> die and that there's a lot more interesting stuff to do, move out of the way.
>
>I fail to see the difference- a threat is a threat is a threat. Simply
>because it's pre-prepared doesn't somehow excuse the user.
>
>(In fact, similar cases have been tried in court, where someone set
>traps- say, a shotgun on a string - for intruders in their own homes.
>The decision- 'homicide.')

It is not a THREAT!!! That's my whole point! You've got the stove on because
you must cook food. You tell a little kid not to touch the stove because it's
hot. He touches the stove and burns his hand badly. Were you threatening the
child by telling him what not to do?

>> It is entirely possible that I'm wrong in my ideas about heaven and hell.
>> That's why I said, "I believe" at the beginning of that paragraph. What
>> anybody believes is just opinion. So you're gonna hand me that line about
>> Christians being hypocrites, right? Oh, and I suppose you started reading my
>> original post ready to change your beliefs if what I wrote made sense to you?
>
>I don't know about anyone else, but my beliefs are subject to
>modification if I find problems with it, or someone else can present
>something better.

I agree totally, and I'm glad you're open to new ideas. So am I.

>> You probably read the first paragraph and started figuring out how you could
>> try to tear it apart, regardless of what I had to say.
>
>No, the whole thing was read (regardless of much content-free noise).
>But looking for fundamental problems in a new thesis should be the first
>thing one does- or do you reccomend accepting everything one hears at
>face value?

Once again, I'm glad to know where you stand. There's no point in arguing
with a closed minded fool. I see that you aren't one.

>> God made the laws. He made them and now He follows them. A true judge
>> doesn't bend the law for anyone.
>
>Glad you brought up this point. It's been pointed out that the
>Judeo-Christian God DOESN'T follow his own rules- the genocide example,
>for instance. This is THE basic problem with your diatribe, and the main
>thrust of this thread- this diety of yours is on a lower moral plane
>than many humans- even me, and I'm hardly a paragon. Why, then, do you
>insist on trumpeting how 'good' he is?

Until you understand what I am trying to say about God being pure, perfect,
goodness we are going to go around in circles. Please understand that in
order to hold the view of a Christian, I have to make 2 assumptions in your
view:
1. The God of Christianity is the one true God.
2. The Bible is the infallible word of God.

You seem to think that I need to throw these beliefs out. That would
DRASTICALLY help your opinion in this argument, because I would cease to be a
Christian in my arguments.

So, IF God is the one true God, and IF the Bible is the infallible word of
God, then God IS morality, and cannot have a lower moral standard than his
creation. The idea of God's creation being higher than He is could only come
out of human arrogance.

>> God is the judge. We are His children.
>> Much to His dismay we show up our father's court room with charges against
> us.
>> For every crime there is only one penalty: death. The price for the crime
>> has to be paid. For those of us who are sorry for our crimes and have asked
>> for His help, Jesus steps in and says, "I speak for this person. I will die
>> in his place."
>
>How is that again? I seem to have missed just why it was neccessary in
>the first place, or why someone else could be held responsible for our
>actions (scapegoating), or even why so many innocents are lumped in with
>people who might be lacking in the moarls department.
>
>While we're on it- what is one (relatively quick) death compared to the
>billions that have followed?

By a relatively quick death I suppose you mean Jesus' crucifixion? So I am to
believe that given a list of possible means of death, crucifixion is
relatively low on the scale of drawn out agony and torture? Correct?

Jesus is the only viable "scapegoat" (as you call it) that has ever walked the
Earth, since He was God who had "cast aside his divine attributes" in order to
come and be a perfect sacrifice for us? ONLY Christ could stand in our place,
because He is the only innocent being ever. Who are you referring to as
"innocents" that are lumped in with people who lack morals?

>> >I do appreciate you admitting that right and wrong are
>> >completely subjective to your god - and thus also to
>> >you.
>> >
>> >I trust you will never make allusions to anyone else's
>> >"situational ethics?" Your god doesn't like hypocrisy.
>> >
>>
>> I think you know that this is not what I said,
>
>You said:
>
>> > > God can't be wrong, because he made the rules.

Exactly my point. I didn't say that he could change the rules, which is what
you implied.

>The only way this wouldn't be situational is if the diety you are
>describing here was the ultimate paragon of virtue. We've already shown
>that to be false.

You have not "shown that to be false". You have ASSUMED that to be false in
an attempt to invalidate my points. Your assumptions stated as fact about my
Bible and God are just as valid as saying, "Wrong!!" with no explanation
whatsoever as to why. Please refer to point 1 of my manditorily assumed
beliefs stated earlier in this post.

>> What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.
>
>Who decides? I'd take Ghandi before Jehovah.

And that is your free decision. But the Bible says that what is not for God
is against God, and I must point this out as part of my assumed beliefs as a
Christian. Besides, I do believe it.

>>All I said
>> was that God made the rules, so we have no right to question them.
>

>....and this is the problem I've got with the mainstream Christian ethic.

>What happened to Free Will? I've heard it bandied about by Xtian
>Apologists everywhere, but it apparently is functionally equivilent to
>voting in China- 'Make a choice- but MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE or else!'

FLAWED ANALOGY ALERT!
SITUATION: China says, "Make the right choice."
FLAW: China is a communist country. China's right choice is wrong. China is
not infallible. China has no right to say what is right and what is wrong.
CONCLUSION: China is not God.

>Of course we have the right to question laws that are imposed on us!
>Every thinking being does! Have you no self-respect? Sorry-too many of
>us do.

Of COURSE you have the right to question the laws imposed on you. You are
proving that right now. I should have said, we have no REASON to question the
laws of God, because he is God and what he says is right is right. But he
gives us the ability to jump off the cliff rather than stay on the path.

>Genocide is never acceptable- there is no way in hell that cold-blooded
>murder of innocents can be- in any way- construed as 'moral' when the
>protagonist is somehow supposed to be omnipotent.
>

I'd like you to point out this "murder of innocents" you keep talking about,
because I'm sure you have a particular account in mind.

Please understand that the Bible is not just a religious text, it is a
historical account. Just because something took place and is listed in the
Bible doesn't mean that God condones it. Just because King David committed
adultery and had her wife killed doesn't mean that that's a good thing to do.
Nothing is glossed over in the Bible. The facts are stated. Take'em or
leave'em. I know you choose to leave them, so it is unneccessary for you to
point that out in your next post.

>> Are you trying to make God conform to our made up morals as humans?
>
>Yes- the same ones many imperfect humans can do a very good job of
>following- and he's not even up to that.
>

There you go again. Thinking that a human can be better than his creator.
Your arrogance is astounding.

>> >Really! Then explain this BIG difference to us, oh wise
>> >one.
>>
>> I knew somebody would ask. I don't see a wise one here,
>
>Neither do I.

Oh, that's intellectual of you. I assume you are just in your statement, oh
wise one.

>What is that hell thing, then, if not coercion? Why is it even mentioned
>as 'the wages of sin?'

Let me quote that whole verse for you:
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through
Jesus Christ our lord."
Hell is not mentioned as "the wages of sin". Death is. And as a fact, we all
die. Hell is the destination of unrepentant souls. No one can escape the
wages of sin, but we can escape hell.

>I'm sorry, Dave, but the threat of eternal pain for making the wrong
>decision is completely incompatible with the concept of 'free will,' or
>even your concept of love, by nature, not being forced.

The Bible says that we are not free. That we are either "slaves to sin" or
"slaves to righteousness". I choose righteousness. You choose sin. But we
are both struggling to better ourselves, and that's a start.

>Sorry.

Appology accepted. :)

David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com)

David Rutledge

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970126...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>, steve

eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, David Rutledge wrote:

>> No. Its more like God created this big gun, and all of humanity is standing
>> in front if it out of choice and/or ignorance. God says, "Hey. This gun is
>> going to go off, and I can't move it.
>
>I thought god was powerful enough to do whatever he wanted. You're
>telling me that he couldn't disable the gun?
>

Wrong. There are several things God cannot do. He cannot hate what is good.
He cannot be evil. Whoever said God can do whatever he wants doesn't
understand that being able to do everything would make you either a neutral
party or a double agent. God is love. God is purity. So there are lots of
things he can't do, and he wouldn't want to do them anyway.

I suppose he could disable the proverbial gun, but then there wouldn't be a
choice for us to make, now would there? You would be doing his will because
you had no choice. Would you like that?

>>Please step aside". Everybody hears
>> it, but as humans it kind of feels intoxicating to be standing there in the
>> face of danger, so most people stay. Others, knowing that they will
>>otherwise
>> die and that there's a lot more interesting stuff to do,
>
>Like live in a place with no differing opinions and no change and kissing
>god's feet all day. Sounds interesting to me.

How about like living in a place where all of the things you have gone through
on this world finally make some sense?

>My rebuttals are usually aimed at the character of your god.

Fine. Well this one was aimed at me, so your statement is irrelevant.

>> Hmmmm... I didn't realize that I made up or interpreted the plan of salvation
>> that God laid out in black and white over and over in the Bible. I'm
>>sorry if
>> it appeared that way. Here. Let me just give some straight scripture so my
>> personal opinion won't be getting in the way:
>> "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal
>> power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what
>> has been made, so that men are without excuse." -- Romans 1:20
>> "But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing
>> up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous
>> judgment will be revealed." -- Romans 2:5
>
>But you're assuming that the bible is correct. What gives you the right
>to do that?

Ha! And you're assuming that the Bible is incorrect. What gives you the
right to do that? For the sake of this argument, you must allow me to assume
that it is correct, and I must allow you to assume that it isn't. All points
arguing in contradiction to these facts are inadmissible in an argument.

>> That's just a couple of relevant scriptures that were on the page I opened my
>> Bible up to, believe it or not. Take them at face value. I make no
>> commentary on them.

>My commentary is that they're just one more ancient myth just like
>thousands of other ancient myths.

Yeah, like the Egyptian myth that the sun is a flaming ball of dung that is
rolled across the sky by a giant scarab beetle. There are lots of stories in
the Bible that are just as transparent as that, huh?

Interesting to note. It's too bad, however that that statement holds
absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand...you're just taking stabs
in the dark now...

>>Oh, and I suppose you started reading my
>> original post ready to change your beliefs if what I wrote made sense
>>to you?
>> You probably read the first paragraph and started figuring out how you could
>> try to tear it apart, regardless of what I had to say.
>
>What you had to say wasn't exactly original. It's been torn apart before
>and it will be torn apart again.

>Have you ever read the Bhagavad-Gita? How about the Book of Law? Have
>you read any religious texts other than your precious bible? If you
>have, were you prepared to change your beliefs if they made sense? I
>doubt it. (By the way, they both claim to be inspired by god too.)

I'll admit that I haven't read those texts, but I have studied the Bible
enough to know that if there was anything in it that didn't hold up that I
wouldn't be able to continue to believe in its validity. I would like to know
more about the texts you mentioned. Do either or both of them include these
important religious facts:

1. Man is incapable of deserving salvation from eternal damnation?
2. God becoming a man and giving his own life for us?
3. Man being incapable of EARNING salvation from eternal damnation?
4. No ridiculous stories about things like the aforementioned celestial dung
beetle used to explain natural phenomenon?

>
>What about the works of Stephen Hawking or Carl Sagan? Would you change
>your beliefs if their theories make sense?

I'm familliar with their works. Stephen Hawking is a genius in his own right
in his theories about astronomical phenomenon, and Carl Sagan (RIP) has proved
to be a decent sci-fi writer and the chief proponent for the understanding and
appreciation of Astronomy among the mainstream American populous in the 1980s.
I also loved the Cosmos series, by the way.

I'd like to point out that I believe in the Big Bang Theory. In fact, every
fact that science has discovered about the creation of the universe fits in
perfectly with the illustration of it in Genesis. As long as you don't leave
God out of the equation, evolution even makes sense. Show me another religion
that has a Creation myth that fits so well. That wasn't meant to be a stab.
If one exists, I'd really like to know.

>> God made the laws. He made them and now He follows them.
>
>I thought killing was against the rules. Isn't he going to personally
>slaughter everyone who doesn't kiss his feet? I thought there was a rule
>about giving without expecting anything in return. Does god follow that?

No, killing isn't against the rules. MURDER is against the rules. Killing
can be justified, like capitol punishment. Murder is killing a blameless
person for selfish gain. God is incapable of murder. Yes, God does give
without expecting anything in return. For example, you're heart is pumping
and your lungs breathe in and out and you openly hate God. All of our lives
are a gift from him.

>>A true judge
>> doesn't bend the law for anyone. God is the judge. We are His children.
>> Much to His dismay we show up our father's court room with charges
>>against us.
>> For every crime there is only one penalty: death.
>
>Why did god make it that way? If he's truly just, he would come up with
>some way to make things a bit less murderous. Do you think that a
>five-year-old who steals a pack of gum from a candy store should get the
>death penalty? I didn't think so. Sounds a bit insane, doesn't it?

First of all, no one is innocent. Secondly, a five year old child that steals
a pack of gum doesn't know better, and has not come to the age of
accountability. If he died he would not go to hell. His brain isn't
developed enough to understand the things of God. When a little kid decides
he wants to become a Christian it is usually because he has heard of hell and
is afraid. Eventually he realizes that fear of hell is not the reason to
believe, but the love of God is. He created us and we owe him everything.

>>The price for the crime
>> has to be paid.
>
>Penalties are supposed to be paid by the criminals, not anyone else.

Once again, a human idea cited as a characteristic of God.

>>For those of us who are sorry for our crimes and have asked
>> for His help, Jesus steps in and says, "I speak for this person. I will die
>> in his place."
>
>That's really not fair either. You said yourself that people have to pay
>for their sins. Letting someone else pay for you just isn't the same
>thing.

"The wages of sin is death". We still have to die. We just don't have to go
to hell for it.

>Anyway, since jesus is a deity who can't really die, how is his temporary
>death payment for anything?

Jesus "set aside his divine attributes". He gave all that up and became a
man. He died. He was totally separated from God at the time of His death
because every sin ever committed and that would be committed were on His head
and God can not look on sin. All of our sins died with Him. The gift of
forgiveness has already been given. But we can refuse this gift.

>> What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.
>
>That's what I love about christians. They're so bipolar, completely
>incapable of seeing the many shades of gray in every situation.

There is no gray. Catholics wanted to believe there was gray. That's where
purgatory came from. Gray is a cop out. Yin and Yang is a correct
interpretation. There are two opposing forces at work in the universe, and if
you're not for God you're against Him. "No one can serve two masters. You
must hate one and despise the other".

>>All I said
>> was that God made the rules, so we have no right to question them.
>
>Why not? Who put this guy in charge? What makes him so morally superior
>to us?

*snicker* Ha! Uhah!... ooohh... I'm sorry. That's got to be the single most
egotistical statement I have ever read. "Who put God in charge? What makes
him morally superior to his creations?" Oh man. My stomach hurts from
laughter. That's a funny one...

I did make a false statement, though. You have every right to question God's
rules. It's just stupid, that's all.

>> If God had
>> said that murder was good, then everyone in the world would know that murder
>> was good. But he didn't, and everybody knows deep inside of them that murder
>> is wrong.
>
>What I'm sure you meant to say was that ancient societies knew that
>murder was wrong, so they wrote stories in which god told them so to
>explain how they knew that.

Uh...yeah...sure...you figured me out. That's exactly what I meant (please
note the sarcasm, everybody). Come on! You mean to tell me that you don't
believe in your heart that murder is wrong? You don't think that the
conscience inside of us is a natural thing, but that it is put there by
society!?!

>> We cannot call God unjust.
>
>Why not? What makes him so just?

Ughh. This is getting old. Hello? If God is real, and I believe He is, then
He INVENTED justice! How then could he not be just?

>> God is justice incarnate.
>
>To be incarnate means to have a physical form, which god doesn't have.
>But what makes you say that god is justice incarnate? The fact that he
>doles out the death penalty for every crime?

To be incarnate means to be the most pure example of something in the sense
that I am using it and you know that. You've started knit-picking. God is
justice incarnate for the simple fact that he is incapable of being anything
else.

>>Are you
>> trying to make God conform to our made up morals as humans?
>
>Like not killing defenseless children and not throwing temper tantrums
>which end with the entire earth underwater? Then yes, I think he should
>conform to these rules.

God does not kill innocent children. A world saturated with sin kills
innocent children. And when God flooded the world he saved the only repentant
people from the flood. More of your arrogance again, trying to blame the bad
things that happen on God and to make Him conform to your standards.

>> >Really! Then explain this BIG difference to us, oh wise
>> >one.
>>
>> I knew somebody would ask. I don't see a wise one here,
>
>Me neither.

I'm rubber, you're glue... :)

>>so I'll try to
>> explain what the Bible says about it in the wise one's absence.
>> We humans like to be fair. Its a word we made up. It basically means
>>that if somebody is being good, we think they deserve good stuff, and if somebody is
>> being bad, they deserve bad things to happen to them.
>
>True. That's why I think Inquisitors and Conquistadors who gleefully
>murder as many people as they can should be punished, while Buddhist and
>Hindu monks who never hurt anyone in their life and happily do things for
>the people around them should be rewarded.
>
>Do you think Gandhi should go to hell?

You can't make group assumptions like that. First of all, the Spanish
Inquisition, while mostly a myth, was no more a Christian event than bombing
an abortion clinic. The Conquistadors conquered for gold under the guise of
religion. You don't know the heart every man. The Bible says that those
monks can be saved without knowledge of Christ. But bear in mind that they
are no more perfect that you or I. They are humans, and they are flawed.

>>But still, little kids
>>get raped and killed,
>
>At the hands of god, sometimes. Just look at the passover.

Those children were killed by their parent's disbelief. They were too young
to know what was happening. And, once again, you don't know each person's
heart.

>>and OJ Simpson kills 2 people (maybe) and gets away scott-free.
>> We don't understand. "How could this happen? What kind of God would allow
>> this!!!?!?!" we say. It's simple.
>
>> You already know that the reason we are given a choice between loving God or
>> ignoring Him is because love, by nature, cannot be forced.
>
>Going back to the gun analogy, if I hold a gun to your head and demand
>all your money, am I not sort of forcing you to give it to me?

If I turn on the stove to cook some food so my child can live, and I say,
"don't touch that stove, it's hot and will burn you", and he touches it
anyway, did I threaten him?

>> So we are allowed to do whatever we want. But since God allows this, He has to allow
>> bad things to happen to good people and good things to happen to bad people, because if
>> He didn't He would be witholding somebody's free will from them.
>
>What about good people who are killed in earthquakes and fires? How does
>this have anything to do with free will?

Wow! Almost a good point. You proved that there is more to the bad things
that happen on this earth other than God's allowance of our sin. But the fact
is the Bible doesn't say "all things work together for the good", as it is
often misquoted as saying. It says, "all things work together for the good of
those who love the Lord". So only a Christian is guaranteed to benefit from
disaster. The uncertainty of our lives from one day to the next is accepted
by all. That's no excuse. The pain of those occurrances can draw people
closer to one another and make people see the gravity of their own spiritual
situation.

>>In the same
>> way he has to allow bad thing to exist, because without the bad we
>>would never know what good was.
>
>This is a cop-out. The only reason it's like this is because of the way
>the world works. According to you, god created the earth. Couldn't he
>have created it so we'd know happiness when we see it?

No. No more than He could force us to love Him. Happiness is a subjective
trait. We are happy because of the absence of things that make us sad.

>> Without sadness we would never have joy.
>
>Then I imagine heaven would be one hell of a boring place after the first
>few minutes.

That's a pathetic argument. In heaven we will have the whole of our life
experience to think about and praise God for teaching us to love through all
of it. Life produces enough sadness to make us happy in heaven for all
eternity.

>>You know, Yin
>> and Yang. Order and Chaos. This is not a new idea.
>>
>> So, even though according to the law God has laid out He must send the
>> unrepentant to hell along with Satan and the demons, we as humans say
>>it isn't "fair".
>
>Damn right.

It wouldn't be fair if you couldn't get out of it so easily. You're a cynical
crybaby with delusions of persecution by the only being that you owe your
entire allegiance to for everything you enjoy in this life.

>>A confusion between justice and fairness is probably what started
>> this whole thread to begin with. LIFE IS SOMETIMES PAINFUL. But as a
>> Christian there is so much to learn from the bad things that happen on this
>> Earth that we can rejoice in it. Pain makes us stronger.
>
>Then I would imagine that the legions of hell would be a great deal
>stronger than the people in heaven.

I'm sure they have learned much through their pain. And they experience pain
all the more by realizing the error of their ways when they can do nothing
about it. It's a curse to learn from your pain when the pain isn't ever going
to stop...

>> "...for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of
>> trials. These have come so that your faith -- of greater worth than gold,
>> which perishes even though refined by fire -- may be proved genuine and may
>> result in praise, glory, and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed." -- 1 Peter
>> 1:6-7
>>
>> Please understand that I am not interested in proving you or anybody wrong.
>> I'm not trying to sound boastful or "Holier than Thou".
>
>Well, you are.

I am holier than thou? That would make sense, since you shun the very idea of
holyness. But I know that's not your point. You were just venting a little
more steam. That's good. Let it all out.

>> I'm just trying to
>> present the truth as I understand it.
>
>How do you know that this is the truth?

Uhhh... I do believe that I said "as I understand it", Steve. Not "as it is".
Try reading a little more carefully.

Andrew Clarke

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

All I really want to know is where He's sending all the women...might I
suggest San Diego?

Umm OK thanks for contributing, Andrew...

--
ancl...@calum.uwaterloo.ca
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/anclarke

stufnten

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, David Rutledge wrote:

> Wrong. There are several things God cannot do. He cannot hate what is good.
> He cannot be evil. Whoever said God can do whatever he wants doesn't
> understand that being able to do everything would make you either a neutral
> party or a double agent. God is love. God is purity. So there are lots of
> things he can't do, and he wouldn't want to do them anyway.
>
> I suppose he could disable the proverbial gun, but then there wouldn't be a
> choice for us to make, now would there? You would be doing his will because
> you had no choice. Would you like that?

Yes. I'd feel more comfortable following god if he said, "Now, here's what
I sincerely think would be best for you, no pressure you understand, but:
..." rather than, "Move or BOOM!"

John v

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

>> On 27 Jan 1997, Matthias Watkins wrote:
>> > What does it mean to be a human being?

<rich mullins>
"I cannot help but suspect that at one time in the history of thinking that
people believed that it meant that we were spiritual and that we could make
choices ane were capable of aspiring to higher ideals...like maybe loyalty
or maybe faith...or maybe even love. But now we are told by people who
think they know that we vary from amoeba only in the complexity of our
makeup and not in what we essentially are. They would have us think as
Dysart said that we are forever bound up in certain genetic reigns--that we
are merely products of the way things are and not free, not free to be the
people who make them that way. They would have us see ourselves as products
so that we could believe that we were something to be made--something to be
used and then something to be disposed of. Used in their wars--used for
thier gains and then set aside when we get in their way. Well who are they?
They are the few that sit at the top of the heap--dung heap though it
is--and who say it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven. Well
I do not know that we can have a heaven here on earth, but I am sure we
need not have a Hell here either.
What does it mean to be human? I cannot hep but believe that it means that
we are spiritual--that we are responsible and that we are free. That we are
responsible _to_ be free.
</rich mullins>

_________________________________________________________
Words are the source of misunderstanding - The Little Prince
_________________________________________________________

steve eric cisna

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Visual Purple wrote:

> Jason,
> That abusive husband analogy is pretty strange. But, on to bigger and better things
> (that's not a claim of superiority, it's a segue). I think what you're ignoring is
> that God is also the God of Justice. It would be against His nature to allow sin to
> enter Heaven.

Why? Why can't he just have sort of a "good enough" policy? It would
make people actually try harder to be good instead of just saying that
they're sorry after they do something wrong, which they always will.

Anyway, the point of sin entering the world was that God was giving us
> a chance to love Him, not just be mindless automatons chanting "God, God, God."

If this is the result of sin, and there is no sin in heaven, isn't this
what heaven is going to be like?

Steve

> You're an excellent illustration of this, although, you haven't taken the chance. And
> now, my argument, if God did not allow us to explore the possibilities of not loving
> Him, we could not love Him! If everything were blue, how would we know orange when we
> saw it? To us, it would just be another shade of blue. If God had not allowed Adam and
> Eve the choice to choose to sin, then they would have followed Him blindly, not out of
> love, but out of ignorance to the alternatives. The thing is, I love God and choose
> to obey Him because I know what it's like to hate/be apathetic to God and disobey Him.

But still, why should eating a piece of fruit be the worst thing a person
can do? Why is he such a perfectionist?

Steve

>
> 2 Peter 3:15
> <><
>
>

Celeborn

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

David Rutledge wrote:
>
> In article <32EB88...@this.address>, Celeborn <NoS...@this.address> wrote:
> >David Rutledge wrote:
>
> >> >> So, if you were wondering how a loving God could send man to hell, now you
> >> >> know that he doesn't.
> >> >
> >> >Just like if I hold a gun to your head and you refuse
> >> >to give me your wallet it is your fault I must shoot
> >> >you. It is your decision.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No. Its more like God created this big gun, and all of humanity is standing
> >> in front if it out of choice and/or ignorance. God says, "Hey. This gun is
> >> going to go off, and I can't move it. Please step aside". Everybody hears
> >> it, but as humans it kind of feels intoxicating to be standing there in the
> >> face of danger, so most people stay. Others, knowing that they will
> > otherwise
> >> die and that there's a lot more interesting stuff to do, move out of the way.
> >
> >I fail to see the difference- a threat is a threat is a threat. Simply
> >because it's pre-prepared doesn't somehow excuse the user.
> >
> >(In fact, similar cases have been tried in court, where someone set
> >traps- say, a shotgun on a string - for intruders in their own homes.
> >The decision- 'homicide.')
>
> It is not a THREAT!!! That's my whole point! You've got the stove on because
> you must cook food. You tell a little kid not to touch the stove because it's
> hot. He touches the stove and burns his hand badly. Were you threatening the
> child by telling him what not to do?

We're not children, hell isn't a stove, and if your diety is omnipotent
as you'd have us believe, he could come up with a better system.

That's OUR point- it wasn't an omnipotent being that came up with this
system, as, quite frankly, it stinks. It was humans, for their own
purposes.

<SNIP>

> >> God made the laws. He made them and now He follows them. A true judge
> >> doesn't bend the law for anyone.
> >
> >Glad you brought up this point. It's been pointed out that the
> >Judeo-Christian God DOESN'T follow his own rules- the genocide example,
> >for instance. This is THE basic problem with your diatribe, and the main
> >thrust of this thread- this diety of yours is on a lower moral plane
> >than many humans- even me, and I'm hardly a paragon. Why, then, do you
> >insist on trumpeting how 'good' he is?
>
> Until you understand what I am trying to say about God being pure, perfect,
> goodness we are going to go around in circles.

Actually, so far you've maintained that your diety

a) made the rules, so he can do what he wants.
b) follows the rules to a 'T'.

The two are contradictory.

> Please understand that in
> order to hold the view of a Christian, I have to make 2 assumptions in your
> view:
> 1. The God of Christianity is the one true God.
> 2. The Bible is the infallible word of God.
>
> You seem to think that I need to throw these beliefs out. That would
> DRASTICALLY help your opinion in this argument, because I would cease to be a
> Christian in my arguments.

Stipulated.

> So, IF God is the one true God, and IF the Bible is the infallible word of
> God, then God IS morality, and cannot have a lower moral standard than his
> creation. The idea of God's creation being higher than He is could only come
> out of human arrogance.

Very true. If you were following the scientific method, we would say you
have just set up a hypothosis (the neccesary attributes of your diety),
and then set up the proper terms for falsification of that hypothsis
(said diety's creations cannot be more moral than him.) If this test
fails, the hypothosis must be discarded.

We have a diety that brags of genocide in his 'infallible word.' Many of
those alleged to be his creations are not guilty of this hideous crime-
even some who've had perfect opportunities. Ergo: the hypothosis is
false.

Simple, no?

> >> God is the judge. We are His children.
> >> Much to His dismay we show up our father's court room with charges against
> > us.
> >> For every crime there is only one penalty: death. The price for the crime
> >> has to be paid. For those of us who are sorry for our crimes and have asked
> >> for His help, Jesus steps in and says, "I speak for this person. I will die
> >> in his place."
> >
> >How is that again? I seem to have missed just why it was neccessary in
> >the first place, or why someone else could be held responsible for our
> >actions (scapegoating), or even why so many innocents are lumped in with
> >people who might be lacking in the moarls department.
> >
> >While we're on it- what is one (relatively quick) death compared to the
> >billions that have followed?
>
> By a relatively quick death I suppose you mean Jesus' crucifixion? So I am to
> believe that given a list of possible means of death, crucifixion is
> relatively low on the scale of drawn out agony and torture? Correct?

You bet. Full-blown impaling comes to mind. So does bone cancer. He even
died very quickly for crucifiction, if we are to believe the New
Testament.

> Jesus is the only viable "scapegoat" (as you call it)

Scapegoat. Jewish tradition- sins are mystically transferred to an
animal and either sacrificed or released. Perhaps you'll spot the
paralell.

> that has ever walked the
> Earth, since He was God who had "cast aside his divine attributes" in order to
> come and be a perfect sacrifice for us? ONLY Christ could stand in our place,
> because He is the only innocent being ever.

Perhaps I'm obtuse, but I'm still not getting the part about
responsibility for our actions being on someone else. Perhaps this was
the creator admitting he'd screwed up?

So what you are saying is that Rank Hath Its Priveleges?

Lovely.

Bud, if it's wrong for the buck private to do it, it's wrong for the
general.

> >Of course we have the right to question laws that are imposed on us!
> >Every thinking being does! Have you no self-respect? Sorry-too many of
> >us do.
>
> Of COURSE you have the right to question the laws imposed on you. You are
> proving that right now. I should have said, we have no REASON to question the
> laws of God, because he is God and what he says is right is right. But he
> gives us the ability to jump off the cliff rather than stay on the path.

I have plenty of reason to question these so-called 'Laws of God' - not
the least of which being that this diety doesn't follow them himself.

Some more reasons include that they aren't always rational and it seems
to vary by who you're listening to what they're supposed to be. (Which
sect? Which translation?)

> >Genocide is never acceptable- there is no way in hell that cold-blooded
> >murder of innocents can be- in any way- construed as 'moral' when the
> >protagonist is somehow supposed to be omnipotent.
> >
>
> I'd like you to point out this "murder of innocents" you keep talking about,
> because I'm sure you have a particular account in mind.

We'll start with the wholesale destruction of cities- no one excepeted-
by #1 himself. Then we'll move on to ordering his followers to pull the
same stunt via the slower method- sword, arson, etc.

> Please understand that the Bible is not just a religious text, it is a
> historical account. Just because something took place and is listed in the
> Bible doesn't mean that God condones it. Just because King David committed
> adultery and had her wife killed doesn't mean that that's a good thing to do.
> Nothing is glossed over in the Bible. The facts are stated. Take'em or
> leave'em. I know you choose to leave them, so it is unneccessary for you to
> point that out in your next post.
>
> >> Are you trying to make God conform to our made up morals as humans?
> >
> >Yes- the same ones many imperfect humans can do a very good job of
> >following- and he's not even up to that.
> >
>
> There you go again. Thinking that a human can be better than his creator.
> Your arrogance is astounding.

Simple test, bud. No genocide. Capice? We needed delve any deeper-
though we could.

> >> >Really! Then explain this BIG difference to us, oh wise
> >> >one.
> >>
> >> I knew somebody would ask. I don't see a wise one here,
> >
> >Neither do I.
>
> Oh, that's intellectual of you. I assume you are just in your statement, oh
> wise one.

Why?

<SNIP>

> >I'm sorry, Dave, but the threat of eternal pain for making the wrong
> >decision is completely incompatible with the concept of 'free will,' or
> >even your concept of love, by nature, not being forced.
>
> The Bible says that we are not free. That we are either "slaves to sin" or
> "slaves to righteousness". I choose righteousness. You choose sin. But we
> are both struggling to better ourselves, and that's a start.

I beg your pardon? What happened to the free will you were so emphatic
about back there? And if it doesn't exist, we've come right back to the
begining- Why Would a God of Love Send Man to Hell?

> >Sorry.
>
> Appology accepted. :)

Bob Weigel

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

In article <32EB88...@this.address>, Celeborn <NoS...@this.address> wrote:

>David Rutledge wrote:
>>
>> In article <32EAE7...@earthlink.net>, jfa...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> >> David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com) wrote:
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >> So, if you were wondering how a loving God could send man to hell, now you
>> >> know that he doesn't.
>> >
>> >Just like if I hold a gun to your head and you refuse
>> >to give me your wallet it is your fault I must shoot
>> >you. It is your decision.
>> >
>>
>> No. Its more like God created this big gun, and all of humanity is standing
>> in front if it out of choice and/or ignorance. God says, "Hey. This gun is
>> going to go off, and I can't move it. Please step aside". Everybody hears
>> it, but as humans it kind of feels intoxicating to be standing there in the
>>face of danger, so most people stay. Others, knowing that they will otherwise
>> die and that there's a lot more interesting stuff to do, move out of the way.
>

I don't think "guns" are really all that good of an analogy. GUNS would
indicate that somebody just set up a "threat" for the sake of having a
"threat"....I mean what other pupose does the gun serve in this analogy?
None. BUT, here in real life, the PRICE of having REAL LOVE...is free
choice. The result of free choice has been (although it was NEVER dictated
to have been....which is why it's FREE CHOICE! If it were predetermined,
it wouldn't be free choice)...that sin entered the world and death is the
result. That was the risk of allowing love to be a possibility. I guess
if you can't accept that....you're just awfully boring to me...not exactly
a "romantic" I'd say. True love deals with the world's depravity, rather
than denying it, or blaming God for it. -Bob

Matthias Watkins

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

I.3.95.970127021636.25458P-100000@fraser>:
Distribution:

stufnten (tch...@sfu.ca) wrote:
> On 27 Jan 1997, Matthias Watkins wrote:

> <sniplo religion/abuse analogy>
> > The point of all this is, what exactly do you believe? Is science
> > the answer? Or, in the spirit of postmoderism, have you rejected that last
> > bastion of reason too? What are the athiests saying nowadays? I am not
> > being sarcastic but merely innately curious. Sartre and Neitzche both
> > acknowledged that the non-existence of God has dire and unavoidable
> > consequences.

> Many people disagree with them on many points; I disagree with them on
> some.

Which would those be?

> > I belive Sartre called is the formlorness (or maybe despair)
> > of existentialism. On the other hand, with God not cluttering up our
> > perception, we are completely free to create ourselves, right? Frankl said
> > that the Will to Meaning is the fundamental drive in the human soul. So,
> > is there meaning without God? And if so, is that meaning subjective or
> > objective? Is it different for every person? Does humanity have a uniting
> > purpose?

> There is no Big M Meaning. If you feel a spiritual void in that area, give
> life a small m meaning of your own.

So there's really no grandeur or nobility inherent in man; everything is
subjective... I'd almost rather not exist.

> > What does it mean to be a human being? (I wish with all my heart
> > that I knew the answer to this one.)

> Look in the mirror. That's about the whole of it.

Now come on... this is a bullshit answer. If human beings are merely
thinking animals or if maybe even thought is an illsuion than say that.

> > Is theological literature in vain or
> > is it part of the attempt of man to find meaning in this seeming
> > meaninglessness?

> Not in vain. The latter.

> Um, just checking, but you do refer to religious teachings as opposed to
> resulting philosophical discussion, correct? Well, if so, then it results
> from the latter bit of you statement, in part. The other part arises from
> a social 'need' for a self-preserving moral code. Well, not so much need
> as requirement for survival. A society without a belief that murder or
> lying (for example) was wrong would quickly deteriorate.

> A concept like the christian one that not believing in god is wrong arises
> from the realization that this would persuade others to prescribe to the
> moral code, thus preserving the society as a whole.

Interesting theory.. seems to make good sense.

> > What exactly is truth?

> I hate epistemology.

I realize the question was a little trite.. I apologize.

> > Alfred
> > North Wihtehead said it all came down to this: you can either believe that
> > the universe has order or that it doesn't. If you choose the former, than
> > God must exist in some form.

> I here revert to the catchall non sequitur....

I didn't say I agreed. I personally disagree with Whitehead
wholeheartedly. I just wanted to get your reaction.

> At any rate, the issue of order/chaos is not important in my mind.

Why is that? Doesn't order/chaos relate to meaning? Isn't what we do as
humans merely trying to create order in a chaotic world?

> Teilhard de Chardin speculated that evolution
> > was the process of God gaining awareness. (Very interesting, but in my
> > opinion wrong.) Anyway, I'm rambling, and I'm not meaning to say that I
> > have any of these answers merely because I believe in God. But, I was just
> > interested in how an athiest approaches them.

> Well I'm an atheist and that's how I approach them. Others are likely to
> differ.

Thanks for your response. I stand enlightened.

matt

Sean Armster

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

> That's fairly good. What I was trying to capture is that Christians
> are debasing themselves, worshipping a God that may or may not exist.
> If he doesn't, then there's no reason to do so. If he does, by all
> moral standards, he's evil, and you're worshipping that evil and
> calling it "good".

Not so. The God of the OT and NT consistently dispenses
justice on those who break with His moral law, and consistently
blesses those who follow it. The fallacy often cited in stating
that God is not just is just what Job's friends were attempting
to work through : the problem of evil and suffering, and its
status as strictly "dispensary". But, as Job realized at the
end of the book, suffering and evil are _not_ dispensary.
They are a condition of the system. This life will never be
"fair" in the sense that we feel we should require God to be.
The only reason we feel that God should be fair is because
He sets Himself up as being fair. That this fairness should
extend to natural life is not given. In fact, the end of
close communion with the source of fairness is the beginning
of the separation we now have between what we intuit should
be and what really is out there on the street.

Not to mention that we overlook the fact that suffering
can sometimes be for one's own good. Not only is the grace
of God (that is, the suspension of what would happen given
the evil in ourselves and our world) sufficient for the present,
but the glory of God (seen best in this twisted world by an
absence of "self-glory" in man) is good for us as well.

>
> And yes, I saw your post saying that God does not have to follow his
> own standards. If that's the case, the next question is, "So how do
> you tell the difference between an evil god and a good god?" What
> standard DO you judge god(s) by? Might? Should we worship God just
> because he's all-powerful?

We don't apply the standards applied to humans to God any more
than we apply the standards appropriate for a sheepdog to a person.
The law comes directly from God's nature ("you shall be holy because
I am holy"); it is a built-in part of Him. Over that, God does not
sin. He can't be tempted. No penal code is necessary to keep Him
in line; no threat great enough in magnitude to dissuade His justice.
If one is God, and the only God, it makes no sense to ask the
question of "who polices you, God ?"

No; it makes no sense to worship God simply because he's
all powerful. This is tantamount to worshiping God because you
have no mind and no will of your own. Would one, perhaps, worship
God if He just did turn out to be right ? If He were in fact
perfect ? Yes; I think this would be sufficient grounds; people
seem to worship other things on far less collateral.

> > I am not being sarcastic but merely innately curious. Sartre and
> > Neitzche both acknowledged that the non-existence of God has dire
> > and unavoidable consequences. I belive Sartre called is the
> > forlorness (or maybe despair) of existentialism.
>
> I agree. It's always easier to believe a pleasant fairy tale than
> to face reality head-on. We must always remember that the way a
> statement makes us feel has nothing to do with its truth or falsehood.

In the opposite direction: it's always easier to remove the
part of reality that you can't understand than to cope with its
presence and attempt to know it.

> > Frankl said that the Will to Meaning is the fundamental drive in
> > the human soul. So, is there meaning without God?
>
> Sure.

Yes. If you don't mind the fact that it's temporal and certain
to dissipate along with your demise. Or, if you don't mind having
it challenged and torn to shreds once every five years or so.

>
> > And if so, is that meaning subjective or objective?
>
> Meaning, by definition, is subjective. It is an idea. Ideas exist
> only in the mind. Minds differ. Now, Christians like to believe
> that God has a meaning for them, but even that meaning (if it existed)
> would just be _God's_ subjective meaning, and would not exist as
> a thing in and of itself outside his mind.
>

Ah, the part I really wanted to get to. You see, God has both
all subjective meaning and all objective meaning with Him, as a
result of being a triune being. Jesus knows God both from the
subjective and objective perspectives; He is God, yet He is
distinct from the Father (another person in the being) in the same
way that fingers are distinct from each other, yet part of
the same hand.

Curiously enough, though, since everything issued forth from
the mind of God to begin with, this would mean that both the
subjective and objective meaning of human life would be contingent
upon God. Remove this, and you remove the underpinnings for
meaning (if everything I've said up to this point is true.
Decide for yourself on that account .)

It is interesting to note that, in the absence of some sort
of objective, shared moral system, people tend to move in the
direction of nihilism.

> > Does humanity have a uniting purpose? What does it mean to be a
> > human being? (I wish with all my heart that I knew the answer to
> > this one.)
>
> At the lowest level, our bodies are adapted to the singular task
> of passing our genes on to the next generation. The only universal
> purpose is to survive and reproduce. And that is what we will
> do. In the meantime, we have a few years to fill.
>
> How we fill it, what meaning we wish to assign to our transient
> state, is completely up to us. What meaning do _you_ want?

Precisely my point. See _The Will to Power_, _Ecce_Homo_,
and _Beyond Good and Evil_ for a review.

> > Is theological literature in vain or is it part of the attempt of
> > man to find meaning in this seeming meaninglessness?
>
> In my opinion, the latter.
>
> It's a perfectly legitimate pursuit, too. I'm just opposed to it
> when it concludes that man is worthless and needs to waste his
> precious time worshipping a non-existant and (if he were to exist)
> amoral god.

No need to knock it just because _you_ can't find meaning
through it. By the way, Christian theology does _not_ teach that
man is worthless. In fact, it teaches the opposite. In context,
the only sure things in this world are God's love for mankind
and man's tendency to de-value it. Man's worship of God
requires that he _not_ waste time on things that will ultimately
fail him and focus his life on becoming all of the things that
God originally created him to be.

Secondly, as I've stated above, God is not amoral. He may
be above the necessity for moral imperatives, but, as the moral
law we have is a function of God's holiness, He is by far the most
moral being in existence.

>
> > What exactly is truth?
>
> Ideas which do not contradict reality.
>

And, as I've pointed out a number of times, the Christian
world-view does not contradict physical reality. I presume that's
the reality you're speaking of (and, since you don't believe in
any other, the only one I shall address here). In fact, a non-theistic
world view fails to explain why there is so much evil in the world,
evil that has nothing to do with the universal purposes of survival
and reproduction.

> I can tell you from experience that it's not difficult to discover
> truth, as long as you don't have to make the truths you find conform
> to some theology.
>
> In fact, much of theology is little more than an effort to reconcile
> the truth with religious beliefs. (ie. The problem of evil, which
> spawned this whole thing, is the problem of reconciling the existance
> of pain with the existance of a loving god. Once you eliminate the
> a priori belief in a loving god, the problem goes away. Pain by
> itself is just truth, and you don't need to explain the truth, just
> deal with it.)

One can also, as stated above, conclude that the two are
in fact irreconcilable. This does not, however, diminish the
other evidence for a creator being.

> Alfred North Whitehead was an idiot. Behind his statement is the
> assumption that the thing that we know as order (and I'd appreciate
> it if you'd provide a definition for order) can only come from
> consciousness. He merely restated the argument from design, which is
> fallacious precisely because of that assumption.

Not so fast, old fellow. Order comes as a result of organization;
our perception of order a result of the organization of thought we
have by being conscious. I refrain from addressing the mind/body
problem here; if you insist on taking the physicalist perspective,
I'll leave you to search out the homonculus in the middle.

In this universe, a closed thermodynamic system, organization
does not come about on its own. Most astrophysicists agree that the
universe has a boundary, and is thermodynamically sealed. Since it
also has a specific entropy of roughly a million to one, it would,
in order to organize itself sufficiently to produce star systems
capable of supporting life, actively fight the tendency to unravel
whatever it made. Sixteen billion years is a very short time in
which to accomplish it.

SandalSurfer ><>

Sean Armster

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

On 27 Jan 1997, Matthias Watkins wrote:

> > I'm afraid that Matt seems to have fallen into the sinkhole
> > of blind faith. God is neither so cruel nor so unloving of His

> I'm sorry.. maybe I said it wrong.. I really am not into believing

> something because it's there.. first of all I have the Bible.. which is
> pretty convincing in itself.. second I've seen plenty to convince me that
> God does really exist.. if seen people.. friends.. who were completely out
> of control changed completely almost instantaneously.. also.. the message
> that the Bible preaches: love, love, love, makes intellectual sense to
> me.. as does the fact that life and humanity is completely meaningless
> without God.. I really don't just trust blindly.. I'm known among my
> friends as The Skeptic.. so just wanted to clear that up,
>
> peace
> matt
>

I'm sorry that in making that point it came out wrong. I don't
really believe that you believe in blind faith (I've read many of your
other posts), and the last thing I'd want to do is discourage you from
talking with others about God. I just heard Jason capitalizing on his
misconception of what you said, and moved a little roughly to
counter his point.

To tell you the truth, I should be a little more careful when I
post like that. We've been having some trouble in my grad student
small group with people not listening to what the other person is
saying (it's a really academic set, everyone trying to make their
point and all) and stepping on each other's toes. So, it's been
sort of a habit, and one I should try to curtail.

Yes; I agree with you on the point that the major stroke of
evidence in favor of Christianity is the fact that people's
lives have been changed for the better. People are much more
mature and much better equipped to handle their lives as a result
of coming into contact with the God of the universe. How can a
"placebo faith" engender real and sustained change in a person's
entire approach to life; solve problems that they themselves
could never have dealt with on their own, given them a joy and
peace that no one understands ?

Good surfin' with ya !

SandalSurfer ><>

Sean Armster

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

On 26 Jan 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:

> Sean Armster <arm...@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
> > On 25 Jan 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:
> >
> > Or, one could see it like this. In this twisted and psychotic world
> > laden with the greed and self-righteousness men who think nothing
> > of playing god over others, perhaps only thing that keeps
> > civilization from sliding headlong into oblivion is God's
> > demonstrated _intent_ to save mankind from eating himself alive.
>
> Speculation and assertion. Do you have anything to back it up with?
> Or is this another example of wishful thinking?

I was merely exercising the option of coming at the situation
from a different perspective. I believe that it's equally likely
to the scenario you presented. Which, by the way, you presented
no evidence for, either. I'm just saying that you could see it
both ways equally well.

> > The person who insists on having blind faith" in a world that has
> > done nothing but disappoint is countered by the call of Christ, who
> > implores "Come to me, and I will give thee rest, for my yoke is
> > easy, my burden light" .
>
> Yes. Reality is harsh, and religion promises ease and rest if you
> only wish hard enough. But the universe does not respect our wishes.

Quite right. This life is not fair. It never will be. And,
if we're looking for fulfillment in it, or moral imperative, we
will always be disappointed.

Religion promises one nothing as far as ease in this life.
Do you know how many homeless people are Christians ? You'd be
surprised at the number. Was Job not faithful to God ? Yet he
suffered like hell. I am a Christian, and yet my circumstances
are sometimes much worse than when I was an atheist. My life,
on the other hand, is much better now that certain truths have been
revealed to me.

All Christianity promises is that, in this life, God will be
on your side. Which means that you'll get, in addition, the
chance to spend eternity (not forever) with Him.

> > Yes; why trust the philosophers and the scientists to deliver the
> > promised jewel of the Enlightenment: a changed human nature, the
> > improvement of the self,
>
> Dunno, about you, but my philosophy is more about working within
> human nature, not changing it. Fortunately, there is room for
> improvement within that nature.

Really ? Tell me when you find unconditional love in that
nature, and perhaps I'll consider it.

> Again, you're engaging in sheer speculation. Who does the meaning that
> you refer to?

Our sciences and our ways of knowing operate on the knowable
reality, much of it physical-testable. I simply state that this
limits the scope of science and philosophy.

We "seem" to become more self-destructive. I'd say, considering
the rise of the urban underclas is a glaring notation on that
account.

> > And beyond any other considerations, we're quite justified in
> > seeing it either way.
>
> You _may_ see it either way, but as I've said before, the universe
> remains singularly unimpressed by our wishes and views. If your
> view contradicts reality, guess which one will win? If we wish to
> better our lives, it's a good idea to find out what reality actually
> _is_, not what we wish it to be.

Precisely. Despite our attempts to slide it back or engineer
it out altogether, the universe insists on having a beginning in
time and space. We also know now that it is not impossible for
there to exist many more dimensions beside the ones we experience
and which are governed by physical law. Physics begins to hint
to us that (a) it is complete and (b) there exist things which
are out of its jurisdiction. Take care to note that I do not
assert that physics is completely _known_.

> > > You can't. But every once in a great while you see someone who
> > > _almost_ gets it, but not quite. And it fills me with rage and
> > > frustration, because they're SO FUCKING CLOSE. Worse, if you try
> > > to point out the flaws, they'll rush to defend their abuser,
> > > making it all the less likely that they'll ever take that final
> > > step.
> >

> > And, who gave you the right to insist upon the persuasion
> > of every other free agent to _your_ point of view ? If you value
> > personal freedom for yourself as much as you imply, you might
> > try granting the same to others who are quite capable of coming
> > to their own conclusions on the matter. I hate to say it, but,
> > I'm afraid that your arrogance on the matter is insufferable.
>
> People _may_ do anything they please.

Thank you. I do not consider theism self-destructive, however.
And, sectarian violence is political, not theological. No one was
ever killed by a bad argument. Many have been put to the gun over
attempting to enforce their world-view over others. This is
rather predictable, though: Jesus never said anything about using
force to spread God's goodness.

>
> As a social animal, I'm also aware that certain ideas and the acts
> they inspire are destructive of others as well as those who hold
> them. Those I am completely opposed to, because they represent a
> threat to myself and the society I live in. A philosophy of ignorance
> and the debasement of humanity before an evil God fits this category.

So now you must confiscate meine TheologikBuchen ? Ich wil
haben das PhilosophiePolitzen ins meine Bibliothek nicht !

On "philosophy of ignorance and the debasement of humanity"
please see the reply I give to the other post you sent on this
topic. In short, humanity is not devalued; God loves humanity.
And, in the absence of an objective morality, who art thou to
judge God to be evil ? It's only your subjective interpretation,
ja ?

> > Is this what drives your vehement disgust with God ? It
> > doesn't sound like you have any particular row against any one
> > here.
>
> You're right. I don't particularly dislike anyone in r.m.c. I do
> greatly dislike some of the ideas they hold, and the reasons are
> explained above.

So ....

You hate the idea of God because it seems to you that God
can only be evil even if He were to exist.

It seems to me that your view of God is very narrow.

Great surfin' with ya !

SandalSurfer ><>

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

John v <hoo...@engsoc.carleton.ca> wrote:
> On 27 Jan 1997, Matthias Watkins wrote:
> >

> > What does it mean to be a human being?
>

> <rich mullins>

Ah, Rich. Y'know, I used to really like the guy. Even after I became
a non-Christian I held fond memories for his catchy little worship
songs. Then about a month ago I caught him on a Christian TV show
called "Fire By Night" and was absolutely blown away by the amount
of sheer emotional manipulation and bullshit he was spewing.

I guess this is my chance to respond.

> "I cannot help but suspect that at one time in the history of
> thinking that people believed that it meant that we were spiritual
> and that we could make choices ane were capable of aspiring to
> higher ideals...like maybe loyalty or maybe faith...or maybe even
> love.

Rich's implication is, of course, that this is no longer the case,
But it sounds pretty good to me. Sounds like my opinion, as a matter
of fact.

We are free to create our own meaning. If we want spirituality, to
aspire to higher ideals, to be loyal, to have faith, or even to love,
these things are all within our reach. And many more besides.

> But now we are told by people who think they know that we vary from
> amoeba only in the complexity of our makeup and not in what we
> essentially are.

It's true. We _do_ "only" vary from an ameoba in the complexity of
our makeup. But That's like saying that Bill Gates "only" has more
money than I do. Even that analogy doesn't fully capture the
importance of complexity. Don't put it down. It's that complexity
that allows us to do all the things that ameoba can't.

Like recognize a false dichotomy when we see one. And this is one.

> They would have us think as Dysart said that we are forever bound
> up in certain genetic reigns--that we are merely products of the
> way things are and not free, not free to be the people who make
> them that way.

And what do you know! Here's another one! We _are_ "merely" products
of the way things are. However, this product is _also_ free to ignore
our genes that got us this far. Millions of people demonstrate this
freedom daily by practicing birth control, and that's just one small
example.

> They would have us see ourselves as products so that we could
> believe that we were something to be made--something to be used and
> then something to be disposed of. Used in their wars--used for
> thier gains and then set aside when we get in their way. Well who
> are they?

Yes, it is possible to abuse naturalism in order to convince people
to sacrifice themselves. Rich is doing just that when he tries to
convince his audience that the naturalistic explanations are
necessarily nihilistic, all the better to scare them into believing
the mysticism he preaches.

But never forget that mysticism and theology have _also_ been used
to convince people to fight in wars, and sacrifice themselves for
the gains of others. I needn't even mention the examples. They're
so well known they're cliches.

The problem lies not in any particular philosophy, but in the fact
that manipulative people will use anything they can to get you to do
their will. If telling you that you're worthless because (if) you're
only a sack of cells will do it, they'll use that. (As Rich does
here.) If telling you that God wants you to go recapture Jerusalem
will do it, they'll use that.

> They are the few that sit at the top of the heap--dung heap though
> it is--and who say it is better to reign in hell than to serve in
> heaven. Well I do not know that we can have a heaven here on
> earth, but I am sure we need not have a Hell here either.

Amen!

> What does it mean to be human? I cannot hep but believe that it
> means that we are spiritual--that we are responsible and that we
> are free. That we are responsible _to_ be free.

Selah. I almost wish he really believed it. *Sigh* But in Rich's
world, freedom only comes through slavery to the god he preaches.

Stephen Douglas Guilliot

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

D_Sadler>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On 26 Jan 1997, Mark wrote:

> Stephen Douglas Guilliot <guil...@wsunix.wsu.edu> wrote in article
> > No scare tactic huh...?
> > So you mean that if I "sign up" I'll go to heaven, but if I don't
> > I'll go to the lake of fire.
> > It doesn't take a priest in a confession box to perform a scare
> > tactic. You just did it. This explains why christians feel very guilty
> > about thinking non-christian things. *They don't want to go to hell, do
> > they?*
> > --Steve
>
> Steve: I believe the point of conflict is the view of who is establishing
> the "rules." If Christianity is correct then the one and only true divine
> being made the rules. THIS is what makes them correct. If the "church" made
> the rules then you are correct it is an ethical code (much like our
> judicial system by the way) that uses the ultimate punishment to ensure
> obedience. However, as Blaise Pascal argued centuries ago. If Christianity
> is wrong and you have accepted its "system" you loose nothing. You have
> lived a moral and ethical life which can only contribute to the betterment
> of your fellow man. If Christianity is correct though you have found
> redemption and eternal life.
>
> Secondly I would like to clarify that God does NOT send anyone to Hell.
> According to Christain histography humanity sends itself to Hell. Romans
> 1-2 indicates that there is a testimonty by nature itself to the presence
> of the divine. All through the Bible mankind has had encounter after
> encounter with God yet has chosen (or failed) to reveal this truth to
> others -- condemning them but their silence. If any one institution is to
> blame for the eternal death of a person's soul it is the church in its
> broader context (all those who have carried the truth) for not sharing the
> truth found fullest in Christ. But, ultimately (unless you hold to a
> reformed view of the elect) the responsibility falls on the individual who
> rejects the knowledge presented on the slavific hope in Jesus of Nazareth.
>
> respectfully yours,
>
> mark sadler, fort worth, texas.
>
First, thanks for sounding reasonable. Second, I don't agree with
you. When I was a christian, I used the argument "Why not?" to explain
the reason to have "god" in one's life. This is basically what you are
pointing out by citing Pascal. The idea is that even if a christian is
wrong, he/she can only benefit from a better life. Whereas the atheist has
nothing to gain either way.
I don't subscribe to this point of view anymore. In the past,
many atrocities have been committed in the name of "god". (you may not need
proof of this, but proof offered upon request) Even recently and
currently, people die all the time in the name of someone's "god". The
ignorance imparted by religious parents to their children down through the
generations is abhorrant to me, especially now that I am nearing the apex
of my education. There is so much in life that is selectively ignored by
the average religious person. I can't understand now, from my position to
see both sides, how anyone can believe in "god" except by self delusion
and/or brainwashing. I have a lot more to say about the subject.
As for the scare-tactic issue, I pointed it out to show that a
christian cannot refute it. As for "god's" right to use it, I make no
comment except to say that it seems a strange way to gain followers
"willingly". (hypothetically speaking, assuming there is a "god") If you
disagree that it is a scare tactic at all, I'll expand.

Stephen Douglas Guilliot

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, David Rutledge wrote:

>
> No. Its more like God created this big gun, and all of humanity is standing
> in front if it out of choice and/or ignorance. God says, "Hey. This gun is
> going to go off, and I can't move it. Please step aside". Everybody hears
> it, but as humans it kind of feels intoxicating to be standing there in the
> face of danger, so most people stay. Others, knowing that they will otherwise
> die and that there's a lot more interesting stuff to do, move out of the way.
>

"god" says, "Hey, I know the future and most of you are going to
burn for eternity, but I'm going to pull the trigger of this gun anyway.
OK, now the gun is going to go off. Now get out of the way, please. I'm
a 'god' of mercy."
How can you say any of us have a choice in your particular belief
system. It seems as though we only have two, and burning forever is one
of them. Did you become a christian "willingly"?

Matthias Watkins

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

ebecca.albany.edu> <577p0s$m...@rebecca.albany.edu> <57echn$m...@rebecca.albany.edu> <32ADC4C9...@pobox.com.no-spam-please> <01bbe744$229e1b40$5e8911 <5cegua$a...@crcnis3.unl.edu> <32EAE7...@earthlink.net> <5cf5nv$c...@picard.chickasaw.com> <Pine.SO

L.3.91.970126114...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>
<5cj4dq$o...@picard.chickasaw.com>:
Distribution:

> I suppose he could disable the proverbial gun, but then there wouldn't be a
> choice for us to make, now would there? You would be doing his will because
> you had no choice. Would you like that?

From the Christian's point of view here: by all means, YES! That choice
simply sucks. I have never and will never (until heaven of course)
understand why we have a choice (if we do.. and that is a debateable
question also.) I'm on your side here, but the facts must be straight.

> >Like live in a place with no differing opinions and no change and kissing
> >god's feet all day. Sounds interesting to me.

> How about like living in a place where all of the things you have gone through
> on this world finally make some sense?

Yeah, the Piers Anthony version of heaven is a little off I'd say. Read
the Book.. you know streets of gold, cities of light, mansions, and most
importantly, we shall see "as face to face." No more of this "mirror
dimly" stuff.

> I'd like to point out that I believe in the Big Bang Theory. In fact, every
> fact that science has discovered about the creation of the universe fits in
> perfectly with the illustration of it in Genesis. As long as you don't leave
> God out of the equation, evolution even makes sense. Show me another religion
> that has a Creation myth that fits so well. That wasn't meant to be a stab.
> If one exists, I'd really like to know.

I'm not discounting evolution. I still haven't made my mind up on that
one. However, evolution has a hard time explaining the entrance of evil
into the world. Were Adam and Eve real people, and if so were they the
first two humans? If not, are the geneologies in the Bible falsified?
Evolution always sounds so reasonable until I come to this point.

> >> God made the laws. He made them and now He follows them.

I don't know about this one. Is God accountable to the laws he set up for
the sake of humans and human society? I tend to think not. But, I'm not
always right...

> >I thought killing was against the rules. Isn't he going to personally
> >slaughter everyone who doesn't kiss his feet? I thought there was a rule
> >about giving without expecting anything in return. Does god follow that?

> No, killing isn't against the rules. MURDER is against the rules. Killing
> can be justified, like capitol punishment. Murder is killing a blameless
> person for selfish gain. God is incapable of murder. Yes, God does give
> without expecting anything in return. For example, you're heart is pumping
> and your lungs breathe in and out and you openly hate God. All of our lives
> are a gift from him.

I don't believe that capitol punishment is justified. Sure, lock the
scumbags up for life, but I don't think we have the right to kill them. It
seems a little contradictory to be pro-life and advocate death, even for
criminals.

> >> What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong.
> >

> >That's what I love about christians. They're so bipolar, completely
> >incapable of seeing the many shades of gray in every situation.

> There is no gray. Catholics wanted to believe there was gray. That's where
> purgatory came from. Gray is a cop out. Yin and Yang is a correct
> interpretation. There are two opposing forces at work in the universe, and if
> you're not for God you're against Him. "No one can serve two masters. You
> must hate one and despise the other".

Well.. I don't know.. there are a few things that are black and white, but
gray is prevalent all over the place. Was Bonhoffer morally correct when
he was involved in a plot to kill Hitler?

> >> If God had
> >> said that murder was good, then everyone in the world would know that murder
> >> was good. But he didn't, and everybody knows deep inside of them that murder
> >> is wrong.
> >
> >What I'm sure you meant to say was that ancient societies knew that
> >murder was wrong, so they wrote stories in which god told them so to
> >explain how they knew that.

> Uh...yeah...sure...you figured me out. That's exactly what I meant (please
> note the sarcasm, everybody). Come on! You mean to tell me that you don't
> believe in your heart that murder is wrong? You don't think that the
> conscience inside of us is a natural thing, but that it is put there by
> society!?!

Well.. it would seem that God laid down those laws precisely because they
were good for society, and conscience actually relates to the emotion and
has nothing to do with God's proscriptions. The word is used in Romans to
speak of the pangs that the "weaker" Christians are having because of
eating meat offered to idols even though it is not sin. The law is
reasonable and thus can be discovered by reason, i.e. by society.

> >> We cannot call God unjust.
> >
> >Why not? What makes him so just?

> Ughh. This is getting old. Hello? If God is real, and I believe He is, then
> He INVENTED justice! How then could he not be just?

Well, by the same argument, he invented evil, but the reason God is just
is because he says he is and carefully delineates what this means and
exactly how he is just. Justice is simply a human word that is used to
describe one way that God is.

> >>Are you
> >> trying to make God conform to our made up morals as humans?
> >

> >Like not killing defenseless children and not throwing temper tantrums
> >which end with the entire earth underwater? Then yes, I think he should
> >conform to these rules.

> God does not kill innocent children. A world saturated with sin kills
> innocent children. And when God flooded the world he saved the only repentant
> people from the flood. More of your arrogance again, trying to blame the bad
> things that happen on God and to make Him conform to your standards.

It's not a question of blame, but more a question of intent. Certainly God
caused these things, he is completely and utterly sovereign. However, what
is his purpose in all this?

> >> You already know that the reason we are given a choice between loving God or
> >> ignoring Him is because love, by nature, cannot be forced.
> >
> >Going back to the gun analogy, if I hold a gun to your head and demand
> >all your money, am I not sort of forcing you to give it to me?

> If I turn on the stove to cook some food so my child can live, and I say,
> "don't touch that stove, it's hot and will burn you", and he touches it
> anyway, did I threaten him?

Not a very good analogy.. its more like God says, "Take my hand so we can
cross the street together, otherwise you'll be hit and killed."

> >> So we are allowed to do whatever we want. But since God allows this, He has to allow
> >> bad things to happen to good people and good things to happen to bad people, because if
> >> He didn't He would be witholding somebody's free will from them.
> >
> >What about good people who are killed in earthquakes and fires? How does
> >this have anything to do with free will?

> Wow! Almost a good point. You proved that there is more to the bad things
> that happen on this earth other than God's allowance of our sin. But the fact
> is the Bible doesn't say "all things work together for the good", as it is
> often misquoted as saying. It says, "all things work together for the good of
> those who love the Lord". So only a Christian is guaranteed to benefit from
> disaster. The uncertainty of our lives from one day to the next is accepted
> by all. That's no excuse. The pain of those occurrances can draw people
> closer to one another and make people see the gravity of their own spiritual
> situation.

Interesting point, but you didn't really answer the question.

> >>In the same
> >> way he has to allow bad thing to exist, because without the bad we
> >>would never know what good was.
> >
> >This is a cop-out. The only reason it's like this is because of the way
> >the world works. According to you, god created the earth. Couldn't he
> >have created it so we'd know happiness when we see it?

> No. No more than He could force us to love Him. Happiness is a subjective
> trait. We are happy because of the absence of things that make us sad.

Well, actually Milton paints a pretty good picture of ignorant happiness
in Paradise Lost. Adam and Eve were like this. Why did God put the
proverbial tree in the proverbial garden anyway?

> >> Without sadness we would never have joy.

Untrue, by this statement, you define joy as merely anti-sadness. Joy
could, I believe, be had without sadness. Again heaven is a good example
as is the garden.

> >>A confusion between justice and fairness is probably what started
> >> this whole thread to begin with. LIFE IS SOMETIMES PAINFUL. But as a
> >> Christian there is so much to learn from the bad things that happen on this
> >> Earth that we can rejoice in it. Pain makes us stronger.

I'll add to this one: All of human affairs, every theology or
anti-theology addresses this exact question and they mostly come up with
this same answer, so it makes no sense to merely answer this one with an
attack on Christian theology.

Sorry to cut this up so much, I mostly agreed with you 100% but I couldn't
let the points I disagreed on stay unchallenged,

peace
matt

ci...@d0sb15.fnal.gov

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

da...@chickasaw.com (David Rutledge) writes:
>steve eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>>On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, David Rutledge wrote:

>>> No. Its more like God created this big gun, and all of humanity is standing
>>> in front if it out of choice and/or ignorance. God says, "Hey. This gun is
>>> going to go off, and I can't move it.

>>I thought god was powerful enough to do whatever he wanted. You're

>>telling me that he couldn't disable the gun?

>Wrong. There are several things God cannot do. He cannot hate what is good.
>He cannot be evil.

Utter crap. Learn your religion from an atheist: WHATEVER God does is good.
There is no good or evil outside of God so saying God cannot hate good or
cannot be evil is bollocks. God can do anything that you perceive as evil,
he is not bound by your notions or anything else. He can (and did) kill
babies and it will be good, not evil.. etc

>Whoever said God can do whatever he wants doesn't
>understand that being able to do everything would make you either a neutral
>party or a double agent. God is love. God is purity. So there are lots of
>things he can't do, and he wouldn't want to do them anyway.

Whatever God wants to do us good by definition, not the other way round.
Good does not exist independent of God - this would blow the necessary
existance of God to pieces.

>I suppose he could disable the proverbial gun, but then there wouldn't be a
>choice for us to make, now would there? You would be doing his will because
>you had no choice. Would you like that?

Yes I would.

(And it doesn't matter anyway, do you think God has to succumb to his
creation's wishes?)

Now try another stupid argument.

[lots of nonsense]

stufnten

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

On 27 Jan 1997, Matthias Watkins wrote:

> I.3.95.970127021636.25458P-100000@fraser>:
> Distribution:

> stufnten (tch...@sfu.ca) wrote:
> > On 27 Jan 1997, Matthias Watkins wrote:
>

> > <sniplo religion/abuse analogy>

> > > being sarcastic but merely innately curious. Sartre and Neitzche both
> > > acknowledged that the non-existence of God has dire and unavoidable
> > > consequences.
>

> > Many people disagree with them on many points; I disagree with them on
> > some.
>
> Which would those be?

Heh. Apologies, but I'm neither prepared nor willing to write out my
personal dissection of those two.... Non-existence of god has
consequences, certainly, but they're only dire if people allow them to be.

> > There is no Big M Meaning. If you feel a spiritual void in that area, give
> > life a small m meaning of your own.
>
> So there's really no grandeur or nobility inherent in man; everything is
> subjective... I'd almost rather not exist.

That is my point of view. I find no problem with this; I'm busy living my
life for no apparent reason at all, and it works out just fine: I'm mostly
happy, and I'm mostly making something out of myself.

> > > What does it mean to be a human being? (I wish with all my heart
> > > that I knew the answer to this one.)
>

> > Look in the mirror. That's about the whole of it.
>
> Now come on... this is a bullshit answer. If human beings are merely
> thinking animals or if maybe even thought is an illsuion than say that.

Thought... is not an illusion... really.... Umm, tricky wording....

But, yes, we are merely 'thinking animals', thought I believe that many
animals think....

> > > Alfred
> > > North Wihtehead said it all came down to this: you can either believe that
> > > the universe has order or that it doesn't. If you choose the former, than
> > > God must exist in some form.
>
> > I here revert to the catchall non sequitur....

> > At any rate, the issue of order/chaos is not important in my mind.
>
> Why is that? Doesn't order/chaos relate to meaning? Isn't what we do as
> humans merely trying to create order in a chaotic world?

We try to bring about perceived order in a chaotic world, building cities
and nice houses, making my life a nice one to live.

But in the grander sense, yes, chaos/order relate to meaning, but I don't
care about some universal meaning. I don't believe there is one and thus
far it hasn't interfered with my living. (Well, it sort of did for a while
when I first started tackling *Big Questions*, but I got over it in about
a month.)

> Thanks for your response. I stand enlightened.

Thanks for not launching into diatribes involving random capitalization,
the existence of demons and refutations of increasing life spans. I stand
relieved.

Visual Purple

unread,

Jan 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/27/97

Jason,
That abusive husband analogy is pretty strange. But, on to bigger and better things
(that's not a claim of superiority, it's a segue). I think what you're ignoring is
that God is also the God of Justice. It would be against His nature to allow sin to

enter Heaven. Anyway, the point of sin entering the world was that God was giving us

a chance to love Him, not just be mindless automatons chanting "God, God, God."

You're an excellent illustration of this, although, you haven't taken the chance. And
now, my argument, if God did not allow us to explore the possibilities of not loving
Him, we could not love Him! If everything were blue, how would we know orange when we
saw it? To us, it would just be another shade of blue. If God had not allowed Adam and
Eve the choice to choose to sin, then they would have followed Him blindly, not out of
love, but out of ignorance to the alternatives. The thing is, I love God and choose
to obey Him because I know what it's like to hate/be apathetic to God and disobey Him.

2 Peter 3:15
<><

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

Matthias Watkins <mwat...@barney.gonzaga.edu> wrote:

> stufnten (tch...@sfu.ca) wrote:
> >
> > There is no Big M Meaning. If you feel a spiritual void in that
> > area, give life a small m meaning of your own.
>
> So there's really no grandeur or nobility inherent in man;
> everything is subjective... I'd almost rather not exist.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think grandeur and nobility should
be inherent in man? No other virtues are. We have to work for them,
and work hard. What is wrong with working to obtain the qualities
you value?

Mats Andtbacka

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

Matthias Watkins, in <5ch0e9$m...@barney.gonzaga.edu>:
>attribution lost:

>> "Honey, why are you staying with that abusive husband?"
>> "He loves me!"
>> "But he beats you! Look, you're black and blue!"
>> "Yes, but he loves me!"
>> "How do you know that?"
>> "He tells me he loves me."
>> "Why would he cause you such pain if he loves you?"
>> "I don't know. It's beyond my understanding. I trust him."
>> "Why do you trust him?"
>> "Because he told me to. I have to have faith."
>> "Why?"
>> "Because if I don't, I won't have anything to live for."

>Also, surely there must be a better analogy than this. You're an athiest
>right? You wouldn't believe that the abusive husband existed.

no, but if you're going to make analogies you've got to start
somewhere. this one attempts to show how theism seems, to us atheists
at least, to contradict itself; that, even if we were to accept part
of it for the sake of the argument, there would still be problems with
the rest of it.

as such, the argument isn't against the existence of any deity, it's
against a perceived incoherency in certain flavours of theism. arguing
against gods in general is a whole other topic.

[...]

> The point of all this is, what exactly do you believe?

from an atheist point of view, that's beside the point. atheism _per
se_ doesn't tell anybody what _to_ believe, merely what not to. if you
want to figure out, or - worse - be told what philosophies to hold to,
you'll have to go elsewhere for that prescription.

>Sartre and Neitzche both acknowledged that the non-existence of God
>has dire and unavoidable consequences.

neither of them are any holy writ, though. if i feel like disagreeing
with them, out the window they will go; they, too, were only human.

> On the other hand, with God not cluttering up our
>perception, we are completely free to create ourselves, right?

in one sense. see also the magnificient _Principia Discordia_ for
valuable lessons about truth in one sense, falsehood in one sense,
meaninglessness in one sense, ...

>Frankl said that the Will to Meaning is the fundamental drive in the
>human soul. So, is there meaning without God?

pro primo: i've never heard of Frankl, and while i could care less
what he said, it would take me effort i'm not willing to expend.

pro secundo: both "meaning" and "god" seem to me to be undefined. if
you don't get any useful answers to a question that doesn't strictly
speaking make sense, don't fret too much about it.

>And if so, is that meaning subjective or

>objective? Is it different for every person? Does humanity have a uniting
>purpose? What does it mean to be a human being?

there is a Chinese proverb:

"looking for truth is like riding an ox in search of an ox"

my advice to you: get off the ox.

(oh, and note the pruned followups.)
--
"...it's all wrong
but it's alright..." -- Clapton

Del

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

Sean Armster wrote:
>
> > That's fairly good. What I was trying to capture is that Christians
> > are debasing themselves, worshipping a God that may or may not exist.
> > If he doesn't, then there's no reason to do so. If he does, by all
> > moral standards, he's evil, and you're worshipping that evil and
> > calling it "good".
>
> Not so. The God of the OT and NT consistently dispenses
> justice on those who break with His moral law, and consistently
> blesses those who follow it.

You'd better read the Bible. This statement is solid evidence that
you have not. The examples to the contrary start in Exodus where your
god promises to visit "the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
and the children's children, to the third and fourth generation"
-- Exodus 34:7

What justice is there in (ordering) the slaughter of babies? Did they
do evil? If you don't know of any examples of this just say so and
I'll be glad to supply you with some.

jkn...@hightec.saarlink.de

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

In talk.atheism Sean Armster <arm...@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:

[snip]
: > Christians are debasing themselves, worshipping a God that may

: > or may not exist. If he doesn't, then there's no reason to do
: > so. If he does, by all moral standards, he's evil, and you're
: > worshipping that evil and calling it "good".

: Not so. The God of the OT and NT consistently dispenses justice
: on those who break with His moral law, and consistently blesses
: those who follow it.

Consistently? Looking at the countless people the myths
describe this god e.g. killing in a flood, and comparing
such administration of "justice" (IMO, debateable) with
his alleged interaction with humanity today, I am not so
sure how you can make this assertion. Certainly there are
numerous examples of "devout" people who might not have
felt particularly "blessed".

If you are speaking strictly of God(tm)'s "final judgement"
being fair, A) you have not yet been judged (according to
your legend) as you are not yet dead, B) you are basing
your statement on *YOUR* interpretation of God's actions,
and C) any speculation you offer remains untestable, thus
one can not know how consistent said judgement wil be.

: The fallacy often cited in stating

: that God is not just is just what Job's friends were attempting
: to work through : the problem of evil and suffering, and its
: status as strictly "dispensary". But, as Job realized at the
: end of the book, suffering and evil are _not_ dispensary.
: They are a condition of the system. This life will never be
: "fair" in the sense that we feel we should require God to be.

Argument by assertion? Can you support your theory>

: The only reason we feel that God should be fair is because

: He sets Himself up as being fair. That this fairness should
: extend to natural life is not given. In fact, the end of
: close communion with the source of fairness is the beginning
: of the separation we now have between what we intuit should
: be and what really is out there on the street.

And the price of tea in China is how much???

: Not to mention that we overlook the fact that suffering

: can sometimes be for one's own good.

Looking back, I am honestly grateful to have had certain
hardships in my life, as such are (IMO) a good test of my
resilience, character, strength, ...

[snipped more argument by assertion. waiting for support]
: it makes no sense to worship God simply because he's

: all powerful. This is tantamount to worshiping God because you
: have no mind and no will of your own. Would one, perhaps, worship
: God if He just did turn out to be right ? If He were in fact
: perfect ? Yes; I think this would be sufficient grounds; people
: seem to worship other things on far less collateral.

Hmmm. I think you are getting confused by the various
connotations of the word "worship". The fact is, if your
god exists, and wants me to worship him (i.e. "he" *loves*
me), then he appears not to even be powerful enough to
give me even the slightest indication of his existence,
nor the slightest desire to worship him.

: > > I am not being sarcastic but merely innately curious. Sartre and

: > > Neitzche both acknowledged that the non-existence of God has dire
: > > and unavoidable consequences. I belive Sartre called is the
: > > forlorness (or maybe despair) of existentialism.

: > I agree. It's always easier to believe a pleasant fairy tale than
: > to face reality head-on. We must always remember that the way a
: > statement makes us feel has nothing to do with its truth or falsehood.

: In the opposite direction: it's always easier to remove the
: part of reality that you can't understand than to cope with its
: presence and attempt to know it.

Hmmm. I understand you *believe* this god to be real. As a
former atheist however, you must know that your god's actual
existence can not be proven. With this in mind, how can you
claim that Jason (or anyone) has removed or ignored some part
of reality, especially if there is no evidence to support its
existence? The bottom line is, we atheists see no evidence
for its alleged presense, have often, on the insistence of
others in our society, attempted to "know" said being (to no
avail), and are certainly not so closed-minded as to not be
able to "understand" (i.e. recognize) human perceptions of
reality. You questioning our sincerity is quite uncalled for.

: > > Frankl said that the Will to Meaning is the fundamental drive in

: > > the human soul. So, is there meaning without God?

: > Sure.

: Yes. If you don't mind the fact that it's temporal and certain
: to dissipate along with your demise. Or, if you don't mind having
: it challenged and torn to shreds once every five years or so.

"challenged and torn to shreds once every five years or so"???
I expect change in my understanding and experience of the
world. It seems to happen quite often. It may be easier to
hide behind faith than to confront evolving opinions and
awarenesses of the world, but that does not add stability to
the meaning you perceive, it only underscores your insecurity.

[snipped more argument by assertion. waiting for support]
: > How we fill it, what meaning we wish to assign to our transient

: > state, is completely up to us. What meaning do _you_ want?

: Precisely my point. See _The Will to Power_, _Ecce_Homo_,
: and _Beyond Good and Evil_ for a review.

Given the vast array of meanings *YOU* could chose, why
do you settle on the thoughts of other people? You have
the power to deine your life for yourself.

[snip]
: Christian theology does _not_ teach that man is worthless.

: In fact, it teaches the opposite.

Hmmm. This is of course a matter of opinion.

[more assumptions of the existence of god(s) snipped pending proof]
: > > What exactly is truth?

: > Ideas which do not contradict reality.

: And, as I've pointed out a number of times, the Christian
: world-view does not contradict physical reality. I presume that's
: the reality you're speaking of (and, since you don't believe in
: any other, the only one I shall address here). In fact, a non-theistic
: world view fails to explain why there is so much evil in the world,
: evil that has nothing to do with the universal purposes of survival
: and reproduction.

Of course the subjective opinion that there is so much evil
in the world is an assertion on your part. IMO, the world is
pretty much a neutral place, with some good(tm) things and
some "evil"(tm) things occuring. These generally arise as a
result of competing forces wishing to survive and reproduce.

: > I can tell you from experience that it's not difficult to discover

: > truth, as long as you don't have to make the truths you find conform
: > to some theology.

: > In fact, much of theology is little more than an effort to reconcile
: > the truth with religious beliefs. (ie. The problem of evil, which
: > spawned this whole thing, is the problem of reconciling the existance
: > of pain with the existance of a loving god. Once you eliminate the
: > a priori belief in a loving god, the problem goes away. Pain by
: > itself is just truth, and you don't need to explain the truth, just
: > deal with it.)

: One can also, as stated above, conclude that the two are
: in fact irreconcilable. This does not, however, diminish the
: other evidence for a creator being.

evidence? I must have found this conversation *way to late*.
Could you please repeat your *EVIDENCE* for a creator? Even
if the two exist and yet are irreconcilable, that does (IMO)
diminish one of the two as apparent counterevidence.

[snipped flawed 2nd LOT argument. FAQ'd, see t.o.]

Take Care
Jim (jkn...@hightec.saarlink.de)

Although influenced by everything I have experienced in my
lifetime, including my workplace, I insist that this post
was my idea, and that my employer knows nothing about it.

"A point in every direction is the same as no point at all."
- The Pointed Man, "The Point"

jkn...@hightec.saarlink.de

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

In talk.atheism Sean Armster <arm...@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:

: On 27 Jan 1997, Matthias Watkins wrote:
[snip]
: > I really am not into believing something because it's there..

: > first of all I have the Bible.. which is pretty convincing in itself..

Convincing of what? I have four bibles, and I am convinced
that these books reside in my book case. I am convinced that
they are culturally relevant to my society. I am convinced
that they make good paperweights. I am *NOT* convinced that
they accurately describe reality.

: > second I've seen plenty to convince me that God does really exist..

Personal evidence can be quite powerful, but it does little
to *convince* other people. I hope you find great comfort in
your acceptance of God(tm), but to what extent are you willing
to respect the rights of those who have no evidence for gods,
and may find the concepts generally propogated to contradict
reality as they perceive it?

: > if seen people.. friends.. who were completely out of control
: > changed completely almost instantaneously..

OK. I am not sure what you mean by out of control. For example,
I know people who were at one time quite entrenced in religious
dogmas, who found that critical thinking and testable knowledge
were much more empowering than their previous beliefs.

: > also.. the message that the Bible preaches: love, love, love,

: > makes intellectual sense to me..

Hmmm. I am not sure that the Bible preaches this message. I have
read it two times now, not to mention repeated perusals, and the
messages I found were quite diverse, and often contradictory. I
found it made little intellectual sense, especially when cross-
referenced to other books (both religious and non-religious).

: > as does the fact that life and humanity is completely meaningless
: > without God..

I am not sure if you can validly term this assertion a fact. Can
you support it with falsifiable evidence?

: > I really don't just trust blindly.. I'm known among my friends as

: > The Skeptic.. so just wanted to clear that up,

I am sure you don't simply trust blindly. My questions and
statements here are an honest attempt to discuss these truly
interesting ideas.

[snip]
: We've been having some trouble in my grad student

: small group with people not listening to what the other person is
: saying (it's a really academic set, everyone trying to make their
: point and all) and stepping on each other's toes. So, it's been
: sort of a habit, and one I should try to curtail.

I've been there, both at work and in my hobby. I certainly
hope we can have an open discussion here.

: Yes; I agree with you on the point that the major stroke of

: evidence in favor of Christianity is the fact that people's
: lives have been changed for the better.

Hmmm. This seems like a fairly subjective evaluation though. I
think just a look back on e.g. the Crusades is evidence that
people's lives have not always been changed for the better. IMHO,
Christianity's effect on people's lives is really subject to the
specific situation, with some benefitting and some losing out.

: People are much more mature and much better equipped to handle

: their lives as a result of coming into contact with the God of
: the universe.

I think again you are making a sweeping generalization here,
and by saying "more mature" or "much better equipped", you
are making a subjective judgement. This aside, claiming the
existence of a "God of the universe" is still an unsupported
assertion for which many people see no evidence. As for a
believer in your god being "more mature", I think that really
depends on their starting point. For example, criminals who
find e.g. Allah may indeed be changed for the better based on
societal standards, and thus could be seen as being "better
equipped" to get along in society. OTOH, if you've spent any
time on the net whatsoever, I am sure you'll have run in to
a number of Bible-literalists who place their "faith" over
objective, falsifiable evidence. I would not call that mature.

: How can a "placebo faith" engender real and sustained change

: in a person's entire approach to life;

Personally I don't question a person's faith. I am sure that
one's faith is indeed quite real. I do question the substance
backing that faith however, thus (IMO) the comparison with a
placebo is quite good. For example, while I may lack beliefs
in gods, I try to maintain a realistic level of confidence in
myself. Sometimes it is unfounded, but often believing in
myself has helped me to do things I might otherwise not been
able to do. Faith can be empowering! Still, WRT faith, one
must (IMO) not overlook evidence and physical limitations.

: solve problems that they themselves could never have dealt with

: on their own, given them a joy and peace that no one understands ?

Hmmm. I wonder if one can truly claim that e.g. such problems
are unsolvable without "devine" intervention/assistance? Also,
keep in mind that evaluations such as "joy" and "peace" are
highly subjective. To what extent do you think a person can
"understand" the experience of another person?

Take Care
Jim (jkn...@hightec.saarlink.de)

Although influenced by everything I have experienced in my
lifetime, including my workplace, I insist that this post
was my idea, and that my employer knows nothing about it.

"You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear."
- The Rock Man, "The Point"

jkn...@hightec.saarlink.de

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

In talk.atheism Sean Armster <arm...@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:

: On 26 Jan 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:
: > Sean Armster <arm...@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
: > > On 25 Jan 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:

[snip]
: > > The person who insists on having blind faith" in a world that has

: > > done nothing but disappoint is countered by the call of Christ, who
: > > implores "Come to me, and I will give thee rest, for my yoke is
: > > easy, my burden light" .

: > Yes. Reality is harsh, and religion promises ease and rest if you
: > only wish hard enough. But the universe does not respect our wishes.

: Quite right. This life is not fair. It never will be. And,
: if we're looking for fulfillment in it, or moral imperative, we
: will always be disappointed.

What criteria do you use to evaluate the "fairness" of life?
I think you tend to use your own definition of "fulfillment",
"moral imperatives" and "fairness" when commenting on the
world. Everyone does this to some extent, but do keep the
sucjective nature of such evaluations.

: Religion promises one nothing as far as ease in this life.

And yet above you cited Christ's alleged call, and his claim
that his "yoke is easy" and his "burden light"???

: Do you know how many homeless people are Christians ? You'd be
: surprised at the number.

How many? I really don't know, but I'd guess that it would
not simply be a representative proportion of the population.

: Was Job not faithful to God ? Yet he suffered like hell.

So the story goes.

: I am a Christian, and yet my circumstances are sometimes much worse

: than when I was an atheist. My life, on the other hand, is much better
: now that certain truths have been revealed to me.

Whether or not you have had "truths" *revealed* to you or
not is questionable, but I am happy for you that you judge
your life to be better now than before. I hope the trend
continues. :^) I do wonder though, to what extent are you
willing to extend this same good-will to others? Since you
mentioned your former lack of belief in gods, I assume you
are well aware of the imposing nature of Christians, as
well as the fact that your personal experiences, while
quite relevant to you, do little to justify the imposition
of your beliefs on others.

: All Christianity promises is that, in this life, God will be

: on your side. Which means that you'll get, in addition, the
: chance to spend eternity (not forever) with Him.

<shrug> :^"

: > > Yes; why trust the philosophers and the scientists to deliver the

: > > promised jewel of the Enlightenment: a changed human nature, the
: > > improvement of the self,

: > Dunno, about you, but my philosophy is more about working within
: > human nature, not changing it. Fortunately, there is room for
: > improvement within that nature.

: Really ? Tell me when you find unconditional love in that
: nature, and perhaps I'll consider it.

Have you found unconditional love elsewhere? What does it
look like? I love my cat, even though he often misses his
cat box, scraches up the walls and my furniture, or coughs
up hairballs in my shoes. I accept my girlfriend's short-
comings as she accepts mine. Still, if my cat or girlfriend
were to go to great lengths to ruin my life, I would try to
communicate my displeasure, see if I could change it, but
eventually I would have to say enough is enough. Depending
on the situation, I might love e.g. my cat, but for reasons
of self-preservation, I might have to put him out of my home.

Are you claiming God(tm) gives "unconditional love"? As I
recall, the god of the Christian tradition requires certain
concessions on our part. At a very minimum (and if you ask
any arbitrary Christian, you might get a longer list), I
believe asking forgiveness for sin is one prerequisite. You
might claim that God(tm) "loves" us regardless of anything,
but even such a claim is conditional if God(tm) favors those
who profess belief in "him" (i.e. he love some more than
others). Even if God(tm) does love us all unconditionally,
I wonder in what way that would benefit you more than e.g.
the love of another person? As far as I can tell, the love
of your god has no discernable, independent effect on you,
whereas a person who loves you may physically act in order
to demonstrate his/her support and love for you.

[snip]
: Our sciences and our ways of knowing operate on the knowable

: reality, much of it physical-testable. I simply state that this
: limits the scope of science and philosophy.

Hmmm. If science operates on knowable reality, and in doing
so extends the reaches of what that entails, any such limits
are theoretically temporal. Who knows what will be "knowable"
in the future? I think science and especially philosophy do
deal with the unknown in hypothetical and theoretical forms.
As for the truly "unknowable" (whatever that is), I wonder
if such speculation is useful, as regardless of any ideas
regarding the "unknowable", we will never "know" if they
are valid.

: We "seem" to become more self-destructive. I'd say, considering

: the rise of the urban underclas is a glaring notation on that
: account.

Compare the urban underlclass with the poor of e.g. medieval
era? I really wonder if your scope of analysis is valid.

[snip]
: > > > You can't. But every once in a great while you see someone who

: > > > _almost_ gets it, but not quite. And it fills me with rage and
: > > > frustration, because they're SO FUCKING CLOSE. Worse, if you try
: > > > to point out the flaws, they'll rush to defend their abuser,
: > > > making it all the less likely that they'll ever take that final
: > > > step.

: > > And, who gave you the right to insist upon the persuasion
: > > of every other free agent to _your_ point of view ? If you value

Hmmm. While I can not speak for Jason, I did not notice him
forcing his POV on anyone. Just as you [may] feel distress
at e.g. my rejection of your god, Jason expressed his utter
exasperation at people rejecting reason in favor of wishful
thinking. You are in no way obliged to share his frustration.

: > > personal freedom for yourself as much as you imply, you might

: > > try granting the same to others who are quite capable of coming
: > > to their own conclusions on the matter. I hate to say it, but,
: > > I'm afraid that your arrogance on the matter is insufferable.

Again I can not speak for Jason, but it seems you have misread
his statement. He never denies people the freedom to do as they
choose, even if they choose what some might say is ignorant.

: > People _may_ do anything they please.

: Thank you. I do not consider theism self-destructive, however.

I am not sure on this. I agree that belief in gods need not
be "self-destructive".

: And, sectarian violence is political, not theological.

Hmmm. An eye or an eye sounds pretty violent.

: No one was ever killed by a bad argument.

Tell that to WWII era Jews, native Americans and slaves.

: Many have been put to the gun over attempting to enforce their
: world-view over others.

Is Christianity (or any theism) simply a world-view?

: This is rather predictable, though: Jesus never said anything

: about using force to spread God's goodness.

Although he did command his followers to bring non-believers
before him that he might decapitate them. :^(

: > As a social animal, I'm also aware that certain ideas and the acts

: > they inspire are destructive of others as well as those who hold
: > them. Those I am completely opposed to, because they represent a
: > threat to myself and the society I live in. A philosophy of ignorance
: > and the debasement of humanity before an evil God fits this category.

: So now you must confiscate meine TheologikBuchen ? Ich wil
: haben das PhilosophiePolitzen ins meine Bibliothek nicht !

Ich glaube weder, dass Jason die Verbreitung von Theologiebuecher
ablehnt, noch dass er Philosophiepolizei in der Bibliothek befuer-
worten wuerde. :^) As usual however, I can not speak for Jason.

[snip]
: You hate the idea of God because it seems to you that God

: can only be evil even if He were to exist.

One last time: I can not speak for Jason. :^)
Since I simply butted in to this conversation however, my reply
is *MINE*, and should not be taken to represent anyone else's
viewpoint. I personally don't hate the idea of god[s]. In fact,
I think they can be a useful concept. I have no opinions on gods
one way or the other, as I don't know what a "god" would be if
one/many were to exist, and I don't believe any those I've heard
described actually exist.

: It seems to me that your view of God is very narrow.

Hmmm. But of the two of us, you are the one with a concrete
opinion of what god is. I have no preconceptions whatsoever. :^)

Jeffrey Gustafson

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

Some basic points:
God is a loving God.
God is a just God.
God is good.
Anything that goes against God is evil.
We are all evil and destined for complete justus (hell).
Leaving the world to its own devices is just.
Since God is a loving God he has a plan to reconcile us
to Him.

The point I'm trying to make is that pain is suffering is what we
all deserve. Only by God's love and grace are some saved from it. So,
yeah, God IS love. But don't forget God demands absolute justus. Not
man's justus, but pure justus.
One more point. Every arguement makes an assumption... you just
have to go back far enough. At least a Christian recognises that he is
basing his argument on the assumption of God. He's assuming that he can
make a logical argument based on God's revelation. God is a logical God
and He created rules for the universe. An athiest makes the assumption
that space, time, and chance created everything. How does an athiest
automatically assume he can use logic in his argument? I thought
everything was an accident. So, if you are going to argue that God
doesn't exist, please recognise your assumption and stop using logic.
Your own senses and brain are probably deceiving you because you have no
reason to trust them. You trust them only by faith. As least a Christian
has faith that something outside himself revealed logic. Logic is comes
from a Christian world view and not an athiestic world view.

stei...@primenet.com (Jason and Heather) writes:

>That's fairly good. What I was trying to capture is that Christians

>are debasing themselves, worshipping a God that may or may not exist.
>If he doesn't, then there's no reason to do so. If he does, by all
>moral standards, he's evil, and you're worshipping that evil and
>calling it "good".

>And yes, I saw your post saying that God does not have to follow his

>own standards. If that's the case, the next question is, "So how do
>you tell the difference between an evil god and a good god?" What
>standard DO you judge god(s) by? Might? Should we worship God just
>because he's all-powerful?

>> The point of all this is, what exactly do you believe? Is science
>> the answer?

>It depends upon your question.

>> Or, in the spirit of postmoderism, have you rejected that last
>> bastion of reason too? What are the athiests saying nowadays?

>Atheists are saying all sorts of things. The only thing we have
>in common is a disbelief in gods. To assume that there's one atheistic
>outlook is as silly as assuming there's only one form of theism.

>For that reason, all of my answers will be my own. Other atheists
>may, no, WILL disagree with me.

>I agree. It's always easier to believe a pleasant fairy tale than
>to face reality head-on. We must always remember that the way a
>statement makes us feel has nothing to do with its truth or falsehood.

>> On the other hand, with God not cluttering up our perception, we

>> are completely free to create ourselves, right?

>Completely? No. I'm not free to create myself as a being that can
>fly unassisted. If I take a header off the top of the Bank of
>America building, I will hit the ground at some 120-180mph, regardless
>of how I've "created" myself.

>But within certain limits, we are free. What's more, without a God
>cluttering our perception, we are free to explore those limits, to
>find out what they _really_ are, and to find ways around them if
>they exist. (ie. Hang gliders and parachutes!)

>> Frankl said that the Will to Meaning is the fundamental drive in
>> the human soul. So, is there meaning without God?

>Sure.

>> And if so, is that meaning subjective or objective?

>Meaning, by definition, is subjective. It is an idea. Ideas exist

>only in the mind. Minds differ. Now, Christians like to believe
>that God has a meaning for them, but even that meaning (if it existed)
>would just be _God's_ subjective meaning, and would not exist as
>a thing in and of itself outside his mind.

>> Is it different for every person?

>It could be. Practically speaking, some people do share the same idea
>of meaning. Can't be avoided in a population of 5 billion +.

>> Does humanity have a uniting purpose? What does it mean to be a

>> human being? (I wish with all my heart that I knew the answer to
>> this one.)

>At the lowest level, our bodies are adapted to the singular task

>of passing our genes on to the next generation. The only universal
>purpose is to survive and reproduce. And that is what we will
>do. In the meantime, we have a few years to fill.

>How we fill it, what meaning we wish to assign to our transient

>state, is completely up to us. What meaning do _you_ want?

>> Is theological literature in vain or is it part of the attempt of

>> man to find meaning in this seeming meaninglessness?

>In my opinion, the latter.

>It's a perfectly legitimate pursuit, too. I'm just opposed to it
>when it concludes that man is worthless and needs to waste his
>precious time worshipping a non-existant and (if he were to exist)
>amoral god.

>> What exactly is truth?

>Ideas which do not contradict reality.

>> I don't really have any answers either, and the ones I think I have
>> are invaribly proved wrong.

>I can tell you from experience that it's not difficult to discover
>truth, as long as you don't have to make the truths you find conform
>to some theology.

>In fact, much of theology is little more than an effort to reconcile
>the truth with religious beliefs. (ie. The problem of evil, which
>spawned this whole thing, is the problem of reconciling the existance
>of pain with the existance of a loving god. Once you eliminate the
>a priori belief in a loving god, the problem goes away. Pain by
>itself is just truth, and you don't need to explain the truth, just
>deal with it.)

>> Alfred North Wihtehead said it all came down to this: you can

>> either believe that the universe has order or that it doesn't. If
>> you choose the former, than God must exist in some form.

>Alfred North Whitehead was an idiot. Behind his statement is the

>assumption that the thing that we know as order (and I'd appreciate
>it if you'd provide a definition for order) can only come from
>consciousness. He merely restated the argument from design, which is
>fallacious precisely because of that assumption.

>> Teilhard de Chardin speculated that evolution was the process of

>> God gaining awareness. (Very interesting, but in my opinion wrong.)

>Not if you believe Valentine Michael Smith's assertion that "Thou
>art God!" ;)

>It's certainly true that the idea of god didn't exist until we evolved
>enough of a consciousness for our minds to hold ideas. If you believe
>that god _is_ nothing more than an idea, then de Chardin was correct.

>> Anyway, I'm rambling, and I'm not meaning to say that I have any of

>> these answers merely because I believe in God. But, I was just
>> interested in how an athiest approaches them.

>Now ya know.

>jason
>r.m.c resident atheist

>--
> "The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
>like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
> restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
>BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/

--
Jeffrey Gustafson
jef...@packardbell.com
Technical Resources Group
Packard Bell Electronics, Inc.

Matthias Watkins

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

Distribution:

Sean Armster (arm...@taurus.oac.uci.edu) wrote:

> SandalSurfer ><>

Thank you SandalSurfer, your responses are always intelligent and
far more informed than mine. My respoect and admiration is wthout bounds,

matt

steve eric cisna

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

On 28 Jan 1997, Jeffrey Gustafson wrote:

> Some basic points:
> God is a loving God.
> God is a just God.
> God is good.
> Anything that goes against God is evil.
> We are all evil and destined for complete justus (hell).

Wait a second. How do you get this last part?

> Leaving the world to its own devices is just.
> Since God is a loving God he has a plan to reconcile us
> to Him.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that pain is suffering is what we
> all deserve.

Why? Why do I deserve to be tortured because I'm not your god's equal?
I'm only human.

Only by God's love and grace are some saved from it. So,
> yeah, God IS love.

No he isn't. If he was, he wouldn't expect me to be perfect. I doubt
that you're old enough to have kids, but if you were, would you kill one
of them for not getting straight A's? If you did, you wouldn't be very
loving, would you? Why should god expect perfection when he knows we
can't be perfect?

But don't forget God demands absolute justus. Not
> man's justus, but pure justus.

"KILL! KILL! KILL!" Is that what you call "justus?"

> One more point. Every arguement makes an assumption... you just
> have to go back far enough. At least a Christian recognises that he is
> basing his argument on the assumption of God. He's assuming that he can
> make a logical argument based on God's revelation. God is a logical God
> and He created rules for the universe.

You're just assuming that.

An athiest makes the assumption
> that space, time, and chance created everything. How does an athiest
> automatically assume he can use logic in his argument?

How do you assume you can?

I thought
> everything was an accident. So, if you are going to argue that God
> doesn't exist, please recognise your assumption and stop using logic.
> Your own senses and brain are probably deceiving you because you have no
> reason to trust them. You trust them only by faith. As least a Christian
> has faith that something outside himself revealed logic. Logic is comes
> from a Christian world view and not an athiestic world view.

I have no idea what you're talking about. How is it logical to put all
your faith in something you don't even know exists, and if it did, seems
like kind of an asshole anyway?

Steve

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

Sean Armster (arm...@taurus.oac.uci.edu) wrote:
>
> > That's fairly good. What I was trying to capture is that
> > Christians are debasing themselves, worshipping a God that may or
> > may not exist. If he doesn't, then there's no reason to do so.
> > If he does, by all moral standards, he's evil, and you're
> > worshipping that evil and calling it "good".
>
> Not so. The God of the OT and NT consistently dispenses justice on
> those who break with His moral law, and consistently blesses those
> who follow it. The fallacy often cited in stating that God is not
> just is just what Job's friends were attempting to work through :
> the problem of evil and suffering, and its status as strictly
> "dispensary". But, as Job realized at the end of the book,
> suffering and evil are _not_ dispensary. They are a condition of
> the system.

As creator of the system, God is responsible for its condition.

*Yawn* This is predictable, Sean. Let me guess. Next you're going
to bring up "free will". Allow me to take some pre-emptive action
and ask that before you use it, you:

1. Define it.
2. Show that it exists.

> This life will never be "fair" in the sense that we feel we should
> require God to be. The only reason we feel that God should be fair
> is because He sets Himself up as being fair.

*Gasp* Are we not supposed to take him at his word?

> That this fairness should extend to natural life is not given.

Indeed, it is not. But it is contradictory to the concept of a
benevolent, just god.

> Not to mention that we overlook the fact that suffering can
> sometimes be for one's own good.

An assertion which does nothing to address those cases in which
it is not. If you truly believe this, then c'mon over here and let me
work you over with a lead pipe. It's for your own damn good.

> > And yes, I saw your post saying that God does not have to follow
> > his own standards. If that's the case, the next question is, "So
> > how do you tell the difference between an evil god and a good
> > god?" What standard DO you judge god(s) by? Might? Should we
> > worship God just because he's all-powerful?
>
> We don't apply the standards applied to humans to God any more
> than we apply the standards appropriate for a sheepdog to a person.

Ok, this still doesn't answer my questions. Which standards _do_ you
apply?

> The law comes directly from God's nature ("you shall be holy because
> I am holy"); it is a built-in part of Him. Over that, God does not
> sin. He can't be tempted. No penal code is necessary to keep Him
> in line; no threat great enough in magnitude to dissuade His
> justice. If one is God, and the only God, it makes no sense to ask
> the question of "who polices you, God ?"

So you're basically taking God's word for it, and my initial analogy
of Christians to an abused wife is proved correct. You accept that
God is good only because he is said to be good, despite the existance
of pain which he, as an all-powerful, all-knowing being, is
responsible for.

Thank you.

> > > I am not being sarcastic but merely innately curious. Sartre
> > > and Neitzche both acknowledged that the non-existence of God
> > > has dire and unavoidable consequences. I belive Sartre called
> > > is the forlorness (or maybe despair) of existentialism.
> >
> > I agree. It's always easier to believe a pleasant fairy tale than
> > to face reality head-on. We must always remember that the way a
> > statement makes us feel has nothing to do with its truth or
> > falsehood.
>
> In the opposite direction: it's always easier to remove the part of
> reality that you can't understand than to cope with its presence
> and attempt to know it.

You have yet to show that God _is_ part of reality.

> > > Frankl said that the Will to Meaning is the fundamental drive
> > > in the human soul. So, is there meaning without God?
> >
> > Sure.
>
> Yes. If you don't mind the fact that it's temporal and certain
> to dissipate along with your demise.

Reality doesn't ask our opinion. The thought that we may not be
immortal is a hard pill to swallow, but that says nothing about its
truth or falsehood.

> Or, if you don't mind having it challenged and torn to shreds once
> every five years or so.

Challenging and modifying one's opinions is a part of growth. One
of the major complaints that I have about Christianity and religion
in general is that it provides easy answers so people _don't_ have
to challenge their beliefs. Such intellectual laziness hinders the
growth of knowledge.

> > > And if so, is that meaning subjective or objective?
> >
> > Meaning, by definition, is subjective. It is an idea. Ideas exist
> > only in the mind. Minds differ. Now, Christians like to believe
> > that God has a meaning for them, but even that meaning (if it
> > existed) would just be _God's_ subjective meaning, and would not
> > exist as a thing in and of itself outside his mind.

> Ah, the part I really wanted to get to. You see, God has both
> all subjective meaning and all objective meaning with Him, as a
> result of being a triune being.

The doctrine of the trinity is completely irrelevent. Even without
the trinity, meaning would still be a mental concept, and God's meaning
would still be subjective to his own consciousness. The only way around
that is to say...

> Curiously enough, though, since everything issued forth from the
> mind of God to begin with, this would mean that both the subjective
> and objective meaning of human life would be contingent upon God.
> Remove this, and you remove the underpinnings for meaning (if
> everything I've said up to this point is true. Decide for yourself
> on that account .)

...That the universe _is_ God's mind.

Hello, Spinoza! It's interesting speculation, but that's all it is.

Besides, God is thinking of me as an atheist then, isn't he? :)

> It is interesting to note that, in the absence of some sort
> of objective, shared moral system, people tend to move in the
> direction of nihilism.

Uh-uh-uh. Don't even go there. It's a common Christian scare tactic
to tell the flock that the only alternative to the Christian faith
is nihilism. Anyone who's ever studied philosophy can tell you that
this is anything but the truth, but the average churchgoer doesn't
know that.

I suspect that Christianity is the biggest purveyor of nihilism in the
world. At the very heart of the religion is the belief that without
God, life is worthless, and we're all deserving of hell. It has to
sell its converts on that idea before it can sell them on the "fix",
Jesus.

There's no need for salvation if there's nothing to be saved from.

> > > Is theological literature in vain or is it part of the attempt
> > > of man to find meaning in this seeming meaninglessness?
> >
> > In my opinion, the latter.
> >
> > It's a perfectly legitimate pursuit, too. I'm just opposed to it
> > when it concludes that man is worthless and needs to waste his
> > precious time worshipping a non-existant and (if he were to exist)
> > amoral god.
>
> No need to knock it just because _you_ can't find meaning through
> it.

So tell us what the meaning is. Back it up.

> By the way, Christian theology does _not_ teach that man is worthless.

It most certainly does. As I wrote above, it's a prerequisite. You
cannot sell a man on something he doesn't need. The first step to
converting someone is to convince him of his worthlessness. (If you
don't believe me, take an evangelism course. I did.) If man were not
a fallen, despicable creature, he would not be in need of "salvation".

It's nothing more than standard sales tactics.

> In fact, it teaches the opposite. In context, the only sure things
> in this world are God's love for mankind and man's tendency to de-
> value it.

See? You're trying to sell me right now. Not only is man a low,
despicable creature incapable of love, he's incapable of _receiving_
love.

My, what a fine view of humanity you have.

> Secondly, as I've stated above, God is not amoral. He may be above
> the necessity for moral imperatives, but, as the moral law we have
> is a function of God's holiness, He is by far the most moral being
> in existence.

And this moral being kills, rapes, causes pain, etc., etc. Call it
what you like, with "morality" like that, who needs immorality?

> > > What exactly is truth?
> >
> > Ideas which do not contradict reality.
>
> And, as I've pointed out a number of times, the Christian
> world-view does not contradict physical reality.

This is a dangerous question to address, because there is no _one_
Christian world-view. Different Christians have different world-
views, and if I give examples of where one contradicts reality,
then those who don't believe in that particular example are sure
to protest.

Even so, I'll advance one. In Matthew 6, Jesus preaches a sermon
espousing a lifestyle that is completely at odds with the lifestyle
of the vast majority of Christians today. If you believe that Jesus
was God, that the Bible contains an accurate record of his words,
and that those words are worth following, the result is a
contradiction between the Christian world-view (as defined by Christ)
and the physical reality of the starvation and ruin that results from
not planning for the future.

Fortunately for Christians, the Christian world-view is not defined
by anything Jesus said, but by theologists, who are more than happy
to tell us why Jesus was full of shit in this case, and couldn't
_really_ have meant what he said.

If the Christian world-view does not contradict reality, it is because
they have worked long and hard to change the world view to conform
with reality wherever it was unavoidable. At this point in history,
Christianity is little more than a series of non-falsifiable, non-
testable assertions.

Which leads us to the next, and final problem. There are an infinite
number of non-testable assertions. There's no reason, other than
cultural bias, to select Christianity over any one of the others.

> In fact, a non-theistic world view fails to explain why there is so
> much evil in the world, evil that has nothing to do with the
> universal purposes of survival and reproduction.

There's no need to explain evil, because once you remove a
(supposedly) loving god from the equation, evil doesn't contradict
anything. It just is.

> > I can tell you from experience that it's not difficult to discover
> > truth, as long as you don't have to make the truths you find conform
> > to some theology.
> >
> > In fact, much of theology is little more than an effort to reconcile
> > the truth with religious beliefs. (ie. The problem of evil, which
> > spawned this whole thing, is the problem of reconciling the existance
> > of pain with the existance of a loving god. Once you eliminate the
> > a priori belief in a loving god, the problem goes away. Pain by
> > itself is just truth, and you don't need to explain the truth, just
> > deal with it.)

> One can also, as stated above, conclude that the two are in fact
> irreconcilable. This does not, however, diminish the other evidence
> for a creator being.

Other evidence?!? Oh, do tell!

> > Alfred North Whitehead was an idiot. Behind his statement is the
> > assumption that the thing that we know as order (and I'd
> > appreciate it if you'd provide a definition for order) can only
> > come from consciousness. He merely restated the argument from
> > design, which is fallacious precisely because of that assumption.
>
> Not so fast, old fellow. Order comes as a result of organization;

Assertion! Define and support your terms, please, otherwise you're
speaking gibberish.

> In this universe, a closed thermodynamic system, organization
> does not come about on its own.

More assertion! Where is this written?

> Most astrophysicists agree that the universe has a boundary, and is
> thermodynamically sealed. Since it also has a specific entropy of
> roughly a million to one, it would, in order to organize itself
> sufficiently to produce star systems capable of supporting life,
> actively fight the tendency to unravel whatever it made. Sixteen
> billion years is a very short time in which to accomplish it.

You're cruelly abusing thermodynamics, and engaging in some severe
semantic trickery besides. Someone ought to wash your mouth out with
soap for willfully spreading such ignorance.

Shame on you!

The second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy that
it uses have to do with _energy_, not order. You haven't even
defined what you mean by order yet!

Sean Armster

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, steve eric cisna wrote:

> On 28 Jan 1997, Jeffrey Gustafson wrote:
>
> > Anything that goes against God is evil.
> > We are all evil and destined for complete justus (hell).

Let's see, though. If I recall correctly, there was one particular
concentration camp survivor who, upon being called in to Nuremberg to
identify Adolf Eichmann, broke down in the middle of the proceedings
after having a startling realization about human nature. "He was a
man, a normal man, just like me. And it was then that I realized,
'I have the capability to do such things' " The inescapable lesson
of such dire times in history is that, given motive, method, and
opportunity, any of us could have been an Eichmann, a Himmler, an
Idi Amin. The more we try to hide from this fact, the more reason we
have to pat ourselves on the back and say "we're not like that. We
couldn't possibly be like that". Unfortunately, reality doesn't
always support us in that conclusion.

And, where there is evil, sooner or later, the light of
truth and justice will eventually find it.

> > Leaving the world to its own devices is just.
> > Since God is a loving God he has a plan to reconcile us
> > to Him.

I think that in all of the talk about fundamental justice, this
is the very thing we need to remember most of all. Even more fundamental
than the concept of perfect justice is the reality of perfect love.
In fact, in the absence of love, of some kind of compassion , justice
becomes just as perverted as the evil it's supposed to dispel. Love
carries over and through justice, guiding it to serve the good of
the recipient.

If you think about it, what really is the purpose of the penal
system ? For some reason, most people seem to have this idea that
it's only purpose is to punish those who have wronged them in a
way specifiable under the agreed upon civil contract. This seems
rather arbitrary, though. At best, some understand it to be a way
of curtailing the harm and evil that could be done by people who
again refuse to follow the "social contract".

How novel is this, though ? Since the deterrent doesn't seem
to be working on the recidivistic inmates, and since the system is
dangerously overloaded, it seems we might be trying to use it for
something which it was never intended to deliver. Ideally, we
would like rehabilitation to be a goal of the penal system. But,
this kind of program requires a change in the philosophy of the
system. Now, instead of simply using it to stockpile manpower,
or as an obligatory holding tank for incorrigibles, one has to decide
how to turn it into a compassionate instrument for reintroducing
people into society. In the absence of that compassion, the
system has turned into what we now see.

In a sense, God's "grace" (read "free gift") is a pardon
for inmates held captive in sin, and an honest chance to start over and
become a new person. There are very few recidivists, and ultimately
the outcome is adoption into God's family. Only the recidivists -
those who flatly refuse the "free out" - eventually go to hell.
There, they get what they've always wanted - separation from God.

> Why? Why do I deserve to be tortured because I'm not your god's equal?
> I'm only human.

But, you do agree that if you've done something which is unlawful,
then it is just that you go to prison. All this is saying is that
there are consequences for our actions and choices - nothing new that
you don't already know.

> Only by God's love and grace are some saved from it. So,
> > yeah, God IS love.

> No he isn't. If he was, he wouldn't expect me to be perfect. I doubt
> that you're old enough to have kids, but if you were, would you kill one
> of them for not getting straight A's? If you did, you wouldn't be very
> loving, would you? Why should god expect perfection when he knows we
> can't be perfect?

God expects perfection. However, He also exercises grace.
He is just as excited when His kids take their first steps as you
were. He also sees them being able to finish college, just as you
might dream. Just because it's not happening now doesn't mean
He can't dream.

And, if you read the text, you'll find that God exercises
a studied and patient restraint over His anger with people for
behaving in really sick ways. He usually witholds judgement until
the very last minute. And, in no case does the punishment not
fir with the severity of the crime.

God expects us to be
everything that He created us to be. God understands that we won't
get there overnight. So, knowing this, He gives us the opportunity
to come to Him when we're ready. But you don't have to be perfect
in order to come to Him. In fact, if that were true, as you've pointed
out, none of us would ever get there. It actually works the other
way around. God wants us to come to Him and get to know Him, then,
as a result of being with Him, He will help us to become what
we've always wanted to become. Incidentally, it happens to
coincide with what He created us to be - by default, since He
knew what we are from the beginning.

> "KILL! KILL! KILL!" Is that what you call "justus?"

That's a very one-sided view of it. I've described the
nature of God's justice above; and it is not all punishment.
It is not all death, either. In fact, very much of it turns
out to be plain old discipline.

> > One more point. Every arguement makes an assumption... you just
> > have to go back far enough. At least a Christian recognises that he is
> > basing his argument on the assumption of God. He's assuming that he can
> > make a logical argument based on God's revelation. God is a logical God
> > and He created rules for the universe.
>
> You're just assuming that.

Au contraire' . The evidence for the consistency between
the character of God as outlined in the Bible and the nature of
the universe is well-documented, and a strong case, as well.
When creative, He creates things in the order that our scientists ,
years later, discover they must be created in order to have the
kind of planet, the kind of universe, we have. The first line of
Genesis points to a creation of the universe sometime in the
finite past; astrophysicists have discovered that the universe
began in a single explosion about 16 billion years ago. God
revealed the night sky on the fourth creation "day"; palaeontologists
and geologists have recently discovered that the earth's atmosphere
at one time was distinctly overcast for several million years.

And these are correlations which we can draw based on our
understanding of science and philosophy, things we couldn't do
without logic. If God is attempting to be illogical, He
certainly isn't doing a very good job of it.

> An athiest makes the assumption
> > that space, time, and chance created everything. How does an athiest
> > automatically assume he can use logic in his argument?
>
> How do you assume you can?

This is a straw assertion. If you want to dig the very shallow
but interminably deep hole of skepticism out from under the
principle of credulity, you can, but I won't help you spade it.

Start from your own mind. You appear to be reasoning with
me (if you're reading and understanding any word I've written,
you're reasoning). How do you understand ? Your brain interprets
the stored pattern. How did you know there was a pattern ? You
matched it to prior learning. How did you first recognize the
pattern ? Well ....

You see how this begins to degenerate into a problem of
the homonculus. We choose to circumvent that problem by presuming
that we have minds to reason with which don't suffer any of
the philosophical pitfalls of the "brain as computer-mind"
model.

> > reason to trust them. You trust them only by faith. As least a Christian
> > has faith that something outside himself revealed logic. Logic is comes
> > from a Christian world view and not an athiestic world view.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about. How is it logical to put all
> your faith in something you don't even know exists, and if it did, seems
> like kind of an asshole anyway?

How is it logical to deride the faith of another when you haven't
sufficiently shown it to be illogical ?

Surf on, dude :-)

SandalSurfer ><>

>
> Steve
>

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

Jeffrey Gustafson <jef...@packardbell.com> wrote:
> Some basic points:

Assertions.

> God is a loving God.
> God is a just God.
> God is good.
> Anything that goes against God is evil.
> We are all evil and destined for complete justus (hell).
> Leaving the world to its own devices is just.
> Since God is a loving God he has a plan to reconcile us
> to Him.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that pain is suffering is what we
> all deserve. Only by God's love and grace are some saved from it.

Are you reading this Sean? Do you still fail to understand why I
say that Christianity teaches a demeaning view of humanity?

> One more point. Every arguement makes an assumption... you just
> have to go back far enough. At least a Christian recognises that
> he is basing his argument on the assumption of God. He's assuming
> that he can make a logical argument based on God's revelation. God
> is a logical God and He created rules for the universe. An athiest
> makes the assumption that space, time, and chance created
> everything. How does an athiest automatically assume he can use
> logic in his argument?

Ah, we don't. Logic and science are fairly recent developments in
human history. We didn't just make them up to please ourselves, and
to make life difficult for religious folks. They are the result of
long experience that some things work, some things don't, and that
certain methods are more consistent than others at achieving the
former results.

> Your own senses and brain are probably deceiving you because you
> have no reason to trust them. You trust them only by faith.

If our senses are so deceitful, what do you say you let me duct tape
you to a chair and do my Hannibal-Lecter-with-a-PR-24 impression?

Hmm?

I didn't think so. Despite your solipsist bullshit, you're just as
aware as I am that our senses _are_ reliable.

Tim Velozo

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

Hey I didn't read all the articles posted but, God dosen't send man to
hell, its man choices. wheather to serve God or not. With every action
there is a judgment. So man must consider the judgment for his actions.
The judgment for not following Gods word is to go to hell in the end.

--
Tim Velozo

PCC_V...@msn.com

David Rutledge <da...@chickasaw.com> wrote in article
<5cbhs6$t...@picard.chickasaw.com>...
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970124...@unicorn.it.wsu.edu>,

Stephen Douglas Guilliot <guil...@wsunix.wsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > No scare tactic huh...?
> > So you mean that if I "sign up" I'll go to heaven, but if I
don't
> >I'll go to the lake of fire.
> > It doesn't take a priest in a confession box to perform a scare
> >tactic. You just did it. This explains why christians feel very guilty
> >about thinking non-christian things. *They don't want to go to hell, do
> >they?*
> > --Steve
> >
>

> Great work there. You convieniently snipped out the part where I
explained
> that faith in Christ was the only thing that saved a person from hell.
That
> means that "thinking about non-christian things" is nothing to worry
about,
> even though it might bother a Christian when they do so, since they are
TRYING
> to do what Christ said to do. There is nothing that a Christian can do
that
> can take salvation away from them. So it doesn't even matter that every
sin
> from lying to murdering is seen as equal in the eyes of God, because he
won't
> send you to hell for it anyway if you are truly a Christian. Wooooooooo!

> Sounds scary to me!
>
> If you mean that if you keep living in sin and don't accept Him then
> Christianity is a scare tactic, then you're right. But it's not
intentional.
> I'm not scared of cars, but if I chose to stand in the middle of the road

> instead of getting out of the way, I would be. Car's, like the path to
> salvation, aren't meant to scare you, but they should scare you if you
ignore
> them and treat them with disrespect.
>
> David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com)
>

David Rutledge

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

In article <5cjlu0$6...@garcia.efn.org>, b...@efn.org (Bob Weigel) wrote:

>>>David Rutledge wrote:
>>> No. Its more like God created this big gun, and all of humanity is standing
>>> in front if it out of choice and/or ignorance. God says, "Hey. This gun is

>>> going to go off, and I can't move it. Please step aside". Everybody hears
>>> it, but as humans it kind of feels intoxicating to be standing there in the
>>>face of danger, so most people stay. Others, knowing that they will
>>> otherwise die and that there's a lot more interesting stuff to do, move out
>>>of the way.
>>

>I don't think "guns" are really all that good of an analogy. GUNS would
>indicate that somebody just set up a "threat" for the sake of having a
>"threat"....I mean what other pupose does the gun serve in this analogy?
>None. BUT, here in real life, the PRICE of having REAL LOVE...is free
>choice. The result of free choice has been (although it was NEVER dictated
>to have been....which is why it's FREE CHOICE! If it were predetermined,
>it wouldn't be free choice)...that sin entered the world and death is the
>result. That was the risk of allowing love to be a possibility. I guess
>if you can't accept that....you're just awfully boring to me...not exactly
>a "romantic" I'd say. True love deals with the world's depravity, rather
>than denying it, or blaming God for it. -Bob

Good points, Bob. I only made the gun analogy to propose a more accurate
analogy using a gun than the one they had already made. I don't like
it either, and I wish I had never invented it. Still, it made the necessary
point at the time, but now everybody else is picking it apart.

Thanks for the input.

David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com)

David Rutledge

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.97012...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>, steve eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>If this is the result of sin, and there is no sin in heaven, isn't this
>what heaven is going to be like?
>

Uhh...everybody that's going to be in heaven will have committed sins on
earth. That's the whole point of coming to earth to learn these things in the
first place. In heaven it will all make sense. Since we will have lived in
sin, we will praise God for being free of it for all eternity.

>But still, why should eating a piece of fruit be the worst thing a person
>can do? Why is he such a perfectionist?

What!?! Eating a piece of fruit was the only sin available at the time. It
was the fruit that allowed us to create new sins. It was the fruit of
the knowledge of life and death. It was the one thing God said not to do.
Everything else was permissible, so of course they were drawn to what was
forbidden.

David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com)

cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

Jeffrey Gustafson (jef...@packardbell.com) wrote:

: God IS love. But don't forget God demands absolute justus. Not
: man's justus, but pure justus. ^^^^^^
^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
I *was* going to say something about this whole post, and not just the
embarassingly childish spelling errors...but it'd be too easy...

Suffice it to say that often such things *are* indicative of the mind of
the person writing it. In other words, I'm not terribly suprised.

--
******************************
Me fail English?
That's unpossible!
- Ralph Wiggum
******************************

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

Sean Armster <arm...@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, steve eric cisna wrote:
> > On 28 Jan 1997, Jeffrey Gustafson wrote:
> > >
> > > Anything that goes against God is evil.
> > > We are all evil and destined for complete justus (hell).
>
> Let's see, though. If I recall correctly, there was one particular
> concentration camp survivor who, upon being called in to Nuremberg
> to identify Adolf Eichmann, broke down in the middle of the
> proceedings after having a startling realization about human
> nature. "He was a man, a normal man, just like me. And it was then
> that I realized, 'I have the capability to do such things'

But we don't.

> "The inescapable lesson of such dire times in history is that,
> given motive, method, and opportunity, any of us could have been an
> Eichmann, a Himmler, an Idi Amin. The more we try to hide from this
> fact, the more reason we have to pat ourselves on the back and say
> "we're not like that. We couldn't possibly be like that".

We could possibly be, but we are not. We judge people by what they
are, not by what they could be in other circumstances. To judge
based on the latter would be a travesty of justice.

If that is what you are claiming your God does, then your God is not
just at all.

> I think that in all of the talk about fundamental justice, this
> is the very thing we need to remember most of all. Even more
> fundamental than the concept of perfect justice is the reality of
> perfect love. In fact, in the absence of love, of some kind of
> compassion , justice becomes just as perverted as the evil it's
> supposed to dispel. Love carries over and through justice, guiding
> it to serve the good of the recipient.

Assertion.

> If you think about it, what really is the purpose of the penal

> system? [snip] Since the deterrent doesn't seem to be working on

> the recidivistic inmates, and since the system is dangerously
> overloaded, it seems we might be trying to use it for something
> which it was never intended to deliver.

Like a war on drugs, perhaps? The fact that the U.S. penal system
is hopelessly screwed up does not mean that the concept of deterrance
is null and void. Not all cultures have the same problems we do.

You're committing the fallacy of generalizing from the specific
case.

> In a sense, God's "grace" (read "free gift") is a pardon for
> inmates held captive in sin, and an honest chance to start over and
> become a new person. There are very few recidivists, and ultimately
> the outcome is adoption into God's family. Only the recidivists -
> those who flatly refuse the "free out" - eventually go to hell.
> There, they get what they've always wanted - separation from God.

More assertion.

> > Why? Why do I deserve to be tortured because I'm not your god's
> > equal? I'm only human.
>
> But, you do agree that if you've done something which is unlawful,
> then it is just that you go to prison.

It is unjust to hold people to a standard they can not possibily
fulfill.

> > > Only by God's love and grace are some saved from it. So,
> > > yeah, God IS love.
>
> > No he isn't. If he was, he wouldn't expect me to be perfect. I
> > doubt that you're old enough to have kids, but if you were, would
> > you kill one of them for not getting straight A's? If you did,
> > you wouldn't be very loving, would you? Why should god expect
> > perfection when he knows we can't be perfect?
>
> God expects perfection.

See above. If he expected perfection, he should have created us as
perfect beings.

> However, He also exercises grace.

Classic abuser profile.

1. Set expectations the victim cannot possibly fulfill.
2. Beat them when they fail, and say "You made me do this." or
"I'm only doing this for your own good."
3. Occasionally offer "grace" from your unreasonable expectations
so they continue to see you as the good guy and stick around
so you can beat them some more.

You're not helping your case here, dude.

> > You're just assuming that.
>
> Au contraire' . The evidence for the consistency between the
> character of God as outlined in the Bible and the nature of the
> universe is well-documented, and a strong case, as well. When
> creative, He creates things in the order that our scientists ,
> years later, discover they must be created in order to have the
> kind of planet, the kind of universe, we have.

What you're stating is the strong anthropic argument, and it's
false. (The weak version is merely trivially true.) See the
article "Cosmythology" [1]

> Start from your own mind. You appear to be reasoning with
> me (if you're reading and understanding any word I've written,
> you're reasoning). How do you understand ? Your brain interprets
> the stored pattern. How did you know there was a pattern ? You
> matched it to prior learning. How did you first recognize the
> pattern ? Well ....

There are answers to these questions. [2]

> You see how this begins to degenerate into a problem of the
> homonculus.

Even if there weren't answers, what you're invoking is the god
of the gaps, which is an example of the fallacious argument from
ignorance. You're just finding the first thing science doesn't
have an answer for (yet) and saying "Hey look! It must be God!"

Your god is the homonculus.

> We choose to circumvent that problem by presuming that
> we have minds to reason with which don't suffer any of the
> philosophical pitfalls of the "brain as computer-mind" model.

You haven't shown that there's a problem yet, beyond the fact
that we don't know everything yet, and you seem to think that
we should.

jason
r.m.c resident atheist

[1] http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/cosmyth.txt
[2] For a good introduction to the mechanics of the mind,
see John McCrone's "The Ape That Spoke: Language and the
Evolution of the Human Mind".

Jeffrey Gustafson

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

steve eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:

>On 28 Jan 1997, Jeffrey Gustafson wrote:

>> Some basic points:
>> God is a loving God.
>> God is a just God.
>> God is good.
>> Anything that goes against God is evil.
>> We are all evil and destined for complete justus (hell).

>Wait a second. How do you get this last part?

Because sin is genetic, originating at Adam. Adam was our
representative. We would have made the same choice if we were in his
place. The upside to all this is we can experience God's grace.

>> Leaving the world to its own devices is just.
>> Since God is a loving God he has a plan to reconcile us
>> to Him.
>>
>> The point I'm trying to make is that pain is suffering is what we
>> all deserve.

>Why? Why do I deserve to be tortured because I'm not your god's equal?
>I'm only human.

>Only by God's love and grace are some saved from it. So,
>> yeah, God IS love.

>No he isn't. If he was, he wouldn't expect me to be perfect. I doubt
>that you're old enough to have kids, but if you were, would you kill one
>of them for not getting straight A's? If you did, you wouldn't be very
>loving, would you? Why should god expect perfection when he knows we
>can't be perfect?

Yes!! You almost have it! We as humans are the kids who
can't make the grade (perfection). BUT God sent his Son because He
loved us. Jesus DID make the grade and thus was a perfect sacrifice
to cover up our horrible grades. Jesus was punished for something He
didn't do (get F's). We deserve to be toast, but we are saved from
that because of Jesus. His grace allowed us to be reconcilled to him
through Jesus. Of course the analogy of grades breaks down because
grades are nothing compared to the Holiness of God.
Matt 20:28: just as the Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Romans 3:22-25: 22This righteousness from God comes through faith
in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified
freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
25God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in His
blood. He did this to demonstrate His justice, because in His
forbearance He had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his one
and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but
have eternal life.

>But don't forget God demands absolute justus. Not
>> man's justus, but pure justus.

>"KILL! KILL! KILL!" Is that what you call "justus?"

Yup. A person who rejects God wants eternal seperation from
Him... and that's what they get. BUT we don't have to go down that
route. God has a plan to save people from absolute justice.

>> One more point. Every arguement makes an assumption... you just
>> have to go back far enough. At least a Christian recognises that he is
>> basing his argument on the assumption of God. He's assuming that he can
>> make a logical argument based on God's revelation. God is a logical God
>> and He created rules for the universe.

>You're just assuming that.

That's what I said. Everyone makes assumptions. Which one is
less irrational?

>An athiest makes the assumption
>> that space, time, and chance created everything. How does an athiest
>> automatically assume he can use logic in his argument?

>How do you assume you can?

Because I put my faith in something outside of the universe
that created order and logic. An athiest puts his/her faith in space,
time, and chance... and gets logic? How? By using their senses? Now
why should they put trust in that? An athiest takes from the
Christian world view to make his/her argument. An athiest should
acknowledge their assumption and not use logic in their argument. Of
course a person who completely runs from logic in every way is in
their own world and is usually considered a lunatic.

>I thought
>> everything was an accident. So, if you are going to argue that God
>> doesn't exist, please recognise your assumption and stop using logic.
>> Your own senses and brain are probably deceiving you because you have no
>> reason to trust them. You trust them only by faith. As least a Christian
>> has faith that something outside himself revealed logic. Logic is comes
>> from a Christian world view and not an athiestic world view.

>I have no idea what you're talking about. How is it logical to put all
>your faith in something you don't even know exists, and if it did, seems
>like kind of an asshole anyway?

God exists. It's impossible to say He doesn't exist. To say
He doesn't exist would mean that a person knows EVERYTHING about the
universe. The only person who knows EVERYTHING is God. I guess
athiests believe themselves to be God Himself.

>Steve

--
Jeffrey Gustafson
jef...@netcom.COM

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

<cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
> Jeffrey Gustafson (jef...@packardbell.com) wrote:
>
> : God IS love. But don't forget God demands absolute justus. Not
> : man's justus, but pure justus. ^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
> I *was* going to say something about this whole post, and not just
> the embarassingly childish spelling errors...but it'd be too easy...

I figured it was just truth in advertizing. Like "Cheez" or "Froot".

Jeffrey Gustafson

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

stei...@primenet.com (Jason and Heather) writes:

>Jeffrey Gustafson <jef...@packardbell.com> wrote:
>> Some basic points:

>Assertions.

>> God is a loving God.

>> God is a just God.
>> God is good.
>> Anything that goes against God is evil.
>> We are all evil and destined for complete justus (hell).
>> Leaving the world to its own devices is just.
>> Since God is a loving God he has a plan to reconcile us
>> to Him.
>>
>> The point I'm trying to make is that pain is suffering is what we
>> all deserve. Only by God's love and grace are some saved from it.

>Are you reading this Sean? Do you still fail to understand why I

>say that Christianity teaches a demeaning view of humanity?

Demeaning???? You mean valuable!! We are God's special
creation. God sacrificed so we could be reconciled to Him.

>> One more point. Every arguement makes an assumption... you just
>> have to go back far enough. At least a Christian recognises that
>> he is basing his argument on the assumption of God. He's assuming
>> that he can make a logical argument based on God's revelation. God
>> is a logical God and He created rules for the universe. An athiest
>> makes the assumption that space, time, and chance created
>> everything. How does an athiest automatically assume he can use
>> logic in his argument?

>Ah, we don't. Logic and science are fairly recent developments in

>human history. We didn't just make them up to please ourselves, and
>to make life difficult for religious folks. They are the result of
>long experience that some things work, some things don't, and that
>certain methods are more consistent than others at achieving the
>former results.

There you go using logic again.

>> Your own senses and brain are probably deceiving you because you
>> have no reason to trust them. You trust them only by faith.

>If our senses are so deceitful, what do you say you let me duct tape

>you to a chair and do my Hannibal-Lecter-with-a-PR-24 impression?

>Hmm?

>I didn't think so. Despite your solipsist bullshit, you're just as
>aware as I am that our senses _are_ reliable.

I know my senses are reliable. It fits with the Christian
world view that God is a God of logic and order. God gave us senses
for a reason. But how you get logic out of a world view of space,
time, and chance?

--
Jeffrey Gustafson
jef...@netcom.COM

Sean Armster

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

On 28 Jan 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:

> Sean Armster (arm...@taurus.oac.uci.edu) wrote:
> >
> > > That's fairly good. What I was trying to capture is that
> > > Christians are debasing themselves, worshipping a God that may or
> > > may not exist. If he doesn't, then there's no reason to do so.
> > > If he does, by all moral standards, he's evil, and you're
> > > worshipping that evil and calling it "good".
> >
> > Not so. The God of the OT and NT consistently dispenses justice on
> > those who break with His moral law, and consistently blesses those
> > who follow it. The fallacy often cited in stating that God is not
> > just is just what Job's friends were attempting to work through :
> > the problem of evil and suffering, and its status as strictly
> > "dispensary". But, as Job realized at the end of the book,
> > suffering and evil are _not_ dispensary. They are a condition of
> > the system.
>
> As creator of the system, God is responsible for its condition.

It's _original_ condition, sans evil. For this you may
thank Adam. And Eve. And most especially Cain . As it is, evil
is far, far older than you. Get over it and try to do something
about it.

> There's no need for salvation if there's nothing to be saved from.

Famous last words , eh ?

> > By the way, Christian theology does _not_ teach that man is worthless.
>
> It most certainly does. As I wrote above, it's a prerequisite.

Please remind the good gentlemen in the corner that saving
a null accomplishes null. Not withstanding that saving something
that is inherently worthless is a non-action anyway. God saves
because He sees value in man; value which, only incidentally,
comes from man being God's brainchild. Why ever would one assume
man to be worthless if one first assumes that God made him ?

> > In fact, it teaches the opposite. In context, the only sure things
> > in this world are God's love for mankind and man's tendency to de-
> > value it.
>
> See? You're trying to sell me right now. Not only is man a low,
> despicable creature incapable of love, he's incapable of _receiving_
> love.

Wrong answer. Man is a creature made in the image of a God
with these capabilities. How can he not have them in some
measure ? Note that I speak from the text.

> > is a function of God's holiness, He is by far the most moral being
> > in existence.
>
> And this moral being kills, rapes, causes pain, etc., etc. Call it
> what you like, with "morality" like that, who needs immorality?

Really now. We've been over and through man's responsibilities,
given to him by God.

> This is a dangerous question to address, because there is no _one_
> Christian world-view. Different Christians have different world-
> views, and if I give examples of where one contradicts reality,
> then those who don't believe in that particular example are sure
> to protest.

That is of no concern to me. I will address any issues which
come from the text. No more, no less.

> Even so, I'll advance one. In Matthew 6, Jesus preaches a sermon
> espousing a lifestyle that is completely at odds with the lifestyle
> of the vast majority of Christians today.

And the vast misunderstanding of this lifestyle is often
concatenated with the behavior of several mainstream "Christians".
Please refrain from judging the Savior by the sinners; the
perfect by the imperfect.

How is it misunderstood ? Jesus Himself lived modestly
but comfortably in the interdependence of His group of
disciples. The community of believers in Acts 2 (modeled after
the Lord's community with the disciples) "sold their possesions
and gave of them to the poor". Common sense would tell one that
one cannot give to the needy for very long if you sell _everything_
you own. But, this is a misnomer, since we don't really own
anything anyway.

> > In this universe, a closed thermodynamic system, organization
> > does not come about on its own.
>
> More assertion! Where is this written?
>
> > Most astrophysicists agree that the universe has a boundary, and is
> > thermodynamically sealed. Since it also has a specific entropy of
> > roughly a million to one, it would, in order to organize itself
> > sufficiently to produce star systems capable of supporting life,
> > actively fight the tendency to unravel whatever it made. Sixteen
> > billion years is a very short time in which to accomplish it.
>
> You're cruelly abusing thermodynamics, and engaging in some severe
> semantic trickery besides. Someone ought to wash your mouth out with
> soap for willfully spreading such ignorance.

Before displaying such elan in dismissing the concept,
see:

Kittel, Charles. _Thermal Physics_, 3rd Ed. (Harcourt, etc).

There you will find that in order for systems to organize into
structures, energy must be put into them. Organizing a system
is a process of doing _work_ on the system. No work is done
_ever_ without a loss of free energy.. Hence, no organization
can _ever_ be done without a decrease in free energy (and
a corresponding increase in entropy).

Most of the energy of the universe (closed system) is in
irrecoverable phases and processes. Most of it has been there
for quite a long time. Hence, very little of it would have
been around to cause the system to self- order.

> The second law of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy that
> it uses have to do with _energy_, not order. You haven't even
> defined what you mean by order yet!

Again, I shall refrain from discussin the topic until you
have a chance to check out Kittel's book. It's a textbook
written at the upper div undergrad level, so much of it will
be smooth going.

You should try recovering the wax from your board from the
ocean if you don't believe that the 2nd Law applies to ordered
systems ;-> Let me know when you get enough to fill a glass
of beer :)

SandalSurfer ><>

p.s. The Zeroth Law of Physics:

" I aam the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains
in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit. Apart
from me, he can do _nothing_ ." Jn. 14:27

Surf on, dudes !!!

Pat

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

> >Do you have any idea what this looks like?

>
> > "Honey, why are you staying with that abusive husband?"
> > "He loves me!"
> > "But he beats you! Look, you're black and blue!"
> > "Yes, but he loves me!"
> > "How do you know that?"
> > "He tells me he loves me."
> > "Why would he cause you such pain if he loves you?"
> > "I don't know. It's beyond my understanding. I trust him."
> > "Why do you trust him?"
> > "Because he told me to. I have to have faith."
> > "Why?"
> > "Because if I don't, I won't have anything to live for."
>

> >What can you say? What can a person outside of an abusive relationship,
> >do to convince the victims inside of it that the logic doesn't work?

>
> >You can't. But every once in a great while you see someone who
> >_almost_ gets it, but not quite. And it fills me with rage and

> >frustration, because they're SO F------ CLOSE. Worse, if you try to

> >point out the flaws, they'll rush to defend their abuser, making it
> >all the less likely that they'll ever take that final step.

In your scenerio, if the woman leaves her abusive husband, then she will
no longer be abused. If the abuse is suppose to represent pain and
suffering in life, then your scenerio doesn't work. Everyone suffers in
life, regardless, if they love God or not. Not loving God will NOT end
someone's suffering.

NEW SCENERIO:

"Joe, why do you let your 21 year old son walk all over you? He doesn't
work, he doesn't go to school. You bailed him out of jail twice, once
for that drunken brawl, and once on drug charges. Yet, you feed him,
pay all his expenses, and take care of everything for him. Why???"

"He's my son. I love him."

"But, if he never has any problems and pain, he will never become a
complete person. He will never become the man that he is capable of
becoming. A man who knows both joy and sorrow, work and rest, tears and
laughter. He will never truly experience life."

"But, I can't stand to see him in tears and sorrow. I love him too
much."

"You have to love him enough to allow him to have his own life, to make
his own decisions and live with the consequences of his decisions. When
he sees the effects of his lifestyle, he will change and grow. He will
be sorry for the pain, he caused you. You will forgive him, because you
love him. Then, he will be a new man."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesn't even come close to what God's grace is truly about. I know
that this won't change anyone's mind. Just please try to understand
that there is more to life than what you can see and touch. That, there
might be reasons for pain and suffering. That, there are people who
receive joy and peace from living in Him. Believing in God's promises
makes the pain and suffering bearable. Knowing that, in heaven, all the
suffering in this world will be healed with love and joy.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they
will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

- Matthew 5:3 - 10 NIV

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth

- Psalm 86:11

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

Jeffrey Gustafson <jef...@netcom.com> wrote:
> steve eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:

> > Jeffrey Gustafson wrote:
> > >
> > > We are all evil and destined for complete justus (hell).
>
> >Wait a second. How do you get this last part?
>
> Because sin is genetic, originating at Adam.

*Chortle*

I love it when people throw around terms like "genetic" without any
idea of the implications. Do you think we should alert the human
genome project about this?

> Adam was our representative. We would have made the same choice if
> we were in his place.

So not only do we not have free will, but it's in our God-given nature
to sin, a nature so powerful that _nobody_ could have done better
than Adam did. And God's going to condemn us for the fact that we're
following the nature he gave us. Gotcha'.

> The upside to all this is we can experience God's grace.

Let me get this straight. Without all this we couldn't experience
God's grace, right? So it was _necessary_ for Adam to sin. God created
Adam, and us, as beings incapable of keeping his commands, expecting
us to sin, because that was the only way we could experience his
grace. Telling Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the tree
was a mere formality, a rule meant to be broken. We were designed in
such a way that we could not _help_ but to break it.

So riddle me this: if God didn't really mean what he said when he
told Adam not to eat of the tree, and in fact _planned_ for his law
to be broken, how do we know whether or not he really meant what he's
supposedly said _since_ then?

jason
r.m.c resident atheist.

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

Jeffrey Gustafson <jef...@netcom.com> wrote:
> stei...@primenet.com (Jason and Heather) writes:
> >

> > Are you reading this Sean? Do you still fail to understand why I
> > say that Christianity teaches a demeaning view of humanity?
>
> Demeaning???? You mean valuable!! We are God's special
> creation. God sacrificed so we could be reconciled to Him.

I said demeaning, and I mean demeaning. Why is reconciliation even
necessary in the Christian view? Because it teaches that man by
himself is inherently evil.

> > > Your own senses and brain are probably deceiving you because
> > > you have no reason to trust them. You trust them only by faith.
> >

> > If our senses are so deceitful, what do you say you let me duct
> > tape you to a chair and do my Hannibal-Lecter-with-a-PR-24
> > impression?
> >
> > Hmm?
> >
> > I didn't think so. Despite your solipsist bullshit, you're just as
> > aware as I am that our senses _are_ reliable.
>
> I know my senses are reliable. It fits with the Christian world
> view that God is a God of logic and order. God gave us senses for
> a reason. But how you get logic out of a world view of space,
> time, and chance?

By observing what works, and what doesn't. If we were to observe
something different, we'd use something different. We don't, and we
don't.

We can observe, for instance, that the Christian God as usually
forumulated is non-testable and non-falsifiable assertion. We can
also observe that such assertions are a dime a million. We can observe
that you have yet to offer anything but assertions as to why we should
pick your God out of the billions of possible non-testable, non-
falsifiable gods.

Feel free to dispute these observations all you like. Until you can
provide some better ones, you're full of shit.

jason

Matthias Watkins

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

OK.. all you athiests.. I'll respond to this one and save you the
trouble. It's not like your resposes aren't as predictable as ours.

> >> Anything that goes against God is evil.
> >> We are all evil and destined for complete justus (hell).
> >> Leaving the world to its own devices is just.
> >> Since God is a loving God he has a plan to reconcile us
> >> to Him.
> >>
> >> The point I'm trying to make is that pain is suffering is what we
> >> all deserve. Only by God's love and grace are some saved from it.

> >Are you reading this Sean? Do you still fail to understand why I

> >say that Christianity teaches a demeaning view of humanity?

> Demeaning???? You mean valuable!! We are God's special
> creation. God sacrificed so we could be reconciled to Him.

Valuable???? All we deserve is pain and suffering for being imperfect?
And our imperfection isn't really our fault since we were born that way.
("There is none that is perfect, no not one.") So we, mortal beings who
can only understand this finite lifetime, are subjected to _eternal_
torment as punishment for a crime we couldn't help but commit. And you say
all we deserve is torment and pain and anguish forever and ever? How could
we be _valuable_ even if God grants a reprieve to a chosen few? It's as if
Hitler, who killed Jews just because they were Jews, decides not to kill a
few of them, and because of this they owe him their love and allegiance
forever. See.. demeaning.

> >> One more point. Every arguement makes an assumption... you just
> >> have to go back far enough. At least a Christian recognises that
> >> he is basing his argument on the assumption of God. He's assuming
> >> that he can make a logical argument based on God's revelation. God
> >> is a logical God and He created rules for the universe. An athiest
> >> makes the assumption that space, time, and chance created
> >> everything. How does an athiest automatically assume he can use
> >> logic in his argument?

> >Ah, we don't. Logic and science are fairly recent developments in

> >human history. We didn't just make them up to please ourselves, and
> >to make life difficult for religious folks. They are the result of
> >long experience that some things work, some things don't, and that
> >certain methods are more consistent than others at achieving the
> >former results.

> There you go using logic again.

There you go using illogic again. How is this dicussion to go anywhere if
logic and rationality are not at its base? How do you expect atheists to
make persuasive arguments if logic is disallowed. You certainly plan to
use logic to judge and/or refute the arguments made. You are saying that
atheism is wrong merely because it is atheism. While it may be true that
atheism is wrong, the above argument is circular reasoning and is
therefore invalid.

> >> Your own senses and brain are probably deceiving you because you
> >> have no reason to trust them. You trust them only by faith.

> >If our senses are so deceitful, what do you say you let me duct tape

> >you to a chair and do my Hannibal-Lecter-with-a-PR-24 impression?

> >Hmm?

> >I didn't think so. Despite your solipsist bullshit, you're just as
> >aware as I am that our senses _are_ reliable.

> I know my senses are reliable. It fits with the Christian
> world view that God is a God of logic and order. God gave us senses
> for a reason. But how you get logic out of a world view of space,
> time, and chance?

Well.. the universe itself seems to demonstrate a remarkable propensity
for order, created or not. All interactions are governed by a discernable
set of laws and even what appears to be chaos has been shown to have a
discernable order. Could it be that our notions of what order is are
derived from the state of the universe? So are you going to say now that
atheists can't trust their senses, that the data collected over the last 5
centuries does not actually support an ordered worldview. We both, as
Christians, know that this is not the case: that, in fact, the evidence
does point to order. We say this is God, they say the universe came first
and order was derived from it. In any case, you can't argue from order and
then disallow the use of logic. That is self-defeating. If we can use
logic, so can they, regardless of whether it comes from God or not.

Anyhow, I wish to present one last point (which I'm sure will be
immediately torn to pieces by the atheistic camp.):

But first, I am assuming:

1) The Bible presents truth -- I can make no argument apart from this and
so far, the arguments of the opposition have operated under this
assumption as well, whether they believe it or not.

OK.. here goes. It is simply this: It was uneccessary for Christ
to become human and die. (Assume that if Christ hadn't come, there would
be no prophecies that pointed to his coming.) God didn't have to use this
method in order to "save the world." He could have just waved his hand and
said, "I forgive you." Nothing else is necessary. However, he had created
a system for the Israelites which involved blood sacrifice in atonement
for wrongdoings. This system was more for the Israelites benefit than for
God's. (All those references as to God liking the smell are probably just
anthropomorphisms.) They needed a physical reminder that their
fatihfulness was sufficient propitiation for their imperfections, this way
they would remain faithful. (Which many of them did.. even in exile) If
God would've said, "All you must do is remain faithful," they would've
wondered what that meant and wondered if they were doing enough and
finally would've given up on the whole business. Christ's death was
symbolically the same thing. God could've waived his hand and said, "As
long as you remain faithful." But instead he gave us a very vivid and
physical reminder that he has forgiven us. Our imperfections amount to
nothing in his eyes and he wished to show us this. We can point to Christ
and say, "See God loves me and has forgiven me." In this way he is assured
that I at least will remain faithful, not to the law, which is for our own
benefit and is merely folly to deviate from, but to Him as my God. And his
concern for me while I'm on earth is merely that I love Him, but I do this
best by loving my neighbor. The whole message of Christianity is love.
There is nothing.. nothing else. In otherwords, Christianity isn't about
God per se.. it's a manefestation of a philosophy that deals with
human-human interaction. God _is_ important, but questions concerning his
nature and motives are only intellectually interesting. Those questions
tell me nothing about how to live my life on earth.

anyway.. peace,

matt

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

Sean Armster <arm...@rigel.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
> On 28 Jan 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:
> > Sean Armster (arm...@taurus.oac.uci.edu) wrote:
> > >
> > > But, as Job realized at the end of the book, suffering and evil
> > > are _not_ dispensary. They are a condition of the system.
> >
> > As creator of the system, God is responsible for its condition.
>
> It's _original_ condition, sans evil.

And its condition thereafter. When you create a system, you are
responsible for the outcome.

If I create a system consisting of a live grenade and a two year old,
it may be perfect at the start, but it can quickly devolve into
something much less. As creator of the system, am I responsible for
its state not only immediately after the creation, but for as long as
that system exists.

God as an all-powerful, all-knowing being, cannot escape being all-
responsible. He cannot use the excuse that he did not _know_ what the
outcome would be. He cannot use the excuse that he could not _do_
anything to change the outcome. He cannot use the excuse that there
was no other way in which the system could have been created.

> For this you may thank Adam. And Eve. And most especially Cain .

Yes, blame it on the humans.

> > > By the way, Christian theology does _not_ teach that man is
> > > worthless.
> >
> > It most certainly does. As I wrote above, it's a prerequisite.
>
> Please remind the good gentlemen in the corner that saving
> a null accomplishes null. Not withstanding that saving something
> that is inherently worthless is a non-action anyway. God saves
> because He sees value in man; value which, only incidentally, comes
> from man being God's brainchild. Why ever would one assume man to
> be worthless if one first assumes that God made him ?

As you can see from your own words, Christianity inextricably ties
its definition of worth to God. God is the one to see value in man.
Without God, man is (supposedly) separated from the only thing that
can give him worth. Worth is not an inherent constant that must be
rescued or lost, (this is true even in economics, where we can see
Marx's theories failing miserably because he tried to define worth
in terms of an inherent constant, work) but a state that must be
achieved through salvation. Christians teach that if there were no
God, man's value would not be recognized, and thus he is worthless.

However, there's no point quibbling over semantics. Whatever word
you want to use, the Christian view of man without Christ is not
good. Call him sinful, debased, whatever. Quote Isaiah and say that
all our good deeds are as filthy rags. The point they are trying to
get across is that you're no good, and can only be good if you buy
what they're selling.

> > > In fact, it teaches the opposite. In context, the only sure
> > > things in this world are God's love for mankind and man's

> > > tendency to de-value it.

> >
> > See? You're trying to sell me right now. Not only is man a low,
> > despicable creature incapable of love, he's incapable of
> > _receiving_ love.
>
> Wrong answer. Man is a creature made in the image of a God
> with these capabilities. How can he not have them in some
> measure ? Note that I speak from the text.

I was speaking hyperbolically. Of course he has them in some measure,
but as you said, he "tends to de-value it". Again, you're trying to
put down man in order to sell a solution.

> > > is a function of God's holiness, He is by far the most moral being
> > > in existence.
> >
> > And this moral being kills, rapes, causes pain, etc., etc. Call it
> > what you like, with "morality" like that, who needs immorality?
>
> Really now. We've been over and through man's responsibilities,
> given to him by God.

A supposedly moral being who follows no moral standards, and who we
are supposed to simply take on his honor that he is good, despite
the fact that he commits and/or allows to be committed acts that are
evil by the very standards he has given us.

Again I ask you, how do you tell the difference between a good god,
and an evil god? Is there a difference? Do you believe that your god
is good?

> > Even so, I'll advance one. In Matthew 6, Jesus preaches a sermon
> > espousing a lifestyle that is completely at odds with the
> > lifestyle of the vast majority of Christians today.
>

> Common sense would tell one that one cannot give to the needy for
> very long if you sell _everything_ you own.

Woah! What's "common sense" doing in here? These are the commands of
God. Did he _say_ "Work hard so you'll have more money to give to the
poor?" No. If that was what he meant, why didn't he say it? Is God
that poor of a communicator? If Jesus didn't mean us to take him
literally in this sermon, did he mean it in others? How do we tell
the difference?

> > > In this universe, a closed thermodynamic system, organization
> > > does not come about on its own.
> >
> > More assertion! Where is this written?
> >
> > > Most astrophysicists agree that the universe has a boundary,
> > > and is thermodynamically sealed. Since it also has a specific
> > > entropy of roughly a million to one, it would, in order to
> > > organize itself sufficiently to produce star systems capable of
> > > supporting life, actively fight the tendency to unravel
> > > whatever it made. Sixteen billion years is a very short time in
> > > which to accomplish it.
> >
> > You're cruelly abusing thermodynamics, and engaging in some severe
> > semantic trickery besides. Someone ought to wash your mouth out
> > with soap for willfully spreading such ignorance.
>
> Before displaying such elan in dismissing the concept,
> see:
>
> Kittel, Charles. _Thermal Physics_, 3rd Ed. (Harcourt, etc).
>
> There you will find that in order for systems to organize into
> structures, energy must be put into them. Organizing a system
> is a process of doing _work_ on the system. No work is done
> _ever_ without a loss of free energy.. Hence, no organization
> can _ever_ be done without a decrease in free energy (and
> a corresponding increase in entropy).

You still haven't provided a definition for order or organization,
something I asked you for some time ago. I'm particularly interested
in how you'd measure such a thing.

I'll try to progress anyway. Would you agree that the universe
is more ordered now than it was at the time of the big bag? Would
you agree that entropy has increased since then?

Where's the problem? If you believe, as Kittel states, that
organization comes only at a cost of increased entropy, then there's
no contradiction whatsoever.

> Most of the energy of the universe (closed system) is in
> irrecoverable phases and processes. Most of it has been there for
> quite a long time. Hence, very little of it would have been around
> to cause the system to self- order.

Where is this written? You appear to be assuming that the level of
entropy and seen in the universe today is _lower_ than at the big
bang. This is a curious assumption, and I'd like to know where you
got it.

> p.s. The Zeroth Law of Physics:
>
> " I aam the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains
> in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit. Apart
> from me, he can do _nothing_ ." Jn. 14:27

Sounds to me like Jesus is describing those apart from him as
worthless...

steve eric cisna

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

Even Newer Scenario:

"Dad, why are you killing me?"

"Well, son, because I wanted you to be a doctor when you grew up."

"But, dad, I didn't want to be a doctor. I wanted to be a prosecuting
attorney."

"It doesn't matter. I had a plan for you and you failed me. You weren't
perfect, so you deserve to die. I'm sorry, but that's the way it's got
to be."

"No it doesn't, dad. You don't have to kill me. If you loved me, you'd
be happy that I found happiness in another way."

"Well, I do love you, and I do have the choice not to kill you, but..."

<BANG!>

Steve

Jon McCartie

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

You guys are making this way too complicated than it is....I believe this whole thread
began on the subject, "WHY does a GOD of LOVE send MAN to HELL?". This is probably the
simplest question a chirstian could ever recieve!

GOD DOES NOT SEND MAN TO HELL!!!! Pretty dang simple, eh? Man sends man to hell!!!
Man is seperate from God because of his sin. God, who is perfect, cannot be with sin.
However, by Jesus Christ dying on the cross, he has bridged the gap between God and Man.
And although a man stills sins after he has accepted Christ, our sins our wiped away by
the blood of Christ and God's grace.

So, to repeat myself, man sends man to hell. The question, "WHY does a GOD of LOVE send
MAN to HELL?" seems so ridiculous when you consider that it is just the opposite! God
is trying to get you to go to heaven! He loves you and wants you to be with him in
heaven!!! but he can't be with you until you are redeemed by the blood Christ shed for
you on the cross!

If you STILL don't get it, or would like to talk further, email me at:
"jo...@poboxes.com"

-Jon

Jeffrey Gustafson

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

stei...@primenet.com (Jason and Heather) writes:

>> > I didn't think so. Despite your solipsist bullshit, you're just as
>> > aware as I am that our senses _are_ reliable.
>>
>> I know my senses are reliable. It fits with the Christian world
>> view that God is a God of logic and order. God gave us senses for
>> a reason. But how you get logic out of a world view of space,
>> time, and chance?

>By observing what works, and what doesn't. If we were to observe

>something different, we'd use something different. We don't, and we
>don't.

But you're still assuming what goes on inside your heard is
reliable and consistant. That does not fix in the athiestic world
view of space, time, and chance. In an athiestic world view what's
going on inside your head is chaos and you should trust nothing. You
cannot repeat anything because there are no rules, just chaos. You
*believe* there are rules and that your senses are reliable because
you put faith in them... it's circular. I admit that my assumption is
just a circular, but I'm assuming that I'm trusting in something
outside of everything.

>We can observe, for instance, that the Christian God as usually
>forumulated is non-testable and non-falsifiable assertion. We can
>also observe that such assertions are a dime a million. We can observe
>that you have yet to offer anything but assertions as to why we should
>pick your God out of the billions of possible non-testable, non-
>falsifiable gods.

>Feel free to dispute these observations all you like. Until you can
>provide some better ones, you're full of shit.

>jason

>--

> "The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
>like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
> restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
>BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.primenet.com/~steiners/
--
Jeffrey Gustafson

jef...@netcom.COM

James Townsley

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

...some would argue that he doesn't...I've heard Christians from different
denominations both "prove" from the bible that there is an everlasting hell
and that there isn't. Biblically, the world will be destroyed with fire,
but as to whether or not the fire will torture people forever, there is
some doubt...

Keith Hamilton

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

Although God is love, that doesn't mean that He loves all things. Just as
God is love, He is also light and a consuming fire. So it is a false
assumption to believe that God loves all His creation and that includes
each person without exception.

When God said He hated Esau, it meant He hated Esau. He also hates all
workers of iniquity (Ps 5:5; 11:5).

So we can show from scripture that God loves all whom He saves and He saves
all whom He loves. If God doesn't save someone, then it means that He
never set His love upon that person. Just because God is love doesn't mean
He must love everyone or everything. God is sovereign in whom He wishes to
show His love to.

So to answer the question, I can only think of one place in scripture which
really answers the question. Romans 9 shows how there are two categories
of people, vessels of wrath who have been prepared for destruction and
vessels of mercy. The purpose for God to demonstrate His wrath on the
vessels of destruction (i.e. sending them to hell) is to not only
demonstrate His justice and holiness, but to also demonstrate to the
vessels of mercy (i.e. those who have been saved) how great the mercy is
which He has showed on them.

But don't let any Christians think that they are anything special because
of anything which they've done. Salvation is solely of God and you are
only saved because God made you saved. The act of believing in Christ is
simply a response to all the work which God has already done by giving you
a new heart and giving you faith.

Jeffrey Gustafson

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

stei...@primenet.com (Jason and Heather) writes:

>Jeffrey Gustafson <jef...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> steve eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:

>> > Jeffrey Gustafson wrote:
>> > >
>> > > We are all evil and destined for complete justus (hell).
>>
>> >Wait a second. How do you get this last part?
>>
>> Because sin is genetic, originating at Adam.

>*Chortle*

>I love it when people throw around terms like "genetic" without any
>idea of the implications. Do you think we should alert the human
>genome project about this?

I ment "genetic" because cannot break are ability to sin. You
could alert the genome project, but there is no cure for sin without
God's intervention, and even then it won't happen in our current
condition (flesh).

>> Adam was our representative. We would have made the same choice if
>> we were in his place.

>So not only do we not have free will, but it's in our God-given nature

>to sin, a nature so powerful that _nobody_ could have done better
>than Adam did. And God's going to condemn us for the fact that we're
>following the nature he gave us. Gotcha'.

Adam's nature was freedom. He apparently chose to listen to
the hot babe over God. God then punished Adam for what he chose. God
didn't give Adam a sin nature. Adam was a sinner until he made that
choice.

>> The upside to all this is we can experience God's grace.

>Let me get this straight. Without all this we couldn't experience

>God's grace, right? So it was _necessary_ for Adam to sin. God created
>Adam, and us, as beings incapable of keeping his commands, expecting
>us to sin, because that was the only way we could experience his
>grace. Telling Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the tree
>was a mere formality, a rule meant to be broken. We were designed in
>such a way that we could not _help_ but to break it.

Since God sits outside of time, of course He knew what was
going to happen. God doesn't make mistakes. We know that God has a
plan. Apparently one part of the plan was for part of His creation to
experience His grace.

>So riddle me this: if God didn't really mean what he said when he
>told Adam not to eat of the tree, and in fact _planned_ for his law
>to be broken, how do we know whether or not he really meant what he's
>supposedly said _since_ then?

God did mean what He said or else he wouldn't have punished
Adam. We know what the consequences are. Look around at the world.
If it doesn't seem like a picnic now, just wait.

--
Jeffrey Gustafson
jef...@netcom.COM

Matt

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

steve eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote
>
>

> > It would be against His nature to allow sin to
> > enter Heaven.
>
> Why? Why can't he just have sort of a "good enough" policy? It would
> make people actually try harder to be good instead of just saying that
> they're sorry after they do something wrong, which they always will.
>

Steve,
God does have a "good enough" policy. It's just that our definition of
what is GOOD falls way short of God's definition. Picture this. A
courtroom... A judge... A man that will undoubtedly be convicted of murder
and rape. Now would it be FAIR for the judge to hand out no penalties. Of
course not! There must be a penalty because God is HOLY - because He is
perfect. If no penalty was out, would a judge be doing a loving thing?
Think about it...

> But still, why should eating a piece of fruit be the worst thing a person

> can do? Why is he such a perfectionist?

Let me ask you this. Does a God of perfection (as we Christians claim He
is) have the right to require perfection? Is he being fair & just? And
the fact that this same God would send an attoning sacrifice - now if that
is not LOVE, then what is?

Matt

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1705/

clive

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

Jeffrey Gustafson wrote:

> >> Some basic points:
> >> God is a loving God.
> >> God is a just God.
> >> God is good.
> >> Anything that goes against God is evil.
> >> We are all evil and destined for complete justus (hell).
>
> >Wait a second. How do you get this last part?
>
> Because sin is genetic, originating at Adam. Adam was our
> representative. We would have made the same choice if we were in his
> place. The upside to all this is we can experience God's grace.

this is utter bollocks. if adam was created "prefect", presumeably
that means without the "sin gene"?, thus his "punishment" for
disobeying god, (how could he have done this without the gene?)
was to have the gene inserted into his dna, and for it to be passed
along to his descendents.? if he was created with the "sin gene",
god *is* reponsible for the capacity of sin in the world.
does it sound like justice to allow all descendents to inherit
"the mark of adam' sin"?. why couldnt he have started over?
because *all* humans would have made the same choice?.. in other
words god knows this in advance, and just wants a few sycophants
running around?.. (this throws a question on god's morality!)

> >No he isn't. If he was, he wouldn't expect me to be perfect. I doubt
> >that you're old enough to have kids, but if you were, would you kill one
> >of them for not getting straight A's? If you did, you wouldn't be very
> >loving, would you? Why should god expect perfection when he knows we
> >can't be perfect?
>
> Yes!! You almost have it! We as humans are the kids who
> can't make the grade (perfection). BUT God sent his Son because He
> loved us. Jesus DID make the grade and thus was a perfect sacrifice
> to cover up our horrible grades. Jesus was punished for something He
> didn't do (get F's). We deserve to be toast, but we are saved from
> that because of Jesus.

ahh yes, the worthlessness of man again. if we cannot make
perfection, it is because god does not allow us to. god
sent jesus not as a sacrifice, but to show "the way".. ie
that 'perfection' ('the sinless life') is attainable. one is
not saved because of a scapegoat 'way out'. would god prefer
a 'heaven on earth' of moral people, or a bunch of sycophantic
lapdogs spouting useless dogma and irretrievably alienating a
lot of people...

> >An athiest makes the assumption
> >> that space, time, and chance created everything. How does an athiest
> >> automatically assume he can use logic in his argument?
>
> >How do you assume you can?
>
> Because I put my faith in something outside of the universe
> that created order and logic.

'outside of the universe'?.. i'd be careful of your metaphors.
god is transcendent, and thus nothing more can be said about him.

> An athiest puts his/her faith in space, time, and chance...
> and gets logic? How? By using their senses? Now
> why should they put trust in that?

i dont want to speak for jason, but why not?, it works.
if one accepts, that there are certain things that are true a priori,
then there is no escaping them, whatever one believes.
kant argued that space, time, logic were parts of the form of
reason, but without experience there was no content. thus
only in the synthesis is anything knowable. and experience
is necessarily mine!

> An athiest takes from the
> Christian world view to make his/her argument. An athiest should
> acknowledge their assumption and not use logic in their argument.

???..

> >I have no idea what you're talking about. How is it logical to put all
> >your faith in something you don't even know exists, and if it did, seems
> >like kind of an asshole anyway?
>
> God exists. It's impossible to say He doesn't exist.

uhh.. no, existence is not a predicate. asserting that god exists
tells us nothing about his concept. the ontological proof is
flawed.

> To say He doesn't exist would mean that a person knows EVERYTHING
> about the universe. The only person who knows EVERYTHING is God. I guess
> athiests believe themselves to be God Himself.

no, certainly jason has never said anything like that at all. we
learn by asking questions, of things we do not know. human
beings cannot know the universe in a perspectiveless totality.
(that does not say that we cant know about the universe objectively)
god then 'transcends' all perspectives and nothing more about
him is knowable.

> >> >jason
> Jeffrey Gustafson
> jef...@netcom.COM

clive

Mange Grrrl

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

Jeffrey Gustafson (jef...@netcom.com) wrote:

: Yes!! You almost have it! We as humans are the kids who

: can't make the grade (perfection). BUT God sent his Son because He
: loved us. Jesus DID make the grade and thus was a perfect sacrifice
: to cover up our horrible grades. Jesus was punished for something He
: didn't do (get F's). We deserve to be toast, but we are saved from

: that because of Jesus. His grace allowed us to be reconcilled to him

: through Jesus. Of course the analogy of grades breaks down because
: grades are nothing compared to the Holiness of God.

so are you saying that since jesus died for us god no longer expects us to
be perfect?

: Yup. A person who rejects God wants eternal seperation from

: Him... and that's what they get. BUT we don't have to go down that
: route. God has a plan to save people from absolute justice.

to want to be separated from god, one must first believe that god exists.
if you don't believe god exists, you can't want to be separated from him.

: God exists. It's impossible to say He doesn't exist. To say

: He doesn't exist would mean that a person knows EVERYTHING about the
: universe. The only person who knows EVERYTHING is God. I guess
: athiests believe themselves to be God Himself.

that's ridiculous! how does not believing in god mean that one thinks one
knows everything about the universe? personally, i don't believe in god,
and i know that i understand close to nothing about the universe. that's
fine with me, though. i know that i'll probably never understand, and i
don't need to try to create an explanation. i can live life without
knowing why and how life came to be. and i certainly don't think that i
am god. i'm just a person, like all of the other people around me.

you may have need for an explanation for the world around you, but don't
assume that everyone has the same needs as you do. some people are
comfortable with unknowns.

--
** Mange Grrrl
ejo...@gl.umbc.edu

"If you don't like the rules they make, refuse to play their game"
-CRASS, "Big A, Little A"

"that kind of god is always man-made
they made him up then wrote a book to keep you on your knees"
- Skunk Anansie, "Selling Jesus"

Mange Grrrl

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

Matt (gl...@mnsinc.com) wrote:

: Let me ask you this. Does a God of perfection (as we Christians claim He

: is) have the right to require perfection? Is he being fair & just? And
: the fact that this same God would send an attoning sacrifice - now if that
: is not LOVE, then what is?

but we CAN'T be perfect. so of course, it's not fair that god require us
to be perfect. after all, he supposedly is the one who made us
not-perfect in the first place. and before you claim that he did make us
perfect before adam and eve fucked up -- if they were perfect, how did
they fuck up? they fucked up, therefore they obviously were not perfect.
humans have never been perfect, and never will be, so to punish us for not
being perfect is exceedingly unfair.

steve eric cisna

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

On 30 Jan 1997, Matt wrote:

>
>
> steve eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote
> >
> >
> > > It would be against His nature to allow sin to
> > > enter Heaven.
> >
> > Why? Why can't he just have sort of a "good enough" policy? It would
> > make people actually try harder to be good instead of just saying that
> > they're sorry after they do something wrong, which they always will.
> >
>
> Steve,
> God does have a "good enough" policy. It's just that our definition of
> what is GOOD falls way short of God's definition. Picture this. A
> courtroom... A judge... A man that will undoubtedly be convicted of murder
> and rape. Now would it be FAIR for the judge to hand out no penalties. Of
> course not! There must be a penalty because God is HOLY - because He is
> perfect. If no penalty was out, would a judge be doing a loving thing?
> Think about it...

I'm not talking about murderers here. You're right. Murderers should be
punished. This includes christian murderers, which you assert will not
be punished.

But like I said, I wasn't talking about murderers or rapists. I'm
talking about people who live their lives in the best way they know how,
but just don't believe in god. To me, this actually seems better than
being good because you're afraid of what will happen to you. I mean, if
you believe in god, then you're a good person because you think god told
you to. But if you don't, it's like when you were a kid and you cleaned
your room without your parents even asking you to. But according to
christian doctrine, the only thing a person has to do is believe in
jesus. Nobody is perfect, but shouldn't your reward or punishment depend
on how close you come, rather than where you spend your Sunday mornings?

>
> > But still, why should eating a piece of fruit be the worst thing a person
>
> > can do? Why is he such a perfectionist?
>

> Let me ask you this. Does a God of perfection (as we Christians claim He
> is) have the right to require perfection?

No. We can't be perfect. We're just human beings. Everyone makes
mistakes somewhere in life. According to christian doctrine, is it
possible for a human being not to sin? Don't you believe that, ever
since that apple got eaten, being a sinner just goes along with being a
person? So if it's impossible for us to be perfect, than god has no
right to ask us to be perfect.

Is he being fair & just? And
> the fact that this same God would send an attoning sacrifice - now if that
> is not LOVE, then what is?

Forgiving everyone, not just his rabid followers.

Steve

>
> Matt
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1705/
>
>

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

Jeffrey Gustafson <jef...@netcom.com> wrote:
> stei...@primenet.com (Jason and Heather) writes:
> >

> > > But how you get logic out of a world view of space,
> > > time, and chance?
> >
> > By observing what works, and what doesn't. If we were to observe
> > something different, we'd use something different. We don't, and
> > we don't.
>

> But you're still assuming what goes on inside your head is
> reliable and consistant.

Yes, because that's the way it appears. Now, I could assume that
what goes on in my head is not reliable and consistent, but then
where would I be? By the very act of making that assumption, I would
be assuming that what goes on in my head is reliable and consistent!

We cannot escape our own minds. "I think, therefore I am not" is not
a tenable position to take.

> That does not fix in the athiestic world view of space, time, and
> chance.

There's is no "athiestic world view", or even an atheistic world
view. Atheism is a disbelief in gods, it is not a philosophical
system.

> In an athiestic world view what's going on inside your head is
> chaos and you should trust nothing. You cannot repeat anything
> because there are no rules, just chaos. You *believe* there are
> rules and that your senses are reliable because you put faith in
> them... it's circular.

Straw man. You're setting up a world view that is simply not mine.

> I admit that my assumption is just a circular, but I'm assuming
> that I'm trusting in something outside of everything.

Why is that better?

> > We can observe, for instance, that the Christian God as usually
> > forumulated is non-testable and non-falsifiable assertion. We can
> > also observe that such assertions are a dime a million. We can
> > observe that you have yet to offer anything but assertions as to
> > why we should pick your God out of the billions of possible non-
> > testable, non-falsifiable gods.

I note that you have not addressed any of these observations.

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

Matthias Watkins <mwat...@barney.gonzaga.edu> wrote:
>
> OK.. all you athiests.. I'll respond to this one and save you the
> trouble. It's not like your resposes aren't as predictable as ours.

Ha! Thank you. I'm going to snip most of your followup, and reply
to your one last point.

> Anyhow, I wish to present one last point (which I'm sure will be
> immediately torn to pieces by the atheistic camp.):

I'll try, anyway. :)

> But first, I am assuming:
>
> 1) The Bible presents truth -- I can make no argument apart from
> this and so far, the arguments of the opposition have operated
> under this assumption as well, whether they believe it or not.

For the moment, yes. If we're going to talk about inconsistencies
in the Bible and/or Christian doctrines (which are not necessarily
the same thing) we have to assume that they exist.

> OK.. here goes. It is simply this: It was uneccessary for Christ to
> become human and die. (Assume that if Christ hadn't come, there
> would be no prophecies that pointed to his coming.) God didn't have
> to use this method in order to "save the world." He could have just
> waved his hand and said, "I forgive you." Nothing else is necessary.

I appreciate this admission.

Before I continue, let me lay some groundwork. The question "WHY does
a GOD of LOVE send MAN to HELL?" is basically a specific statement of
the Problem of Evil. Pain and suffering (evil) are at odds with a god
who is

- Omniscient
- Omnipotent
- Omnibenevolent

The classic answers to the question all amount to stating that God
is _not_ one of the above. You can learn a lot about Christians by
presenting them with this problem and seeing _which_ one they choose
to say that God is not.

For example, one common answer is to say that God does love man (he
is omnibenevolent), but he gave us a choice and we chose to create
pain for ourselves. This begs the question of why God gave us a
choice if he (being omniscient) knew that we were going to misuse it.
Free will is then invoked, with the Christian stating true love cannot
exist without a choice. This, of course, is a limitation on God and
his creative powers. Thus the argument from free will boils down
to stating that "God is not Omnipotent. In order to obtain love,
he was forced to create us with free will."

> However, he had created a system for the Israelites which involved
> blood sacrifice in atonement for wrongdoings. This system was more
> for the Israelites benefit than for God's. (All those references as
> to God liking the smell are probably just anthropomorphisms.) They
> needed a physical reminder that their fatihfulness was sufficient
> propitiation for their imperfections, this way they would remain
> faithful. (Which many of them did.. even in exile) If God would've
> said, "All you must do is remain faithful," they would've wondered
> what that meant and wondered if they were doing enough and finally
> would've given up on the whole business. Christ's death was
> symbolically the same thing. God could've waived his hand and said,
> "As long as you remain faithful." But instead he gave us a very
> vivid and physical reminder that he has forgiven us. Our
> imperfections amount to nothing in his eyes and he wished to show
> us this. We can point to Christ and say, "See God loves me and has
> forgiven me."

This begs the question, "Why are such symbols necessary?" That's
the way we were created, or so the story goes. If we are incapable
of recognizing signs less dramatic than bloodshed, then it is only
because God has not given us the ability to do so. If you admit
that God is powerful enough to wave his hand and forgive sin, then
he is also powerful enough to wave his hand and make us _realize_ that
he has forgiven our sin. Indeed, one wonders about the usefulness
of one without the other.

So why doesn't God use a more gentle way of demonstrating his love
and forgiveness than the slaughter of innocents? Either he is not
capable of doing so (he is not omnipotent) or he is unwilling to do
so (he is not omnibenevolent).

I'm interested in seeing which one you will choose. Not because it
tells me anything about God (after all, as an atheist, I believe we're
just talking about an idea that doesn't exist outside of the heads of
believers) but because it tells me something about your idea of God,
and thus a little bit about you.

> In this way he is assured that I at least will remain faithful, not
> to the law, which is for our own benefit and is merely folly to
> deviate from, but to Him as my God. And his concern for me while
> I'm on earth is merely that I love Him, but I do this best by
> loving my neighbor. The whole message of Christianity is love.
> There is nothing.. nothing else. In otherwords, Christianity isn't
> about God per se.. it's a manefestation of a philosophy that deals
> with human-human interaction. God _is_ important, but questions
> concerning his nature and motives are only intellectually
> interesting. Those questions tell me nothing about how to live my
> life on earth.

Your position sounds very similar to mine during the period I was
trying to convince myself that I wasn't an atheist. :)

The next question. If religion is primarily about human-human
interaction (and I agree with you on this) why even worry about the
parts that deal with human-God interaction? As an atheist I am
perfectly free to follow "Love your neighbor as yourself" without
loving God at all. I can accept Jesus' moral teachings, and revere
him as a great teacher without worshipping him as the literal son
of God.

jason
r.m.c resident atheist

Jason and Heather

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

Jeffrey Gustafson <jef...@netcom.com> wrote:
> stei...@primenet.com (Jason and Heather) writes:

> >Jeffrey Gustafson <jef...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >> steve eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:

> >> > Jeffrey Gustafson wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > We are all evil and destined for complete justus (hell).
> >>
> >> >Wait a second. How do you get this last part?
> >>
> >> Because sin is genetic, originating at Adam.
>

> >*Chortle*
>
> >I love it when people throw around terms like "genetic" without
> >any idea of the implications. Do you think we should alert the
> >human genome project about this?
>
> I ment "genetic" because cannot break are ability to sin.

Whoah. You're shifting your words here. Are we talking about "sin"
or "the ability to sin".

> You could alert the genome project, but there is no cure for sin
> without God's intervention, and even then it won't happen in our
> current condition (flesh).

If you're talking about sin, and sin is genetic (inherited) then we
can (theoretically) find, observe, and perhaps even eliminat it.
If you're talking about the ability to sin, then that raises a whole
raft of other questions, which I'll hold off on until you tell me what
you actually mean.

> Adam's nature was freedom. He apparently chose to listen to
> the hot babe over God. God then punished Adam for what he chose.
> God didn't give Adam a sin nature. Adam was a sinner until he made
> that choice.

But he had the ability to sin, did he not? Where did that come from?

Skaught

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

to Jason and Heather

Jason and Heather wrote:
> Atheism is a disbelief in gods

I've always thought it was kind of strange, creating a label for something you don't
believe it. I don't believe in Santa Claus, so should I be called a aclausiest? I also
don't believ that Fred Flintstone was a real person, so that would make me an
aflintstonian, maybe. I don't believe the world is flat, so I guess I'm a aflatiest
(which would make me a Roundist. And I'm a Fundamentalist Roundist, too! But I'm not a
literalist, though, cause the world is really more egg-shaped than it is round.)

Anyway, just me being silly. But it is some what strange to see so many people
expending so much energy over a disbelief!

Skaught (a Christian)

Andrew Ballard

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

OK, OK . . .

Interesting debate (which I'm sure will never be won until we see the
answer for ourselves).

My question: What does ANY of this have to do with Christian music?
alt.atheism and talk.atheism I can understand, but rec.music.christian?

steve eric cisna

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

On 30 Jan 1997, Jason and Heather wrote:

> Jeffrey Gustafson <jef...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > stei...@primenet.com (Jason and Heather) writes:

> > >Jeffrey Gustafson <jef...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > >> steve eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:

> > >> > Jeffrey Gustafson wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > We are all evil and destined for complete justus (hell).
> > >>
> > >> >Wait a second. How do you get this last part?
> > >>
> > >> Because sin is genetic, originating at Adam.
> >

> > >*Chortle*
> >
> > >I love it when people throw around terms like "genetic" without
> > >any idea of the implications. Do you think we should alert the
> > >human genome project about this?
> >
> > I ment "genetic" because cannot break are ability to sin.

Then can god really blame us for not being perfect? If we can't possibly
stop sinning, then isn't that entrapment?

Steve

<snip>

>
>

steve eric cisna

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

I believe in gravity, so that makes me a Gravitian. I believe in
chemistry, so that makes me a Chemician. I believe in the existence of
Pop-Tarts, so I'm a Poptartian. Does that make any more sense?

Trying to shed some light (thus proving that I'm a Flashlightian)

Steve

Tony Bowden

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

Skaught (Ska...@cris.com) wrote:
> I've always thought it was kind of strange, creating a label for
> something you don't believe it. I don't believe in Santa Claus, so
> should I be called a aclausiest? I also don't believ that Fred
> Flintstone was a real person, so that would make me an aflintstonian,
> maybe. I don't believe the world is flat, so I guess I'm a aflatiest
> (which would make me a Roundist. And I'm a Fundamentalist Roundist,
> too! But I'm not a literalist, though, cause the world is really more
> egg-shaped than it is round.)

Answer 1
--------
But, if someone based an entire religious framework around belief in
Santa Claus or Fred Flinstone, which persisted for several thousand
years, then I'm sure that someone who decided not to believe in them
would almost certainly be given such a label.

Answer 2
--------
I've always thoughts it was kind of strange, creating a label for
something you believe in. I believe gravity, so I guess I'm a gravitiest.
etc....

Tony
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Bowden | to...@tmtm.com / t.bo...@qub.ac.uk / http://www.tmtm.com/
Belfast, NI | you are a free moth - go chase the light
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Rutledge

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.97012...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>, steve
eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>Even Newer Scenario:
>
>"Dad, why are you killing me?"
>
>"Well, son, because I wanted you to be a doctor when you grew up."
>
>"But, dad, I didn't want to be a doctor. I wanted to be a prosecuting
>attorney."
>
>"It doesn't matter. I had a plan for you and you failed me. You weren't
>perfect, so you deserve to die. I'm sorry, but that's the way it's got
>to be."
>
>"No it doesn't, dad. You don't have to kill me. If you loved me, you'd
>be happy that I found happiness in another way."
>
>"Well, I do love you, and I do have the choice not to kill you, but..."
>
><BANG!>
>
>Steve

How about this one:

"Dad, why am I dying?"

"Well, son, you shot yourself in the face."

"But, dad, I thought you were just joking when you said it would kill me!"

"I know you did. You thought that I didn't have a right to tell you what was
right and what was wrong. I love you so much, but there was nothing I could
do to make you believe that I knew what was best for you. I can't make you
love me."

"It's your fault! How can you let me do this to myself? I hate you! I wish
you didn't exist!"

"Please, son. I can help you. We'll fix you up as good as new. You have to
die first, but then you will be completely healed. You have to trust me.
Please let me help you!"

"Shut up! If you really loved me, you'd figure out a way to help me right
now! I WANT IT NOW! I don't want to have anything to do with you, but I
still deserve your help! I can do what I want! You can't tell me what I need
to do! Now fix me!"

"Here. Try this medicine. It may burn like fire, but you will be better
afterwards."

"NOOOOO! Get that AWAY FROM ME! I want a painless cure! I should be able to
be cured without having to give up my comfort! I... I... want... a ... I can
do...what I ...want...uhh...."

The son dies.

David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com)

Jeffrey Gustafson

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

steve eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:

>I'm not talking about murderers here. You're right. Murderers should be
>punished. This includes christian murderers, which you assert will not
>be punished.

>But like I said, I wasn't talking about murderers or rapists. I'm
>talking about people who live their lives in the best way they know how,
>but just don't believe in god. To me, this actually seems better than
>being good because you're afraid of what will happen to you. I mean, if
>you believe in god, then you're a good person because you think god told
>you to. But if you don't, it's like when you were a kid and you cleaned
>your room without your parents even asking you to. But according to
>christian doctrine, the only thing a person has to do is believe in
>jesus. Nobody is perfect, but shouldn't your reward or punishment depend
>on how close you come, rather than where you spend your Sunday mornings?

But then our salvation would come from works and not grace.
We would totally miss out on the grace of God. A Christian is saved
not by what he does or how he acts, but by the grace of God. Grace
is getting something you don't deserve. We don't deserve to be made
perfect... but some get it anyways.

>>
>> > But still, why should eating a piece of fruit be the worst thing a person
>>
>> > can do? Why is he such a perfectionist?
>>
>> Let me ask you this. Does a God of perfection (as we Christians claim He
>> is) have the right to require perfection?

>No. We can't be perfect. We're just human beings. Everyone makes
>mistakes somewhere in life. According to christian doctrine, is it
>possible for a human being not to sin? Don't you believe that, ever
>since that apple got eaten, being a sinner just goes along with being a
>person? So if it's impossible for us to be perfect, than god has no
>right to ask us to be perfect.

We will be made perfect after we shed our flesh. All we get
right now is sanctification.

>Is he being fair & just? And
>> the fact that this same God would send an attoning sacrifice - now if that
>> is not LOVE, then what is?

>Forgiving everyone, not just his rabid followers.

If everyone was saved, how could God be just?
--
Jeffrey Gustafson
jef...@netcom.COM

steve eric cisna

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Jeffrey Gustafson wrote:

> steve eric cisna <sci...@students.uiuc.edu> writes:
>
>
>
>
> >I'm not talking about murderers here. You're right. Murderers should be
> >punished. This includes christian murderers, which you assert will not
> >be punished.
>
> >But like I said, I wasn't talking about murderers or rapists. I'm
> >talking about people who live their lives in the best way they know how,
> >but just don't believe in god. To me, this actually seems better than
> >being good because you're afraid of what will happen to you. I mean, if
> >you believe in god, then you're a good person because you think god told
> >you to. But if you don't, it's like when you were a kid and you cleaned
> >your room without your parents even asking you to. But according to
> >christian doctrine, the only thing a person has to do is believe in
> >jesus. Nobody is perfect, but shouldn't your reward or punishment depend
> >on how close you come, rather than where you spend your Sunday mornings?
>
> But then our salvation would come from works and not grace.

Horrors! You mean, you would be rewarded for actually being a good
person? I'm shocked and appalled at such a suggestion!

> We would totally miss out on the grace of God. A Christian is saved
> not by what he does or how he acts, but by the grace of God. Grace
> is getting something you don't deserve. We don't deserve to be made
> perfect... but some get it anyways.

This isn't fair, either. Fairness is getting what you deserve. Killers
deserve punishment, good people deserve good things.

>
> >>
> >> > But still, why should eating a piece of fruit be the worst thing a person
> >>
> >> > can do? Why is he such a perfectionist?
> >>
> >> Let me ask you this. Does a God of perfection (as we Christians claim He
> >> is) have the right to require perfection?
>
> >No. We can't be perfect. We're just human beings. Everyone makes
> >mistakes somewhere in life. According to christian doctrine, is it
> >possible for a human being not to sin? Don't you believe that, ever
> >since that apple got eaten, being a sinner just goes along with being a
> >person? So if it's impossible for us to be perfect, than god has no
> >right to ask us to be perfect.
>
> We will be made perfect after we shed our flesh.

Does that go for everyone or just christians?

All we get
> right now is sanctification.

More like sanctimony.

>
> >Is he being fair & just? And
> >> the fact that this same God would send an attoning sacrifice - now if that
> >> is not LOVE, then what is?
>
> >Forgiving everyone, not just his rabid followers.
>
> If everyone was saved, how could God be just?

Not everyone should be saved. If accepting jesus saves you, then Jeffrey
Dahmer got "saved" but Gandhi never did. How can this be just?

Steve

> --
> Jeffrey Gustafson
> jef...@netcom.COM
>
>

Del

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

Jeffrey Gustafson wrote:

>
> But you're still assuming what goes on inside your heard is

> reliable and consistant. That does not fix in the athiestic world
> view of space, time, and chance. In an athiestic world view what's

> going on inside your head is chaos and you should trust nothing.

What an idiot.

Hey dipshit, first you have to show your premises to be valid.
You seem to think you can announce your standpoints as true
and we must all argue from them. I know it's so much easier
and less stressful when you can just say and believe whatever you
want and not have to think. But if all you want to do is preach to
the choir you're in the wrong place. Proof by "I say so" don't cut
it around here. No this is the real world where you have to back up
what you say. So try to remember that and save yourself some
embarrassment in the future.

Del

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

Jeffrey Gustafson wrote:

>
> I know my senses are reliable. It fits with the Christian
> world view that God is a God of logic and order. God gave us senses

> for a reason. But how you get logic out of a world view of space,
> time, and chance?

First I think you'd better give us some evidence that
this alleged "god" of yours exists. I don't believe it.
It is just wishful thinking on your part.

steve eric cisna

unread,

Jan 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/30/97

If the dad loved the son, he would have given him the medicine whether or
not the kid wanted it. And you have to remember that the dad could have
stopped the kid anytime along the way. But, of course, that dad lets his
kid know that he's real, not just some mythical figure. So your analogy
really doesn't hold, especially when you consider that in your story, the
dad didn't make the gun. Here's another one.

"Dad, why did you just stab me?"

"Because you didn't love me."

"How could I, Dad? You ran out on me and Ma before I was even born. You
never called me or wrote me a letter or anything. For all I knew, you
were dead. I mean, Mom told me stories of the time she met you, but they
were filled with talking animals and voices from the sky. Even if they
were true, how did I know you were still there?"

"Well, be that as it may, I brought you into the world, so I reserve the
right to take you out."

Or how about this one?

"Well, Dad, I just graduated from law school, where I've been working my
ass off so I could live the life I think is best for me. Are you proud of
me?"

"Proud?! How could I be proud of a REBELLIOUS and EVIL son like you? I
wanted you to be a surgeon!"

"But, Dad, I've told you before. I don't want to be a surgeon. I don't
think it's right for me. I've talked it over to everyone, even the
people I volunteer with at the homeless shelter and they say..."

"Volunteer?! What do I care if you volunteer? Why can't you be more
like your brother?"

"But he drinks, does drugs, and was convicted of rape last year! Why
should I be more like him?"

"Because he grew up to be a fry cook, just like I wanted him to be. He
did what I told him to, so obviously he should be rewarded."

Steve

>
> David Rutledge (da...@chickasaw.com)
>
>

It is loading more messages.

0 new messages