jharman@watarts.UUCP (James Harman) (07/31/85)
My philosophical beliefs are probably too unsophisticated for this group but what the heck. I am an agnostic. I have several evangelistic friends, otherwise normal, (ooooohhhhhh, sorry), who claim that i will "burn in hell" because I do not accept Jesus into my life. I say that IF there is a God then IF I lead a "good" life then HE would not consign me hell because I did not truly believe in his existence, without proof. Any god who would do so, strictly on such an arbitrary basis, is not a God worth worshipping. Under that, Men like Ghandi would be doomed while men like Torquemada would have an honoured place ( Confess). Besides, what is so great and merciful about the Judeo Christian God anyways? He gave the Promised Land to the Isrealites, and evicted the original inhabitants. He MURDERED EVERY first born Egyptian male, now c'mon, Everybody in Egypt was bad, that's like saying every German during world war II was a Nazi. He covered the earth in water, EVERYBODY WAS EVIL? What about Sodom and Gomorrah, I suppose that the only good people in TWO WHOLE CITIES were Lot et al. etc. The funniest thing about these stories is that people actually BELIEVE them. Oh well, why am I wrong? I don't think you will convince me.
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (08/05/85)
In article <8510@watarts.UUCP> jharman@watarts.UUCP (James Harman) writes: > > >My philosophical beliefs are probably too unsophisticated for this >group but what the heck. >I am an agnostic. I have several evangelistic friends, otherwise normal, >(ooooohhhhhh, sorry), who claim that i will "burn in hell" because >I do not accept Jesus into my life. >I say that IF there is a God then IF I lead a "good" life >then HE would not consign me hell because I did not truly believe in his >existence, without proof. >Any god who would do so, strictly on such an arbitrary basis, is not a God >worth worshipping. Under that, Men like Ghandi would be doomed >while men like Torquemada would have an honoured place ( Confess). The Bible teaches that all man is in rebellion against God. God will not send you to Hell, you will go there by choice. When Adam sinned, he seperated himself and his seed from God. We can be reconciled to God through the sacrificial death of His Son in our place. It is impossible to lead a "good life" because we are self-centered. The word "sin" means to "miss the mark"! It is an archery term. NO matter how "good" we try to be, we will always miss the mark. That is why God came down in human flesh to die in our place. Torquemada was NOT a christian. Christian's do not execute people for their beliefs. Only people who call themself Christians but are not. The bible has plenty to say about people like that. >Besides, what is so great and merciful about the Judeo Christian >God anyways? > He gave the Promised Land to the Isrealites, and evicted the >original inhabitants. The original inhabitants were evil people who sacrificed their own children by fire to their pagan gods. God tried for 400 years to bring these people to repentance, but they would not. God's act was to served two purposes. One: Judgement upon an evil people. Two: Protect the Isrealites from evil influence. This one failed because the Isrealites didn't listen. > He MURDERED EVERY first born Egyptian male, now c'mon, >Everybody in Egypt was bad, that's like saying every German during >world war II was a Nazi. It is amazing what God has to do to get some people's attention. Perhaps if they would have let the Isrealites go this would not have been necessary. > He covered the earth in water, EVERYBODY WAS EVIL? See above! > What about Sodom and Gomorrah, I suppose that the only good >people in TWO WHOLE CITIES were Lot et al. > Same as above! >etc. > The funniest thing about these stories is that people >actually BELIEVE them. >Oh well, why am I wrong? >I don't think you will convince me. Probably not! Because you have made up your mind already! But you owe it to yourself to check into it with an open mind! I am sending you something else to read in the mail! Dan
speaker@gymble.UUCP (Speaker to Animals) (08/10/85)
>> In article <371@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > In article <8510@watarts.UUCP> jharman@watarts.UUCP (James Harman) writes: > >> The Bible teaches that all man is in rebellion against God. God will >> not send you to Hell, you will go there by choice. When Adam sinned, >> he seperated himself and his seed from God. We can be reconciled to God >> through the sacrificial death of His Son in our place. We've been through this before and like the fool that I am I feel compelled to reply to it. If you want to believe that mankind makes his own hell for himself then yes I can agree with this. Through his own choice man creates quite a bit of suffering for himself. But is it man's choice that he should be physically thrown into an ever-eternal burning lake of fire? Not at all! Do ALL atheists actually believe that they are going to suffer this fate? If not... then how can they also be creating this fate for themselves? The answer is in that it is God... not man... who is providing the mechanism for damnation and eternal punishment... not man. It is man's choice perhaps to rebell... but not his choice that he die in eternal torment. That is a punishment exacted upon us by God and only God. >> It is impossible to lead a "good life" because we are self-centered. >> The word "sin" means to "miss the mark"! It is an archery term. NO matter >> how "good" we try to be, we will always miss the mark. That is why God >> came down in human flesh to die in our place. Yes... we will always miss the mark (although I hate using absolutes like this).... BUT your jump from "man missing the mark" to "that is why God came down in human flesh to die in our place" still fails to explain to the atheist EXACTLY why this act in any way cleanses us of our sins. It really isn't an explanation at all, and because no one has yet freed themselves of their own dogma it will continue to provide an unsatisfactory answer. Perhaps no one really knows the true answer... only the outside superficial history and purpose of Christ's coming. If this is true then Christians are doing themselves and others a disservice with lenghty diatribes labeled "THE ANSWER TO MANKIND'S SIN" when they really are not clear on what the truth is to begin with. >> [Dan] >> Torquemada was NOT a christian. Christian's do not execute people for >> their beliefs. Only people who call themself Christians but are not. >> The bible has plenty to say about people like that. >> [Dan] >> He gave the Promised Land to the Isrealites, and evicted the >> original inhabitants. >> The original inhabitants were evil people who sacrificed their own >> children by fire to their pagan gods. God tried for 400 years to >> bring these people to repentance, but they would not. God's act was to >> served two purposes. One: Judgement upon an evil people. Two: Protect >> the Isrealites from evil influence. This one failed because the Isrealites >> didn't listen. But you just said that Christians are NOT Christians if they execute people! I assume this pertains to Jews as well. According to my bible, the Isrealites commited quite a few barbarous and murderous acts in the name of evicting the evil people from the promised land. Does this sound like the act of a righteous people or a righteous God? Somehow I can't see it... no matter what the excuse or how evil the then current tenants. > He MURDERED EVERY first born Egyptian male, now c'mon, > Everybody in Egypt was bad, that's like saying every German during > world war II was a Nazi. > >> It is amazing what God has to do to get some people's attention. >> Perhaps if they would have let the Isrealites go this would not >> have been necessary. Necessary? I don't see this rather bloody and excessive act as NECESSARY to free the Isrealites at all. An infinitly wise God could surely find a bloodless means to free the his people. Sounds to me like lip-service once again. We can't change history so we defend it with excuses.
jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (08/12/85)
> >> In article <371@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > > In article <8510@watarts.UUCP> jharman@watarts.UUCP (James Harman) writes: > > >> It is impossible to lead a "good life" because we are self-centered. > >> The word "sin" means to "miss the mark"! It is an archery term. NO matter > >> how "good" we try to be, we will always miss the mark. That is why God > >> came down in human flesh to die in our place. > > Yes... we will always miss the mark (although I hate using absolutes like > this).... BUT your jump from "man missing the mark" to "that is why God > came down in human flesh to die in our place" still fails to explain to > the atheist EXACTLY why this act in any way cleanses us of our sins. It > really isn't an explanation at all, and because no one has yet freed themselves > of their own dogma it will continue to provide an unsatisfactory answer. Ok, I'm going to take my crack at explaining this one. It's a legal thing. We have sinned. We have broken God's law. For this, the sentence is eternal separation from God (which is the essence of hell, aside from everything that's been preached about brimstone). Romans puts it this way; "The wages of sin is death." In other words, (spiritual) death-->hell is only what we have earned by our own acts. God could not just pardon us without being less than God, without being untrue to his own character. His justice demands that the price be paid. Which is where we reenter the above quote. God (perfection) came to die in human flesh (the price, death, was paid). Since Jesus was perfect, he did not deserve to die. The sentence was not his; but ours. I've heard some say that 'God must be pretty rotten to let the good man suffer." To which I can only reply, look at the legal situation here today. It is not unheard of for a parent to 'take the rap' for his/her child. Which is all that Jesus did. To restate the reason, "That he might be just and yet the justifier of [he that believes in Christ Jesus<--paraphrase in brackets. It's late and I can't remember the reference; please excuse any typos.] AMBAR Until August 16--> {*ANYTHING*}!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand "I told you when I *MET* you that I was crazy, and you weren't listening!"
lip@masscomp.UUCP (John Lipinski) (08/12/85)
In article <371@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP writes: > The Bible teaches that all man is in rebellion against God. God will > not send you to Hell, you will go there by choice. Is the world really this simple? That a man can be good or evil and he will go to heaven or hell? What if a man is good some of the time and a little good sometimes and downright evil at other times? Where does he go then? Can a life time of sin be atoned for by one final confession? And who determines what is good and evil here? > It is impossible to lead a "good life" because we are self-centered. So what are you saying? > The word "sin" means to "miss the mark"! It is an archery term. NO matter > how "good" we try to be, we will always miss the mark. That is why God > came down in human flesh to die in our place. I don't see how this follows at all. Why does he have to die for us? > Probably not! Because you have made up your mind already! But you > owe it to yourself to check into it with an open mind! I think somebody else has already "made up his mind". - John Lipinski {ihnp4,decvax}!masscomp!lip
lip@masscomp.UUCP (John Lipinski) (08/12/85)
In article <626@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >I am *sorry*, but if I make a decision to do something >I see no reason why I cannot be free to accomplish that goal in any >manner that works. True, you can use any method you like, but the manner you choose will be determined by your experiences and environment. >If I decide to like something and I conclude that >self-conditioning is the most effective way of doing this, then why >is that contrary to free-will, since the conditioning process was >initiated by *my* decision, not external control. A decision necessarily implies a desire. When you make a decision and act, you do so because of a desire. You are not free because you can never escape the shackle of desire. No matter what you do, you are bound to do what you want. Furthermore, your decision is shaped by external factors and experiences. Your mind remembers what actions resulted in reward and which ones resulted in failure. You've learned things and certain concepts have an effect on your mind. How can you expect to commit an action without a cause? Every action has a cause or causes, simple or complex, depending on how deep one wants to examine the action. It would be conceited and self-deceptive to think that humans are exempt from the eternal chain of cause and effect. - John Lipinski {ihnp4,decvax}!masscomp!lip
speaker@gymble.UUCP (Speaker to Animals) (08/16/85)
In article <1064@ihlpg.UUCP> jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) writes: > > > > Yes... we will always miss the mark (although I hate using absolutes like > > this).... BUT your jump from "man missing the mark" to "that is why God > > came down in human flesh to die in our place" still fails to explain to > > the atheist EXACTLY why this act in any way cleanses us of our sins. It > > really isn't an explanation at all, and because no one has yet freed > > themselves of their own dogma it will continue to provide an unsatisfactory > > answer. > > Ok, I'm going to take my crack at explaining this one. It's a legal thing. > We have sinned. We have broken God's law. For this, the sentence is eternal > separation from God (which is the essence of hell, aside from everything > that's been preached about brimstone). Well for the sake of this discussion let's ignore the nature of hell. > God could not just pardon us without being less than God, > without being untrue to his own character. His justice demands that the price > be paid. Which is where we reenter the above quote. God (perfection) came > to die in human flesh (the price, death, was paid). Since Jesus was perfect, > he did not deserve to die. The sentence was not his; but ours. This sort of logic pays more attention to the letter of the law than to the spirit of it. In other words, it makes a God a buerocrat and a slave to his own edicts. How is it that a God who is so loving and sophisticated must also cling to the notion of "blood must be paid?" God did not send his son to earth simply to be killed and thus make sure that God's word and integrity remained intact. The crucifiction of Christ fulfilled only the letter of the law for symbolic purposes. It is not in itself the reason that the Christ came to earth or acended to heaven. > I've heard some say that 'God must be pretty rotten to let the good man suffer." > To which I can only reply, look at the legal situation here today. It is not > unheard of for a parent to 'take the rap' for his/her child. Which is all > that Jesus did. This "legal situation" sounds a little contrived and buerocratic to me. True... sometimes (much of the time actually) the adult takes the rap for the child. But does the adult go out and perform some ritual act like sacrificing his new set of golf clubs or his new Mercedes for the child? No of course not... the parent directly disciplines the kid and tries to reason with him. So how does crucifying God's own son take the rap for all of mankind's sins? It doesn't, because the redemption of mankind is not based upon a cause and effect world but upon a set of standards created by God. GOD performs the act of forgivness and NOT the sacrifice. The sacrifice itself really plays little part in it except as the ultimate act of petition. Petitions you will note are not the same as forgivness. How many Christians actually believe that there IS a mechanism that cleanses mankind other than God consciously saying "I will forgive you?" In other words, crucifying his own son was a symbolic act on the part of God to underscore the real plan. God doesn't NEED sacrifices ... he could do the whole job without a sacrifice. The sacrifice was a gaudy display for OUR benefit. A nice way to punctuate what God was offering. The symbolism was potent indeed, but has overshadowed what I think is the true and real purpose of the Christ and this was NOT to simply "die for our sins." Taken alone... the death on the cross and even the acension into heaven is a weak argument for forgivness of sins. What I find so stupyfyingly disturbing, however, is this almost neurotic emphasis on the idea that crucifying a man in some way magically purifies the whole human race. "Oh he was perfect and innocent therefore he was the perfect sacrifice and thus we are cleansed because infinite sin requires an infinitly perfect sacrifice et al ad nauseum." No one seems to have the courage to look deeper into the plan. -- seismo!gymble!speaker - Speaker "Earth is a great funhouse without the fun." -- Jeff Berner