hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (06/09/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > Man: A Paradox > > Allow me to clarify the biblical position of the nature of man. Man is a > paradox, on one hand noble, on the other hand depraved. > > This paradox has led to two contrasting but erroneous views of man. > > The lower view of man presents him as being nothing more than material > substance and chemical processes. This is demonstrated through modern > psychology's "behaviorism", which regards man as another animal. Despite Tim Maroney's article, you still make the same mistake. > The higher view holds that man has a divine spark which needs only to be > fanned into a flame of goodness, enabling him to master his own nature > and effect his own salvation. This view is popular among the Eastern > religions but not exclusively. Would you care to elaborate? I mean, like, tell us which Eastern religion(s) actually hold this over simplified view? I personally think you don't know left from right when it comes to Eastern religions, and I am waiting for you to prove otherwise. > The Christian view takes both into consideration. Lost in the vastness > of the universe, man is nothing, but, as the object of God's care and > concern, man is everything. How sweet and beautiful. Have you read Snow White? > This paradox is evident throughout man's history. Man builds up cities, > bombs them to bits, then proceeds to rebuild them out of the rubble. > Man makes undreamed-of scientific advances, then makes a science out of > destroying life. Your first example is not valid. The person who destroys the city is usually not the same one that built it. (Does this fact surprise you?) What is the paradox in the second example? What is the science of destroying life? You have a lot of wild and unsupported statements here. (Not unusual.) Care to substantiate with a little bit of evidence? > The Biblical view is perfectly consistent with what we observe of man's > behavior. I can make up countless stories that would be perfectly consisten with what we observe of man's behavior. In fact, I can go out to the book store and buy countless more of these made up by others. In short, your statement proves nothing. > Created in the image of God, man is creative, intelligent, > noble, and has a sense of morality. As a fallen creature, man ignores > his sense of morality, uses his creativity and intelligence to exploit > himself and nature, and misdirects his nobility resulting in pride, > prejudice, and power struggle. When Galileo showed his telescope to the > senators of Florence, Italy, their immediate reaction was, "That glass > will be a great advantage to us in time of war!" In this respect man has > not changed much. A British periodical published this little verse of > the Hydrogen Bomb: > > "A pretty toy?" The Devil shook his head. "I still prefer the human > heart!", he said. What in the world does this have to do with what you are talking about? > Here's a little test to see if man is inherently good or evil. Raise up > a child, give him no instruction as he grows, and observe his behavior. > You will see that no one ever had to teach a child to misbehave! Once again, you are just whistlin' dixie. How about some evidence, kid? > Through Christ, man's governing disposition can be changed. The raging > tiger in man's heart can be overcome by the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, > who came to earth as the Lamb of God. He can conquer and control man's > fallen nature. Nice prose here. How about some objective descriptions, Dan? Man may be a paradox in some poetic sense, but this is not net.poetic. This is just another article of yours that proves your lack of distinction between objective and subjective concepts. ___________________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }