david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/04/85)
Reply to a reply ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Did Lord Frith make the world? Message-ID: <818@trwatf.UUCP> > [David Harwood] > So "Frith made the world". Then it must be you who spreads the clouds > with the fingers of his hands like lightning, and commands them to hit > the mark? Do I detect a note of self-righteous Christianoid sarcasm here? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Just a little sarcasm, because of exasperation. After all, this is your own postscript; besides it it you who accuses God. I am paraphrasing an obscure verse in Job, which you could not be expected to understand unless you knew certainly there is God. The point of verse is that God is not very comprehensible by human beings; in any case, he is not accountable to them. (This is not the meaning of the verse, which is obscure, as I said.) If I were very self-righteous, I wouldn't bother to try to answer you. You already know that these are just my personal opinions; I am trying to answer some difficult questions, and I may be wrong. And of course you may simply be amusing yourself, anyway. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > But you stubbornly miss the mark: forget your self-justifying > complaints Would you care to provide quotations from any of my previous articles that prove my "complaints" to be self-justifying? I'm waiting for you to address these issues, David, and you're just spouting party-line. If you're going to make claims against me, or for your position, then substantiate them! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm sorry, but I don't save anyone's articles, even my own. In any case, when I say 'self-justifying', I am not speaking of you personally, but of the kind of complaint which you make against God. Firstly, you believe that creation by God should be comprehensible and accountable to you, when there are very probably things which you do not understand about yourself, not to mention your wife or friends. Secondly, you persistently ignore the fact that, whether or not there is God, almost all present human suffering is due to our human failure. Finally, my impression is that you are oblivious to your own responsib- ility: skepticism is very often simply complacency. (I will be glad to be proven wrong -- for example, I am not very well-off, probably by comparison with you, but I will give an another 500 dollars for African relief if you will give 200 dollars, and notify me privately or over the Net. Actually, I will do this anyway, but that's not my point. I simply want you to give what you can afford. We all should. And I will be very glad to hear that you've already done so.) I have given some reason why there is suffering in creation, and why God does not stop it where we do not. The first is that we are to be created in the image of God; that is, we are created as perfectable, moral beings. The second is that we are to be relatively autonomous, adopting the will of God freely (according to own own nature.) If you are sincere, you should acknowledge these points, even if they are not completely convincing to you. I am not trying to put you down; I am giving you reasons against skepticism. These are reasons; of course, I may be wrong. Frankly, they are a lot like the 'Star Trek' code, that primitive civilizations should be left pretty much alone (autonomous), presuming their perfectability. (As a pure fantasy, would you say that a very advanced civilization was either non-existent or unmerciful, if it was instead patiently waiting for us to come along? Of course, I am not saying here that God is anything but the Creator, but simply that if there are other worlds, far more advanced than ours, even in knowledge of God, they might very well act even as He does, patiently, leaving us to our natural dignity. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [David Harwood] > the fact remains that even if there is not God, still > almost all the suffering in the world is due to the moral failure > of mankind; Without God there is no morality, other than that which man decides to create. Without God, there wouldn't even be a universe. Just how can you prove the above hypothesis? Do you seriously believe you can demonstrate this to be a "fact." You'll have to show that morality has some sort of causal relationship to natural disasters.... God what an Elizabethan notion! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are playing with words. I am using them in an ordinary accepted sense, accepted even by most agnostics: suffering is not evil in itself, but it is evil to intentionally cause or fail to stop suffering. Also, I'm afraid you are somewhat confused; I am saying something very obvious, which does not involve Elizabeth: the suffering caused by even 'purely' natural disasters, a very small fraction (<1%) of all deaths worldwide, is largely avoidable by evacuation and reliable construction (say 99%). Of course, we do not yet know how to avoid or correct all events, say some genetic defects (like mine); also, there will always be some very unpredictable events, no matter how advanced our technology, eg unexpected lightning, or the grace of God. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Christ said that there will be poor always. There will be crime and suffering and immorality to the end of earth. And now you come along and proclaim such things as solvable without any real notion of what the goal should be or how to get there. Utopianistic claptrap. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hope that you do not mean to justify suffering by its existence -- this was not Jesus' point at all. He was saying that the woman who made her gift to him was not to be criticized because her intention was good, even if she did not help the poor by this act. Jesus was not saying that we should neglect the poor, but that there would always be someone in need. This is obvious if we stop thinking in terms of simply material needs. The idea of the kingdom of God is somewhat Utopian: it is the rule of righteousness, in which we seek to end suffering, whether because of neglect, deception, prejudice, violence, cruelty, injustice, even disease. You know of course that the great Christian Thomas More wrote Utopia. Of course, you should know that our technology is now beyond the imagination of anyone living one century ago, yet already most suffering has been greatly ameliorated. Who can forsee what we are capable of in another century, if we survive that long. And the apostle Paul said that the last enemy would be overcome, even Death (probably meaning human destructiveness). He is quoting one of my favorite passages in Isaiah 25, where it describes the great banquet of final victory: On that mountain, the shroud which covers the earth, the veil over all the nations, shall be removed; and even Death shall be destroyed forever. It is as if mankind were now veiled by a burial shroud, so to speak. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Your notions of responsibility are purely imaginary -- since > they will not help anyone -- who cares if you don't believe there is > God, except that if you do not, will you also do nothing to help > others. And exactly WHAT are these "notions of responsibility?" Why don't you just trot them out and tell us all about my personal beliefs, if you're such an expert? Since only GOD knows our true hearts, who are YOU to make claims about what *I* believe in? Are you now proping yourself up as God? I doubt it, so don't act that way! Like most Christianoids you are so ready to judge others... but as you so blindly judge, so shall you be judged. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nowhere did I say that you do not help others. When I say 'imaginary', I do not mean that you personally are not moral. As you say, I am not your judge. You know yourself. What I mean is that your accusation against God, that He is unmerciful, largely denies our human responsibility for almost all suffering in the the present world (and most people who have lived are living now). And someone who believes this, whether or not he believes there is God, is not going act as if he were as responsible as someone who disagrees. On the other hand, many who do believe in God agree that we are in fact very responsible. I am only speaking about what notions you have introduced in the course of discussion, of which this is your primary presupposition. I am not talking about your other beliefs, about which I know nothing. I admit that I was wrong to make a personal reference which was slighting, and I'm sorry. Still my point is still valid: beliefs have consequences; and someone who denies responsibility is very likely less responsible in his actions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Don't you realize, as I've said before, world-maker, that by far the > largest charitable force in the world, in the history of the world even, > is those who do believe that God wants them to be charitable to others, > even to strangers, and enemies. More sarcasm? Was it not you who only a little while ago said that we are all makers of our own worlds? Why do you now deny me that which you did not give me? What is this smug tone of voice? Hardly the sort of attitude that Jesus would have recommended. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, a little sarcasm. But as I said before, this "world-maker" postscript is your own. I'm not doing anything but reflecting your self-opinion, am I? Actually, I had noticed your postscript before but said nothing; I assumed it was simply a play on your name, which might be Lord. (but who knows? if there is God-is-with-us emmanuel wagstuff, maybe there is no lord frith) But when you were so accusatory of God, I then supposed that you were a bit mocking. If this is so, then whose sarcasm is it? You misconstrue what I said 'a little while ago'. You may be right that my attitude is wrong though. It is hard to keep interest in what is obviously an 'academic' discussion to you. However, I'm not sure that I feel smug, exactly, at least not morally smug -- maybe a little intellectually condescending I suppose (not a very good quality). I've enjoyed the discussion; I hope that it has caused you to reconsider some things. I wouldn't want to offend anyone, so that they would turn away. You should believe there is a God; those who deny this simply do not know. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [David Harwood] > You may say that religious people also believe that God wills that they > should conduct holy wars. But this argument is specious, since wars, > although they are rationalized by false religion, exist because mankind > has a cultural inheritance of violence and prejudice everywhere, > regardless of religion; even atheists are as warmongering as others > (Afghanistan). Why are you lecturing us on topics that have nothing to do with the conversation? Because you're projecting what you WISH I believed, onto me! Consider the above. You're lecturing us on the basis of what you IMAGINE I would say... not upon what I have said. STOP! Read your netiquete! THINK about what you're doing. I am not this imaginary stereotypical secular humanist that you can flagellate in your mind. Is it perhaps that you don't care what my beliefs are? Perhaps you have already decided what I believe, which in turn gives you a grand opportunity to ask "Don't you realise that..." and then flail away at your favorite whipping boy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Take it easy. Actually, I was aware that you had not expressed this view, and as you suggest I was speaking past you to others who have been barking up the wrong tree. You've separated this comment from the complimentary one just above, which is, in fact, relevant to our discussion. It observes that God does cooperate to end suffering in the world. On the other hand, I wanted to deny that 'religion', as such, is the cause of suffering, for the sake of completion. You are right that I was speaking past you. But it was a pretty short 'lecture', hardly long enough to 'flail' anyone. As for your beliefs, it is my impression that you are not very committed to any, but like to pursue arguments for amusement. If this is so, then you can't blame me for realizing this, while speaking to others. If you were sincere, then if you were also a Christian, then you would not accuse God and deny our responsibility, else if you were not a Christian, then your citation of Christ is not religiously sincere anyway. Therefore, I suppose that you are not sincere, but rather amused. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ......... > All of these realized very late something about civilization which > you still don't perceive... no matter what they formerly believed about the > existence of God, they came to understand that Jesus was right about our > moral hypocrisy, and about the way we should live. Once again... you are in no position to tell me what I do, and do not, perceive. Like many Christianoids you perceive yourself as having all the faculties of God, including the ability to read minds. If you're going to accuse me... at least show up with some evidence to back up your claims. God does not support an irresponsible tongue. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Who is reading your mind? No one who accuses God, as you have publicly, is so far, a Christian. Furthermore, it is hard to believe that someone who would accuse God while ignoring our responsiblity, is not hypocritical, if he is sincere. But as I said, you may merely find this amusing. This is a good question: would it make any difference to you whether or not what I say is true? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Are you ready to return to the topic of conversation? Have you finished lecturing now? Can you, for one moment, see that you're just mumbling away in your own little world and not holding a conversation? Hellllloooooo out there.... you ARE there aren't you? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maybe you would like to talk about something else now, but if you just want to argue, don't be surprised if I don't quite cooperate; surely, you understand that my purposes aren't yours necessarily, besides which, your arguments are not always very interesting. And, after all, I'm not stupid -- I may take the opportunity to talk about what I want to, instead. Yes, here I am, mumbling. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And PLEASE do NOT include entire articles at the top of your replies! -- ~~~~~~~~~~ I have mixed feelings about this. When I do this, it is so that the context is sure to be observed, also so that there is the effect of deliberate reply rather than mere fencing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And he made the stars, too, and the world is one of the stars" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A new 'concluding unscientific postscript'?
david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/15/85)
Reply to a reply: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: reply to Mike Huybensz, concerning miracles Message-ID: <857@trwatf.UUCP> Subject: reply to Mike Huybensz, concerning miracles > [David Harwood replys to Mike Huybensz] > (You, who can't even spell "charlatan" correctly, -- has someone said > that you are a "hack" since you don't know what you are spelling, > nevermind talking about? [Lord Frith jumps into the fray] You shouldn't criticize David. Your own grammer and sentence constructs leave much to be desired. Have I accused you of having "hack" your concepts or beliefs because you are unable to articulate them in a way that is easily understood by other people? Of course not. Then don't accuse people of having invalid beliefs simply because they spell one word incorrectly. Seriously. Your articles are very difficult to slog through. Go take English composition 101. You really need to work on this. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The word is "grammar" -- I know because my undergraduate education is in the psychology of language, with good background in formal linguistics. Besides this, your first sentence is missing a comma, and your usage of "constructs" is not standard; you mean "constructions", possibly. Please, let us stop this sort of thing. I am very sorry I slightingly referred to Mike Huybensz as a "hack". (I was making an analogy, however imperfect, as the missing context shows; nevertheless, I was wrong to jump on him about his spelling.) Despite the fact that I write long replies, I do not carefully edit them, but write them extemporaneously as you do, because there is no time. Religious arguments are more difficult than others anyway, since we are not talking about material phenomena at all. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [David Harwood] > You confuse "vague" with "ambiguous"; the Gospels are written by > perhaps the greatest literary geniuses of all time Perhaps. Perhaps not. Why do you bother making claims like this without any proof to substantiate them? Have you studied ALL the literary greats throughout time and compared their works to the bible? Why haven't all of the other literary scholars concluded this as well? Now as I recall Paul DID go to one of the better schools at the time and was quite a scholar and debater in his time, but that hardly makes him a "literary genius" as you describe him. Looks to me like you're embellishing the scriptures with your own triumphalistic notions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am giving my own opinion; but not simply my own. The primary purposes of religious writing are perhaps to be informative and persuasive: they have succeeded at this. And they abound with meaningful religious figures of speech, many borrowed from Jewish tradition. There simply is no literary form like the Gospels anywhere. It is true that Paul was a student of Gamaliel, but his genius is not so much in the form of his Greek writing, but the persuasiveness of his religious intuition. In the end, intuition and imagination are more important than style, but his literary style is very good also, according to experts. I've read quite a lot; and this is my opinion. I admit that I did not realize this until after I became a Christian, since largely I had not read the Bible, and I did not understand or appreciate its qualities. It is hard to appreciate their literary genius if you are unsympathetic to the subject. But if you come to believe that their subject is the most important in history, then you come to love the scriptures. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> [Mike Huybensz] >> A friendly word of net advice: it doesn't pay to speculate about what I >> do or don't know: instead, stick to discussing my points. > [David Harwood] > Let me give you a friendly word of advice: I will say what I want. And you'll still be wrong. You prove yourself even more stubborn and liable by not listening to the valid criticisms of your bretheren. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I get impatient too, but I give fuller, more respectful replies than most. Mike should worry about himself; he's the one full of accusations about "charlatans", "fraudualent miracle-workers", "shills", and "cabals" of fraudulent apostles. Also, he doesn't stick to his own points, and simply dismisses my replies with notions about "conspiracy theories". I believe Mike is intelligent, but very unreasonably prejudiced, a programmatic "agnostic". In my opinion, Mike does not know much of anything about the scriptures, and this was what he was ostensibly commenting on by his accusations. I was pursuing the point at hand. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [David Harwood] > Why do they even have him misquote the Jewish scriptures at one point? I think I might have missed *this* one. Which one? Why DID he misquote it (specifically within the context of the record)? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Gospel writer has him misquote a scripture, unintentionally I'm sure. My point was that the Gospels are not inerrant histories; they have mistakes and inconsistencies, which are jumped on by skeptics and rationalized by fundementalists, both because they take these writings much too literally. I don't know whether Jesus simply misquoted, or whether the author did not check his own reference. Anyway, Jesus is said to mistakenly identify a scriptural reference to the High Priest during the time of David (Ablmelech? I can't remember either.) I can't recall exactly where this mistake occurs (I don't have a Bible handy), but I remember the passage: Jesus is citing scripture about David who violated the Law by giving bread to his starving companions, bread which was reserved in the sanctuary for feeding the Priests. Jesus is justifying by precedent his own example, but you may consider for yourself what is the significance of Jesus permission of his followers, to receive sustenance from what is reserved. (I don't think this should be understood too literally either: figuratively, almost everywhere in the Bible food = spiritual knowledge. Of course, this is simply my opinion.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> [Mike Huybensz] >> The choice is not JC or nothing: it is JC, Buddha, Mohammed, Zoroaster, >> Moses, Krishna, etc. or nothing. They all have testimony in their >> favor by believers who have "no obvious reason to deceive anyone". > The only thing I would say about these others is: first, unlike > Christianity, they are not widely accepted throughout the world in every > culture. Popular acceptance is NOT a valid test of how "right" or accurate a religion is. Is Christianity REALLY the number one religion in the world? With over a quarter of the world's population in China I would have expected the dominant religion to be found there, but as I say, popular support is not a causal gauge of which religion is the right one. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I wasn't talking about "popular acceptance", as such, but cross- cultural, international "acceptance". Please be fair to us, and simply read what I say. I am talking about universal appeal, not numbers. The Gospels are persuasive of the truth to people from all cultures. Of course, I do not believe that "popularity" makes right -- I am not a moral relativist. As for China, as you may know, the state discourages religion, and replaces it with religious "socialism". But despite this repression, Christianity has not died there, and has recently increased during the present, more liberal government. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I also think that you'll have a hard time really figuring out just how many REAL Christians there really are out there. A lot of evangelical and charasmatic organizations love to trumpet their claims as to how many people they baptised and saved from damnation last night at the prayer rally in some remote country. Remember, many are called. Indeed many will claim they have been called. But few are actually chosen. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Again, I am not talking about "popularity", but universal appeal across nations. The Gospel is about a Jew, written by Jews and a Greek physician. But it is so psychologically convincing in the way it portrays our sins, our arrogance and deception, which imprison us, and in the way it portrays how we should live, that we want to accept that it may be true about other things. Almost all my Christian friends reject warfare, and would like to see our nation try to be genuinely charitable to the others, rather than try to maximize economic or political advantage. Those who are starving have just as much right to live as you do. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [David Harwood] > This is because of missionaries, but also because the simple Gospel > message of charitable love is compellingly universal, and untainted by > either violence or escape from reality: it is about good will in the real > world; second, if we are to survive as a human race, we shall someday have > to live as Jesus did, securing justice and peace with steadfast charitableness > and truth. There is the "beatitude": "Happy shall be the gentle; for they > shall inherit the earth." But this is from a Psalm, where it essentially > says that the wicked shall have someday destroyed themselves. Finally, if > this is so, and if there is God, then from the point of view of racial > survival, Christianity is morally axiomatic; and not only this, if there > is God, then surely Jesus was His Son who revealed the way of life. I agree with this. Indeed this fits somewhat into Laura's "if it works, it's right" philopsophy. Remember of course that the above consitutes an informal rationale. Not a proof, but compelling reason. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But you understand that I am not talking about popularity. I am simply observing, that if there is a God, then the created universe has a moral structure (a karma if you wish), and only the peaceful will survive. I can imagine many worlds, beautiful worlds full of life, like our own Earth. But among these are stillborn worlds, where theories of just warfare combined inevitably with amoral technolgy, and arrived quite naturally at a final uncharitable conclusion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [David Harwood] > As I say, there are miracles all the time, but not as you imagine, and > not for you, unless you will someday want to get down on your knees. Now you're being unreasonable Dave. Only God knows our hearts. Who and what are you to dare usurp his position and authority? By the above you are essentially denying someone what God may decide to provide out of the goodness of his heart. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am saying, according to scripture, God uplifts the humble and down-trodden, and casts down the arrogant. What I mean is that you must desire to have faith. Figuratively, this is what I mean by "getting down on your knees"-- there must be sincere religious intention. I agree that only God knows our hearts, and that God is gracious. I am simply speaking from my experience -- I could not even begin to find God until I wanted to repent. If I sound officious to you, I'm sorry, but I don't actually feel this way, except that sometimes I am annoyed with "agnostic" accusations about things they don't try to understand. Please consider how you would feel if someone made such remarks about your brother or father or sister they've never met, nor desire to know. Obviously, the only reason I write to this Net is to reply as a matter of religious obligation; there is no reward for me, except to say what I believe is true about Christianity, when it has been badly represented by many people, in my opinion, and has been criticized by those who prefer to have their prejudices no matter what is said to straighten out the path. (Yes, I prefer my own view to that of "fundement- alists", although I believe there are very many people of good will among them.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I've already speculated about these things at length in other replies; > as for you, are you prepared to get on your knees before God, or would > you rather not? He will simply give you what you would sincerely > desire. God acts as he sees fit and not upon your word. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Agreed. I believe what I said is true. But its truth has nothing to do with me. Do you remember what were Jesus last words to unbelievers? He said they would never see him again until they said (in their hearts) "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." The second coming of Christ, so-called, on the Day of the Lord, coming on the clouds of heaven, is said to be "like the lightning which goes from East to West." Popularly, this is thought to be at the end of the age, which ends in catastrophe. But actually it is not an historical event, to be located in place and time; it is eternal. The "coming" of the Lord does often follow personal catastrophe, as well as global catastrophe. It is not so much a matter of the coming of the Lord, as when we are willing to recieve Him. And this is often very late. Hence, we shall not see Him again until we do say "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." Very probably on our knees.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/24/85)
In article <301@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: > I get impatient too, but I give fuller, more respectful replies > than most. Mike should worry about himself; he's the one full of accusations > about "charlatans", "fraudualent miracle-workers", "shills", and "cabals" > of fraudulent apostles. Also, he doesn't stick to his own points, and > simply dismisses my replies with notions about "conspiracy theories". I > believe Mike is intelligent, but very unreasonably prejudiced, a > programmatic "agnostic". When I set to the task of explaining the putative historical events of the bible from a scientific materialist viewpoint, I cannot postulate miracles. Thus, I must deduce that there are falsehoods in the bible. Somebody is lying. Because the extant documents are in substantial agreement, the source of the fraud must be JC or very close to him. Since you can't make omlettes without breaking eggs, I chose precise and aggressive terms to see if I could stir a telling rebuttal. I've yet to see anything that would invalidate my hypothesis. It's surprising how simple an explantation the cabal theory is. I consider it sufficient to explain the NT. If you want to get a feeling for how such an operation would work, see the movie "Marjoe"; a semi-biographical account of a real-life, fraudulent, faith-healing circuit preacher. Conspiracy theories are common to many belief systems, especially religious ones. There are really blatant examples, like the Hare Kishna "anyone who isn't a Krishna is a demon, and you can't believe anything a demon tells you." And there are a fair number in the Bible, of varying subtlety. Such as the inference that asking to see a miracle makes you like Satan. If you think I don't stick to MY points, let me know where. Thanks for your (mailed) apology for calling me a hack. But are you doing much better now that you are labelling me "unreasonably prejudiced" and "programmatic"? > In my opinion, Mike does not know much of anything about the > scriptures, and this was what he was ostensibly commenting on by his > accusations. I was pursuing the point at hand. You may not have noticed, but I am quite aware of my limitations with respect to scriptural interpretation, and seldom make comments based on accurate scriptural interpretation. (Which is a good candidate for an oxymoron. :-) I stick to things (usually) that most Christians would consider historical events, such as the miracles. > I wasn't talking about "popular acceptance", as such, but cross- > cultural, international "acceptance". Please be fair to us, and simply > read what I say. I am talking about universal appeal, not numbers. The > Gospels are persuasive of the truth to people from all cultures. Of course, > I do not believe that "popularity" makes right -- I am not a moral relativist. There are numerous other religions whose sacred texts show this same cross-cultural, international "acceptance". Why don't I hear you citing Mohammed, Ba'ha'ulla (sp?), Guru Maharesh Yogi, and others? Probably because your argument is simply a case of the fallacy of special pleading. > As for China, as you may know, the state discourages religion, and > replaces it with religious "socialism". But despite this repression, > Christianity has not died there, and has recently increased during the > present, more liberal government. The same is true of Confucianism and a host of other religions. So? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh