david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/07/85)
Reply to a reply ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: David Harwood condemns mankind... Message-ID: <820@trwatf.UUCP> > [David Harwood] > My reply is not simply to someone's skepticism about the > existence or nature of God; it is a reply to the one's accusation > against God, in order to justify the nature of our own moral existence. Now you know that's not true. I NEVER said that God was at fault for OUR corrupt lives. Neither are my questions indicative of scepticism. These are questions that every human being should take a good hard look at with total objectivity. > Implicitly, the accusation is that God should not exist if we ourselves > are morally corrupt. Let us see the quotation from any one of my past articles that says, "God is at fault for man's corrupt moral existance." Go ahead... I dare you. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am not misrepresenting you've said; you may be misrepresenting what you actually believe, if you believe anything, but that is another matter. To begin with, I never said these things about you. To character- ize your 'views': Look at all the terrible suffering; nevermind that we could stop nearly all of it if we were not so selfish; what a rotten fellow is this God. It is an inversion of the discussion of Job: the 'friends' of Job accused him of being sinful, since he did suffer, supposing that God should be 'just' as they could understand. On the other hand, you are yet another 'friend' of God, except that you accuse God of being sinful, since we do suffer, supposing that God should be 'just' as you can understand. I suggest that you yourself repost entirely <776@trwatf.UUCP> if you want to satisfy your sham indignation. Among other things, you invert Scripture, asking "Are you to accuse man now in order to justify God?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > However, it is we who are overwhelmingly responsible for the > suffering of mankind. Even if God was not with us, this is still so. > But the very charity that is shown the miserable is the spirit of God > working through us -- the spirit that has become known all over the world > through the message of the life of Christ. The cults and barbarians and > emporers and inquisitors were not overcome by the sword, although > that's what the history books say -- they were overcome by the popular > acceptance of greater faithfulness to the truth of the Gospel. Was Japan defeated in WWII by the Gospels? No... Japan was defeated by the sword. A nuclear sword, but the sword nevertheless. In this case WE ARE responsible for the suffering of the Japanese people because WE directly created it by dropping the bomb. Yet YOU claim that it was "the power of the Holy Gospels" that stopped the emporer of Japan. If this is the case then it is GOD who is directly repsonsible for the pain inflicted by the bomb in ending this war. Take your choice. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm afraid that you are very confused about the Gospel: there is no recommendation of physical warfare anywhere in the NT; those who say there is simply do not understand religious figures of speech, but would like to rationalize violence for the sake of ideological and material prejudices. To cite three passages with differing degrees of parable: First, and most clearly, even in the very violent Revelation, we read "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword," a remarkable warning in a paradoxical context. Second, and partly parable, even when Jesus was arrested by force of the unjust civil and religious authorities, he strongly rebuked "Peter" who would defend him by arms, having cut off the ear of one of the arresting party. He said, "That is enough of that," and he healed the man's ear. How do you expect anyone to listen to the Gospel and have a change of heart if you are violent against him (cutting off his ear)? Elsewhere, Paul makes it plain that we are not fighting against flesh and blood, we are fighting against the blind, destructive spiritual forces of this world, and we are to bear the spiritual armaments in this war, with the two swords, or double-edged sword, of the old and new. I could give many other examples. Finally, there is a no record of any Christian serving in the armed forces in the first two or three centuries, except for some later sons of veterans who were required by law. On the other hand, there are examples of Christians, sons of veterans, who refused to serve and were sentenced to death.(cf Toynbee, History of Religion) It is only after Christianity became the state religion of the Empire, under Constantine, that this changed. Another warning. No matter what you think, I do not think that WW2 was a victory for anyone. The only human victory is reconciliation by steadfast good will. Those who believe that our national policies are identified by God with his own are very dangerously confused, in my opinion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Even so, we still have a physical and ideological inheritance which is > still very self-destructive, although it possesses a technology which > could virtually eliminate suffering if only we also possessed > steadfast, unselfish good will. What you are claiming here is tantemount to saying that one day we won't need God because we will have this stupendous technology... and that's heresy! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Once again you have misconstrued what is perfectly clear, and claimed what is "tantemount" to whatever you please. You are the one who accuses God of failure; I am the one who says that the spirit of God is that of steadfast, unselfish good will. If this is heresy, then while I am a Catholic, surely you are the Pope. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > All of us will die, and many of us will experience some great > suffering in life. But I did not say that anyone lives, with the single > purpose of God, to die miserably for the benefit or enlightenment of > others. It would be better for us to live for their benefit, instead > of ignoring them.... And yet when I ask you what positive impact suffering has on those who must endure it, you follow up with these contradictions... > [David Harwood] > Our suffering makes us less hard-hearted, more compassionate of > others; it cause us to reexamine ourselves, to turn to others and to > God for help, to be more charitible. We become less arrogant, knowing > that there is no justice in suffering, although there is often neglect. > [David Harwood] > I said that we often have a change of heart for the better > with our experience of suffering, our own or that of others. I did not > say that we would not die or that the suffering would end, except in > death. Both are given facts of our existence. But I asked you what > are we to do about the suffering of others? Even if it is too late for > the dying, what are we the living to do? > [David Harwood] > What I grasp is that we do not care very much for others -- > that is the principal reason they suffer; nevertheless, their deaths > do have meaning to anyone that knows about their suffering, who has > a change of heart, or comes to help others because of them. In other words, their suffering DOES THEM NO GOOD, only good to those who happen to pick up the Washington Post. No matter HOW much people care, there will be suffering much of which is NOT caused by man. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That is to say, in ~your~ "other words". Have you learned nothing from your suffering and from the kindness of others and from your own kindness, or have you always been this way? Did you read about your life in the Post? As you did not say, no matter HOW much people say they care, if they don't do anything about it, there will always be suffering, most of which is NOT stopped by man. (In my view, there is very little suffering which we cannot ameliorate if only we had the unselfish, good will.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [David Harwood] > This change also occurs without religious beliefs. But I imagine > that one who suffers will come to find greater truth in the Gospel, through > identification with the life of Jesus (which itself parallels that of the > suffering servant of Isaiah). Regardless of one's previous religious beliefs, > the Gospel is psychologically compelling and gains popular acceptance among > those who have suffered. > [David Harwood] > Do you imagine that those who are dying in Africa are worrying about > the existence of God, or about the existence of charity? Are they > crying for mercy, that of anyone who will hear them? Who does hear? Can't you get your story straight? First you say that those who suffer will take refuge in the Gospel. Then you ask whether or not people dying in Africa are even worrying about God. Well WHICH IS IT??? Well they ARE crying for mercy and certainly God must hear. If he doesn't respond then he has shown himself as uncaring as the humans you condemn. Why do you ignore HIS inability to act when man CANNOT? You are also ignoring your original premise that God CREATED this suffering for some reason of his own. How does this suffering benefit those who suffer? This also assumes that anyone who suffers even KNOWS anythings about the Gospel! Again you have ignored reality. I'm simply going to ignore the above arguments since they directly contradict each other. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm afraid that you have juxtaposed two unrelated passages, not even from the same paragraph, and "got your story wrong." There is no intended transition from the first to the second. Besides this, the first does not mean that those who suffer will take "refuge" in religion, but that those who ~have~ suffered will identify with the figures and events of the Gospel. I am not talking the present here, but the retrospective future. And the second, which is unrelated, is simply observing the actual irrelevance of your speculations, since we are obligated to help others no matter what. These may mollify one's self-doubts, but they will not stop anyone from dying. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Am I recommending a philosophy, or simply observing the obvious? A > really contrived "philosophy" would try to prove that our moral > corruption demonstrates that God does not exist, or He is unmerciful, > when it is obvious that we are the culprits who might be otherwise be > banished (by self-extinction). There are many things a contrived philosophy might be. Like trying to show that somehow a God can create evil in the world and not be resonsible for it. This self-same philosophy would then try to find a scapegoat for all of this suffering: man. Yet I have already pointed out that man cannot be held responsible for events beyond his power to control. I have also pointed out the contradictions in your arguments which leads me to believe that you really DON'T have a cohesize and accurate view of God or the universe. At no point have I said that OUR moral corruption excuses anything. YOU have introduced this favorite fundementalist whipping boy so as to shift the blame away from God and onto man. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On the contrary, we were created by God; there is no reason to believe that his purposes must be the same as ours: our creation in his image, as relatively autonomous moral beings, presupposes creation with the principle of suffering, and admitting the possibility of our fallibility. Suffering is not evil; evil is to knowingly cause or neglect suffering. If evil was impossible, there would be no knowledge of evil, and you, as a human being, could not exist. If we are perfectable by cumulative racial experience, but depending on the grace of God, then there may come a time when evil will end. I have introduced these same ideas in several replies, but you have simply ignored what I've said. I may be wrong of course; they are best hypotheses I have which are consistent with my faith in God as revealed by Jesus in the Gospels. These hypotheses do not explain why we experience suffering, as such. This is more puzzling to me than the other. Why is there the conscious perception of pain or pleasure or pity or hate or love? Why these things, unless they are 'real' also to God. Then perhaps God is fully compassionate with the mankind He has created. This obvious fact of feeling is generally ignored or misunderstood among 'materialists'; the universe is not simply there to be seen, it is everywhere 'colored' by affect, which is the basis for appreciation of moral and aesthetic values; we do not even feel alive without these perceived feelings and values. I can imagine a world, unlike ours, where there is no affect and no "coloring" of experience by entities selected by evolution, which very cleverly 'live' to reproduce. But while they survive by very optimally avoiding destruction, they do not "feel" anything, although they are verbal and self-conscious. When their hand is near the fire, of course, they are informed of the injury, in the sense that they can report the injury, and withdraw from danger; nevertheless, they do not feel "pain", even as they remove their hand. Neither therefore, would there be compassion among their society, nor appreciation for moral or aesthetic values, although there would be common information and reasoning. What would death mean under these circumstances, without enjoyment of life? As we understand it, it would mean nothing, except a change in reproduction and information, in a spiritually dead universe. As it is, these things are the "stuff" if not the meaning of life. Why is there suffering? Why is there enjoyment? Why is there love? These things have nothing to do with material existence, or information. They are materially inexplicable abstract objects of perception, which are fundemental to human nature. By hypothesis, they exist in principle of our creation because they are natural to God Himself, and He is that He is. So we are simply this. There is a parenthetical remark I would introduce here: I am employed by a research center for development of so-called "artificial intelligence"; for what it is worth, I believe that this research has potentially very dangerous implications for our views of human nature; there are three grave dangers which are already emerging, in my opinion. First, the "sociology of knowledge" of this field is closed to the general society, so that they entertain myths about the achievements of computer science. Second, these myths reflect the prevailing "religion" of materialism of most specialists, most of whom implicitly believe that mankind is an unreliable, self-glorified machine, while believing they are something more like gods, privileged with esoteric knowledge. This, despite the fact that they rarely have more than a very superficial knowledge of psychology, linguistics, mathematics, history, biology, or anything else besides programming languages and data structures, which subjects, alone, are about as relevant to understanding human nature as are Tinker Toys for the blind. Finally, the implication of these two considerations, given the manifold power of information and control by computing systems and their programmers, is the diminuation of the dignity of human nature secured by religious values. It is not science, in itself, that is dangerous; it is pride in our theoretical and technological power, and in our increasingly complex and powerful creations. If we are not careful, someday we may become corrupted by the machine which we have built in own image. > If you take a survey of those charitable agencies who did first > answer the need and made known the suffering to the world, and who > marshalled the political authorities, what will you discover except > that they are almost all motivated by what they call the spirit of God? Many say they have been "called by the spirit" only to find later they have merely made the decision themselves. I'll bet their "call by the spirit" actually SUCEEDED their hearing the news in the media. If you want to claim that God is REALLY working through people then you'll need more than just a claim that God deposited the idea in their heads after the fact. In short, I am saying that the claim to be "called by the spirit" is more often than not a prosaeic excuse made by people with an already partisan stake in the claim. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I believe you have misread what I said. It reads "motivated by what they call the spirit of God," not as you have it, "called by the spirit." I am talking about actions from prior beliefs.