root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/04/85)
> [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. > 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. > 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! > 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. > [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. > 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. > 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. -- 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"