afo@pucc-k (Flidais) (10/25/84)
Ken writes.... >>Did Mohammed rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Jesus >>Christ did. Well, Ken, if you look hard enough, there are plenty of tales in which the gods and goddesses of the prominent religion of that region/time managed to pull that off. Should we all be worshipping Osiris? Then I suppose you could say that *all those people* saw that Jesus rose from the dead. Fine. We also have a *lot* of people who said they saw Anne Boleyn have sex with her brother, and of course, we have all seen Uri Geller bend those spoons, Doug Henning make that elephant disappear.... >>Who cares what church they were from? You don't, obviously. That was meant as a bit of trivia for the home-town bunch. Humourless person, aren't you? (now we will take the liberty of cleaning up some of Ken's spelling errors. Nothing else has been changed) >>Their responses did not make any sense to you, but they might have >>if you had been shown by the Holy Spirit what they meant. The >>things of the Bible are spiritually appraised. Oh, goodie, we're back to rationalisation. The 'oh, you would A if only you did B' is one of the classic defences used by those who have no other way of convincing the other person that they are right. By the implication of fault in the other person, they can find a way to believe their own views more fully. ************************************************************************ General comment time Apparently, there appear to be three different modes to the conversion/argument styles used by those who try to convert others or those who try to argue their persuasion in religious matters. 1.) The 'if you did A you would be B' arguement, as delineated above 2.) The 'oh, you poor thing, you don't believe in X, how could know the rapture and truth involved'. This is used when #1 fails. It's a lot easier to say that the person couldn't possibly understand what was going on, rather than trying to come up with a more convincing arguement. 3.) The Rev. Johnson "you're going to burn in that nasty place as defined by the tenets of my religion'. Obviously, the person involved is such a heathen/infidel, that they are soooooooo far from grace, that they possibly couldn't understand what was going on. This is different from #2, as the person in question is being blamed by soemthing they have done, rather than something they haven't done. *sigh* Laurie Sefton {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,seismo}pur-ee!pucc-k!afo Mum? There's an extraterrestrial ursine warlock in my bubble bath!
rsk@pucc-h (Rich Kulawiec (Vombatus Hirsutus)) (10/25/84)
You forgot one of the traditional arguments, Laurie: 4. But _______ (insert name of deity here) is so far above our comprehension that we can never hope to understand any of his/her/its actions and so we should just obey without question. Here is an example, from Ken Nichols: >Anyway, why should God have to >be justified in doing anything, he is all powerfull, are you. As a matter of fact, Ken...Yes. Now...try to prove I'm not. -- ---Rsk UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk "The power of the Force stopped you, ya hosers."
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (10/26/84)
Laurie writes, > Ken writes.... > >>>Did Mohammed rise from the dead? No, I don't think so. Jesus >>>Christ did. > > > Well, Ken, if you look hard enough, there are plenty of tales in > which the gods and goddesses of the prominent religion of that > region/time managed to pull that off. Should we all be worshipping > Osiris? Then I suppose you could say that *all those people* saw > that Jesus rose from the dead. Fine. We also have a *lot* of > people who said they saw Anne Boleyn have sex with her brother, and > of course, we have all seen Uri Geller bend those spoons, Doug > Henning make that elephant disappear.... But does your scepticism change the fact of Christ's resurection. NO! Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't change it's signifigance at all. >>>Their responses did not make any sense to you, but they might have >>>if you had been shown by the Holy Spirit what they meant. The >>>things of the Bible are spiritually appraised. > > > Oh, goodie, we're back to rationalisation. The 'oh, you would A if > only you did B' is one of the classic defences used by those who > have no other way of convincing the other person that they are > right. By the implication of fault in the other person, they can > find a way to believe their own views more fully. I did not say 'if only you did B'. You can't do anything to make yourself understand the plan of salvation. I said, 'if you had been shown by the Holy Spirit'. The Spirit is the one doing all the action. You can't help yourself. That is one of the major points of Christianity. There is nothing that a man can do to save himself. > General comment time > > Apparently, there appear to be three different modes to the > conversion/argument styles used by those who try to convert others > or those who try to argue their persuasion in religious matters. > > > 1.) The 'if you did A you would be B' arguement, as delineated > above I discused this above. > 2.) The 'oh, you poor thing, you don't believe in X, how could > know the rapture and truth involved'. This is used when #1 > fails. It's a lot easier to say that the person couldn't > possibly understand what was going on, rather than trying > to come up with a more convincing arguement. Could you please explain this argument more. Maybe it's my fault, but I can't follow it. > 3.) The Rev. Johnson "you're going to burn in that nasty > place as defined by the tenets of my religion'. Obviously, > the person involved is such a heathen/infidel, that they > are soooooooo far from grace, that they possibly couldn't > understand what was going on. This is different from #2, > as the person in question is being blamed by soemthing they > have done, rather than something they haven't done. > Laurie Sefton > {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,seismo}pur-ee!pucc-k!afo No one is soooooo far from grace that they can't be reached. The only time the above response would be appropriate is if the non-christian in question has blasphemed God or religious things. It should be a short rebuke, and no malice should be associated with it. God still loves the vilest sinner, just not his sin. I'll be waiting to hear from you again. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken ------------
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/30/84)
I don't care WHO wrote this in WHAT article: > You can't help yourself. >That is one of the major points of Christianity. There is nothing that a man >can do to save himself. Bogus, bogus, bogus, bogus, bogus. Off the scale on the bogus meter. If you are sitting on a railroad track and a train comes along, is there nothing you can do to save yourself, or do you step OFF of the track? Why should God what to save you if you don't care enough about yourself to do something about it yourself? -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (10/30/84)
Chuq Von Rospach: > Bogus, bogus, bogus, bogus, bogus. Off the scale on the bogus meter. If > you are sitting on a railroad track and a train comes along, is there > nothing you can do to save yourself, or do you step OFF of the track? > Why should God what to save you if you don't care enough about yourself to > do something about it yourself? Saving yourself from on oncoming train is quite a bit different than saving yourself from eternal damnation. God wants to save us because he loves us regardless of whether we care about ourselves or not. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken ----------
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (11/02/84)
In article <272@qantel.UUCP> ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) writes: >> Why should God what to save you if you don't care enough about yourself to >> do something about it yourself? > >God wants to save us because he loves us >regardless of whether we care about ourselves or not. What you are telling me, if I understand what you are saying, is that nobody will ever go to Hell, because God will want to save us regardless of what we do. -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/05/84)
> > You can't help yourself. > >That is one of the major points of Christianity. There is nothing that a man > >can do to save himself. > > Bogus, bogus, bogus, bogus, bogus. Off the scale on the bogus meter. If > you are sitting on a railroad track and a train comes along, is there > nothing you can do to save yourself, or do you step OFF of the track? > Why should God what to save you if you don't care enough about yourself to > do something about it yourself? This is a good point. I would even guess that Ken would agree with it, as far as it goes. Ken's sentence would be more complete if it said "there is nothing that a man can do to save himself *by himself*." -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/05/84)
> In article <272@qantel.UUCP> ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) writes: > > >> Why should God what to save you if you don't care enough about yourself to > >> do something about it yourself? > > > >God wants to save us because he loves us > >regardless of whether we care about ourselves or not. > > What you are telling me, if I understand what you are saying, is that > nobody will ever go to Hell, because God will want to save us regardless of > what we do. > > -- > From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach > {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA > > I'd know those eyes from a million years away.... No, I said, "God wants to save us." Not everyone will be saved. Some people don't think there is anything to be saved from, so why would they accept a Saviour? -- Ken
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (11/07/84)
Saving yourself from on oncoming train is quite a bit different than saving yourself from eternal damnation. God wants to save us because he loves us regardless of whether we care about ourselves or not. I see... God condemns us all to eternal damnation and then turns right around and tells us that he loves us. This reminds me of the line Clint Eastwood used in "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly".... "Such ingratitude, and after all the times I've saved your life." It's the same principle. Ken's God is heralded as a savior because he saves us from the punishment of God himself. If he REALLY loved us "regardless of whether we care about ourselves or not" then "He" would take steps to cleanse even the most vile sinner of his faults. Clearly (according to the teachings of Ken Nichols) God will NOT do this. Stop contracdicting yourself Ken, it makes it all the more difficult to hold a...``conversation'' with you. - John
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (11/08/84)
In article <288@qantel.UUCP> ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) writes: >> >God wants to save us because he loves us >> >regardless of whether we care about ourselves or not. >> >> What you are telling me, if I understand what you are saying, is that >> nobody will ever go to Hell, because God will want to save us regardless of >> what we do. > >No, I said, "God wants to save us." Not everyone will be saved. Some people >don't think there is anything to be saved from, so why would they accept a >Saviour? But can't God do anything? If so, then why can't He save everyone? Being all powerful, He can do anything He wants, so if He wants to save us, aren't we saved? -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/08/84)
John writes, > Saving yourself from on oncoming train is quite a bit different > than saving yourself from eternal damnation. God wants to save > us because he loves us regardless of whether we care about > ourselves or not. > > I see... God condemns us all to eternal damnation and then turns right > around and tells us that he loves us. God's love is expressed in the gift that He sent in the form of His Son to take the punishment for our sin. We condemn ourselves by rejecting the gift. God is doing His best to save us, but some don't want to listen. > This reminds me of the line Clint Eastwood used in "The Good, The Bad > and The Ugly".... "Such ingratitude, and after all the times I've saved > your life." It's the same principle. Ken's God is heralded as a > savior because he saves us from the punishment of God himself. He saves us from the punishment that we deserve in choosing to go our own way and forsaking the will of God. We are also saved from the power of sin, etc., not just punishment. Salvation is not supposed to be a "Get out of jail free" card. > If he REALLY loved us "regardless of whether we care about ourselves > or not" then "He" would take steps to cleanse even the most vile > sinner of his faults. Clearly (according to the teachings of Ken > Nichols) God will NOT do this. He did take the steps neccessary to cleanse all people. Some of those people reject the gift of this cleansing. And for this, and their sin, God has no choice but to punish them. > Stop contracdicting yourself Ken, it makes it all the more difficult > to hold a...``conversation'' with you. > > > - John I am not contradicting myself. I am trying to say the same things about God in different terms, so that all will understand. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken --------------------
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/08/84)
Chug writes, >In article <288@qantel.UUCP> ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) writes: >>>>God wants to save us because he loves us >>>>regardless of whether we care about ourselves or not. >>> >>> What you are telling me, if I understand what you are saying, is that >>> nobody will ever go to Hell, because God will want to save us regardless of >>> what we do. >> >>No, I said, "God wants to save us." Not everyone will be saved. Some people >>don't think there is anything to be saved from, so why would they accept a >>Saviour? > > But can't God do anything? If so, then why can't He save everyone? Being > all powerful, He can do anything He wants, so if He wants to save us, > aren't we saved? > > -- > From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach Remember, God has other attributes besides Omnipotence, like Holiness. God cannot fellowship with sin in the intimate way He desires to fellowship with man. Once we accept the gift of salvation, which removes the sin, then God can fellowship with us. Please remember all of God's attributes. Don't point at one and say that God must do this because He has this attribute. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken -------------------
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/09/84)
In article <1845@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) writes: >But can't God do anything? If so, then why can't He save everyone? Being >all powerful, He can do anything He wants, so if He wants to save us, >aren't we saved? Apparently, some people would rather not be saved. Apparently, G-d feels that he should honor their wishes.
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/10/84)
>> = Ken Nichols > = Chuq Von Rospach >>... "God wants to save us." Not everyone will be saved. Some people don't >>think there is anything to be saved from, so why would they accept a Saviour? You just touched on one of my pet peeves about many Christians -- insisting on using spelling (in this case) or phraseology (thee, thou, and the appropriate archaic verb forms) which are not current in 20th-century America. "Savior", with the capital S, is sufficient. But that's not the main point of this article.... > But can't God do anything? If so, then why can't He save everyone? Being > all powerful, He can do anything He wants, so if He wants to save us, > aren't we saved? This ties back into the great question of free will. God is a gentleman; He will not force Himself on you. (I'll say it before someone else does: We could learn a lot from Him....) If you choose to spend life and eternity without Him, He will honor that choice. In a sense, He indeed cannot give us Heaven if we have rejected Him on earth -- not because He wants to punish us for that rejection (He's not that petty), but rather because we are so intent on holding onto our own selves and lives that we cannot receive the much greater love, joy, peace, et al. which God wishes to give us. (I know this from experience; some Christians fight God too, but eventually realize -- rationally -- that they're only hurting themselves by doing so.) And again, God insists on giving us free will (whether we like it or not), so He won't force us to give up ourselves; we would be only automata if He did, and He would find that, if nothing else, supremely uninteresting. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity." "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity."
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (11/17/84)
> > Bogus, bogus, bogus, bogus, bogus. Off the scale on the bogus > > meter. If you are sitting on a railroad track and a train comes > > along, is there nothing you can do to save yourself, or do you step > > OFF of the track? Why should God what to save you if you don't care > > enough about yourself to do something about it yourself? > > This is a good point. I would even guess that Ken would agree with > it, as far as it goes. Ken's sentence would be more complete if it > said "there is nothing that a man can do to save himself *by himself*." > > Paul DuBois No, this is also incorrect since if man *were* by himself (that is, without God) then there would be nothing he would need saving *from*. There would be no train to run him down (the train being a metaphor for hell) since sccording to Ken it is God who is providing the damnation. - John
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (11/17/84)
> You just touched on one of my pet peeves about many Christians -- > insisting on using spelling (in this case) or phraseology (thee, thou, > and the appropriate archaic verb forms) which are not current in > 20th-century America. "Savior", with the capital S, is sufficient. > But that's not the main point of this article.... It is now... I imagine that Christians use such archain constructs because of the dramatic effect it gives their words. The same sort of deceit that Madison Avenue employs. Just imagine how YOU would feel. There you stand; A tall Christian; A proud Christian, as you envoke the name of (shudder) "God" and then pronounce "His" "Holy" word and bask in the light of "His" truth. "Thou" "shalt" obey "Thy" "God", "sayeth" "The Lord." All we need now is a Steven Spielberg cloud tank. - John
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/20/84)
From John T. Nelson (trwrba!jnelson): > if man *were* by himself (that is, without > God) then there would be nothing he would need saving *from*. There would > be no train to run him down (the train being a metaphor for hell) since > according to Ken [Nichols] it is God who is providing the damnation. But if there were no God, man would not exist. Nothing would exist. (This could get into some really mind-bending philosophy....) Anyway, the engineer of your train is you. You choose to run yourself down. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity." "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity."
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (11/21/84)
> >No, this is also incorrect since if man *were* by himself (that is, without > >God) then there would be nothing he would need saving *from*. There would > >be no train to run him down (the train being a metaphor for hell) since > >sccording to Ken it is God who is providing the damnation. > > If there were no God, they we would all be damned-- to eternal death. God > doesn't provide the damnation; God nullifies it for some. > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Alas... this isn't what the Christian tradition in general preaches. God isn't just saying, well if you're REAL good you get to go to heaven. And if you're REAL bad, you simply stay dead. No, I'm afraid that any Christian belief based upon the Bible has to acknowledge the idea that God is going to save people, not simply from death... but from eternal punishment. And condemn people to eternal punishment as well. So it seems right for God to be praised for saving us from a natural death... but to praise God for saving us from a death that is artificially imposed upon us (by the very same God) appears to all the world like blackmail and injustice. Or to put it another way... If man sins and is condemned by those sins in some cause-and-effect manner, well then justice IS done. You reap what you sow. If God saves you from this condemnation then it is right to thank God for that salvation. A very generous gift. The Christian Bible, however, preaches that not only will we suffer for our sins via natural cause-and-effect, but a value system will be imposed on us to ADD punishment above and beyond that which we have already endured. Of course many people are not punished for their wrongs and many don't learn from what they have done. One might argue that a value system that also prescribes punishments and rewards is NECESSARY so as to take care of those people that have sinned and yet were not punished or did not learn from their wrongs. Similar arguments go for those that suffered or were not rewarded for a good life. But is eternal damanation REALLY a just punishment for anyone? Many will argue that NO ONE deserves eternal bliss in heaven. Can it not be similarly argued that NO ONE deserves eternal damnation in hell? "We don' need no stinkin green books!" - John -- What... is your name? John T. Nelson What... is your net address? sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!jnelson What... is your favorite colour? Orange Right... of you go then!
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Cheshire Chuqui) (11/27/84)
In article <1506@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes: >But if there were no God, man would not exist. Nothing would exist. (This >could get into some really mind-bending philosophy....) Not true, Jeff, because you are making the assumption that God created everything, and therefore exists. In reality, if God doesn't exist, the only things that would change would be that all religion would be false and that when you died you become worm food instead of an angel and worm food. chuq -- From the center of a Plaid pentagram: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA ~But you know, monsieur, that as long as she wears the claw of the dragon upon her breast you can do nothing-- her soul belongs to me!~
jimc@haddock.UUCP (11/29/84)
I want to hear, then, how you would answer this question: Why is there something and not nothing? Jim Campbell
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (11/30/84)
In article <1506@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes: >But if there were no God, man would not exist. Nothing would exist. (This >could get into some really mind-bending philosophy....) Well, this leads us to the logical next statement: If whatever created God did not exist, God would not exist. Of course, this holds true for whatever created whatever created God, ad nauseum. Why do we stop with one level of indirection? Ken Arnold
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/01/84)
> > > Bogus, bogus, bogus, bogus, bogus. Off the scale on the bogus > > > meter. If you are sitting on a railroad track and a train comes > > > along, is there nothing you can do to save yourself, or do you step > > > OFF of the track? Why should God what to save you if you don't care > > > enough about yourself to do something about it yourself? > > > > This is a good point. I would even guess that Ken would agree with > > it, as far as it goes. Ken's sentence would be more complete if it > > said "there is nothing that a man can do to save himself *by himself*." > > > > Paul DuBois > > No, this is also incorrect since if man *were* by himself (that is, without > God) then there would be nothing he would need saving *from*. There would > be no train to run him down (the train being a metaphor for hell) since > sccording to Ken it is God who is providing the damnation. You know as well as I that I meant that a man cannot save himself without assistance, i.e., by himself. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (12/04/84)
> In article <1506@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes: > >But if there were no God, man would not exist. Nothing would exist. (This > >could get into some really mind-bending philosophy....) > > Well, this leads us to the logical next statement: If whatever created > God did not exist, God would not exist. Of course, this holds true for > whatever created whatever created God, ad nauseum. Why do we stop with > one level of indirection? > > Ken Arnold this assumes that G-D was created. Eliyahu Teitz.
berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (12/05/84)
> > In article <1506@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes: > > >But if there were no God, man would not exist. Nothing would exist. (This > > >could get into some really mind-bending philosophy....) > > > > Well, this leads us to the logical next statement: If whatever created > > God did not exist, God would not exist. Of course, this holds true for > > whatever created whatever created God, ad nauseum. Why do we stop with > > one level of indirection? > > > > Ken Arnold > > this assumes that G-D was created. > > Eliyahu Teitz. > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** I beleive that what Eliyahu is trying to say (and if he isn't, I am) is that since G-d created time, the concept of G-d being created, i.e. G-d's begining, i.e. his innitial point IN time, is a meaningless concept. micha b
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (12/06/84)
< USEnet provides a good case for the need for excorcism.> >> If whatever created God did not exist, God would not exist. >> Why do we stop with one level of indirection? >> >> Ken Arnold > > this assumes that G-D was created. > > Eliyahu Teitz. A popular line of reasoning among believers is: If whatever created the universe did not exist, the universe would not exist. (See recent postings defending the Design Arguement for the existence of God, for example) this assumes that The -n-v-rs- was created. Thank you, Eliyahu Teitz, for refuting this arguement for the existence of God. sdcrdcf!alan
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/08/84)
>>>But if there were no God, man would not exist. Nothing would exist. (This >>>could get into some really mind-bending philosophy....) [SARGENT] >>Well, this leads us to the logical next statement: If whatever created >>God did not exist, God would not exist. Of course, this holds true for >>whatever created whatever created God, ad nauseum. Why do we stop with >>one level of indirection? [ARNOLD] > this assumes that G-D was created. [TEITZ] Ah, let's make a little list: A) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe was created by a deity, (3) the deity was created by ???, ... B) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe was created by a deity, (3) the deity didn't have to have been created C) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe didn't have to have been created by an entity/deity Since A) results in an endless chain, if B) is considered feasible [God didn't have to have been created], then C) is just as feasible [the universe didn't have to have been created by God], and much less presumptive. You can't have your cake here and eat it too. When one proclaims, "How could the universe not have been created? There must have been a creator.", then one might have to accept the same possibility about the creator (that IT must have had a creator). If you don't accept that (God didn't have to have a creator), then, once again, it is equally fathomable that the universe didn't have to either. (By the way, what's this arbitrary demarcation between the universe and god?) -- "Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (12/08/84)
[JOHN NELSON] if man *were* by himself (that is, without God) then there would be nothing he would need saving *from*. There would be no train to run him down (the train being a metaphor for hell) since according to Ken [Nichols] it is God who is providing the damnation. [LARRY BICKFORD] But if there were no God, man would not exist. Nothing would exist. (This could get into some really mind-bending philosophy....) Only to those who believe that everything is a consequence of God. To those who don't believe in God, there is no train (Hell) and there are no tracks. Man would be a product of (what else) evolution. Anyway, the engineer of your train is you. You choose to run yourself down. According to Ken Nichols it is God who is in the driver's seat and not man. God is the engineer of this train called hell. He can put on the brakes at anytime he chooses. Notice how often we are reminded that God is in control of everything and yet when it comes to hell, man is saddled with the blame for "wanting it all along" in some obtuse fasion. The facts still remain. God created hell for the sole and express purpose of punishing all of those who did not follow his ways. Its as simple as that. You cannot project the blame on man simply to fulfill the preconceived definition of a holy God. - John
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (12/09/84)
In article <993@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: >> In article <1506@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes: >> >But if there were no God, man would not exist. Nothing would exist. (This >> >could get into some really mind-bending philosophy....) >> >> Well, this leads us to the logical next statement: If whatever created >> God did not exist, God would not exist. Of course, this holds true for >> whatever created whatever created God, ad nauseum. Why do we stop with >> one level of indirection? >> >> Ken Arnold > this assumes that G-D was created. > Eliyahu Teitz. Yes, it does. The original article, however, made the assumption that man was created, and thefore god existed. My statement was equally logical. This is basically an instantiation of what is often called the "Watchmaker Argument" for the existence of god. It runs: if there is a watch, there must be watchmaker, since such a finally tuned and precisely working mechanims cannot come spontaneously into being. Analagously (it is argued), something as complex as man or the universe must also have had a maker. This was considered a rather elegant argument, since complaining that man was not perfect did not eliminate the need for the creator any more than arguing that, if the watch ran slow, there need not be a watchmaker. This falls short in two major ways: 1. If god is complex and powerful enough to create life, the universe, and everything, the same rule applies to her/him/it. To be obtuse, if god exists, with all complexity and power associated with it/him/her, there must be a maker for god. This sort of argument can continue infintely. No religion I know of goes more than two levels back, and most only one. 2. The watch has no method of self reproduction, and therefore no method of successive improvement, or environmental adaptation, through evolution. In fact, one of the reasons Darwin was fought so hard was because he came up with a plausible and easily understandable driving force for evolution. Since evolution, if accepted, eliminates the argument for the "watchmaker", such a development challenged the faith of many, especially the more intellectual believers (something earlier evolution theories failed to do). Sorry for making a DuBois-like terse statement without complete explanation. I hope this make it clear. Ken Arnold
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (12/13/84)
> >>>But if there were no God, man would not exist. Nothing would exist. (This > >>>could get into some really mind-bending philosophy....) [SARGENT] > > >>Well, this leads us to the logical next statement: If whatever created > >>God did not exist, God would not exist. Of course, this holds true for > >>whatever created whatever created God, ad nauseum. Why do we stop with > >>one level of indirection? [ARNOLD] > > > this assumes that G-D was created. [TEITZ] > > Ah, let's make a little list: > > A) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe was created by > a deity, (3) the deity was created by ???, ... > > B) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe was created by > a deity, (3) the deity didn't have to have been created > > C) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe didn't have to > have been created by an entity/deity > > Since A) results in an endless chain, if B) is considered feasible [God didn't > have to have been created], then C) is just as feasible [the universe > didn't have to have been created by God], and much less presumptive. > You can't have your cake here and eat it too. When one proclaims, > "How could the universe not have been created? There must have been > a creator.", then one might have to accept the same possibility about > the creator (that IT must have had a creator). If you don't accept > that (God didn't have to have a creator), then, once again, it is > equally fathomable that the universe didn't have to either. > > (By the way, what's this arbitrary demarcation between the universe and god?) > -- > "Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered > to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr Your C presumes alot too. The universe is time bounded, it has a beginning and an end. If one believes in a G-D who created everything, including the universe, then it is not hard to see that He also created time and therefore lives in a timeless environment ( I don't even pretend to understand a timeless environment because I live in one that is bounded by time ). If G-D created time then it would be impossible for G-D to have been created since that implies that there was time before G-D created it. To argue that the universe is not bounded by time is ridiculous because we live in the same universe and we definitely have a timed environment. If you are going to say that the universe underwent a change at some time from timelessness to timed existence, well, then I have no answer, but you also have no proof ( and besides why assume a change in the universe ). If you believe, though, that the universe is timebounded, then where did it come from? If you like the big-bang theory, from where the bang? The theory, as I understand it, assumes gasses floating around that exploded. Where, pray tell, did these gasses come from? They were "just there". If so why not think that somehow they were put there ( by, you guessed, G-D ). When it comes to the origin of the universe, science is as much in the dark as anyone else. There are no proofs of G-D. How can someone prove something that does not exist in any way we can imagine. The incomprehensibility of G-D is not in the fact that we are dumb, but rather the fact that we do not have the background into understanding Him. If I were to try and look at an advanced physics book ( in which I have an extremely limited background ) I would have no realistic hope of understanding the material. If I learned the basics though and gradually worked up to the advanced material I would understand alot more of what I saw. So too with G-D. We have no way of looking and understanding G-D. He gave us a good start, the Bible. If one reads it carefully we get a very limited view of G-D. We have no advanced texts for G-D study, only the introductory text. And that text isn't very clear either. I can't prove G-D to anyone, not even myself. But to say that science is the endall of truth is also absurd. Eliyahu Teitz.
berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (12/14/84)
> > >>>But if there were no God, man would not exist. Nothing would exist. (This > > >>>could get into some really mind-bending philosophy....) [SARGENT] > > > > >>Well, this leads us to the logical next statement: If whatever created > > >>God did not exist, God would not exist. Of course, this holds true for > > >>whatever created whatever created God, ad nauseum. Why do we stop with > > >>one level of indirection? [ARNOLD] > > > > > this assumes that G-D was created. [TEITZ] > > > > Ah, let's make a little list: > > > > A) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe was created by > > a deity, (3) the deity was created by ???, ... > > > > B) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe was created by > > a deity, (3) the deity didn't have to have been created > > > > C) Let's assume: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe didn't have to > > have been created by an entity/deity > > > > Since A) results in an endless chain, if B) is considered feasible [God didn't > > have to have been created], then C) is just as feasible [the universe > > didn't have to have been created by God], and much less presumptive. > > You can't have your cake here and eat it too. When one proclaims, > > "How could the universe not have been created? There must have been > > a creator.", then one might have to accept the same possibility about > > the creator (that IT must have had a creator). If you don't accept > > that (God didn't have to have a creator), then, once again, it is > > equally fathomable that the universe didn't have to either. > > > > (By the way, what's this arbitrary demarcation between the universe and god?) Since we know from experience that time does exist in this universe. (At least it did when I got up this morning.) Since time itself is defined by events, and their sequence, by cause and effect, without objects time is a meaningless concept. Assuming that G-d is non-corpreal, it would be similarly meaningless to assume that G-d is subject to the framework of time. Why is it harder to assign timelessness to G-d than spacelessness? Either way, if G-d is bodyless, than there is no objects in His realm to undergo motion and change i.e. events. No events, no time. Without time, there is no before and after, no begining and end. It is meaningless to talk about G-d's begining, His creation if he is in a timeless realm. Therefor us timed beings were created, G-d (assuming He is non-corpreal) was not. Q.E.D. michab