garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (10/31/84)
> Face it. God doesn't want us all to be Christians, or Catholics, or Jews, > or Zen Buddists... Now if a Christian makes a statement about what God does or doesn't want, probably a dozen people would accuse the writer of being presumptious. "How do you know what God wants? When did he reveal himself personally to you? Do you often have private conversations with him?" or some such. I predict that the people who would do that, in the case of a Christian making a statement about what God wants, will not do that in this case. Could it be because the above sentiment appeals to more people? I.e., many people wish that God were like that, and therefore he must be? Ah, good old "wishful thinking". Gary Samuelson bunker!garys
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (11/03/84)
In article <603@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >> Face it. God doesn't want us all to be Christians, or Catholics, or Jews, >> or Zen Buddists... > >Now if a Christian makes a statement about what God does or doesn't want, >probably a dozen people would accuse the writer of being presumptious. >"How do you know what God wants? When did he reveal himself personally >to you? Do you often have private conversations with him?" or some such. Ah... Hoisted by my own petard... I probably should have phrased it a little less firmly. It is intuitively obvious to me that all of the religions that I've studied over the years all seem to say the same thing in ways that the society that the religion involved in can deal with appropriately. One of the great joys of humanity is its diversity, and part of that diversity is that widely differing groups of people can all worship the same Being in ways uniquely theirs. chuq -- 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....
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (11/03/84)
In article <nsc.1812> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) writes: >... One of the great joys of humanity is its diversity, and part >of that diversity is that widely differing groups of people can all worship >the same Being in ways uniquely theirs. I always figured that was part of the Plan. A Deity that truly loved all people in their diversity (and who truly wanted love in return) would understand that different people have different expectations of their faiths, and would provide accordingly. No way is better or worse than any other, and all measure the differences among us. Ultimately, they bring us all to the same place. What both amuses and frightens me is how we get hung up on incredible techni- calities (from a universal perspective) to the point that even the best of us gets sucked into the fray. It strikes me we lose track of the real reason we're here -- to understand ourselves, each other, and our relationship to the Universe. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/13/84)
> > Face it. God doesn't want us all to be Christians, or Catholics, or Jews, > > or Zen Buddists... > > Now if a Christian makes a statement about what God does or doesn't want, > probably a dozen people would accuse the writer of being presumptious. > "How do you know what God wants? When did he reveal himself personally > to you? Do you often have private conversations with him?" or some such. > > I predict that the people who would do that, in the case of a Christian > making a statement about what God wants, will not do that in this case. > Could it be because the above sentiment appeals to more people? I.e., > many people wish that God were like that, and therefore he must be? > Ah, good old "wishful thinking". > > Gary Samuelson > bunker!garys You're right. People don't want to believe that there is a God who might (gosh!) make a *demand* on them for something. As long as God remains vague and amorphous, saying "do what you like, as long as you don't hurt anyone", everything's cool. As soon as God says "thou shalt not ...", or "this is right and that is wrong", well, that's a different story. Man does not want to acknowledge an authority above himself. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/14/84)
> >... One of the great joys of humanity is its diversity, and part > >of that diversity is that widely differing groups of people can all worship > >the same Being in ways uniquely theirs. > > I always figured that was part of the Plan. A Deity that truly loved all > people in their diversity (and who truly wanted love in return) would > understand that different people have different expectations of their > faiths, and would provide accordingly. No way is better or worse than > any other, and all measure the differences among us. Ultimately, they > bring us all to the same place. At the risk of sounding remarkably like Ken Nichols (which, I should say, hardly frightens me, though some seem to think it a fine derogation), the above paragraph boils down to this: any God that "really" loved us would let us do what we want. God should follow the rules *we* make up for *Him*. Rich Rosen, where are you when we need you, to point out wishful thinking? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/16/84)
> You're right. People don't want to believe that there is a God who > might (gosh!) make a *demand* on them for something. As long as God > remains vague and amorphous, saying "do what you like, as long as > you don't hurt anyone", everything's cool. As soon as God says > "thou shalt not ...", or "this is right and that is wrong", well, > that's a different story. Man does not want to acknowledge > an authority above himself. [PAUL DUBOIS] Some people WANT to believe (i.e., assume) that there is a god who does (because they want it to!) make demands on people for some things. As long as god is pre-defined the way these people want it to be, saying "this is right and that is wrong" (when it is actually the people themselves who created the spoken words), everything's cool. As soon as someone else points out that just because they want to believe that god is this way doesn't necessarily make it so, well, that's a different story. (i.e., they get to label these other people as "attacking their beliefs"). "Man does not want to acknowledge an authority above himself." Perhaps "man" [sic] has no need to do so. You might wish for there to be an authority above you, but that alone (and "that" IS all you have) does not make it so. Just because human beings do not control the universe they live in, that doesn't mean that there is something that does, and that tells you what right and wrong is. This is the basic assumption (or one of them) that all religious believers make: because human beings don't necessarily control their environment, and because the universe presents them with things they might not understand, this does NOT imply that there is a thing that DOES control and understand. It would be "nice" if it were true, but that doesn't mean it's true. Without this debunked assumption, religious belief falls flat on its back. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (11/17/84)
In article <462@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >...People don't want to believe that there is a God who >might (gosh!) make a *demand* on them for something. As long as God >remains vague and amorphous, saying "do what you like, as long as >you don't hurt anyone", everything's cool. As soon as God says >"thou shalt not ...", or "this is right and that is wrong", well, >that's a different story. Man does not want to acknowledge >an authority above himself. If God speaks to me directly, I will acknowledge his authority. But on the Net a few HUMAN BEINGS insist that they alone know what God wants. Humans beings can make mistakes even when speaking about God. Human beings can make mistakes about themselves. Human beings can make mistakes about others. Therefore: If human being says that the Bible is the only word of God, that does not make it so. It is only a human being voicing an opinion, to be treated with the respect due to that human being. If a human being claims that the Bible says that God will do thus-and-so, it is a human being making a claim. If a human being says that Gods wants something, it is only the opinion of a human being. If a human being says such-and-such is a fact, that does not make it a fact. Those who claim that God will save or condemn those who believe or don't believe certain things do not appear to me to acknowledge a higher authority, but appear to claim to BE that authority. If I don't believe them it is because those human beings are either presenting arguments unskilfully or the claims of these human beings do not seem valid. It has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting the direct voice of a higher authority. If those who believe in God or Jesus are correct, it is not those human beings who go around saying who shall be saved and who shall burn who will have the last word, but God or Jesus. -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (11/18/84)
In article <uwmacc.466> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >> >... One of the great joys of humanity is its diversity, and part >> >of that diversity is that widely differing groups of people can all worship >> >the same Being in ways uniquely theirs. >> >> I always figured that was part of the Plan. A Deity that truly loved all >> people in their diversity (and who truly wanted love in return) would >> understand that different people have different expectations of their >> faiths, and would provide accordingly. No way is better or worse than >> any other, and all measure the differences among us. Ultimately, they >> bring us all to the same place. > >At the risk of sounding remarkably like Ken Nichols (which, I should >say, hardly frightens me, though some seem to think it a fine >derogation), the above paragraph boils down to this: any God that >"really" loved us would let us do what we want. God should >follow the rules *we* make up for *Him*. Golly Gee, Paul, I thought we were talking about forms of worship, not day-to-day moral behavior. Do you mean that if I adopt a different religion than yours, with attendant behavioral proscriptions and prescriptions, that I am asking G-d to follow the rules I make up? Well Phoo. I guess that's the problem with us relativists. Since we can't see the obvious superiority of some faiths over others we sort of have to shop around and find the one that best fills our inner needs. Wishful thinking? Maybe. I've been the fire-and-brimstone route before and frankly, it just didn't take. I didn't get zapped by whatever zaps you guys and figured I'd better start looking elsewhere for answers. I'm not putting down what you believe. If it works for you, great! Seriously. I think it's important that people have some relationship to G-d. (Sorry Rich.) I do wish you guys would stop running around and hollering "unclean" at anything that doesn't fit your faith, however. It may have a certain nuisance value, but it wears a little thin and only makes me angry at you (not at G-d, not at christianity, but at you.) Most folks I know, of different capital letter and lower case faiths just don't do that, and it's a whole lot easier to understand them. It's real easy to try to respect someone elses faith and their feelings about it, to exchange ideas without threatening or feeling threatened, and to come away with a greater understanding of G-d. Hopefully we're all a little better off for it. Oh dear, I've probably made everyone angry by preaching tolerance again, so I guess I'll sign off... -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/03/84)
> In article <uwmacc.466> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >> >... One of the great joys of humanity is its diversity, and part > >> >of that diversity is that widely differing groups of people can all worship > >> >the same Being in ways uniquely theirs. > >> > >> I always figured that was part of the Plan. A Deity that truly loved all > >> people in their diversity (and who truly wanted love in return) would > >> understand that different people have different expectations of their > >> faiths, and would provide accordingly. No way is better or worse than > >> any other, and all measure the differences among us. Ultimately, they > >> bring us all to the same place. > > > >At the risk of sounding remarkably like Ken Nichols (which, I should > >say, hardly frightens me, though some seem to think it a fine > >derogation), the above paragraph boils down to this: any God that > >"really" loved us would let us do what we want. God should > >follow the rules *we* make up for *Him*. > > Golly Gee, Paul, I thought we were talking about forms of worship, not > day-to-day moral behavior. Do you mean that if I adopt a different religion > than yours, with attendant behavioral proscriptions and prescriptions, > that I am asking G-d to follow the rules I make up? The paragraph before mine clearly states that God is "supposed" to fit what *we* want. Even if you are talking about worship, this amounts to God following our rules. And then He's not God. > I do wish you guys would stop running around and hollering "unclean" at > anything that doesn't fit your faith, however. It may have a certain > nuisance value, but it wears a little thin and only makes me angry at > you (not at G-d, not at christianity, but at you.) Most folks I know, > of different capital letter and lower case faiths just don't do that, and > it's a whole lot easier to understand them. It's real easy to try to > respect someone elses faith and their feelings about it, to exchange > ideas without threatening or feeling threatened, and to come away with > a greater understanding of G-d. Hopefully we're all a little better off > for it. I'm sorry if I've made you angry. However: I'm not threatening anyone, nor do I feel threatened by you stating your beliefs. Go ahead. But I certainly get tired of reading articles consisting of "let's have religious discussion, but let's not telling anyone we think they're wrong." If you don't consider your beliefs worth transmitting, they're not worth holding personally. Obviously you consider my views wrong, since you feel the need to correct me. I am not going to complain "don't tell *me* I'm wrong!" Why should I? But then you shouldn't go around telling people like me that they're wrong... > Oh dear, I've probably made everyone angry by preaching tolerance again, > so I guess I'll sign off... > > Byron C. Howes Not angry. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (12/07/84)
In article <uwmacc.526> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >> >> A Deity that truly loved all >> people in their diversity (and who truly wanted love in return) would >> understand that different people have different expectations of their >> faiths, and would provide accordingly. No way is better or worse than >> any other, and all measure the differences among us. Ultimately, they >> bring us all to the same place. >> > the above paragraph boils down to this: any God that > "really" loved us would let us do what we want. God should > follow the rules *we* make up for *Him*. >> >> Golly Gee, Paul, I thought we were talking about forms of worship, not >> day-to-day moral behavior. Do you mean that if I adopt a different religion >> than yours, with attendant behavioral proscriptions and prescriptions, >> that I am asking G-d to follow the rules I make up? > >The paragraph before mine clearly states that God is "supposed" to >fit what *we* want. Even if you are talking about worship, this >amounts to God following our rules. And then He's not God. > I don't know how you got that out of the first paragraph. I didn't say G-d would "let" or G-d would "follow." I said "provide," I guess implicitly for our needs of faith (though perhaps that's not clear.) To my mind, no one gift from G-d is no better or worse than any other, and that includes faith. >But I certainly get tired of reading articles consisting of >"let's have religious discussion, but let's not telling anyone we >think they're wrong." If you don't consider your beliefs worth >transmitting, they're not worth holding personally. Obviously you >consider my views wrong, since you feel the need to correct me. >I am not going to complain "don't tell *me* I'm wrong!" Why should >I? But then you shouldn't go around telling people like me that >they're wrong... It isn't your views, its your lack of respect. Everyone who reads this group has a viewpoint (most of them different from all I can gather.) Everyone who reads this has a faith, of some sort, which is held as dearly and as close to their hearts as you hold yours. Don't doubt it. You, and many of the fundamentalist Christians on the net remind me of the proverbial American tourist in a foreign country who thinks if he shouts loud enough the natives will understand him. They won't. Please note I never said you were wrong. I said *I* didn't like the lack of reverence you show for other's beliefs by stating flatly that they are "wrong." ('Wrong' and what I don't like really are different things.) It makes me angry, and after a while I stop reading your articles. That certainly doesn't suit your purpose or the purpose of this group. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/11/84)
> It isn't your views, its your lack of respect. Everyone who reads this > group has a viewpoint (most of them different from all I can gather.) > Everyone who reads this has a faith, of some sort, which is held as dearly > and as close to their hearts as you hold yours. Don't doubt it. You, > and many of the fundamentalist Christians on the net remind me of the > proverbial American tourist in a foreign country who thinks if he shouts > loud enough the natives will understand him. They won't. What lack of respect? I'm not saying anyone is a jerk. (if you think so, prove it.) I do not think that disagreeing with someone constitutes lack of respect. If you can demonstrate lack of respect on my part, I will certainly apologize. I have done so before, and I do not mind if I have to do it again. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." Psalm 104:33