ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (10/18/84)
(+-+-+-+-+) David writes: > In his "rebuttal" to Tim Maroney, Ken Nichols unwittingly does a really > good job of supporting Tim Maroney. Below are some representative excerpts > from his article. It took me about an hour to select these, and shorten some > of the wordier parts. There were many more things I could have included, > but I want to be merciful to my readers, who have only a finite amount of > time for reading. > > **** Start of Excerpts **** I will leave out my excerpts for space considerations, I trust you have read my article. After the excerpts, David continues, > So, I think it is fair to sum up the above as follows: > 1) Morality is whatever God says it is, because he can effortlessly blow > anyone who disagrees away. That's right. Now you have finally got the right idea. God sets the standards not AT&T (or anyone else) (no offense to AT&T). > 2) We are all guilty of Adam's and Eve's rebelliousness. We are all guilty of > crucifying Christ. If this doesn't make sense to you, see rule 1. We are all guilty of our own rebelliousness. Adam and Eve were merely the ones that started the fad. Because of our sin of rebellion against God, Christ came to die. In this, we had a small part in killing Him. > 3) God gave us free will, but people caught actually using it are subject to > eternal punishment. You must have a queer definition of free will. We have the free will to obey God or to rebel against Him. However, your eternal destiny depends on your choice. > 4) All mankind deserves eternal torment, not because of anything done > wrong, but just because. See rule 1. All men are born in rebellion to God. This act is sin and deserving of punishment. > 5) If you spend your life praising God, and insisting that you are undeserving > (lest you inadvertently stray into feeling pride), God may see fit to have > mercy on you, though you are slime. This is somewhat true, though exagerated a bit. Because of our praising God, we see ourselves in the way God sees us. This however is not all bad after we have become saved. God can then see past the sin that Christ died for and commune with the man. Christians view themselves in the light of God's perfection, and in that light, strive (with His help) to become closer to that perfection (though we will never achieve it in this life). If we do become pridefull for some reason, God will not dump us. When we realize that our pride is a sin and confess it, He will forgive us and renew that close communion with us. > I think the title of my article describes Ken Nichols's method for getting to > heaven. Below is my idea of the correct way to pray to Ken's god: I think the title to your article was quite disgusting, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would not refer to my God in your disgusting manerisms, thank you! > Oh, Lord, you are great and powerful; in your sight I am lower than a worm. > You are wise and wonderful; I am but two-day-old maggot-infested dog shit to > you. If I lick your mighty feet, will you mercifully refrain from turning me > into carp food? If I kiss your holy ass will you resist the understandable > urge to evaporate me on the spot? The first sentence is true to a point. Remember, God values the man, but not his sin. I stated that repeatedly in my article. The second sentence could not be farther from the truth (except that God IS wise and wonderfull). Man is not even worthy to see God's feet, let alone lick them. The last statement is a good example of a prideful man's response to God. It's classic. You do not want to except the fact that there is a deity over you that you will be accountable to, so you flame at it. Unless you turn from that stinking sinfull pride, you will remain lost for eternity! > Waiting for the lightning to strike, > David Canzi, watdcsu!dmcanzi Don't worry, yours will come. Maybe not in this life, but certainly in the one to come. "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken ----------
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi [dcs]) (10/24/84)
Lines beginning with ">" are from Ken Nichols' response to my "KGA" article. > > 1) Morality is whatever God says it is, because he can effortlessly blow > > anyone who disagrees away. > > That's right. Now you have finally got the right idea. God sets the standards > not AT&T (or anyone else) (no offense to AT&T). Ie. Might makes right. At least you're honest about it. > > 2) We are all guilty of Adam's and Eve's rebelliousness. We are all guilty > > of crucifying Christ. If this doesn't make sense to you, see rule 1. > > We are all guilty of our own rebelliousness. Adam and Eve were merely the ones > that started the fad. Because of our sin of rebellion against God, Christ came > to die. In this, we had a small part in killing Him. You mentioned original sin briefly in your article. You also led me to believe that we have more than a "small part" of the guilt for the crucifiction with your remarks: Man deserves even worse for his blatent hatred and rebellion against God. Look what mankind did to Jesus Christ. And since you say that in God's sight we *all* deserve damnation, it must be for one of these two sins. (These are the only sins we *all* have in common. I'll have more to say about rebellion below.) Either way, we are all being held responsible for the actions of others over which we had no possible control, and we are subject to the worst possible punishment for it. You're unwittingly helping Tim Maroney make his point. It's clear that your God is arbitrary and cruel. > > 4) All mankind deserves eternal torment, not because of anything done > > wrong, but just because. See rule 1. > > All men are born in rebellion to God. This act is sin and deserving > of punishment. In order to rebel against some authority (eg. God), we need to know about the authority, know (or believe we know) what the authority wants, and then go ahead and do something else. Any knowledge about God or what he wants from us is beyond our understanding for the first year of our lives, and probably somewhat longer. To say that we are already rebelling against God on the day we are born is ridiculous. > > I think the title of my article describes Ken Nichols's method for getting to > > heaven. Below is my idea of the correct way to pray to Ken's god: > > I think the title to your article was quite disgusting, and I would greatly > appreciate it if you would not refer to my God in your disgusting manerisms, > thank you! That title makes me wince with embarrassment when I see it. I apologize for the unnecessary crudity. Some more polite word, such as "grovelling" would have been better. > > Oh, Lord, you are great and powerful; in your sight I am lower than a worm. > > You are wise and wonderful; I am but two-day-old maggot-infested dog shit to > > you. If I lick your mighty feet, will you mercifully refrain from turning me > > into carp food? If I kiss your holy ass will you resist the understandable > > urge to evaporate me on the spot? > <text omitted> > The last statement is a good example of a prideful man's response to God. > It's classic. Thank you! > You do not want to except the fact that there is a deity > over you that you will be accountable to, so you flame at it. No, I wasn't flaming at God, I was parodying some of the more ridiculous attitudes that you expressed in your article. Prideful and proud of it, David Canzi
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (10/26/84)
David writes in response to me in resoponse to him in reponse to me, >>> 1) Morality is whatever God says it is, because he can effortlessly blow >>> anyone who disagrees away. >> That's right. Now you have finally got the right idea. God sets the standards >> not AT&T (or anyone else) (no offense to AT&T). > Ie. Might makes right. At least you're honest about it. If you wish to view it this way. Fine, might makes right, but so does perfection. >>> 2) We are all guilty of Adam's and Eve's rebelliousness. We are all guilty >>> of crucifying Christ. If this doesn't make sense to you, see rule 1. >> >> We are all guilty of our own rebelliousness. Adam and Eve were merely the ones >> that started the fad. Because of our sin of rebellion against God, Christ came >> to die. In this, we had a small part in killing Him. > > You mentioned original sin briefly in your article. You also led me to > believe that we have more than a "small part" of the guilt for the crucifiction > with your remarks: > Man deserves even worse for his blatent hatred and rebellion against God. > Look what mankind did to Jesus Christ. > And since you say that in God's sight we *all* deserve damnation, it must be > for one of these two sins. (These are the only sins we *all* have in common. > I'll have more to say about rebellion below.) Either way, we are all being > held responsible for the actions of others over which we had no possible > control, and we are subject to the worst possible punishment for it. You're > unwittingly helping Tim Maroney make his point. It's clear that your God is > arbitrary and cruel. O.K., don't beleive in the theology of original sin for the moment. I think it is safe to say that all man has sinned at least once in there lifetime, right. Well, one sin is enough to send you to hell. It doesn't take a lot to make you guilty. As for God being arbitrary, He doesn't sit there and condemn one person while saving another. Everyone is guilty, and all are condemned. But Jesus Christ took the punishment of God for us. All we have to do is accept the fact that He did so, and desire to live for Him because of it. >>> 4) All mankind deserves eternal torment, not because of anything done >>> wrong, but just because. See rule 1. >> All men are born in rebellion to God. This act is sin and deserving >> of punishment. > In order to rebel against some authority (eg. God), we need to know about > the authority, know (or believe we know) what the authority wants, and then > go ahead and do something else. Any knowledge about God or what he wants > from us is beyond our understanding for the first year of our lives, and > probably somewhat longer. To say that we are already rebelling against > God on the day we are born is ridiculous. Man is born with an inward knowledge of God. His attributes are displayed throughout nature. Though a man can see this, He will over the course of his life, find ways to explain away the evidences and knowledge of God that he once possesed. When the difference between good and evil has become obvious to a child, they are old enough to understand the plan of salvation and to be saved from hell. I beleive that children who die before this age are sent directly into the presence of God. Although this may be wishfull thinking. Men instinctivly go against the will of God in nothing more than the desire to run their own lives. God deserves to have charge over your life, and in denying Him this, you are in rebellion. Pride keeps most men from God, as I have said before. >>> I think the title of my article describes Ken Nichols's method for getting to >>> heaven. Below is my idea of the correct way to pray to Ken's god: >> I think the title to your article was quite disgusting, and I would greatly >> appreciate it if you would not refer to my God in your disgusting manerisms, >> thank you! > That title makes me wince with embarrassment when I see it. I apologize for > the unnecessary crudity. Some more polite word, such as "grovelling" would > have been better. I accept your apology. And I think grovelling is a better word. God requires that a man humble himself. If you choose not to now, you will not recieve salvation. You will in the end be humbled, whether you wish to be or not. >>> Oh, Lord, you are great and powerful; in your sight I am lower than a worm. >>> You are wise and wonderful; I am but two-day-old maggot-infested dog shit to >>> you. If I lick your mighty feet, will you mercifully refrain from turning me >>> into carp food? If I kiss your holy ass will you resist the understandable >>> urge to evaporate me on the spot? > <text omitted> >> The last statement is a good example of a prideful man's response to God. >> It's classic. > > Thank you! Your welcome! >> You do not want to except the fact that there is a deity >> over you that you will be accountable to, so you flame at it. > > No, I wasn't flaming at God, I was parodying some of the more ridiculous > attitudes that you expressed in your article. > > Prideful and proud of it, > David Canzi But the first part of my sentence is true. You do now want to accept the fact that there is a deity that you will be accountable to. You have so much pride in yourself, that you will not allow yourself to be helped out of your sad condition by the only person that can help you, Jesus Christ. You will not know God until you deny that silly pride. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken ------------
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (10/31/84)
O.K., don't beleive in the theology of original sin for the moment. Everyone is guilty, and all are condemned. But Jesus Christ took the punishment of God for us. All we have to do is accept the fact that He did so, and desire to live for Him because of it. You're saying that the few hours Christ suffered on the cross was enough to atone for the sins of ALL mankind? For someone who believes in eons of eternal torment for millions upon millions of sinners, it didn't strike you as a hedge of any kind? This sort of rational is FAR too neurotic for a truly holy god. You're living in an Old Testiment theology that says for every sin there must be a sacrificial shedding of blood. Why would a Holy God sacrifice his own son ... in the same many that the priests of Baal did? Remember Abraham's objections when God wanted him to sacrifice HIS only son? You don't think that these objections were valid? I think they're quite valid still. I wonder if Abraham will be condemned for HIS rebellious attitude towards God? Man is born with an inward knowledge of God. His attributes are displayed throughout nature. Man's or God's? I am offering more than just a snide play on words here. How does one discern the difference between intelligence and non-intelligence? How do you tell the difference between a natural or diety-created artifact? The real danger here is that of injecting your own ideas and beliefs into what should be an objective observation. Whose intelligence is really being reflected here? Man's or God's? In short... which end of the telescope is the intelligence on Mr. Lowell? Though a man can see this, He will over the course of his life, find ways to explain away the evidences and knowledge of God that he once possesed... Far too neat and tidy... like the shrinks who try to catigorize people into nice little bins and then go on to classify all of their neurosis as the causal result of this or that fixation. WHY should EVERY man EVER born want to turn away from God if they had even the slightest glimmer of knowledge about him? Pride? No... it's far too easy an answer. And it doesn't even hold water. Although this may be wishfull thinking. The light at the end of the tunnel. Men instinctivly.... Instinct? Instilled by God? But the first part of my sentence is true. You do now want to accept the fact that there is a deity that you will be accountable to. You have so much pride in yourself, that you will not allow yourself to be helped out of your sad condition by the only person that can help you, Jesus Christ. You will not know God until you deny that silly pride. But the first part of my analysis is true. You do now want to accept the fact that there are no pink elephants. You have so much pride in youself, that you will not allow yourself to be helped out of your sad condition by the only person in Vienna that can help you, Sigmund Freud. You will not know mental health until you deny that silly fixation of yours.
mat@hou4b.UUCP (10/31/84)
> Lines beginning with ">" are from Ken Nichols' response to my "KGA" article. > . . . > > > > 2) We are all guilty of Adam's and Eve's rebelliousness. We are all guilty > > > of crucifying Christ. If this doesn't make sense to you, see rule 1. > > > > We are all guilty of our own rebelliousness. Adam and Eve were merely the ones > > that started the fad. Because of our sin of rebellion against God, Christ came > > to die. In this, we had a small part in killing Him. > > You mentioned original sin briefly in your article. You also led me to > believe that we have more than a "small part" of the guilt for the crucifiction > with your remarks: > Man deserves even worse for his blatent hatred and rebellion against God. > Look what mankind did to Jesus Christ. > And since you say that in God's sight we *all* deserve damnation, it must be > for one of these two sins. (These are the only sins we *all* have in common. > I'll have more to say about rebellion below.) Either way, we are all being > held responsible for the actions of others over which we had no possible > control, and we are subject to the worst possible punishment for it. You're > unwittingly helping Tim Maroney make his point. It's clear that your God is > arbitrary and cruel. ``Whatsoever you do to the least of My brothers, this you have done to Me.'' Who among us has not been cruel? Who among us has given as much as he can give to alleviate world hunger? To eliminate war? We sit here bitching and moaning about US Marines in Grenada, and about nuclear weapons that noone wants to use while wars are being fought in the third world, while people are dying of starvation caused by bad land use encouraged or allowed by incompetent government . . . As we do this (and I include myself) we are all letting Christ's sisters and brothers die of hunger, or suffocate under political oppression or disease. THAT is a sin that we are certainly all guilty of -- all perhaps except a few like Mother Theresa, like the late Dr. Schwietzer, some of the clergy in Poland, etc. As an aside, the US has been sending aid in the form of food to the drought- stricken areas of Africa ... Ethiopia, Somalia, and their neighbors. For what it may be worth, since the beginning of August, that region of Africa has been receiving 43 million dollars in aid PER WEEK. This is added to aid coming from other developed counties. The total is still not half enough to meet the need. > > > 4) All mankind deserves eternal torment, not because of anything done > > > wrong, but just because. See rule 1. > > > > All men are born in rebellion to God. This act is sin and deserving > > of punishment. > > In order to rebel against some authority (eg. God), we need to know about > the authority, know (or believe we know) what the authority wants, and then > go ahead and do something else. Any knowledge about God or what he wants > from us is beyond our understanding for the first year of our lives, and > probably somewhat longer. To say that we are already rebelling against > God on the day we are born is ridiculous. > Which of us does not feel guilty when we see another suffering and we do nothing about it? And how many of us DO something about the derelict (who smells so bad that we wait for a thunderstorm to even go NEAR him?) or about the people left to die in loneliness in nursing homes? Or ... Oh, we KNOW what to do, alright. Accepting Jesus as your living God and Saviour requires more than singing in church every Sunday. How many of us do those things? . . . > > > Oh, Lord, you are great and powerful; in your sight I am lower than > > > a worm. You are wise and wonderful; I am but two-day-old maggot-infested > > > dog shit to you. You are NOT lower than a worm. You are made in God's image, with a will and with the ability to chose between right and wrong ... between accepting God AND your fellow human beings -- especially the lowliest, and ignoring the needs of others and rejecting God by doing so. > > > If I lick your mighty feet, will you mercifully refrain from turning > > > me into carp food? If I kiss your holy ass will you resist the > > > understandable urge to evaporate me on the spot? I submit that boot-licking and ass-kissing were just what the (New Testament) Pharisees were into ... and perhaps what we are into as well. Jesus told the Pharisees that it doesn't work that way. He said that prostitutes and tax collectors are making it into heaven before ``holy men''. As to things being understandable ... I don't quite think that they are. God made us. God loves us. Somehow, He loves us each with the all the fullness of His love. And perhaps that is why we can hurt Him. Because He submits Himself to us they way He submitted Himself to those who crucified Him. Love makes us vulnerable. Perhaps in His love, He makes Himself vulnerable to our hurt. Why? That is one of the great open questions of theology. . . . > > Prideful and proud of it, > David Canzi > And I also enjoy pride, David. And perhaps I am proud of that too. But I still know that pride has bounds beyond which it should not go. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/01/84)
> O.K., don't beleive in the theology of original sin for the > moment. Everyone is guilty, and all are condemned. But Jesus > Christ took the punishment of God for us. All we have to do is > accept the fact that He did so, and desire to live for Him > because of it. > > You're saying that the few hours Christ suffered on the cross was enough > to atone for the sins of ALL mankind? For someone who believes in eons > of eternal torment for millions upon millions of sinners, it didn't > strike you as a hedge of any kind? This sort of rational is FAR too > neurotic for a truly holy god. Yes, Christ death on the cross was enough to atone for the sins of ALL mankind. Though I don't have a Bible with me here at work, I will find you the scriptures to support this if you like. Why is this far too neurotic? I don't see the connection. God makes up the rules. > You're living in an Old Testiment theology that says for every sin there must > be a sacrificial shedding of blood. Why would a Holy God sacrifice his own > son ... in the same many that the priests of Baal did? The theology of shed blood for remission of sins is not just a Old Testiment idea. "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." God required blood sacrifices of animals in the Old Testiment. These sacrifices didn't take away sin, they merely covered it over. Why is this? Because the people offering the sacrifices were sinners themselves. A perfect sacrifice was necessary for the removal of all sin. Jesus Christ was this perfect sacrifice. Now no other sacrifices are necessary, "it is finished". > Remember Abraham's > objections when God wanted him to sacrifice HIS only son? You don't think > that these objections were valid? I think they're quite valid still. > > I wonder if Abraham will be condemned for HIS rebellious attitude towards God? Abraham in no way objected to sacrificing his son. He had faith that if he were to kill his son, that God would raise him from the dead. God was testing Abraham's faith and obediance, and Abraham passed with flying colors. He was not rebellious. > Man is born with an inward knowledge of God. His attributes > are displayed throughout nature. > > Man's or God's? I am offering more than just a snide play on words here. > How does one discern the difference between intelligence and non-intelligence? > How do you tell the difference between a natural or diety-created artifact? > The real danger here is that of injecting your own ideas and beliefs into > what should be an objective observation. Whose intelligence is really being > reflected here? Man's or God's? In short.. which end of the telescope is the > intelligence on Mr. Lowell? Man did not create trees or sky, did he? I think nature is what I said. Man had no involvement in the creation of nature. When we see the perfect balance of nature (if man isn't corrupting it) it shows some of God's attributes. A thunderstorm can show us the power that God has at his disposal for example. > Though a man can see this, He will over the course of his life, > find ways to explain away the evidences and knowledge of God > that he once possesed... > > Far too neat and tidy... like the shrinks who try to catigorize people > into nice little bins and then go on to classify all of their neurosis > as the causal result of this or that fixation. WHY should EVERY man > EVER born want to turn away from God if they had even the slightest > glimmer of knowledge about him? Pride? No... it's far too easy an answer. > And it doesn't even hold water. Just because you don't believe that man is this way, does this change the fact that the Bible says he is (Romans 1). It even states the reason, "They chose not to honer Him as God, or give thanks." This sounds like pride to me. > Men instinctivly.... > > Instinct? Instilled by God? This instinct became a part of man after the fall of Adam and Eve. Because their pride was exposed by their desire for the fruit of the tree, all men also inherited this pride and self sufficient attitude. > But the first part of my sentence is true. You do now want to > accept the fact that there is a deity that you will be > accountable to. You have so much pride in yourself, that you > will not allow yourself to be helped out of your sad condition > by the only person that can help you, Jesus Christ. You will > not know God until you deny that silly pride. > > But the first part of my analysis is true. You do now want to accept > the fact that there are no pink elephants. You have so much pride in > youself, that you will not allow yourself to be helped out of your sad > condition by the only person in Vienna that can help you, Sigmund > Freud. You will not know mental health until you deny that silly > fixation of yours. I have no evidence, subjective or else, that tell me to put my destiny in the hands of pink elephants. But I do have evidence, although mostly subjective, about the truth of God. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken ---------------
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (11/01/84)
> Man is born with an inward knowledge of God. His attributes > are displayed throughout nature. > > How do you tell the difference between a natural or diety-created > artifact? What difference? The Lord created *everything*. -- _____ Last one in the system buffer pool /_____\ is a rotten data block! /_______\ |___| Snoopy ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/13/84)
> > O.K., don't beleive in the theology of original sin for the > moment. Everyone is guilty, and all are condemned. But Jesus > Christ took the punishment of God for us. All we have to do is > accept the fact that He did so, and desire to live for Him > because of it. > > You're saying that the few hours Christ suffered on the cross was enough > to atone for the sins of ALL mankind? Death for we who deserve it is one thing. Death for He who is Life itself, and who did not deserve it is another. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (11/16/84)
> > > > O.K., don't beleive in the theology of original sin for the > > moment. Everyone is guilty, and all are condemned. But Jesus > > Christ took the punishment of God for us. All we have to do is > > accept the fact that He did so, and desire to live for Him > > because of it. > > > > You're saying that the few hours Christ suffered on the cross was enough > > to atone for the sins of ALL mankind? > > Death for we who deserve it is one thing. Death for He who is Life > itself, and who did not deserve it is another. > -- > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois Come on Paul, try harder. I am convinced that even you can answer a simple one line question. A Coherent Person
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/21/84)
> > > > > > O.K., don't beleive in the theology of original sin for the > > > moment. Everyone is guilty, and all are condemned. But Jesus > > > Christ took the punishment of God for us. All we have to do is > > > accept the fact that He did so, and desire to live for Him > > > because of it. > > > > > > You're saying that the few hours Christ suffered on the cross was enough > > > to atone for the sins of ALL mankind? > > > > Death for we who deserve it is one thing. Death for He who is Life > > itself, and who did not deserve it is another. > > -- > > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois > > Come on Paul, try harder. > I am convinced that even you can answer a simple > one line question. > > A Coherent Person I did. Think about it harder. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Jesus Christ is not Cute." John Fahey
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (11/28/84)
John Nelson: Which is why Christ's death on the cross seems so totally unwarrented... Larry Bickford: Where there is sin, there must be payment for sin. Ah, but that's the sort of rhetoric I was refering to earlier. WHY must there be payment for sin? This sounds like a form of revenge to me. "Paying" for sins doesn't sound terribly constructive.... especially coming from an infinite God whose wisdom supposedly transcends all. Similarly the existance of an ever-burning hellfire seems to accomplish less than an all-wise deity should be capable of. The concept of payment for sins is NOT a new one. Many ancient cultures had it. This leads me to conclude that the concept of "payment" for sins might very well have originated in man and not God. Interestingly enough a number of non-theistic religions have not developed a concept of "payment for sins." Without such a belief, much of the justification for God's existance would be undermined. That's why the argument for "payment of sins" often is of the form.... "But there JUST HAS to be payment." Finite man can never fully pay for his crimes against God; Same. therefore justice demands an infinite time in the lake of fire. I love the use of the word "therefore" here. This isn't fooling anyone. The idea that there must be payment for sins is at best a fuzzy sort of parity. I havn't seen a decent rationalization for it yet.... expecially in the arguments of Mr. Bickford, but I'm hoping. Since that's not exactly something to look forward to, what alternatives are there? Fear is not a valid justification for belief in God. Anymore than it justifies a belief in Satan as a viable alternative to God. The "killing of an innocent" is far from "senseless." Only someone who had no sins of his own to pay for could pay for my sins... Of course that assumes that... 1) Payment of some sort IS required. 2) Death is a suitable payment. 3) The death of an innocent is better than the death of he who is truly guilty. These are all necessary to the Christian theology and yet I don't think there is adequate justification for them. As I had said to Ken Nichols before... this harkens back to the Old Testiment thinking that said one could remove sin from one's self by shedding the blood of another. Further, One Who is Himself infinite *could* make full payment, not only for my sins, but also for those of countless others. Thus, the Deity of Christ is an essential part of Christianity. The Letter to the Hebrews contains a good study of this. Your rationalizations have yet to hit the mark. If you can't rationalize, then I don't try. Theistic grounds seem to be more your forte'. "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!
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (11/30/84)
> > [me] > > Where there is sin, there must be payment for sin. > [John Nelson] > WHY must there be payment for sin? This sounds like a form of revenge > to me. "Paying" for sins doesn't sound terribly constructive.... > especially coming from an infinite God whose wisdom supposedly > transcends all. Similarly the existance of an ever-burning hellfire > seems to accomplish less than an all-wise deity should be capable of. John, your obtuseness is beyond belief. It's basic justice: recompense for an offense. You do the crime - you do the time. And the recompense is appropriate to the crime, as I noted in my previous article. > The concept of payment for sins is NOT a new one. Many ancient > cultures had it. This leads me to conclude that the concept of > "payment" for sins might very well have originated in man and not God. ...or that the other ancient cultures descended from a theistic one. > > The "killing of an innocent" is far from "senseless." Only > > someone who had no sins of his own to pay for could pay for my > > sins... > Of course that assumes that... > 1) Payment of some sort IS required. > 2) Death is a suitable payment. > 3) The death of an innocent is better than the death of > he who is truly guilty. > These are all necessary to the Christian theology and yet I don't think > there is adequate justification for them. As I had said to Ken Nichols > before... this harkens back to the Old Testiment thinking that said one > could remove sin from one's self by shedding the blood of another. Not quite correct. More accurately, the One offended chose to accept a substitute in place of the offender. In order to serve as a substitute, the substitute must have no offense of its own. It is not man trying to appease God. It is God saying what kind of payment He will accept. > Your rationalizations have yet to hit the mark. If you can't > rationalize, then I don't try. If you can't understand justice, my trying is futile. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (11/30/84)
> >From Lary Bickford: > > Where there is sin, there must be payment for sin. Finite man can never > > fully pay for his crimes against God; therefore justice demands an > > infinite time in the lake of fire. > > Hmmm... It seems to me that man, who is only finite when he atones for > his crimes, was only finite when he committed them. How does finite > man, in finite time, manage to commit infinite crimes? > > "This is just me nitpicking." David Canzi Larry's answer to this (as found in another article, and as received via mail) is that the crime is infinite when committed against an infinite being. Well, I don't quite understand the logic in this. It sounds about equally reasonable to argue that mere finite mortals can not hurt an infinite being enough to be noticed. "Adequacy -- is it enough?" David Canzi