rob@hhb.UUCP (Robert R Stegmann) (11/22/84)
[...]
Judging from recent postings by Ken Nichols and John Nelson,
I seem to have missed an article entitled 'Reply to Rob'.
I am assuming that I am the 'Rob' and Mr. Nichols the author.
I could be wrong, as I know there are other 'Robs' around -
like 'Reverend Rob' of net.religion.jewish fame.
Would someone please mail a copy directly to me if it is relevant
to our discussion?
I have been away and missed much traffic on the net. Unfortunately,
I will continue to be away from access for long periods. Any
unresponsiveness on my part should be attributed to my absence from
my usual site, and neither to rudeness nor silent agreement.
Now, then...
Larry Bickford writes that, "... one crime against the infinite
gets infinite punishment."
Am I to understand that the severity of a crime in no way mitigates
the punishment? Or is this only true when the judge, jury, and
executioner are embodied in one all-powerful deity?
Shades of might makes right...
BTW, Mr. Bickford, thank you for pointing out my mis-spelling of
the word 'deity' as 'diety'. I pass most of my correspondence
through 'spell' and 'diction' prior to mailing, and this seems
to be a case where neither is of any avail in catching an error!
Our 'spell' passes both words, yet 'diety' is not, in fact, in any
dictionary I have consulted! Perhaps this reflects a bug in the
algorithm used to derive words from their roots. Or is 'diety'
a real word? If so, could someone please define it for me so I can
use it properly? It sounds like it might be an organ of the
Catholic Church. But I digress...
Mr. Bickford also asks, "Where has God ... violated his own standards?"
I think I shall let Tim Maroney field that question.
In regard to Mr. Nichols' discussion with Mr. Nelson, I anticipated
when I asserted that God's relationship with Man has changed that I
would draw criticism.
Let me make clear that I maintain it is not God (who is rumored to be
unchanging - how can perfection change?) but his relationship
with Man that has changed. It seems in the course of the Bible that
new aspects of this relationship are reported on.
I think that the facets of God's character related in both Testaments
tell more about the world view of the chroniclers than the 'personality'
of God. Is it not possible that Old Testament writers noted what they
thought were the important aspects of God based upon their perceptions
of the world and society, and that later writers, living in more
civilized times, thought and think the non-violent, 'humanitarian'
aspects of God to be more relevant to Humanity?
It seems unreasonable to think that God would treat a more mature
Man in the same fashion he dealt with immature Man.
It occurs to me that the Old Testament writers, not unlike the writers
of the National Enquirer or the media in general, may have
sensationalized the part of the story they thought would grab the
attention of the masses, albeit in an honest effort to spread
'The Word'.
Can it be that Jesus came to Earth to clear up all that bad press?
But that Man has such a pre-occupation with Evil that even His visit
was of incomplete effectiveness?
In Mr. Nichols' response to Mr. Nelson's article, I note that he is
less vitriolic than in earlier articles. Perhaps there is truth to
his assertion that he is "growing in stewardship of the word."
I agree that no aspect of God's character should be ignored,
but I would point out that one would be foolish to
characterize an 'infinite' being based on any limited set of
observations, even granted authenticated secondary sources (which are
by no means agreed to be available).
It seems absurd to me when people attempt to circumscribe the
character of God using a document which can be printed on a
postage stamp!
It seems safe to assume that God desires a Universe absent Evil.
Perhaps he does not pre-ordain our actions so that no Evil results
because that would effectively rob us of our Free Will.
In such a case we might best serve God and our fellow Man by
working to alleviate the conditions causing Evil, so that the term
itself might no longer be necessary in our vocabulary.
Informing people that they are filth does not aid that purpose;
it serves no good purpose I can imagine.
rob
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4}!philabs!hhb!rob