[net.religion] Nichols on Maroney

jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (10/25/84)

I have been reading recent posting of Ken Nichols's responses
to Tim Maroney's article: "Even if I DID Believe" as well as
his other posting on similar topics.  I have also been  reading
other net people evaluation of Ken's responses.  Some of these
evaluations conclude that Ken's posting are not a rebuttal to 
Tim's article, but rather reinforce Tim's views on the 
character of God.  Regretfully, I have to concur with these
evaluations.

To illustrate my point, let me draw upon a biblical analogy: 

The king of Mo'ab, Ba'lak, fearing the approaching Israelites,
asked Ba'laam (a prophet) to direct a curse against the Israelites.
Instead of cursing the Israelites, Ba'laam  blessed them. Numbers
23:13 sums this situation in the following passage:

'And Ba'lak said to Ba'laam, "What have you done to me? I took
you to curse my enemies, and behold, you have done nothing but
bless them"'

It is quite obvious that Ken Nichols, just as in the biblical
story, has accomplished the opposite of what he intended to do.
Instead of rebutting Tim Maroney, he reinforced Tim's thesis.

The only  way I could consider Ken's posting as a rebuttal to
Tim's article is by assuming a double standard - one standard for
god and another standard for the rest of the universe.  Does it 
imply that what we recognize as a low moral standard (e.g. killing
innocent people) is reversed when it is applied to god? When God 
bears the responsibility for the death of the innocent, is he 
to be judged as having high moral standards?
-- 

Yosi Hoshen
Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois
(312)-979-7321
Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho

ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (10/26/84)

> The only  way I could consider Ken's posting as a rebuttal to
> Tim's article is by assuming a double standard - one standard for
> god and another standard for the rest of the universe.  Does it 
> imply that what we recognize as a low moral standard (e.g. killing
> innocent people) is reversed when it is applied to god? When God 
> bears the responsibility for the death of the innocent, is he 
> to be judged as having high moral standards?
> -- 
> 
> Yosi Hoshen

Noone is innocent in the sight of a Holy God.  There is no such thing.  All
men deserve death and punishment forever in Hell.
-- 


"...holding forth the                              Ken Nichols
 word of life..." Phil. 2:16                       ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken
------------

lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (10/29/84)

> Yosi Hoshen:
> The only  way I could consider Ken's posting as a rebuttal to
> Tim's article is by assuming a double standard - one standard for
> god and another standard for the rest of the universe.  Does it 
> imply that what we recognize as a low moral standard (e.g. killing
> innocent people) is reversed when it is applied to god? When God 
> bears the responsibility for the death of the innocent, is he 
> to be judged as having high moral standards?

Not a double standard...God IS the standard, and man doesn't even come
close. Someone may be innocent when only humans and human standards are
considered, but when God and His standards are brought into the picture,
everything changes. Man's accountability to man has its basis in man's
accountability to God.

This was one of Tim's major fallacies - trying to put God on a human level.
However, Isaiah 55:6-9 clearly puts God on a distinct level above us.
-- 
		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.

features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (10/31/84)

>>Noone is innocent in the sight of a Holy God.  There is no such thing.  All
>>men deserve death and punishment forever in Hell.
>>--
>>
>>
>>"...holding forth the                              Ken Nichols
>> word of life..." Phil. 2:16                       ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken

As long as Ken keeps emphasizing that all *men* are doomed, the women
are assured of salvation.  If he starts using non-sexist language, 
however, that may change my perceptions of this argument.

Mary Ann Zeszutko
ihnp4!ihuxf!features

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for
you are all one in Christ Jesus."  Gal. 3:28

jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (11/06/84)

		[Someone]
		The only  way I could consider Ken's posting as a
		rebuttal to Tim's article is by assuming a double
		standard - one standard for god and another standard
		for the rest of the universe.  Does it imply that what
		we recognize as a low moral standard (e.g. killing
		innocent people) is reversed when it is applied to god?
		When God bears the responsibility for the death of the
		innocent, is he to be judged as having high moral
		standards?

	[Larry Bickford]
	Not a double standard...God IS the standard, and man doesn't
	even come close. Someone may be innocent when only humans and
	human standards are considered, but when God and His standards
	are brought into the picture,

[John T. Nelson]
In other words, it IS a double standard.  I see NO change when "God and
His standards are brought into the picture"... only a deeper chasm between
the truth and what Ken Nicholls and Larry Bickford prescribe.

God does as he pleases.  Why shouldn't he?  He is accountable to no one.
As a result he can condemn millions to eternities of punishment for the
most trivial of crimes and yet turn around and wash his hands of the blood,
claiming to be a Holy and righteous God.  If God cannot manage to adhere
to the laws that he has set up for his creations, then he is by no means
better than us... only different from us.

You might argue that these laws were created for man here on earth,
but no that doesn't wash because the things that we learn here on earth
will also be applied in heaven.  That's why this hypocritical theology
that Larry Bickford and Ken Nicholls percribe as the panacea to all our
ills seems so patently false!  Any God that wishes us to be perfect so
that he can commune with us had better clean up his own act.

Sin is sin no matter WHAT lame hand-wave you use.

	This was one of Tim's major fallacies - trying to put God on a
	human level.  However, Isaiah 55:6-9 clearly puts God on a
	distinct level above us.

God fails the test by human standards... how can God's actions possibly
be condoned by his OWN standards?

Notice how the evidence Mr. Bickford and Co. always show us is (for
the zillionth time) chapter and verse from the Bible.  But if the Bible
is inspired or written by God (as many believe) then can we be expected
anything BUT justification of God's actions?  What totaly cyclical
logic!


					- John