[net.religion] Response to Nichols - Reply to Kenn Barry's question

esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) (10/26/84)

[]

	I have read with no small interest (and some horror) the
exchanges that Ken Nichols has been involved with here in net.religion.
I had planned on keeping quiet, but Kenn Barry has finally urged me
into action.  He says:

>Since no rebuttals to Nichols' posting has [sic] been made by any of
>the vocal Christians on net.religion, can I safely assume the God
>described is the same one you all worship?

	Well, I may not be one of the more vocal Christians on
net.religion, but I'll answer anyway.  In short, NO WAY.

	Now, it is true that God's church has many different types of
people in it.  In fact, there are as many different types of Christians
as there are Christians.  But, I find it hard to understand how Ken
(Nichols) can twist Christ's message of love for your fellow human
and tolerance for his/her failings into such an intolerant, anti-human
ideology.  Maybe Ken is fulfilling God's will in some strange and
wonderful way, but if he's not sure of this, I ask for his prayerful
consideration of his postings.  Personally, I am offended by them, and
even worse, I am ashamed of my faith because of them.

Nichols:
>No human or animal or ... has the "right" to exist and not be blown to
>atoms by the breath of Almighty God.
....
>We have no "rights" in the sight of a perfect God.  Every person has
>one right on this earth, the right to go to Hell.

	On the contrary, we have every right to exist.  This right is
based on the FACT that God loves us.  Completely.  Without exception.
Believer and non-believer alike and evenly.  Every person has this
right.  It is built into the very nature of God, for as His Word tells
us, He is love.  Thus, no one has the "right" to go to Hell.  It is not
part of God's plan that anybody should go to Hell.  For what God's Word
has to say about those who do not know God's will, because they have
not heard his Word, I refer you to Romans 2:13-16.

"For not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of
the Law will be justified.  For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do
instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a
law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in
their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts
alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according
to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."
						NASV

	This is in reference both to the question brought up about the
"good" Buddhist monk, and the whole idea that a person's works mean
nothing to God.  I would say that the above passage gives a slightly
different answer than Mr. Nichols.

	In general, it seems to me that Mr. Nichols spends much too much
time on the wrath of God, which ruled humans' interactions with Him
before Christ, and not nearly enough time on God's love, which is the
basis for our new relationship with God through Jesus.

	In conclusion, I would like to say that at least some Christians
on the net are not of the same opinion as Mr. Nichols.  I am deeply
ashamed of his postings, for he claims to stand for the same beliefs I
do, and I, and others like me, will be judged by others for his
writings.

						Eric Kaylor
						ihnp4!wucs!esk

_________________________________________________________________________

An afterthought --

>> 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).
...
>Anyway, why should God have to be justified in doing anything, He is
>all-powerful, are you. [sic]

	This, together with Ken's statements about "rights" before God
quoted above, would seem to give the impression that God does not have
to follow any particular moral standards, save as he chooses.  In that
case, we have no way of knowing whether God is lying to us, God would be
under no obligation to tell the truth.  In fact, if God were as Ken
implies, we would have no way of knowing anything about Him.

					Eric Kaylor and Paul Torek