aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (09/21/84)
From Rich Kulawiec (pucc-h:rsk): > Oh, Paul (DuBois)...given a choice between your vision of the > heavenly hereafter, and the "flaming pits of hell"; I think I'd > opt for whichever one you (and like-minded folks) weren't > currently occupying. Why? Don't you like the idea of transformed lives? > Based on my ideas of how the universe works, this is of course > a null statement, since this *is* no hereafter; based on yours, > I s'pose it means you can expect a postcard from hell eventually. I have never understood why those who believe they are just going to die, and that'll be the end, bother living. If all there is is experiencing various facets of life -- growth, pleasure, relating, whatever -- with nothing eternal to which these experiences can be added; if all there is is the physical body; why do you people bother? > Still laughing with the sinners, Perhaps "the sinners have much more fun", as Billy Joel said in the song this is alluding to -- in the short term. But how are you going to have fun if your "fun" is of the self-destructive nature that wrecks your health or kills you at an early age? And anyway, I have seen that "saints" can have genuine fun without indulging in a lot of the actions usually associated with the "sinners". It is possible to have a good time on earth and still go to Heaven; so what do you gain by refusing the second to concentrate on the first? -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "Jesus looked Death in the eye, and Death blinked first."
rsk@pucc-h (Rich Kulawiec) (09/21/84)
Well, now that you've identified the players for us, Jeff, maybe we can get on with the game. From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) > Why? Don't you like the idea of transformed lives? Well, I don't know, since I'm not sure what a "transformed life" is supposed to be. I certainly don't like (my perception of) Paul's (and possibly your) heaven/afterlife. I don't like the idea that some bozo god-being is going to send some of us to eternal bliss, and some of us to eternal torment. That's a really stupid way to run a universe. When the day comes that I die, and find myself standing before some cosmic entity in judgement, I hope to be able to deliver my complaint(s) in person...if then, I'm relegated to the pits, well, at least my self-respect and integrity will be intact. > I have never understood why those who believe they are just going to die, > and that'll be the end, bother living. If all there is is experiencing > various facets of life -- growth, pleasure, relating, whatever -- with nothing > eternal to which these experiences can be added; if all there is is the > physical body; why do you people bother? We bother because we see things worth doing HERE, NOW. Rather than wasting our time trying to get folks to believe in the hereafter, or fighting wars over whether our vision of afterlife is right, or the other folks', or pouring money into religious institutions, or {and so on}, we'd rather enjoy what we have now as WE want to enjoy it, and work on making this place better for us, the next generation, and anyone else who happens along. Maybe life as it is NOW, HERE, isn't enough for you. Fine. You can believe whatever you want to. But for some of us, it's all we need, and we do just fine with it--we don't need a religious security blanket to get through our days. We're fairly happy even with our imperfections, real and imagined, and we manage to get through life without worrying about it over much. > Perhaps "the sinners have much more fun", as Billy Joel said in the song this > is alluding to -- in the short term. But how are you going to have fun if your > "fun" is of the self-destructive nature that wrecks your health or kills you > at an early age? > > And anyway, I have seen that "saints" can have genuine fun without indulging > in a lot of the actions usually associated with the "sinners". It is possible > to have a good time on earth and still go to Heaven; so what do you gain by > refusing the second to concentrate on the first? If I wreck my health or kill myself at an early age, what possible concern is that of yours? If I drink, or smoke, or get high, or have sex (yes, please), or anything else that falls into your category of "self-destructive", why should YOU worry about it? Look, I'm having a great time, and if I go out this way, well, ok, maybe I'd rather stick around a little longer, but I'll settle for the good times I've had in preference to cringing about and worrying about what some turkey up in the sky thinks. I'm having "a good time on earth" in the way I see fit; if YOU don't like it (and what do you *really* know about it, anyway?) and if YOU don't think I'll get the goodies when I bite the big one, YOU are welcome to your opinion. George Carlin once pointed out that religion is like a lift in your shoe; it's nice if you need it...but let's not go around trying to nail lifts on the native's feet. Not having a good time, but struggling with fast fourier transforms instead... -- ---Rsk UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk Not fade away...
mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (10/01/84)
> I don't like the idea that some bozo god-being is going to send > some of us to eternal bliss, and some of us to eternal torment. > That's a really stupid way to run a universe. Isn't the whole point YOUR choice to accept or reject God? How can you say ``I am not going to obey the laws of the creator of everything'' (who surely knows a little more than you do ...) and then condemn that same creator for rejecting YOU? > When the day comes that I die, and find myself standing before some > cosmic entity in judgement, I hope to be able to deliver my > complaint(s) in person...if then, I'm relegated to the pits, well, > at least my self-respect and integrity will be intact. How would you feel if you were God, and you call two people to judgement: One has spent his life making people happier, raising a family and teaching his children well, going out of his way to help others. The second came in sniveling with complaints about the way you run things. He has superb intelligence, and he has had every material need (need, not want) provided out of the love of others. And all he can do is lambaste you for a couple of the things you asked him to do. How would you be inclined to treat the second? I hope God is more merciful than I ... more for my sake, I'm afraid, than for yours. I know that I am unworthy ... and that there is something to be worthy of. >If I wreck my health or kill myself at an early age, what possible concern >is that of yours? If I drink, or smoke, or get high, or have sex >(yes, please), or anything else that falls into your category of "self- >destructive", why should YOU worry about it? Why? Perhaps some of us CARE about you. We are told to love one another as we love ourselves. There's not much reason beyond that. >Look, I'm having a great time, and if I go out this way, well, ok, maybe I'd >rather stick around a little longer, but I'll settle for the good times I've >had in preference to cringing about and worrying about what some turkey up in >the sky thinks. How about worrying about your fellow man? Or is that not worth your effort? Look, I wouldn't take this position so strongly if you did not condemn the people who are trying to live good and caring lives. And if some of them have grown bitter in frustration, well, why not pray for them? Even if YOU don't believe that it will make one bit of difference. Through the persona of his detective character, Fr. Brown, Chesterton wrote: ``You see, it's so easy to be misunderstood. All men matter. You matter. I matter. It's the hardest thong in theology to believe. We matter to God -- God only know why. But that's the only possible justification of the existance of policemen. Don't you see, the law really is right in a way, after all. If all men matter, all murders matter. That which He has so mysteriously created we must not suffer to be destroyed.'' And here, most of us would include suicide, both physical and spiritual. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (10/01/84)
> How would you feel if you were God, and you call two people to judgement: One > has spent his life making people happier, raising a family and teaching his > children well, going out of his way to help others. The second came in > sniveling with complaints about the way you run things. He has superb > intelligence, and he has had every material need (need, not want) provided out > of the love of others. And all he can do is lambaste you for a couple of the > things you asked him to do. How would you be inclined to treat the second? > I hope God is more merciful than I ... [Mark Terribile] Why attribute such banal, human emotions as spite and anger to God? Aren't these your own shortcomings (i.e., your lack of "Christian compassion and forgiveness") that you're focusing on? If you see God as Universal Parent, then answer this: Would an ideal parent ever punish a child out of anger? Anyway, let's consider a more interesting example. What about Joe Bloe? Joe is a kind, decent, loving person. He cares about people, and he tries to do what's right. However, he isn't religious. (If you're particularly narrow-minded, you can imagine that Joe failed to choose the "right" religion). Now, how would you be inclined to treat Joe? Remember, we know that Joe is sincere in his ethics and his concern for people. After all, he doesn't believe in a judgemental god, so he isn't just trying to save his own eternal butt. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%UCB) (10/06/84)
> > > When the day comes that I die, and find myself standing before some > > cosmic entity in judgement, I hope to be able to deliver my > > complaint(s) in person...if then, I'm relegated to the pits, well, > > at least my self-respect and integrity will be intact. > > How would you feel if you were God, and you call two people to judgement: One > has spent his life making people happier, raising a family and teaching his > children well, going out of his way to help others. The second came in > sniveling with complaints about the way you run things.... Hmmm... I haven't been G*d, so I don't know how I would feel. However, it seems to me that you are assuming that for someone to be good (the first person) they must be Christian (or at least Judeo-Christian). I spend my life trying to make people happier and helping my fellow human beings and being generally more good and loving and otherwise obedient to the principles of Christianity then many Christians even try to be, but I don't believe in the Jewish or Christian G*d. Now, if I were the first person and Jerry Falwell was the second (after all, he complains about homosexuals, hates the Russians, etc.), would you, if you were G*d, be nice to me or him? > > >If I wreck my health or kill myself at an early age, what possible concern > >is that of yours? If I drink, or smoke, or get high, or have sex > >(yes, please), or anything else that falls into your category of "self- > >destructive", why should YOU worry about it? > > Why? Perhaps some of us CARE about you. We are told to love one another as > we love ourselves. There's not much reason beyond that. > You can love me all you want, but please don't smother me. I think it is perfectly acceptable for me to live with a woman to whom I am not married. You may think that is immoral. If you care about me, you might, once or twice, try and convince me I was wrong, but if you tried to force me to stop (by passing laws or whatever), I would consider that intolerable. G*d gave me free will -- can't you at least be as generous? Ken Arnold
rsk@pucc-h (Rich Kulawiec (Vombatus Hirsutus)) (10/16/84)
Off to answer more comments from hou4b!mat, and pucc-h!aeq... First off, to Jeff (aeq)... > Actually, the universal recognition of the Lordship of Christ will come as > a result of unquestionable objective evidence of it. It would be rather difficult to convince me (via objective evidence) that some entity was actually a "god"; I'd be more inclined to think in terms of advanced technology. ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"...Clarke's Third Law) But let's suppose for the sake of argument that some being manages to convince me that it's the big cheese...I still say, so what? Why should I bother to pay any attention to it? So it created the universe...big deal. If I were the big poobah, I could do some pretty trick stuff, too. > Belief in self-awareness on the part of a mere collection of molecules seems > to me to be a greater leap of faith than belief that there is a spirit using > that collection of molecules as a temporary home, and that the spirit is > self-aware. I have made no "leap of faith"; I have merely looked at the available, verifiable, demonstrable-on-demand evidence, and have drawn a conclusion. I won't claim that the evidence is complete; (It never is, in the same sense that just because one drops 999 ping-pong balls, and 999 of them hit the ground, there is no proof that #1000 won't go sideways...but if you're betting, that's the way to go.) but I'm not prone to "leaps of faith" based on questionable evidence. And now, Mat: > Isn't the whole point YOUR choice to accept or reject God? How can you say > ``I am not going to obey the laws of the creator of everything'' (who surely > knows a little more than you do ...) and then condemn that same creator for > rejecting YOU? I've not condemned said creator-of-all; I've just pointed out that I'm not happy with the way he/she/it runs things around here, and as a result, I'm not inclined to worship/respect such a being...if there is one. > How would you feel if you were God, and you call two people to judgement: One > has spent his life making people happier, raising a family and teaching his > children well, going out of his way to help others. The second came in > sniveling with complaints about the way you run things. He has superb > intelligence, and he has had every material need (need, not want) provided out > of the love of others. And all he can do is lambaste you for a couple of the > things you asked him to do. How would you be inclined to treat the second? > I hope God is more merciful than I ... more for my sake, I'm afraid, than for > yours. I know that I am unworthy ... and that there is something to be worthy > of. I really don't know either of those two people...but let me answer you, just for the sake of argument. If I were god, and therefore above the the pettiness which you seem to be implying he/she/it would indulge in given this black-and-white case, I would send both on to eternal happiness. Why not? Then again, the vengeful christian god, which so many folks find to their liking, would probably zap the #2 person straight off to the pits. >> If I wreck my health or kill myself at an early age, what possible concern >> is that of yours? If I drink, or smoke, or get high, or have sex >> (yes, please), or anything else that falls into your category of "self- >> destructive", why should YOU worry about it? > Why? Perhaps some of us CARE about you. We are told to love one another as > we love ourselves. There's not much reason beyond that. So? Why don't you "love" me by letting me enjoy my free will--including my free will to be self-destructive (in your opinion) if I so choose? Or do you feel that someone with such inclinations is an errant child, who needs to be corrected at every turn? > How about worrying about your fellow man? Or is that not worth your effort? > Look, I wouldn't take this position so strongly if you did not condemn the > people who are trying to live good and caring lives. And if some of them > have grown bitter in frustration, well, why not pray for them? Even if YOU > don't believe that it will make one bit of difference. I do worry about my fellow man; and I have spent a good deal of time doing concrete about it, like working for the March of Dimes, and in the past, for Unicef; certainly a much more productive use of time than "praying" for help. I don't recall condemning anyone in my article; and I certainly have every sympathy for those folks who attempt to "live good and caring lives"...the problem is that a good many of those who profess to be members of that group of people...aren't...and they spend a good deal of their time condemning those who are. And here, I recall the words of escaped slave Frederick Douglas: "I prayed for twenty years for release; but I received no answer until I prayed with my legs." -- ---Rsk UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk "It'll definitely improve our reputation as a party school." --anonymous Purdue student, on TV-18 (local) news, Saturday, 10/6/84 after a Friday night of spontaneous rioting.
agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (10/16/84)
>> Jeff > Rich >> Actually, the universal recognition of the Lordship of Christ will come as >> a result of unquestionable objective evidence of it. > > It would be rather difficult to convince me (via objective evidence) > that some entity was actually a "god"; I don't think that either one of you are thinking real hard, especially Jeff. How could you deny opbjective evidence is my first question here. It seems to me that any solid evidence would make sure that you believe in a God. But what makes you think that this "objective evidence" is going to show up? Doesn't it seem more logical that a God, if existant would be much better off if he kept his existance a mystery? This way he has to rely on his "subjects" having faith alone in him, and not hard evidence to point out to others and say "You can't refute that!" I think the whole idea behind this thing called "religion" is to get people to have faith in what they can't see. >> Belief in self-awareness on the part of a mere collection of molecules seems >> to me to be a greater leap of faith than belief that there is a spirit using >> that collection of molecules as a temporary home, and that the spirit is >> self-aware. What do you consider yourself? I have no question that your body is made of molecules, despite what Max has said to you. I don't think that it is that impossible for molecules to collect and form in such a manner that they create life, given the time involved. A few million years is a LONG time. Take a look at what ahs happened in your lifetime, and try to think about that much happening several hundred thousand times over. > I have made no "leap of faith"; I have merely looked at the available, > verifiable, demonstrable-on-demand evidence, and have drawn a conclusion. > I won't claim that the evidence is complete; The evidence is far from complete, but at least it gives you the option of believing one thing instead of another. Now before you religious, gooney-ga-ga fanatics cut into this, this option allows things to be understood without believing in something other than what is humanly accessible, and the people who don't believe in a God can use this as their explanation. > And now, Mat: (read: >> == Mat) >> How would you feel if you were God, and you call two people to judgement: One >> has spent his life making people happier, raising a family and teaching his >> children well, going out of his way to help others. The second came in >> sniveling with complaints about the way you run things. Are these two mutually exclusive? You can't take care of your family and friends without agreeing with a possible God? Why is it that these religious freaks try to convince you that everyone who doesn't believe in God is some terrible raping, pillaging, massacring evil sinner? This complaint gets used SO much and has almost no truth to it! Why don't you try a more realistic approach to these things and still see if you have a leg to stand on! > I really don't know either of those two people...but let me answer > you, just for the sake of argument. If I were god, and therefore above the > the pettiness which you seem to be implying he/she/it would indulge in given > this black-and-white case,I would send both on to eternal happiness. Why not? > Then again, the vengeful christian god, which so many folks find to their > liking, would probably zap the #2 person straight off to the pits. How can anyone view things in black and white cases? There is no such thing as all right and all wrong! Who can you honestly look at and say they are bad or they are good? Who's definition do you use? And the first person that says "God's" gets belted! If you were going to say this, tell me where you got the criteria, I'd be interested in seeing the "right" one, since there are so many versions that exist. How can anybody out there judge each like this? "You're wrong, you're going to hell!", and " I'm right, I'm not." Tell me exactly where you get this information! >> Why? Perhaps some of us CARE about you. We are told to love one another as >> we love ourselves. There's not much reason beyond that. > > So? Why don't you "love" me by letting me enjoy my free will--including > my free will to be self-destructive (in your opinion) if I so choose? Or do > you feel that someone with such inclinations is an errant child, who needs > to be corrected at every turn? Thank you, Rich! To Mat, Why don't you explain to us how you "love yourself"? I'd be interested in knowing. Do you consider this to mean that you don't do harmful things to yourself? Terrific! Don't, but please don't tell us that you actually love us and want to make sure that we don't burn in eternal hell by trying to correct us. Just think what would happen if you did this: everyone would believe in your God and you would be depressed because you wouldn't have anyone left to judge! So there, how much fun would you have then? Being more serious again, if he doesn't agree with you, let him do what he wants. Don't say that he has to agree with you because you're "right". >> How about worrying about your fellow man? Or is that not worth your effort? >> ... And if some of them >> have grown bitter in frustration, well, why not pray for them? Even if YOU >> don't believe that it will make one bit of difference. If you're worried about your fellow man, tell him that there is a problem, but don't make him see it your way. It seems to me that you're trying to help your fellow man by praying instead of confronting an issue face to face. I don't want to condemn your religion, and if you believe prayer helps, go for it. And why stop there? There is so much you can do. But don't say that because someone doesn't pray for his fellow man that he is callous or unfeeling for them. Maybe he would like to help in his own way. It seems to me that positive up-front action will have effects that you can feel much better about than you praying that someone else helps a person ... > I do worry about my fellow man; and I have spent a good deal of time > doing concrete about it, like working for the March of Dimes, and in the > past, for Unicef; certainly a much more productive use of time than "praying" > for help. Sorry for rehashing ... > I don't recall condemning anyone in my article; and I certainly > have every sympathy for those folks who attempt to "live good and caring > lives"...the problem is that a good many of those who profess to be members > of that group of people...aren't...and they spend a good deal of their > time condemning those who are. There is only one criteria these people need to call you an evil, unloving, bad-guy person. That is whether you believe in *their* God. If you don't than they don't give a pile of beans about what else you say. You are in their black book, and because you are, they can call you any name they want. They don't need anybody else to help them, they are perfect. Yet they feel it is their job to help you "live good and caring lives." Why can't people accept other people for what they are? Is it really that tough? It seems that all most of the people on this newsgroup can do is condemn people because these people don't believe the same things they do. Sorry about the sloppy wording, but I think I made the point. This is kind of hard to say, I guess, because I end up condemning htese people who condemn other people. How about I say that I won't interfere with their lives if they don't interfere with mine. Or, if you want me to get immature about it --- "You hit me first!! You started it!" Have I made myself claer? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-k!agz Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University --- "I'm OK, You're a CS Major" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "There's only you and me, and we just disagree."
3b2adm1@ihuxo.UUCP (Lloyd Brock) (10/16/84)
And here, I recall the words of escaped slave Frederick Douglas: "I prayed for twenty years for release; but I received no answer until I prayed with my legs." Prayer, good faith, and action go together. Lloyd Brock
rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/22/84)
. > And here, I recall the words of escaped slave Frederick Douglas: > > "I prayed for twenty years for release; but I received > no answer until I prayed with my legs." > > >Prayer, good faith, and action go together. > > Lloyd Brock As the Man said, "Faith without works is dead." -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap