aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (09/29/84)
From John T. Nelson (trwrba!jnelson): > All you have are very old testaments of what people say happened; not > tangible evidence that we can see and touch and analyze. There is of course the empty tomb near Jerusalem. But wait a minute! What are we doing? Jesus said (roughly), "All people will know that you are My disciples by this sign: if you have love for one another." He never asked us to indulge in arguments and spend a lot of time trying to prove the existence of God. He (and His early disciples) asked us to love, even love our enemies (!). I confess that I have very much fallen down on the job; I'm not sure how to love some of my -- well, if not enemies, at least opponents -- in this newsgroup, since all but one of them are not at Purdue. But at least I'll try to keep out the dislike and contempt that have pervaded so many of my articles. > By appealing to a higher plane of reason > you simply discard physical evidence, claiming it to be invalid > somehow in the face of more subjective reasoning. This is a mistake, > I think. Physical reality is here to teach us, not to deceive us. > It is a cruel god indeed, that creates a universe, only to discard > all it has to say because he claims that the clues are invalid. No one has yet backed up the claim that physical evidence is the BEST or the only valid convincer. Why this urge to view human beings -- those wonderful, ambiguous, irreproducible [in the laboratory sense, obviously] creatures -- as no more than lab specimens? And as to physical reality, God does not at all claim the clues He left lying around to be invalid. I don't remember the passage exactly, but somewhere around Romans 1:18 there are some words mentioning that God's invisible qualities are obvious to everyone, being inferrable from the world He has made (very rough paraphrase). There is no physical evidence that God does not exist. > The changes in the lives of people who lived 2000 some years ago cannot > be seen objectively, since they are long dead... and the cause of the > change is not something we can observe first hand. Actually, I was referring to the changes in lives of people who are alive today. For instance, many people have been ruining their lives with drugs, then turned to Christ and been immediately (or at least quickly) freed from their drug habits. My case is not quite so dramatic, but if you think I'm intolerable now, you should have known me 10 years ago! God's love has enabled (is enabling) me to be gradually freed of all that prevents me from loving Him and loving those around me. > Besides, many people have > experienced changes in their lives without some intervention by God. This is true. On the other hand, again, many have experienced changes in their lives *with* intervention by God -- though He doesn't force His aid on anyone. > I thought Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden because of their > search for the knowledge of good and evil. If this is the root of man's > sinfulness and fallen state, then surely the search for knowledge is not > a good thing.... Knowledge of good and evil is not the same as knowledge of facts about the world. In fact, God said before the Fall, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." This is probably the only command of God that humans have kept perfectly; but that's not the point. Note that last phrase, "subdue it"; this would, to me, be a mandate for the scientific enterprise -- i.e. gain mastery of the earth. > If God meant us to seek knowledge then he must also recognize the > fact that his creations will want to know more about him, and question > his nature. The learning process does not mean just accepting what > you see at face value, but QUESTIONING its nature. This is how the > acquisition of knowledge works. It is neither rebellious nor sinful to > question, or hypothesize about, the nature of God and the universe. Nothing wrong with questioning. "Keep seeking, and you shall find; keep asking, and you shall receive; keep knocking, and the door will be opened to you." Of course God would like His creations to know more about Him. Some are so constructed as to naturally have simple, strong, readily functioning faith; this actually is probably the best way to God's blessings -- "whoever will not approach the Kingdom like a little child will never enter into it." Of course even such people will have questions, particularly if reverses come in their lives. Others of us are so made as to question and fight everything God tries to do; I for one usually fight Him until I'm tired or until I finally get at least a first glimmer of the greater freedom and joy I can move into when I stop; even though God has been good to me before when I have said "Your will be done", I still find it hard to yield to Him, partly because some of that good has come via tremendous pain and there's no guarantee this won't happen again, partly because it's always difficult to surrender myself (one reason for some of my problems chronicled in net.singles). I can give a qualified "yes" to your last sentence. If one is genuinely questioning -- open to whatever the right answer turns out to be -- then it is certainly neither rebellious nor sinful to have questions about God. However, if one's questions are actually based, not on curiosity or love, but on some less creditable motive -- on some desire to hang onto yourself rather than give yourself to God so He can give your real self back to you -- I would count that rebellious, and I would not be surprised if you got no answer. Example: In John chapter 21, Jesus, Peter, John, and others are on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Peter asks Jesus, "What about John?" Jesus replies, "If I want him to live until I come again, what's that to you? You follow Me." I suspect Peter may have been perhaps a little jealous of John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" -- Peter, until the day of Pentecost one of the greatest weathervanes in the Bible, always moved by shifting impulses; Peter, who one minute said "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (to which Jesus replied "Blessed are you, because flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven" -- a one-line comment on physical evidence), and shortly thereafter, when Jesus predicted His crucifixion, took Him aside and said "May this never be!" (to which Jesus replied in that famous bizarre phrase, "Get thee behind me, Satan!"); Peter, who at the last supper said he was ready not only to follow Jesus but to die with Him, and who a few hours later denied that he even knew Him; Peter, so ashamed after his denial that Jesus felt He had to tell the women who saw Him first after the resurrection, "Go tell the disciples *and Peter* to meet me" -- i.e. Jesus wanted to underscore the fact that He still loved Peter; Peter, still sufficiently unsure of himself that he wonders if some other disciple is going to get ahead of him -- but also Peter, the man who preached in the power of the Holy Spirit and saw thousands of people come to know Christ after one sermon, and who confidently said to a beggar lame from birth, "I have neither silver nor gold, but I give you what I have: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk", took the man's hand, and saw him stand, walk, and leap. Pardon this rambling detour, but I thought it would be nice to point out how God can take even the flakiest person and, with His unflagging love and power, turn him or her into a vastly different, much stronger and better person. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq No one knows the day or the hour....
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/01/84)
>>All you have are very old testaments of what people say happened; not >>tangible evidence that we can see and touch and analyze. [JOHN NELSON] > There is of course the empty tomb near Jerusalem. [SARGENT] There are empty tombs all over the world. Those who choose to believe accounts of those spreading a religion (i.e., its "advertising agency") just because it suits their preconceptions should realize what they are doing. First, assume there is a god. Then assume that it sent a human to earth as its child. Then assume that all "evidence" (third party accounts, testimony of biased "witnesses") furthers this claim, without of course examining the evidence objectively, and POOF! in your mind, the proof is obvious! > No one has yet backed up the claim that physical evidence is the BEST or the > only valid convincer. Why this urge to view human beings -- those wonderful, > ambiguous, irreproducible [in the laboratory sense, obviously] creatures -- > as no more than lab specimens? [SARGENT] In what sense are human beings MORE than "lab specimens", more than "objects" (a term you used in another article), more than physical entities? Because YOU are one, and because it would make YOU feel more important if it were so?? Or is there some other reason for thinking this? Again, we are dealing with the crux here: wishing to believe certain things (humans are more than objects, there is justice and order in the world of a type that I perceive and desire) is assumed by some to make those things true and real. > There is no physical evidence that God does not exist. Agreed. I don't deny the possibility of the existence of a deity, I simply deny the notion that your claims to having witnessed or experienced such a deity have any real substance other than your wishful thinking. > Actually, I was referring to the changes in lives of people who are alive > today. For instance, many people have been ruining their lives with drugs, > then turned to Christ and been immediately (or at least quickly) freed from > their drug habits. My case is not quite so dramatic, but if you think I'm > intolerable now, you should have known me 10 years ago! God's love has > enabled (is enabling) me to be gradually freed of all that prevents me from > loving Him and loving those around me. Or could it have been YOU who changed yourself? Or do you deny the possibility that YOU (a creation of god?) are good enough and worthy enough and capable enough to perform such a task? If a deity is responsible for the way you are, aren't you denying the power of that deity when you claim that it must intervene in your life to cause things to happen, rather than it having created you with the power to change yourself? Isn't it just wishing to hope that a god will come and save you (like waiting for a prince(ss) to do the same???) when you should be doing it yourself? You know I myself don't believe in the notion of a deity responsible for the universe, but if one exists you are belittling its power by claiming it must invoke a superzap program on your life to fix it up, when it could have built you to "fix" yourself. Obviously I believe that humans and their incredible capabilities evolved by natural processes. You can believe what you like. Just think about your reasons for doing so. >>Besides, many people have >>experienced changes in their lives without some intervention by God. > This is true. On the other hand, again, many have experienced changes in > their lives *with* intervention by God -- though He doesn't force His aid > on anyone. How do you distinguish the difference when the source of the "knowledge" of the difference is the subjective mind? (And PLEASE don't redundantly ask what's wrong with subjectivity, unless you have some further points to make about subjectivity that we haven't heard.) > If one is genuinely > questioning -- open to whatever the right answer turns out to be -- then it > is certainly neither rebellious nor sinful to have questions about God. > However, if one's questions are actually based, not on curiosity or love, but > on some less creditable motive -- on some desire to hang onto yourself rather > than give yourself to God so He can give your real self back to you -- I would > count that rebellious, and I would not be surprised if you got no answer. It sounds like you "require" a less than objective basis for asking questions. If you ask because you want to get closer to god (and thus assume the existence of god), then that is good. If not, then that is a "less creditable motive". Remember that asking questions while assuming the conclusion you desire does not make for correct answers. > Jesus replied "Blessed are you, because flesh and blood have not revealed this > to you, but my Father in heaven" -- a one-line comment on physical evidence), And what a one-line comment it is: it simply shows how the bible describes the importance of "non-physical evidence". It comments little on its usefulness. I think we've already gone into that. But if comments out of the Bible are your basis for judging "non-physical evidence", isn't that a bit circular? > Pardon this rambling detour, but I thought it would be nice to point out how > God can take even the flakiest person and, with His unflagging love and power, > turn him or her into a vastly different, much stronger and better person. No comment. -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (10/05/84)
There is of course the empty tomb near Jerusalem. Purely circumstantial evidence ;-) No one has yet backed up the claim that physical evidence is the BEST or the only valid convincer. Why this urge to view human beings -- those wonderful, ambiguous, irreproducible [in the laboratory sense, obviously] creatures -- as no more than lab specimens? Because it offers just one more avenue of exploration... as does faith. Alternate views keep our thoughts from becoming incestuous (and thus dependent upon the individual, not reality). There is no physical evidence that God does not exist. I am the first to agree. On the other hand, many people have embraced creation science as a means by which they can make physical evidence for their beliefs. > I thought Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden because of their > search for the knowledge of good and evil. If this is the root of man's > sinfulness and fallen state, then surely the search for knowledge is not > a good thing.... Knowledge of good and evil is not the same as knowledge of facts about the world. I consider them to be the same. Truth is truth. Nothing wrong with questioning. "Keep seeking, and you shall find; keep asking, and you shall receive; keep knocking, and the door will be opened to you." Of course God would like His creations to know more about Him. Some are so constructed as to naturally have simple, strong, readily functioning faith; this actually is probably the best way to God's blessings One could call this blind faith... not a healthy thing in my book. The questioning of Tim Maroney and others has a positive value when trying to find the true nature of God, otherwise our thoughts would indeed become incestuous... Look folks, I can take more of this than you can! - John