david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (04/27/84)
[] Bob Lied: >> Read: I can't trust God to do the things I want Him to. > Okay, I agree. That is what I mean. You will argue, of > course, that my will should be subordinate to God's. I > won't argue this point because we have fundamentally dif- > ferent perceptions of what God should be like (yours is ob- > viously correct :-). No, I will not argue that your will "should" be subordinate to God's. God would like it that way, but He has given you that freedom of choice. My perceptions of what God "should" be like have little be > My point was that organized religion car- > ries with it a lot of baggage that isn't really helpful, of > which believing in miracles is one of the heaviest pieces. We may agree that there is a lot going on in organized religion that isn't helpful (to us). Christ tells me to suffer through some dusty hymns, as they may be of immense comfort to others. Christianity does not "require" you to believe in miracles, though. It is not necessary to "believe in miracles" in order to become a Christian. The onoy requirements are a) realize you are sick, and b) that Christ is the only Doctor for what ails you. >> God created man because He is Love, and, being Love, desires to give. This >> explains why God created man, and why He would take a personal interest in >> your life. He loves you. > This is not an explanation -- this is a cliche. All you've > done is replace the undefined term "God" with the undefined > term "Love". Try this: God created man because He is > Morgle, and, being Morgle, desires to give. This explains...[nothing]. Let's not mince words. Love is not undefined. Love, or Agape, gives without recieving or expecting to recieve. It is selfless love. (For a good dissertation on love, read The Four Loves by C. S. Lewis). > I guess I'm looking for love in all the > wrong places. [That does it. Now I'm headed to hell for > sure.] I suspect your miracle threshold is much lower than > mine. See later paragraph for one of the miracles I have witnessed. > Actually, there are some very good, > tangible reasons to become a Christian. For one thing, the > less zealous churches have some pretty good social programs. > I used to sing in a choir; it was loads of fun. A Christmas > mass can be amazingly good entertainment. But I can enjoy > all these things without embracing Christ (hypocritical, I > know, but what do you expect from a godless heathen?). But > since I can have the advantages without accepting the > counter-intuitive tenets of Christianity, why bother? You are right. You do not have to be a Christian to enjoy social programs, choirs, or a Christmas mass. That is not what being a Christian is about. These are not tangible reasons to become a Christian. The only valid reason to become a Christian is the realization that you are a sinner and need Christ. > The problem is that reli- > gions force double-think -- holding two contradictory > beliefs at the same time. > For instance, experience tells me that I can't know if God > exists; Christianity says yes unequivocally. But your experience does not include communion with God, does it? I do not understand how experience tells you that you can't know if God exists. Experience doesn't work that way. > Experience > tells me that death is the Big Check That Doesn't Bounce; > Christianity says that's only the beginning. How can your experience provide the knowledge that there is nothing after death, unless you have actually experienced death (or known someone who has experienced death), in which case the "experience" would be self-defeating? > Experience > tells me that there are good people and bad people; > Christianity tells me that we are all at least sinners and > many of us are scum. This is not so much a conflict as you make out. (Where in the Bible does it say that "many of us are scum"?) The problem may only be one of definition. Being a "bad person" does not necessarily equate to being a "sinner". I am a "sinner" in that I have committed a sin. I have lied to someone not long ago; that makes me a sinner. I also suppose, by your definition, that I am a "good person". I am generally a nice fellow, easy to get along with (at least I am so told), etc. > Experience tells me that even people > who pray sincerely still get raped or die of cancer; > Christianity tells me that divine intervention is possible. How, pray tell, are we going to know when a person prays that God has not intervened when she does not get raped? Now, that nasty things happen to Christians, I well believe. Look at the lives of the earliest church members. But here is a miracle that I was witness to: the brother of a good friend was hospitalized with two types of cancer (one had spread to the other). The doctors gave him ~6 weeks to live. We asked many people to pray for healing for him. X-rays, taken 2 days after the X-rays which produced the "6 week" diagnosis, showed absolutely nothing. No cancer. The doctors, totally baffled, released him after numerous tests. This was in 1981. The fellow is still around (no cancer). -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (05/03/84)
From Dick Dunn: > [The miraculous recovery of David Norris's friend] is exactly the sort of > direct "pray-for-results" approach that you and others have been telling us > won't work. (I don't think it should, either - it just makes prayer a > cheap bargaining ploy.) Au contraire! The situation is quite different. The test that was suggested recently (i.e. pray, say, for certain stock prices to behave in a certain way -- or, another suggestion I've heard, pray for the recovery of patients in Hospital A but not those in Hospital B) is exactly that -- a test, not a prayer. In such a test, the participants probably would care not at all about the people they were "praying" for/about. The prayers that contributed to the healing of David's friend were of a quite different sort: Those praying were not in the least interested in putting God to the test (which we're told not to do, anyway); they wanted the guy healed, because they liked him and loved him. Thus, their prayers were real prayers. And prayer of this sort SHOULD work. God is our friend. Prayer of this type is just telling your best friend what you need/want. In your friendships with humans, your friends usually can't help you until you admit your need/want. Similarly, until you humble yourself and admit to God what you need/want, God may not satisfy that need/want. The apostle James wrote, "You don't have because you don't ask!" Jesus said something approximately as follows: "Ask the Father anything in My name, and it shall be done for you." Your friends are undoubtedly willing to help you if you ask for it; how much more is God willing and waiting to demonstrate His love in all the ways you need it! -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "Rivers belong where they can ramble..."
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (05/08/84)
<> David Norris: >Let's not mince words. Love is not undefined. Love, or Agape, gives >without recieving or expecting to recieve... Actually, I think that David is right and that the word "love" has too many connotations to work well in our discussions. Agape is a better word (although as David has started to define it, it sounds a lot like paying taxes...:-) >See later paragraph for one of the miracles I have witnessed. ...below... >...I am a "sinner" in that I have committed a sin. I have lied to >someone not long ago; that makes me a sinner. I also suppose, by your >definition, that I am a "good person". I am generally a nice fellow, easy >to get along with (at least I am so told), etc. David, I think you've touched on one of the things that bothers a lot of us on the "other side" - though I haven't seen it well expressed: A good person can do bad things, and conversely. (So what makes them good or bad? An average? (Why not mean, median, mode, RMS goodness?)) If you lied to someone, without any just reason to do so, you did something bad. That does NOT make you a bad person! The way to "atone" for doing something bad, once you've realized that you've done it, is to try to correct yourself. If you've injured someone by your wrong, try to help heal. Then do what it takes to try to keep yourself from doing it again. Calling yourself a sinner might bring these points home to you - but it's a little out of hand. The problem with labeling yourSELF, rather than your ACTIONS, is that it can tie you up in big games of self-recrimination, doubt, guilt, defensiveness, pity, etc., which do nothing positive for you. >But here is a miracle that I was witness to: the brother of a good friend >was hospitalized with two types of cancer (one had spread to the other). The >doctors gave him ~6 weeks to live. We asked many people to pray... >X-rays, taken 2 days after the X-rays which produced the "6 week" diagnosis, >showed absolutely nothing. No cancer. The doctors, totally baffled, released >him after numerous tests. I can't buy this. This is exactly the sort of direct "pray-for-results" approach that you and others have been telling us won't work. (I don't think it should, either - it just makes prayer a cheap bargaining ploy.) It sounds as if you believe that a positive correlation [prayer <-> results] is meaningful but negative ones [prayer <-> no results] or even [no prayer <-> results] are not. It's hard to argue against that kind of view of effect, but it's also hard to believe it. So what do I think happened? Something that medical science, in its less-than-infinite wisdom, doesn't understand or didn't find out. There must be more to your God than an explanation-of-what-we-don't-understand. (Or is there?) -- ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew. Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086