david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (05/07/84)
[!] Dick Dunn: > 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?)) First off, we need to define terms. "Good" and "bad" mean many things to many people, and our words are sure to get twisted if we don't explain them. I assume that you are using "good" and "bad" in the ordinary sense. I am going to add another word, "sinful". Now, a "bad" act is usually sinful, but often a "good" act can also be sinful. Examples: Giving to the poor (to boost inflated pride). Going to church (to boast to others about attendance, or to justify a condemning attitude toward others). > If you lied to > someone, without any just reason to do so, you did something bad. That > does NOT make you a bad person! No, it makes you a sinful person. If you did it too often, I guess that would 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. "Atonement", as defined by Websters, is "the reconciliation of God and man through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ". The second definition, that of making reparations, doesn't match with your initial definition of atonement. But you then add to the first thought: > If you've injured someone by your wrong, try to help heal. Ok. Jesus said something about making amends with your brother before offering a gift to God. But He said more. He forgave people for sins they committed *against others*! It's like me forgiving you for stepping on somebody else's toe. Jesus taught that in any sin, He was chiefly the offended party. > 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. Is it possible to so separate ourselves from our actions? What exactly does this mean? Taken to the extreme, a mass rapist could claim his 23 actions of rape could be labelled as "bad", but not himself. I don't think this is what you mean. If not, where do we draw the line? "Calling myself a sinner" is just calling a spade a spade. I am not tied up in any of the aforementioned "games", and I don't think that Christianity requires such thinking. True, I believe myself unworthy of the gift God has given me. That doesn't mean I think I'm the scum of the earth (many people believe Christianity demands this sort of attitude). I am unworthy of a lot of things - a fat raise, for example. I haven't earned one. But I would be grateful if I got one, and I am most grateful to God for His gift. > So what do I think [referring to cancer-curing miracle - Dave] > 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?) Ok. Why I believe (not necessarily in order): a) Miracles b) The Bible (historicity, consistancy, whole ball of wax here) c) (you guessed it) "He changed my life", or personal experience d) Christianity as a coherent system of Truth D sounds rather fuzzy, but Christianity is internally and externally consistant and coherent. It "fits" the available data. It does not contradict any established fact, and it contains antimonies which I should expect from an all-powerful God. C everyone can complain about as much as they want. I only offer my personal testimony to those who honestly want to hear it (I've only told it to one person on this net). You can explain it away as psychology or chemicals in the brain, but this is the one subject on which I am an expert. I've taken the basic shrink courses (my major was psychology for a year), and I know that God is not some psychological phenomenon. David Norris is the one subject on which I'm the most qualified to speak. Most people have a more difficult time with B. The facts are available to anyone who wants them. I note with some sadness that this is the most neglected topic on this newsgroup; most people like to concentrate on debunking A or C; it's easier, and they don't have to do any real homework... A. On the fellow who was cured of cancer (these stories abound, by the way), I have two comments. First, I think that the "science will explain it" type of faith is a hollow one. Anyway, there is so much we don't know in medicine, who is to say that God did not perform a miracle via some unexplained phenomenon? I think that the human body is in itself a miracle. Perhaps something in another vein (no pun intended): Miracle 2: (I was not eyewitness to this one, but heard it from the individual herself). A very close friend and her husband went to Mexico for a vacation. While in a street market, she approached an unknown woman and began to speak to the woman in Spanish (she did not and does not know Spanish). The woman to whom she was speaking broke down in tears. It was explained to her that she told the woman to stop sleeping with her boyfriend, that she was offending God by doing so. My friend explained that the Spirit urged her to speak in tongues to this woman. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david