lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (03/01/84)
[Brevity this week; enough other discussions going on.] I've had a couple of responses so far to my survey request. I'd like some more input on the question (with the caveat that I may inquire deeper into your basis to see if there's another axiom behind it): What is the axiomatic (bottom-line) basis for rights? Two replies this week: Rich Rosen: > The crux of the problem may be that Larry and David cannot envision a > supreme god that is different from the one described in the Bible, since > they hold it to be self-evident truth. The proposition (that they keep > tearing down) is this: if god were as abominable as it is depicted to be > in the Bible to be, then I could choose not to worship it based on > my own judgment. I can also choose not to believe that god is that way, > or not to believe that god exists at all. Larry and David apparently do > not see these three choices as alternatives, and presumable WILL not. > And therein lies the problem. Having three choices is not the problem. The problem is the incomplete acceptance of what the Bible says - partial acceptance masquerading as full acceptance. The Bible describes more than horrific acts of God. It describes the grace of God, and as important, it describes man - both his depraved state and his full dependency on God for his very existence. Not accepting the latter really means not accepting the Book. Perhaps Rich could tell me what the Book of Ubizmo has to say in these areas (sorry, I don't have a copy, and none of the bookstores or libraries around here has one either - crazy Californians :-). If I have no dependency on Ubizmo, then obviously he's not as supreme as his Book claims. Then I take the second option and not believe in the validity of the Book of Ubizmo. Jon Stumpf: > Jesus said, law is for the man and not man for the law. > ... > What I am getting at is : couldn't I say that "religion is for the man > and not man for the religion?" The quote is "The *sabbath* was made for man, not man for the sabbath." The latter question begs another: What is religion? If it is, as Jon presents it, "a good medium to present values, morals, etc.," then his latter question might be valid. But is this really what religion is? I would say that religion is a relationship with God. Values, morals, etc., might *result* from that relationship, but they are not that relationship in and of themselves. I pursue my religious studies and activities that my relationship with God may be closer and stronger. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states "The chief end of man is to *know* God and *enjoy* Him forever." -- The Ice Floe of the Q-Bick {ucbvax,ihnp4}!{decwrl,amd70}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA