garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (02/11/84)
Many have said that the God described in the Bible, and especially the
Pentateuch, is not worthy of worship, because he is despicably evil.
Now, if you have decided, as some have, that you would not worship
any God, no matter what, then this question is not directed to you.
But, if you believe that, although the God of the Bible is not worthy
of worship, some other God might be, tell me: What would a God worthy
of worship be like? Apparently, to please everybody, God would have
to act within the following constraints:
1. God should in no way restrict the human right to make free
choices, or, through threats or bribes, attempt to impose
his will on others; BUT God should not allow war, murder,
rape, theft, or tailgating.
2. God should have made the world a much nicer, safer place in
which to live. Earthquakes, violent storms, sickness, and
hangnails simply have no place in a perfect world; BUT God
must provide challenges to be overcome and problems to be
solved, or humans will become too bored.
3. God must regularly provide miracles to prove his existence to
skeptics; BUT God must not interfere with the orderly course
of events, since that would make scientific knowledge impossible.
(Regular miracles would also make it impossible to distinguish
between the miraculous and the normal.)
So I put it to you: What should God be like?
Gary Samuelsonken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (02/13/84)
--
The question is not "What should God be like?" but "What should
God HAVE BEEN like?". Any God with an ounce of gentlemanliness
in his body would have gotten things started (with a few elements,
a soupcon of energy, and a dash of physical laws) AND GOTTEN THE HELL
OUT OF THE WAY. Indeed, it should have been, and still be, a lot
of fun just to sit back and watch.
This "O Lord I grovel before thee" business is curiously self-defeating:
As a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg, surely
man-as-worshipper could only be God's way of making another
God. (It sure worked, didn't it? There's hundreds already.)
And yet that's just what *ALL* religious zealots, regardless of sect,
believe that he *DOESN'T* want. Actually, it's more reasonable for
man to be merely part of a star's way to make another star. A rather
small part.
Since no god worth his or her salt ought to be bothered by what I think
of him or her, if indeed he or she is still around, the question of
what God should be like is moot. It's an interesting universe he or
she set up--I do marvel at it and try to understand it, AND, UNLIKE
YOU PIE-IN-THE-SKY BIBLE-THUMPERS, TRY TO MAKE IT A BETTER PLACE WHEN
I LEAVE IT THAN WHEN I CAME IN, but I doubt that even that much is
expected of me. So if I'm called before St. Peter, or his logical
equivalent for you fundamentalists, I'll hold my head (or what's left
of it) high and say, "I tried, Sir. No excuse, Sir."
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 12 Feb 84 [23 Pluviose An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***dap@ihopa.UUCP (afsd) (02/13/84)
Gary, I would like to respond to your questions on what God should be like. >>1. God should in no way restrict the human right to make free >> choices, or, through threats or bribes, attempt to impose >> his will on others; BUT God should not allow war, murder, >> rape, theft, or tailgating. Personally, I wouldn't mind it at all if God restricted the "human right to make free choices" if that right includes the freedom to "choose" to rape, murder, start wars, steal or tailgate. I don't consider these as "human rights" and I think that the fact that most people endorse some kind of police force indicates that this is general opinion. I think that you have seen people claim that omniscience implies a lack of free will and interpreted this to mean that those people were criticizing God for limiting our free choice. I can't speak for others, but this is not true in my case. I point out the fact simply to emphasize that the Christian view of an omniscient God who allows free will is self contradictory. I don't take much stock in free will with or without a God, so a God who "restricts" us to not rape or murder doesn't bother me in the least. >>2. God should have made the world a much nicer, safer place in >> which to live. Earthquakes, violent storms, sickness, and >> hangnails simply have no place in a perfect world; BUT God >> must provide challenges to be overcome and problems to be >> solved, or humans will become too bored. I'm sorry, but if God supplied earthquakes, violent storms, sickness and hangnails just to occupy my mind, I am more than willing for him to remove these challenges and work on Fermat's theorem instead. There's plenty to think about without natural catastrophes to titillate us. >>3. God must regularly provide miracles to prove his existence to >> skeptics; BUT God must not interfere with the orderly course >> of events, since that would make scientific knowledge impossible. >> (Regular miracles would also make it impossible to distinguish >> between the miraculous and the normal.) Once again, if God wanted to occasionally miraculously avert a volcanic flow, that really wouldn't bother me a bit. Maybe he could label all miracles with the assurance that the event is a bona fide miracle and should not be dealt with scientifically. Also, he could assure us that anything not labelled as a miracle would be a natural phenomena which could be understood with the scientific method. Now, Gary, I would like to ask you a few questions. 1. You imply that a perfect world and a free will is incompatible. What do you think Heaven is like? Is God going to allow murder, rape and wars there in order to allow freedom of choice or is he going to take away your "human right to make decisions"? 2. You also imply that a perfect world is incompatible with an interesting world. Again, the question comes to mind: Is heaven really boring or is God going to "spice it up" with a few occasional earthquakes and other assorted natural disasters? 3. Another implication you make is that the scientific method is incompatible with miracles. I have to agree here which is why I have trouble swallowing creationism, but I assume that you believe in miracles. Does this imply that you don't believe anything that is backed up by hard science? Does logic go down the toilet when we believe in God (a lot of people would answer "yes" here)? Maybe pennies should really always land on "heads" but God is causing them to miraculously land on "tails" about half the time. This would be one of the "undistinguishable" miracles you refer to. What evidence do you have that this isn't the case? If you have no evidence to show this isn't the case, then I would agree, God's existence does negate anything we might come up with through hard science. An extreme example of this is the "compact divine intervention" which some people have touted as the way out of the creationist's dilemma. If this "theory" is correct, then it certainly seems plausible that God could be causing the "miracle of the tails" also. In other words, we can never again believe anything we see. 4. In the end, you are claiming that God is limited in suggesting that there are expectations we can have of God which he simply cannot fulfill. How does this jibe with an omnipotent God? This relates to the earlier questions. Is God actually powerless to provide a perfect heaven? If so, just how powerful is he? What CAN he provide? Finally, I think that your questions point out some inconsistencies in your own thinking but I fail to see how these questions are the damning evidence against athiesm/agnosticism which you apparently mean them to be. If I don't believe in God in the first place, it might very well be that I agree perfectly with your statements that if there WERE a God, he would inevitably fail my expectations in some way. So what? I think your points raise some hard questions for Christians to answer, but I don't see why atheists are obligated to respond to them in order to be logically consistent.
dap@ihopa.UUCP (afsd) (02/15/84)
>>ihopa!dap (you forgot to include your real name) has offered answers >>to my questions on what God should be like. I think you have at least >>partially misunderstood the point I was trying to make, but I found >>your answers interesting. My real name is Darrell Plank, ihnp4!ihopa!dap. >>I don't think that the freedom to rape or murder is a human right, either, >>and I hope you are not saying that I do. Is it ever right to start a >>war? Is it right for someone who is starving to steal from someone who >>is overfed? I don't propose to try to reach a universal consensus on >>which of the rights humans claim are valid, or in what order of precedence. >>What I am saying is that if it is possible to choose, it is possible to >>choose rightly or wrongly. If it is possible for a human to choose to >>be moral, it is possible to choose to be immoral. "A good, omnipotent >>God would not permit evil; evil exists; therefore, there is no good, >>omnipotent God." is the argument I am dealing with here, and it is the >>major premise which I am denying. No, I didn't mean to imply that you thought that such things were a right. But what does it mean to say "You have the right to CHOOSE whether to rape or not but you don't have the right to rape"? There are some tricky questions as to what should and should not be allowed in human behavior, but if the courts can make a meager attempt at such a thing, then an all loving perfect God had ought to be able to do a bang up job. I think that most of us would agree that murder is not an acceptable response if someone steals your parking spot. If God were to disallow such blatant cases and leave the minor decisions to us I think that most people could agree on that. After all, while the courts have problems, most people wouldn't like to live in a society without them. In other words, people WANT to have the "right to choose" curtailed when such a choice might result in a murder. To put it another way, I don't think many people would want ALL choices removed, but on the other hand, I don't think people like a world where ANYBODY can make ANY choice ANYTIME he/she wants to. A happy medium exists somewhere between which is far preferable to either extreme, and if God were interested in our welfare I think he would try to meet this happy medium instead of the extreme we are currently experiencing. >> I'm sorry, but if God supplied earthquakes, violent storms, >> sickness and hangnails just to occupy my mind, I am more than >> willing for him to remove these challenges and work on Fermat's >> theorem instead. There's plenty to think about without >> natural catastrophes to titillate us. >> >>I admit that I don't have a good answer; I don't know why earthquakes >>etc. are allowed to happen (note: God allowing earthquakes is not >>necessarily the same as God causing earthquakes). I have heard >>theories -- to show his power, to show that this world is temporary -- >>but I don't know. Question: can a real challenge exist without a >>real risk? Some people, I am sure, would say no, and these might >>find Fermat's assertion dull. Well, I guess you're saying that you don't have the answer here. But then at the end you make a curious point. It seems that you are still trying to argue that God put volcanoes on earth as some sort of intellectual entertainment for man. I still don't think that this is reasonable and I take it that you don't either from your earlier remarks. >> Once again, if God wanted to occasionally miraculously avert a >> volcanic flow, that really wouldn't bother me a bit. Maybe he >> could label all miracles with the assurance that the event is a >> bona fide miracle and should not be dealt with scientifically. >> Also, he could assure us that anything not labelled as a miracle >> would be a natural phenomena which could be understood with the >> scientific method. >> >>I thought you wanted him to prevent natural catastrophes like volcanic >>flows altogether; now you seem to be saying that you would like >>such things to occur, as long as harm was averted (perhaps to give >>geologists something interesting to study?). "Look, God miraculously >>diverted that volcanic flow to save us from danger." "Danger? What >>danger?" A volcano that doesn't cause any damage due to God's intervention doesn't sound like a catastrophe to me, natural or otherwise. I don't detect anything at all in my statement which says that I want natural catastrophes to occur. As I said earlier, if they occurred and didn't cause any damage, then they aren't a catastrophe and you're right, it might be sort of interesting to see the miracle. On the other hand, I didn't mean to imply that he had to restrict his miracles to what would otherwise be a catastrophe. If he wanted to move around a few stars to spell out "God was here" that would be sort of interesting too. >>If miracles were commonplace, they wouldn't be impressive; >>they wouldn't prove anything. But if they aren't commonplace, then >>those who were not eye-witnesses (and even some who were) will try >>to explain it away, saying that it was a trick, or hypnosis, or some >>such. If pennies suddenly started always landing on heads every time that would impress me. If the sun came up a different color every day, that would impress me. On top of that, I think there are plenty of miracles that people would not "explain away", the trick with the stars being just one of them. I don't think you can effectively argue that God could not manage to impress all of humanity if he really wanted to. >>But what I was really trying to say is this: People have said that >>if God wanted them to believe in him, he ought to provide signs and >>wonders to prove his existence; but the same people refuse even to >>consider the possibility of a miracle, because then their science >>won't work. See below. >> Now, Gary, I would like to ask you a few questions. >> >> 1. You imply that a perfect world and a free will is incompatible. >> >>No, I said that some people who have rejected God reject him because >>they think a perfect world and free will are incompatible. But later Gary says: >>If we have mutually exclusive expectations of God, then God cannot >>fulfill them. I assume that the "mutually exclusive expectations" were the expectation of a perfect world and the expectation of a free will. If not, you will have to clarify because if these expectations are not mutually exclusive, then there is no reason that God can't live up to these requirements. If he can live up to them, then there is no reason that I shouldn't expect him to do so. At least no logical reason. >> 2. You also imply that a perfect world is incompatible with an >> interesting world. >> >>Again, I said that some people who have rejected God reject him because >>they think a perfect world is incompatible with an interesting world. Again, I refer you to your statements mentioned above. >>Will there be free will in heaven? I think so. Objectivists claim >>that if everyone were truly rational, then no one would wish to harm >>another. If this is true on earth, then all the more so in heaven. I see no reason to believe that people will be any more rational in heaven than on earth. >> 3. Another implication you make is that the scientific method is >> incompatible with miracles. >> >>I did not intend to make such an implication. I do not think that >>the scientific method is incompatible with miracles. (I wish I had >>a quarter for every time someone was misquoted in this newsgroup.) >>I was specifically talking about the case where miracles were >>commonplace. They are not commponplace; they are exceedingly rare. However, Gary earlier observed that: >>But what I was really trying to say is this: People have said that >>if God wanted them to believe in him, he ought to provide signs and >>wonders to prove his existence; but the same people refuse even to >>consider the possibility of a miracle, because then their science >>won't work. In all honesty, I think that Gary is ascribing this belief to others and not himself. However, this means that it is perfectly acceptable to expect miracles from God and still expect the scientific method to work so point 3 in Gary's original article is eliminated. At any rate, whether or not Gary believes that miracles and the scientific method are incompatible, I do, and will discuss this below. Gary goes on to say that: >>Are you saying that if I believe in one miracle, then I have to disbelieve >>everything else? Does one whisker make a beard? When you say that >>you assume that I believe in miracles, I am inclined to say that I don't, >>because you seem to think that believing in miracles implies believing >>that they occur daily. Well, I don't believe they occur daily. In >>order for people to recognize that a miracle has taken place, it has to >>be a rare occurence. E.g., the resurrection was miraculous because, in >>the normal course of events, people who die stay dead. >> >>Another thing about miracles: I believe that each miracle has a purpose. >>I don't think God makes exceptions in the natural laws, which he >>established in the first place, without some specific purpose in mind. >> >>But most events are not miraculous. So your science is still useful. No, I'm not saying you HAVE to disbelieve everything else, just that you haven't got any logical reason to believe or disbelieve. No, a whisker doesn't make a beard, but a set of scientific axioms makes a scientific theory, and if one of those axioms is ever wrong, then there is no logical reason to believe any deduction which arose from that axiom. You can BELIEVE that God doesn't make exceptions to the natural laws often, but that is an arbitrary belief. An equally valid belief is that God is constantly making exceptions, that all we KNOW are exceptions and that one day God will pull the rug out from under us and all science will come tumbling down. The size and relative frequency of such exceptions is not important. Either everything is molecular or not. If God would send even one tiny particle of matter from space which was not molecular, then we have no reason to believe that the spectroscopic analysis of distant stars has any meaning at all. You can believe it or you can disbelieve it. Sure, science has made small errors in its axioms before (witness Newtownian Physics) and when they were discovered, a substantial part of science had to be rewritten. However, these have usually been fairly good approximations to the truth, and there is no reason to believe that they resulted from the laws of nature being supernaturally tampered with (something we can't control) but rather to man's incomplete understanding (something we can hope to remedy). The emphasis in the next paragraph are my own. >>If we have *mutually exclusive* expectations of God, then God cannot >>fulfill them. If we expect God to be not-God then he cannot fulfill >>this expectation. This has nothing to do with omnipotence. It has to >>do with self-consistency. If a statement is *self-contradictory*, >>prefacing the phrase 'God can...' to it does not make it consistent. >>"What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?" >>Nothing, because the two concepts "irresistable force" and "immovable >>object" are mutually exclusive. If one exists, the other cannot. Agreed. This leaves us with two possibilities. Either Gary's original statements are not mutually exclusive so it is logical to expect God to fulfill them all, or they are mutually exclusive and God cannot fulfill them, in which case see my remarks on heaven below. >> This relates to the earlier questions. Is God actually powerless >> to provide a perfect heaven? If so, just how powerful is he? >> What CAN he provide? >> >>God can provide a perfect heaven. He cannot make the same heaven >>adhere to every individual's current concept of what would make heaven >>perfect. Compare this with Gary's earlier remark: >>Will there be free will in heaven? I think so. But we have already pointed out that either these two statements are inconsistent so that God can't abide by both or we are left with the conclusion that God COULD create a perfect earth and still allow free will and so why doesn't he? Which is it Gary? You can't have it both ways. Well, sorry for such a LONG rebuttal, but there was a lot covered here. Thanks Gary for the thought you put into this thing. I tried to give responsible (if lengthy) answers. Darrell Plank ihnp4!ihopa!dap
garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (02/21/84)
Third round in the discussion of "What should God be like?" between me (Gary Samuelson) and Darrel Plank. This has taken quite a while to put together. My boss thinks I should occassionally do work :-), and, frankly, the questions are getting harder. None of my original article is quoted herein, and very little of my second one, but I think the discussion can still be followed, though it is somewhat staccato. Quotes from my second article are prefaced by '>>>'; responses from Darrell by '>'. >>>I don't think that the freedom to rape or murder is a human right, >>>either, and I hope you are not saying that I do. >No, I didn't mean to imply that you thought that such things were a right. >But what does it mean to say "You have the right to CHOOSE whether to rape >or not but you don't have the right to rape"? Clearly, the right to choose to do X is indistinguishable from the right to do X. What I said was that the ability to choose exists, not the right. If it were not possible to choose to do evil (as well as good), then it would be meaningless to say that any individual is 'good' or 'evil'. This will no doubt lead someone to ask if it is meaningful to say that God is good. Yes, in that God is the source of that which is good, and he is not the source of that which is evil. >There are some tricky questions as to what should and should >not be allowed in human behavior, but if the courts can make >a meager attempt at such a thing, then an all loving perfect >God had ought to be able to do a bang up job. If by "what is allowed" you mean "what is considered proper, it is the Christian belief that he does know the answers to the question of what should and should not be allowed, and that he has provided at least three ways of obtaining them (the written word, conscience, and praying for guidance). And people have rejected all three, on the grounds that God didn't do it the way the people think they would have if they had been God. If, on the other hand, by "what is allowed" you mean what is possible, then we are back to wondering why God gave man free will in the first place. >I think that most of us would agree that murder is not an >acceptable response if someone steals your parking spot. If >God were to disallow such blatant cases and leave the minor >decisions to us I think that most people could agree on that. If "most" would agree with you, what do you propose doing with those who do not? And who is to say that God has not disallowed cases which are even more blatant? >After all, while the courts have problems, most people wouldn't >like to live in a society without them. In other words, people >WANT to have the "right to choose" curtailed when such a choice >might result in a murder. Well, most people want others' choices curtailed when the latter's choices might result in harm to the former. >To put it another way, I don't think many people would want ALL >choices removed, but on the other hand, I don't think people like >a world where ANYBODY can make ANY choice ANYTIME he/she wants to. I don't think we live in such a world. We actually have very few choices; it's just that we're used to it, and cease to think about some of the less reasonable choices after a while. >A happy medium exists somewhere between which is far preferable >to either extreme, and if God were interested in our welfare I >think he would try to meet this happy medium instead of the >extreme we are currently experiencing. One person's happy medium is another person's extreme; so unless you can find some standards that all (not most) people could agree to, I will not be convinced that you can devise a better system. (I have omitted the part about why God allows volcanoes, since neither of us know). >>>If miracles were commonplace, they wouldn't be impressive; >>>they wouldn't prove anything. But if they aren't commonplace, then >>>those who were not eye-witnesses (and even some who were) will try >>>to explain it away, saying that it was a trick, or hypnosis, or some >>>such. >If pennies suddenly started always landing on heads every time >that would impress me. It might "impress" you, but I doubt that you would call it a miracle. I don't think I would. After all, it is simply a possible, though very unlikely, event. How many times in a row would convince you that a miracle had occurred? >If the sun came up a different color every day, that would impress >me. On top of that, I think there are plenty of miracles that people >would not "explain away", the trick with the stars being just one of >them. I don't think you can effectively argue that God could not >manage to impress all of humanity if he really wanted to. I think I can. The whole universe constitutes a miracle called 'creation'. Many people are unimpressed, it that they deny that it is a miracle. I would think that resurrection from the dead would be an impressive miracle, but many people are unimpressed. One theory is that Jesus merely "swooned." Consider the many stories today about people who have recovered after being pronounced dead by physicians. These are not commonly called miracles; they are considered anomalies, for which the explanation has not been found. (Note: I am not saying that I consider them miracles; I just mentioned them to show that it is hard to impress people. Even the trick with the stars (lining up a bunch of them to spell out "God was here") would fail to impress some people. First, what language should be used? Those who didn't read that particular language might be unimpressed. Others could say that it was just another amazing coincidence, and not a miracle at all. Others might think they were hallucinating. >I assume that the "mutually exclusive expectations" were the >expectation of a perfect world and the expectation of a free will. >If not, you will have to clarify because if these expectations are >not mutually exclusive, then there is no reason that God can't live >up to these requirements. If he can live up to them, then there is >no reason that I shouldn't expect him to do so. At least no logical >reason. It is inconsistent to want free will, and to want immunity from the consequences of exercising that free will. But more importantly, why should God be required to live up to your expectations? He doesn't always do what I would like him to do; oh, well. That's his prerogative. After all, he has free will, too. Now you will say that if he really loved us, he would not allow X. When people say that to one another ("If you really loved me, you would...") are called manipulative. My wife doesn't think I tell her I love her often enough. Perhaps she is right, but if she said, "If you really loved me, you would tell me so three times a day," I would not do that, just because she was trying to be manipulative. Now if I dislike being manipulated, I think God might, too. I'm going to try to re-answer one of your questions. Will there be free will in heaven? Yes, in that the people there have freely made those choices which led to their being there. In a sense, I suppose, free will in heaven is irrelevant, since the choices will have already been made. Now is it possible for someone in heaven to choose to disobey God? In a sense, that is what Satan did, so I suppose so. (I keep saying "in a sense," because I have to use earthly concepts to describe unearthly things, and it doesn't work well.) >No, I'm not saying you HAVE to disbelieve everything else, just that you >haven't got any logical reason to believe or disbelieve. No, a whisker >doesn't make a beard, but a set of scientific axioms makes a scientific >theory, and if one of those axioms is ever wrong, then there is no logical >reason to believe any deduction which arose from that axiom. As you point out later, a scientific axiom is always an approximation of reality. It may be a very close approximation, but an approximation nevertheless. Science is not deductive, it's inductive. Most science, I suppose, is accurate enough for most purposes, but there's no LOGICAL reason to believe that a deduction arising from a theoretical model is valid in the real world. That's why we experiment. External influence (even of the non-miraculous sort) is always possible; that's why we repeat experiments several times before we are convinced. If you suggest that if a miracle always occurs at a certain point in an experiment, I will again say: 1) Miracles are by definition exceptions, rather than the rule; 2) Each miracle has a purpose, and as far as I can tell, that purpose has never been to confound scientists; and 3) If it happens the same way every time, what's the difficulty? >You can BELIEVE that God doesn't make exceptions to the natural >laws often, but that is an arbitrary belief. An equally valid >belief is that God is constantly making exceptions, that all we >KNOW are exceptions and that one day God will pull the rug out >from under us and all science will come tumbling down. First, I disagree that the second statement represents an equally valid belief; it incorporates a contradiction in terms. "Constant exceptions?" Second, the belief that there are no exceptions at all is equally arbitrary, and no more valid on that account. Third, the natural laws, as we understand them, have exceptions in any case. Newton's laws have exceptions at relativistic speeds. Einstein's general theory of relativity no doubt has exceptions, which physicists may or may not be aware of (I'm not a physicist). >The size and relative frequency of such exceptions is not >important. Either everything is molecular or not. If God >would send even one tiny particle of matter from space which >was not molecular, then we have no reason to believe that the >spectroscopic analysis of distant stars has any meaning at all. I guess we better discard all our spectroscopic analyses, then. Or are neutrinos molecular? Physicists seem to be constantly discovering new kinds of matter; that doesn't invalidate what we have observed about the kinds of matter we have already seen. Suppose we leave God out of the above statement: "If there came to earth even one tiny particle of matter which was not molecular, then we would have no reason to believe that the spectroscopic analysis of distant stars has any meaning at all." Well, we would have about the same level of confidence in our spectroscopic analyses that we do now; i.e., they are probably accurate, to the best of our ability to determine. (Regarding free will vs perfection) >But we have already pointed out that either these two statements [that free will exists and that God can provide a perfect heaven] >are inconsistent so that God can't abide by both or we are left >with the conclusion that God COULD create a perfect earth and still >allow free will and so why doesn't he? Which is it Gary? You can't >have it both ways. God DID create a perfect earth and gave it to man, who to some extent has ruined it. Man will not be able to similarly ruin heaven because either, as I suggested earlier, all the relevant choices will have been made, or because any one who attempts to ruin heaven will have to leave (I suppose it is possible to leave heaven, but I don't know why anyone would want to). >Well, sorry for such a LONG rebuttal, but there was a lot covered here. >Thanks Gary for the thought you put into this thing. I tried to give >responsible (if lengthy) answers. Thank you. I didn't know discussions in net.religion could be fun. And even reasonable. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!bunkerb!garys