lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (02/17/84)
[Subject: Sundry replies and a survey] [Responses to selected items from what has arrived at qubix recently.] Ah, I wondered how long it would take for my critiques to result in napalm. Rather than quoting everybody, I'll address an answer to the questions as Rich Rosen perhaps said them best: > 1. The god described in the bible is a pig (or some such epithet). > > 2. If the bible is true, and this god does indeed exist as described, > he is much more worthy of repugnance than worship. [FOLLOWED BY > SUBSTANTIATION] > > ...could you please show me where the illogic is? (1) is value judgment. On what (or whose) system is it based? (2) fails to include man as he is described in the bible. Tim's "substantiation" rejects the Biblical description of man. If you only accept part of the Bible, you could make a case for almost anything, but Tim's premise was that the Bible is true. Start with man not the innocent and deserving-of-compasison that Tim portrays, but one deserving judgment, and the picture changes. =><= RR [later article]: "(Larry knows this to be true; god has told him.) It wasn't a special revelation - just Scripture. RR: "...a god that is above the law because he is the law. Such thinking really smacks of fascism." 1. Fascism implies a despot. The Greek word which transliterates to "despot" is used several times in the New Testament. So you're not far off. 2. God is not *above* the law; He is at the perfection of the law. Re-consider my statements above, and please respond to the survey below. RR: "Don't worship anything." Impossible. Worshipping does not have to be boot-licking. There are a lot of implicit ways to worship something or someone. I've been as guilty as the next person (so both of us deserve hell). It's not something I desire to do, but probably something I will do (and have to confess to God) while I'm stuck inside this protoplasm. Bruce Israel: "I don't understand why I'm a sinner because of what Adam did." "If 'Man is a sinner by nature' then how does he 'thus also becomes a sinner by choice'? ... Can Man choose not to be a sinner? If so, how is he then a sinner by nature?" The questions go together. In his original state, Adam was able not to sin. When he chose to be his own boss in one area, that blew it - Adam *changed*, both in body and soul/spirit. We have inherited both problems: our natural desire is to go our own way (nature), and we go ahead and do it (choice). BI, paraphrase: "Are God being perfect and God being changless causally connected?" "Perfect" covers many attributes - defining it would make this article much longer than desirable. Changelessness could be considered a part of perfection, but more than that, it means that a perfect God will always be perfect. Byron Howes: "...it seems the process of selecting a religion ... necessarily involves some evaluation of that religion..." True if religion were only a one-way street. Christianity is not man trying to find God; it is God reaching out to undeserving man. The question of omnipotence/just-about-anything was raised again. Who among us finite ones could really comprehend being omnipotent, or infinte in some other aspect? I think Dave Norris may have used a poor choice of words in "You don't have to give ANYTHING up to become a Christian; God wants you the way you are." and thus took a ton of heat. 1. Many think they have to "clean up" their lives before God will accept them. Nope. God takes you the way you are, BUT HE DOESN'T LEAVE YOU THAT WAY. Change begins the moment you become a Christian. And it is not you trying to change yourself into your ideal; it is God working in you to change you into what He knows is best. 2. In a sense, you don't have to give anything up to become a Christian, because the full price was paid on the cross. In another sense, you have to give up everything, because God asks for one thing: YOU. No longer are you #1. God is in charge; he calls the shots. Once the major item is taken care of, then He starts to work on the rest. God works in the positive aspect: things are not "given up"; they are left behind as you go on to something better. Our problem is that we want to take them along. I don't give up marriage or computers or sports, but let Him have the final say on it, then abide by it. "He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose." Thomas Ruschak: "...if Hitler had ... the power of life and death..." Man has power to give or withhold death, but not to give life. TR: "I don't care how powerful [God] is, [M]IGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT!" I agree. To that end, I would like a take a survey of our readers: What is the axiomatic basis for a right? This is a genuine survey. I want to get some idea of what you people think is the basis for rights. I warn you that I may inquire further of you if I think your answer (e.g., "I have rights as a thinking human being") isn't axiomatic enough, until either you go in a circle, or until you say it is an absolute basis. I am, of course, obligated to post the results (names will not be associated with answers unless specifically authorized by the responder), but deeper inquiries may delay the posting. My own idea will have my name attached to it. -- The Ice Floe of the Q-Bick {ucbvax,ihnp4}!{decwrl,amd70}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (02/18/84)
HOW LONG MUST WE PUT UP WITH LARRY BICKFORD MISQUOTING PEOPLE AND USING THEIR WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT????? > Rather than quoting everybody, I'll address an answer to the > questions as Rich Rosen perhaps said them best: >> 1. The god described in the bible is a pig (or some such epithet). >> 2. If the bible is true, and this god does indeed exist as described, >> he is much more worthy of repugnance than worship. [FOLLOWED BY >> SUBSTANTIATION] >> ...could you please show me where the illogic is? > (1) is value judgment. On what (or whose) system is it based? > (2) fails to include man as he is described in the bible. Tim's > "substantiation" rejects the Biblical description of man. If you only > accept part of the Bible, you could make a case for almost anything, but > Tim's premise was that the Bible is true. Start with man not the > innocent and deserving-of-compasison that Tim portrays, but one > deserving judgment, and the picture changes. =><= Once again, Tim NEVER says that he believes the Bible to be true. He says that (and I said that) "IF (Please look up the word 'if', Larry, and read the example sentences that go with the definition!!) IF the bible is true, then the following things are evident ..." The context of the section of my article that Larry quoted is never made clear, and again Larry takes the words and twists them to his own ends. All that I said was that the train of logic that Tim appeared to take was valid, but since Larry omitted steps 3 and 4 (and apparently assumed that everyone has forgotten what they were), here is the complete list (1-4). "4" goes a bit overboard but is included for completeness. >> 1. The god described in the bible is a pig (or some such epithet). >> 2. If the bible is true, and this god does indeed exist as described, >> he is much more worthy of repugnance than worship. [FOLLOWED BY >> SUBSTANTIATION] 3. However, I do not believe the bible to be true. I either believe that if there is a god it is of a different form than that described in the bible, or that there is no god at all. [FOLLOWED POSSIBLY BY SHOWING FLAWS IN BIBLICAL WRITINGS TO SUBSTANTIATE BELIEF THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT TRUE] 4. Those self-righteous enough to believe that the "word" described in the bible is the "truth" and the only way are misguided. Those who would look down upon those who do not are contemptible (despite their words about "god loves you anyway though you do not see the truth" and "you will see the truth in time"). Those who would impose this belief structure on others who do not adhere to it ("for their own good and the good of society" usually means "to increase my/our power") are dangerous. [THUS THOSE WHO CONDEMN "RELIGIONISTS" (autocratic ones) AND DENY THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THEIR HOLY WRITINGS ARE CONDEMNING THEIR SELF-RIGHTEOUS AND SELF-CENTERED ACTIONS, AND POSSIBLY ARE SAYING THAT THE VERY NATURE OF SUCH SOCIETAL-ORGANIZING SYSTEMS LEADS TO CORRUPTED ABSOLUTE POWER. SUCH A PERSON COULD ALSO SAY THAT IF THE HOLY WRITING *ARE* TRUE, THE GOD THEY DEPICT IS NOT WORTHY OF WORSHIP, WITHOUT BEING "ILLOGICAL".] >> ...could you please show me where the illogic is? Larry fails to address the question directly. Is this a standard tactic of autocratic religionists or is Larry an isolated case? Larry: > 1. Fascism implies a despot. The Greek word which transliterates to > "despot" is used several times in the New Testament. So you're not far off. I guess this shows Larry's true colors. Finally, in response to my suggestion "Don't worship anything.", Larry simply says, "Impossible." He then goes on to describe different modes of what he considers "non-bootlicking" type worshipping, but he (of course) fails to state why he thinks not worshipping anything is an impossibility. Why is it possible for so many independent thinking human beings? What is different about you? Is it that you realize your lowly position in this universe (and that, of course, we don't)? Or because you believe that you have such a position (or want it)? It's one thing to offer an opinion, but quite another to misquote people to make your opinion seem more valid. I can't help but feel the physical wall you put up, Larry, every time I post a note to you or read a note from you. Defined: God knows what's best for me, so I will do it, because it is the only way I can live. "How do you know God exists, has your best interests in minds, knows what they are, and/or is willing to communicate them with you?" These are all givens. "Why?" Because it says so in the Bible, and because I have experienced it in my life. "Give me an example." After a decade or so of this sort of banter that points nowhere, when one or more of us ask "Why do believe these things about god and the bible?" We get 1) roundabout answers we've heard before 2) requests for our input that wind up being misquoted and used out of context in your next article. What's going on here???? -- Pardon me for breathing, which I never do anyway oh, god, I'm so depressed... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr