laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/29/84)
Larry, all that you are saying is that there is sufficient criteria for you to consider God worthy of worship. However, other people may not see that this is sufficient criteria at all. Why should I worship anything? If God doesn't need my worship, then why should I bother? To give me something to do? Because it is good for me? Or simply because God wants me to? I can think of better things to do than worship, and I see no evidence that worship does anything good for me. That leaves the third reason. God wants me to worship Him. Okay -- should I? Why? I would rather sleep Sundays. The only thing that could move me to worship God is either that I thought it was good for me (but I don't) or I loved Him. I am willing to do all sorts of things for those that I love, even if they are inconvenient. But I cannot love that God. He behaves too abominably for me to work up any love for Him. It is relatively easy for me to work up *fear* of him, but I am frightened of a lot of things and I have to get on with life anyway. An awful lot of life consists of doing that which you find very frightening because you believe that it needs doing. So, if you could prove to me that God exists, you could indeed make me frightened, but (given that I do not fail the test of courage) you still couldn't make me worship Him. Even if God exists, I cannot love Him. Jesus I might be able to work up a liking for, but not God the Father. (Unless, of course, the Biblical accounts are significantly *wrong*, in which case all bets are off.) Without love I cannot worship. -- Laura Creighton (NOTE NEW ADDRESS) utzoo!laura
lied@ihlts.UUCP (01/29/84)
What a crock of shit. Your argument is of the form "Define God and everything he does as perfect. Therefore, any argument against God or his actions is false." Your attempt to make it look like logic is laughable. Go ahead and flame. I'm on vacation. Bob Lied ihnp4!ihlts!lied
speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (01/31/84)
Subject: Re: More unfinished business <laura> Even if God exists, I cannot love Him. Jesus I might be able to work up a liking for, but not God the Father. (Unless, of course, the Biblical accounts are significantly *wrong*, in which case all bets are off.) Without love I cannot worship. Problem is that this is what your head is saying, not your heart. Who knows WHAT god is like. If he's so incomprehensibly, mind-bogglingly infinite and wonderfull as all that... you might actually find the capacity to love him, despite what your head tells you. Similarly, it's probably the wrong route to try to 'work up' a liking or love for anything. Love just doesn't work that way, but I see your point. It's really tough to be affectionate to a mass-murderer. -- - Speaker speaker@umcp-cs speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay
lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (02/02/84)
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
Proverbs 26:4,5
The logic of "Even if I DID believe" fails to impress me. Check that -
it does impress me, in its fallacy. Since there is no net.logic, Tim's
essay will have to be graded here.
How Tim wants us to perceive his argument:
PREMISE: The Bible is true in all that it speaks of.
CONCLUSION: The God described in the Bible is not worthy of man's worship.
PROBLEM: Tim denies the first premise repeatedly throughout his essay.
Instead, he limits the amount of Scripture he will accept, then adds in
his own beliefs which contradict Scripture.
PARTICULARS: Tim does not accept the Biblical doctrines on God, man, or sin.
Because of this, he distorts justice, and does not allow God to execute
judgment based on the laws He has set down. He refuses to accept that
Adam's disobedience has consequences still in effect today. Tim does
not accept the examples of history as recorded in the Bible to show that
what he would do with omnipotence would not improve man's lot one bit.
Tim assumes he knows more and better than One Who is omniscient. He
further confuses by failing to distinguish what man worships as a god
from that which would have any power as a god.
Since Tim's argument is supposedly based on the veracity of Scripture,
all that follows will be based on that premise. If you don't like such
arguments, forget about Tim's useless essay and hit 'n'.
IN THE BEGINNING: God is Absolute - the reference point for everything
and the standard by which all else is measured. Since He is changeless,
He matches His standard perfectly, and any judgment of Him by His standard
declares Him just. Further, since He is the highest authority, He is
accountable only to Himself for His actions, which, by His nature, are
always consistent with His character (otherwise He would change).
Man does not measure up to God's standard, and failing to measure up is
exactly what "sin" means. Man's basic sin is that he has decided to be
his own final authority (Genesis 3:6,12; I Tim 2:14), attempting to
take upon himself a glory that belongs only to God. Because of Adam's
sin, all of Adam's descendants are born sinners. Man sins because he is
a sinner by nature, and thus also becomes a sinner by choice. Thus, no
one is innocent and Tim's ravings about God drowning "millions of
innocent" beings or killing "uniformly blameless" people are specious.
Quite the opposite - those acts evidence an attribute of God, an
essential possession that is part of His nature: Justice. God must
deal with sin; He cannot allow it to go unpunished. We deserve all the
punishment we get and more; even an eternity in the lake of fire is
insufficient to pay for sin. It is His mercy that we are not consumed
(Lamentations 3:22). The Great Act of Mercy was taking wrath that was
due sinners and executing it on One who didn't deserve any of it,
because He had met God's standard. God, in turn, gave Him everything,
including life (faithfulness is rewarded).
Further, God is just in using any part of his creation to execute
justice on any other part of it. Habakkuk wondered why Israel's sin was
being allowed to continue, so God told He would use Babylon to punish
them. Habakkuk nearly choked on the idea of God using heathen to punish
His chosen people, but God showed Habakkuk that it was indeed just.
Another result of Adam's sin was a curse on all of man's dominion,
resulting in disease, starvation (producing food was easier before the
Fall), thorns, thistles, and a host of other things. (According to Tim's
essay, he should be "greatly surprised.") Man doesn't like to make the
connection, because that only shows him how bad he really is.
On the use of omnipotence: throughout the ages, God has placed man under
various forms of administration: perfect environment with sinless
beings, conscience, promise, human government, law, grace, and yet one
to come with correct and swift justice. In all of these, man has failed.
Abolishing hunger and disease would not cause man to worship God one bit
more. Indeed, if we had no needs, we would never acknowledge God.
(Revelation 3:17,18; compare 2:9)
Tim thinks that God is restricting the "normal expression of the sexual
function." By what authority does the limited creature say to omniscient
Creator what constitutes "normal expression"? Sure, let some 2-year-olds
decide what the "normal" use of a terminal is... Re-read Isaiah 55.
Tim makes several points on other gods, and states that if there were
any, the God of Israel "refuses to deal with [them] on a friendly basis."
Isaiah 43-46 clearly and repeatedly state that God is the only God that
is, was, or ever will be. In there, it also describes the ludicrous
situation of a guy who takes a tree, uses part of it to heat and cook,
then makes a god out of the rest of it, falling down and worshipping it!
It has no power, and thus is no god; yet because man worships it, it
becomes a god to him. Thus God specifically says "You shall have no
other gods before me," and Jesus reiterated this during His temptation
"You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve."
CONCLUSION: Man owes God everything, but God owes man nothing. No one
has given to God that it should be given back to him. For His love and
benevolence in withholding what man deserves and giving what he does not
deserve, God is worthy of man's worship. Tim's conclusion does not follow.
Also bored by Tim's followups (although I may comment later),
Larry Bickford, {sun,amd70,decwrl,ittvax}!qubix!labrlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (02/04/84)
C'mon, give me a break, Larry!! For the hundred-and-fiftieth time, there
is NOTHING (repeat NOTHING) illogical in Tim's saying:
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 of 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".]
I took the logical flow further than I intended and got a little "preachy"
there (no pun intended), but... could you please show me where the
illogic is??
--
Pardon me for breathing...
Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlrkechkayl@ecn-ee.UUCP (02/05/84)
#R:qubix:-80400:ecn-ee:18600002:000:171 ecn-ee!kechkayl Feb 4 13:21:00 1984 Hmm . . . Not "measuring up" to an omnipotent being is SIN? Congratulations, everyone in the world goes to hell! Sigh . . . Thomas Ruschak ecn-ee!kechkayl
wjr@rayssd.UUCP (02/16/84)
John (...!amigo2), I agree that "there are those who sincerely believe that the Bible and other Holy Scriptures are directly or indirectly inspired by God". No, argument on this point . >> While most believers would say that they are open to >> misinterpretation, and there are startlingly different opinions on >> what constitutes inspiration, any believer would take violent >> exception to your (admittedly unspoken) assumption that since man >> wrote the Scriptures, they are shot full of error. ... Start taking (violent) exception! The Scriptures are probably full of...error(s). Men can only write what they see or think they see. Anything can be interpreted in any manner you wish, you can call it propoganda or even advertising. I would find it very hard to analyze the Bible now for error factors based on events ~2000 to ???? years ago. Maybe JC was an excellent magician or illusionist with dreams of grandeur...who knows?? On the other hand, a person reading the "Bible" 1000 yrs from now might look on the bombing of Hiroshima as God cleansing the land of his enemies with fire. Misinterpretation?? Thats alright as long as it was directly or indirectly inspired by God. But like I said, no argument on that point. Would you like to talk about where the concept of Heaven came from? Bill Ramey ...!rayssd!wjr a