david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (12/18/83)
In response to Tim Moroney's article: > I am going to assume that what he meant by the first question is "... would > you accept his role as the greatest human being ever and as the savior of > mankind?" (If this isn't what you meant, I apologize, but encourage you to > be less ambiguous in the future.) The answer is no. The reason is that > Yahweh is a barbaric, hideous monster if the Judaic portion of the Bible is > accurate, and that Christ is just as bad if the Christian portion is > accurate. Tim, you are only proving my point. What you happen to think of truth, ANY truth, shouldn't affect the validity of the truth. If I proved that a hungry bengal tiger was trapped in the room with you, and that the only way to appease it was to throw it a big steak, I would bet you would throw it a steak. Your belief in the tiger's disposition is not going to affect how he feels about having you for lunch. And anyway, how God responds to you is how you respond to God. He has offered love to you first. It is YOUR choice to accept His love or eternal damnation. We are told that those in hell will curse God. But it was their own choice, the final choice, the choice that they have been making all of their lives: either "Thy will be done", or "My will be done". At the end of all things, God will be the ultimate horror or irresistable love and joy. But it is a limited offer. From the way you speak, Tim, it is obvious where you stand. > John has not seen fit to reply, despite the fact that he did get the > article. I am going to pluck this sentence out of Tim's article and stop here. Tim seems ready to condemn others for that which he is guilty of. Whatever happened to our morality debate? The letters I have sent you, asking for information? As a Christian, I am truly sad for you. But I cannot help but say something that I know many other (useful) contributors are saying to themselves: "Put up or shut up." It is easy to for anyone to vomit out articles condemning others. It is not so easy to carry on logical discussions for the benefit of a newsgroup. I apologise to those who I might of offended by using such a childish saying. But I think most of you will agree with me. -- David Norris -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
bch@unc.UUCP (12/20/83)
It looks to me like it is David Norris, rather than Tim Maroney, who is doing the vomiting here. If not that, than he is certainly being as closed minded as he accuses his detractors of being. From where I stand, Tim considered Dave's questions, gave his answers (no, to both) and gave the reasoning behind those answers. That David doesn't *like* those answers and, in response, chooses to deliver a religious polemic of his version of the truth is evidence that he fails his own test. (Incidentally, for those trying to mail to tim, myself and others throught the decvax<->duke link, that link has been down for more than a week and was just restored. I have mail I haven't respon- ded to dating back at least a week. Don't make accusations before you know the facts.) -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill (decvax!duke!unc!bch)
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/20/83)
Response to Dave Norris: (from one who does not agree with him) Dave, you have missed the point entirely. I think I know what is wrong, but I could be mistaken. I believe that you think you are doing the "Christians versus the atheists" debate. This is the debate that you can get into if you argue with Lew Mammel or Rich Rosen, but not with Tim Maroney or me. We find your question sideways. I sent you mail, but Tim posted this: I am going to assume that what he meant by the first question is "... would you accept his role as the greatest human being ever and as the savior of mankind?" (If this isn't what you meant, I apologize, but encourage you to be less ambiguous in the future.) Which is a pretty clear indication of where the problem lies. I have no problem in accepting that you might prove the existance of a historical Jesus, for instance, but the next question is: So What? What you have to prove is that Christianity has the exclusive claim to truth. In other words, you have to prove that other religions are wrong, or otherwise I am perfectly free to say, "Yes, Christianity is True, and it is great for you, but not so great for me, so life goes on as usual...". It also might help if you found a way to defend your method of proof. I realise that this one is harder. For instance, if you decided to use Descartes' proof for the existance of God, I would be perfectly within my rights to claim that the whole foundation of logic (including the principle of sufficient cause) is a product of the evil genius. Whoops! the proof just falls flat. The one thing that you cannot escape is that if you prove the Old Testament correct, then you have proved the existance of a God that does horrible things to his people and the enemies of his people. There are those of us who find these actions morally inexcusable in a being with absolute power. (This business of setting the plagues upon the Egyptians, for instance. How about just making them sleep for 4 days and wake up with no memory of the Israelites? Tell Moses to get his people moving over those 4 days. This business of hardening Pharoah's heart so that you can send catastrophe to his people is not morally acceptable to me.) If your vision of hell-fire for the damned is correct then I know what I have got coming. What you fail to realise is that I find more moral satisfaction in defying such a monster than in worshiping him. I do not know what you expect us to do. I can tell you that I will take every opportunity to mention from Hell (I assume that the monster will know what is going on in Hell as well as Heaven and on Earth) that I lived with more moral sensibilities than did the tyrant from upstairs. I have lots of enemies, all of whom are more dangerous to me than I can be to any omnipotent god, but I would rather forgive them and understand where they are coming from than punish them. And I would never consign anything to everlasting hell-fire and damnation. This is what I find repugnant about Christianity -- the guy who is running the show and the Christians who try to emulate him. Now if you were able to present a Christianity where all the atrocities that have been historically committed by the God are now believed to be mistakes or lies (or for symbolic effect only) presented by the Biblical authors, and where the motivation for living in a moral fashion is not terror of hell-fire, then you are going to get a Christianity which is worth a new look. But I am not holding my breath. Re your bengal tiger: By this argument, there should be no Christian martyrs, right? Suppose I said "renounce Christianity or I will feed you to the tigers? Should I assume that you would renounce Christianity? Why should you assume that Tim is less committed to his religion that the martyrs were to Christianity? What you have just done is what Gary Samuelson did -- you have decided that you are going to be open monded, but also select who you are willing to talk to. Certain people are out of bounds because you either dislike them or their whole argument. By my standards, this is blatant hypocrasy, and it matters not if you feel that Tim is guilty of the same offence. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/23/83)
David Norris is apparently upset at Tim Maroney's reply to his test. Tim says he would accept the proof of god's existence that David offered (should the proof exist and be substantiated), but he would not "accept" god/Jesus as a savior based on his opinion of what he has seen of the likes this god (based on the Bible itself). Again, David makes assumptions that if god should exist, he should be exalted by all who accept the proof of his existence. Again I ask "Why?". (Last time I did a got a roundabout response.) Remember, this is the same David Norris who pleaded for openmindedness among net.religion readers. What he apparently was asking for was people openminded enough to accept the *possibility* of his beliefs being true, and *willing* to make the extraordinary leap of faith to share those beliefs. He goes on to say to Tim: > If I proved that a hungry bengal tiger was trapped in the room with you, and > that the only way to appease it was to throw it a big steak, I would bet you > would throw it a steak. I wonder how David and those who think like him would react in a fascist state. "If I proved to you that our Leader/Fuehrer/etc. is the true master of our country, and told you that resistance is futile, and that you should obey the commands he gives and accept the offering of love he makes in his guide for living, the Book of Ubizmo, I would bet you would throw him a steak, wouldn't you?" Sounds a lot like David's (and other people's) attitude towards god. You've been well trained. P.S. Has anyone out there seen the ads on TV for the book "Power for Living"? Famous celebrities (Pat Boone, Tom Landry, a senator?) talk about their personal relationship with god. Funny how all their personal speeches are exactly the same. ("The most important thing in my life is MY personal relationship with God. Being a _____ is very ...., but I turn to God daily for guidance and help. You can too...") Boy, some day we'll all be making that speech and we'll all be happy, and everything will be fine... I had to laugh at the final quote from the Bible in that ad: "The Word of God will stand forever --- The Bible". Strange, I remember the same line was in the Book of Ubizmo... Happy Holidays All! -- Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
saj@iuvax.UUCP (02/15/84)
#R:ssc-vax:-69700:iuvax:1700001:000:1493 iuvax!dsaker Feb 2 16:35:00 1984 In the main I heartily agree with Laura Creighton's reply. However, there are a few points I would like to make. Proving the existence of a historical Jesus is only the first step ( and an extremely tiny one ) towards proving Christianity's claims as to his divine status. As for the morally repugnant nature of Christianity, RIGHT ON. When you view the suffering (mental and physical) in the world , it is hard to understand how anyone could regard favourably the supposed Originator of this state of affairs. Sure, if we could only be reassured that in the end all would be compensated for, that we would all meet in Heaven smiling joyously, then we could start to talk of His divine love. But we cannot begin to imagine how such compensation could be, and the grim tales in the Bible inspire us with little hope. The "not my will but Thy will be done" attitude makes me sick. How anyone who is human could even attempt to cast aside his own judgements, loves and values, I do not understand. I am giving a purely personal response here, but it seems to me a moral obligation to look out at the world, to feel the aching need of an Answer, to live with that distress, and never to betray one's own loves and values to avoid that distress. Let us affirm what we value and hold dear; let us feel our needs and make our demands for justice; and never, never betray these things in order to ease our days or to assuage the wrath of some outraged deity. Daryel Akerlind iuvax!dsaker