david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (01/10/84)
> Mark T: > Leaving aside questions about Goedel here, let me ask a question: Is it > wrong to do good not in the name of {Christ, Allah, Y H W H, ...}. If it > is, are you saying that > > (1) this *apparent good* did not come from {...} and is therefore > evil? (The Inquisition mentality) Personally, I don't think so; if I implied it I didn't mean to. A "good act" can stem from one of three sources: God prompted us to do it; Satan prompted us to do it; or we decided to do it on our own. A Christian's reason for doing good works should be #1. #2 does not happen as often as some suspect, although more often then others might think ("give the devil his due"). Again, the importance of a good work, at least in spiritual terms, is the motive behind it. This, perhaps, is the underlying reason Christians are told not to judge. We don't always know that some good work did or did not come from God (or from Satan, for that matter). And we don't always see the end result, be it good or bad, that comes from a good work (or "bad" work). > (2) that the apparent good is indeed good and comes from {...} > but is of no credit to the person who does it? What of the > individual who knows this and does good for its own sake > without concern about himself and without seeking reward. This probably happens less often then people lead us to believe. But, for a Christian, the statement is true enough; it is of no credit to the person who does it (In ours and in his own eyes; but not in God's). > Aren't Christians supposed to love God because He is > *deserving* and NOT out of fear of punishment? Such fear > evidently holds little weight; at least two respected > contributors have said that if they believed in {...} they > would not worship even at the doors of Hell. Isn't the > same desire to do good for no particular reward at work? 1) Yes; 2) Agreed; 3) I don't think so. It is hard to reach the last conclusion on the given argument, but I see what you are driving at. But it is hard to conclude that such people "desire to do good for no particular reward"; we don't know their motives, or whether they get any satisfaction from doing this or not. > (3) that not believing in {...} and worshiping is so heinous > a crime that {...} could never forgive the weakness of this > human pride *no matter WHAT good intentions* an individual > has? Perhaps you had better re-phrase this one; I don't understand it. I am in agreement with Mark's last two paragraphs. And I also agree that Christians should not judge. But I don't think that I have written Tim off among the damned; I am really just echoing what Tim has already said (marching into Hell, etc.) This is my definition of "damned", at least in the Christian sense. If Tim is in agreement, at least in terms of a Christian theos, then I'm sure he would say he was "damned" in that sense. I am not personally damning him; we simply agree on where he fits in the Christian scheme of things. This is not judgement. But if we are using a "Christian" pegboard, that is where Tim fits. The thrust of Tim's argument was that he didn't like the pegboard. In other articles, he has outlined his pegboard (although not how he fits in it). Even ignoring any consequences, I'm sure Tim would agree with me. At any rate, perhaps I have been (or appeared to be) judgemental in my responses to Tim. He has made an effort to be less sarcastic in his latest response to me (although this is somewhat relative :-), so I will pray God gives me more patience (and time to do these articles). -- David Norris -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david