paw@uvacs.UUCP (01/05/84)
Dave - I've been reading net.religion for about a year now, but you are the first person whose item has prompted me to reply (and I probably should let Tim Maroney re-state his own case, if he wants). Anyway... Why are you not willing to debate with Tim? Although he gets out of hand at times, your refusal to non-heatedly discuss his statements (you must admit that your article was, at best, inflammatory) seems to indicate that you are not quite secure in your belief - at least, not so sure that you can not take umbrage at someone who disagrees with you (last time I looked, it was a free country). Why do Christians have a monopoly on truth? (Just for background, I was raised Roman Catholic - including attending several years of Catholic grammar and high schools - but have reached a calm enlightened state in which I do not CARE whether God exists.) To me, Tim's position holds no contradiction - I agree with it. He uses Bible quotes because that is what YOU respect and/or believe, and argues that EVEN IF you could prove that these were, in fact, true representations of God (and probably especially then), he would refuse to worship such a petty creature. I can't see how a rational person could accept a deity who chooses sides (is it fair for an omnipotent being to pick a tribe and intervene in their behalf against all other comers? Do YOU want the world to become one big Israel? The Jews have never stopped being the chosen people as far as I know - where does that leave Christians?). Perhaps you believe you are on the WINNING side, and that makes it all right? Perhaps you are right - maybe absolute power DOES corrupt absolutely (so I burn in hell for blaspheming). Just what is this supposed to mean : > Far greater evils are the >hearts of men that permit such hunger at their own profit, or persecute and >punish those who do not adhere to such-and-such {political system/religion/ >etc} (The argument that Christianity persecutes others is a valid one, but >not relevent to my point here). Are you saying that Christianity is a great evil (I always thought it was)? Why is this not relevant? Somehow, you got on the topic of world hunger, and proceeded to lambaste Tim for his concern - why doesn't he go to Africa, etc. You seem to miss the point of his argument - world hunger is an INSURMOUNTABLE problem; it has always been with us, and always will. Tim's point is that if there did exist an omnipotent being, IT could end this problem. Anything we humans can do now is only a drop in the bucket. And what is this about anyone who says that they give money to feed these people only serving their own self pride? How can one escape from feeling good about trying to relieve another's misery? Speaking of pride - why is it so bad? Should I let this God-thing take all the credit for something I do? Do I not have the free will to make the choice, and shouldn't I be proud if I make the right one? Or is there really no free will unless I do something bad ('I told you that I wouldn't like it if you did that, but you did it of your own free will, so now you pay.')? That's not fair. >The possibility of pain is inherent in any usable system for the universe. >People who do not understand this do not understand what love is. I would >state that Tim's version of a Shambala world where there is no pain or >suffering is a pipe-dream. To love anything is to risk tradgedy; to prevent >the risk of tradgedy we must love nothing. And this is the ultimate evil. If this is so, what's heaven like? Pretty boring, I'd think. I agree, I think, that it is life's disappointments that make it interesting. Just in closing, I'd like to make a statement. I find it increasingly frightening that there are so many people out there who believe as you do, and that they prey on the lonley and the weak of conviction to convert them to the 'one true faith' (I call this phenomenon 'creeping Christianity'). I have nothing against Christians in general, it is just when they try to 'save me soul' that I begin to object. I, too, refute the Christian god. I only hope that I may find a belief system one day which will incorporate intelligence and rationality, and that I may live many lives. From the cinderblock palace of Pat (The Nun) Wilson ...uvacs!paw
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (01/08/84)
What you say about human beings only being able to partially solve the world hunger is NOT TRUE!! If IBM, Exxon Oil, etc. were to donate 1/10th of their annual net income yearly to feed starving peoples in Africa, Asia, etc. the world hunger problem would certainly be solved, not to mention if all the money spent on defense in the world (and you have to admit, the superpowers spend an AWFUL LOT on it -- think of all the rice, beans, etc. you could get in exchange for all those missiles sitting in silos or lying in stockpiles) were to go for resolving world hunger also. I cannot believe what I am hearing ... -- --greg ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds (uucp) Gds@XX (arpa)