david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (11/30/83)
Dan Glassar recently submitted an article which I found quite interesting. He has raised some serious questions, which deserve some attention. Here, I will attempt to respond to some of his questions from what I believe to be a Christan viewpoint; I do not consider this a "flame" as I am not attacking or condemning Dan himself. He did state that he was confused on at least one point, and I am offering an explanation for him and others who may be curious. > I am confused by what constitutes a "Sin". I was brought up in a > Reform/Conservative Jewish family and have always held the belief > that sins were against mankind and not God. The only commandments > that relate to Mans actions towards God are that we should hold no > other gods before "him" and to "remember the Sabath and keep it > holy". All other commandments deal with human affairs. I am > constantly seeing stuff about this or that being a "Sin" and in > one recent net exchange, someone implied that God will effect a > punishment on the Net for the "sin" of carying .motss. I don't > understand how .motss could possibly bother God. A Sin has already been defined for us in the Bible. If you choose to stick to the ten commandments, then one might assume (at first) that breaking the above two commandments would be sins against God and breaking the others sins against man. The flaw in this thinking is Jesus himself; he forgave others for "sins" they committed against others. This seems silly at first. For example: I step on your toe (on purpose) and you forgive me. Well enough; but what would you think if I stepped on your toe and someone else came up to me and forgave me? This is exactly what Jesus did; he acted as if he was the party injured for the sins men committed (and commits) against other men. (Note: I stole this example from somewhere else). It follows how .motss could possibly bother God from the above argument. Further debate, then, must center about Christ himself. As for punishment against the Net, maybe God will lightning bolt decvax? (A little joke). > I, further, > don't understand how anyone can pass judgment on others for their > beliefs if those beliefs do not harm fellow humans. To me this > declaration of what God "thinks" is blasphemous and as close to > a crime against God as I can imagine. Actually, I can think of numerous reasons for "passing judgement" on others. Prejudice is a good one. So is hatred, jealosy and envy. What I am trying to emphasize is that such actions do not stem from a pure Christian belief; Christians are told not to judge others. The fact that some do does not invalidate Christianity; it merely puts these people in the same boat as everyone else who passes judgement on others. If, however, you mean that a Christian sees an act as sinful without actually condemning any particular individual, then I'm afraid the argument falls back on itself; the Christian has a belief that does not harm fellow humans. However, this argument leads into an existing morals debate which is too long-winded to go into here. In a sense, you are correct in that "putting your own words into God's mouth" is a sin indeed. God has promised to punish those people. The question becomes one of being able to determine what God thinks. Can we? I believe so. Even if we stick to the Old Testament, the ten commandments themselves are an inkling of what God thinks. Jesus Christ is a good idea of what God thinks. All Christians fight a battle every day trying to discern what God is telling them vs. what everything & everybody else is telling them. > ... So here we have people telling me that > I am damned (letters on file) for not believing in the Bible as > "the direct word of God" or for not accepting Jesus as my > savior. This damnation that they tell me of is not to be found > in Jewish doctrine and I seriously doubt that Jesus ever spoke of > this form of damnation, though I would not be suprised if the > Christian New Testimant (Jews only have one testiment so we don't > call it the "old testimant") has accounts of him talking of it. This damnation will not be spoken of in Jewish doctrine since it was indeed Christ who stated it in the New Testament. What this all boils down to is whether one believes the New Testament to be true or not. Personally, I believe that Christ indeed said what is written in the New Testament. The reasons not to believe this are many; I will not hazard a guess why you choose not to believe it. If, in a future article, you choose to state why you believe the New Testament contains errors, I may be able to offer a reasonable explanation for you. > What is worse -- A sin against God or a sin against Man? > > My answer: > > A sin against Man. There is no such thing as a Sin against > God in my belief. God is beyond our concepts of good and > evil. That which Man views as evil is only evil within the > context of mankind. God creates all things -- this creation > is continual and never began and will never end. Anything > viewed as evil is either created by God or fashioned by one > of God's creations (eg. Man). We are judged not on how we > treat God, but how we treat eachother. I have already touched on the sins against God/man subject. The idea that God is beyond good/evil (called Pantheism) is an interesting idea, and not without merit. It does, however, raise some serious questions in my mind: 1) Who was Jesus Christ? He said He was the Son of God; he also taught us to love one another. This makes him out to be a lunatic under your religous system. Can you adequately explain him? 2) If God, the Supreme Being, is beyond good and evil, how can he judge us on how we treat each other? Surely not by means of how good or bad we are. If one could assume for a moment that God is as you say, and that he will allow only people who have treated others fairly (good people) into heaven (or whatever reward you wish to substitute), then God is in obvious support of good and opposes evil. The two statements are contradictory. One other point: A Pantheistic God does not exist under the Judaistic religious system as I understand it; it is more of a Hinduistic belief. Again, I am not comdemning you for your beliefs; I honestly would like answers. > mail... I have a collection of flames I have received.) Please > do not flame me on my use of the masculine when referring to Man > and God. I use "Man" to refer to mankind and "God" has masculine > connotations in English. I don't believe that God has a gender as > we define it. Again, the argument goes on the the question of Christ himself, who said there was a Father-Son relationship. (NOTE: the hebrew translations for the words used is Father and Son, not parent-sibling.) -- Dave Norris
liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/03/83)
>> I don't believe that God has a gender as we define it. > Again, the argument goes on the the question of Christ himself, who > said there was a Father-Son relationship. (NOTE: the hebrew translations for > the words used is Father and Son, not parent-sibling.) > > -- Dave Norris The prevailing Biblical notion of God is masculine, but there are hints of a feminine/motherly side to his nature. For example, Jesus says (in Mathew 23:37): "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ... how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." I can't find any others right now... Just an observation. -Liz Allen -- Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay