wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (08/08/83)
I just have to answer this article by John Rutis: You have to understand God's reason for man's existence and God's plan for man before you can understand why God has done some of the things He has. I thought that the ways of God were unknowable. Are you claiming divine knowledge? God's created man as the first step in reproducing Himself! That's what I said, we are to become God as God is God! HUH? Where do you get this? I thought you all believed that we were created in God's image, not as divine reproduction. Character is something God CANNOT create by divine fiat; it must be developed with the willing participation of the one developing it. Now here's another new concept. I thought God was, by definition, omnipotent, and that means "all powerful." Now you're trying to say that this all-powerful being "CANNOT" do something. That's a contradiction in terms. There are only two ways God can make a world with no suffering, pain, sorrow, etc. 1) Force everyone to conform to the right way, whether they like it or not, and 2) Develop character in people so that they will always want to choose the right and then get rid of those who WILL NOT develop that character. God doesn't want robots in His family, so He has chosen the second way. Lots of pseudo-biblical drivel has been removed, but there are two points to be made here: One, it sounds an awful lot like God is using method one. Look at your own examples of what happens/happened to people who disobeyed God! Two, there is at least one other way that I can think of to make a perfect world. As Richard Bach said: "Imagine the universe being the best that you can imagine it. Now you can be sure that the eternal Is has imagined it a lot better than you have." Your presumption is astounding. God, according to you, lays out what is "right," and then, like a spoiled child, says "Now you have to do it MY way, or you can't play anymore!" Can't you get it through your head that I will not allow ANYONE to lay down an arbitrary code, and then expect me to toe the line? I don't care how high and mighty He is. If He does not even live up to His own standards, then I don't see why I should. The whole message of the Gospel can be summed up by saying GOD'S GOVERNMENT IS RETURNING TO THE EARTH! And my whole message can be summed up by saying I REJECT YOUR GOSPEL. IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO CONVINCE ME THEN USE LOGIC AND REASONING (if you know what they are). IF YOU JUST WANT TO PROSELYTIZE, THEN GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR DISCUSSION! I hereby move that we, being an anarcho-democratic society, require that persons wishing to use net.religion for proselytizing place a warning in their header (similar to the obscenity warning in net.jokes). This way, the reasonable among us will be saved the trouble of having to put up with this crap, and newcomers will not be caught unawares. Of course, all persons are still free to take part in the discussions, but anyone proselytizing without warning will be formally ignored. --Alan (yes, I'm short-tempered on Mondays) Wexelblat decvax!ittvax!wex
johnr@tekmdp.UUCP (John Rutis) (08/09/83)
I just have to answer this answer of Alan Wexelblat to my answer to Tim
Moroney (my new comments preceded by ***):
You have to understand God's reason for man's
existence and God's plan for man before you can
understand why God has done some of the things
He has.
I thought that the ways of God were unknowable. Are you claiming divine
knowledge?
*** Of course I am - the Bible is the revealed divine knowledge we could
*** not find out in any other way. You too can have divine knowledge.
God's created man as the first step in reproducing
Himself! That's what I said, we are to become God
as God is God!
HUH? Where do you get this? I thought you all believed that we were created
in God's image, not as divine reproduction.
*** My children were created in my image; they are human, as I am. We
*** were created in God's image to become God as He is.
Character is something God CANNOT create by divine
fiat; it must be developed with the willing
participation of the one developing it.
Now here's another new concept. I thought God was, by definition, omnipotent,
and that means "all powerful." Now you're trying to say that this all-powerful
being "CANNOT" do something. That's a contradiction in terms.
*** God himself says there are thing He cannot do. For one thing, He cannot
*** lie. May I ask how you would create instant character?
There are only two ways God can make a world with
no suffering, pain, sorrow, etc. 1) Force everyone
to conform to the right way, whether they like it or
not, and 2) Develop character in people so that they
will always want to choose the right and then get rid
of those who WILL NOT develop that character. God
doesn't want robots in His family, so He has chosen the
second way.
Lots of pseudo-biblical drivel has been removed, but there are two points to
be made here: One, it sounds an awful lot like God is using method one. Look
at your own examples of what happens/happened to people who disobeyed God!
*** Have you felt the hand of God forcing you to be good lately? Are you
*** not free to revile God as you choose? Are not men able to do all the
*** evil they please without lightning striking them? God does not personally
*** punish evil, He lets the natural consequences do that.
Two, there is at least one other way that I can think of to make a perfect
world. As Richard Bach said: "Imagine the universe being the best that you
can imagine it. Now you can be sure that the eternal Is has imagined it a lot
better than you have."
*** That's exactly how God created the universe! It's man who has ruined
*** it. If God had forced man to keep it perfect, I'm sure you would be
*** one of the loudest in complaining that He doesn't allow you any freedom.
Your presumption is astounding. God, according to you, lays out what is
"right," and then, like a spoiled child, says "Now you have to do it MY way,
or you can't play anymore!"
*** If God was not allowing you to play any more, you wouldn't be here.
*** I think the Creator of the universe has a right to say how it's to
*** be run. Any other presumption is astounding.
Can't you get it through your head that I will
not allow ANYONE to lay down an arbitrary code, and then expect me to toe
the line? I don't care how high and mighty He is. If He does not even
live up to His own standards, then I don't see why I should.
*** This is exactly the attitude I wrote about in part of my comments. God
*** allows you to have this attitude doesn't He? Did you miss one of my
*** points? God's laws ARE FOR OUR GOOD! They are NOT arbitrary dos and
*** don'ts so God can zap us when we're bad. If we "toe the line" we
*** automatically recieve every blessing; not necessarily all we want, but
*** what is really good for us. God DOES live up to His own standards!
*** Why don't you try a thought experiment? Read the 10 commandments and
*** imagine what the world would be like if everyone voluntarily kept them
*** all perfectly.
The whole message of the Gospel can be summed up by
saying GOD'S GOVERNMENT IS RETURNING TO THE EARTH!
And my whole message can be summed up by saying I REJECT YOUR GOSPEL. IF YOU
WANT TO TRY TO CONVINCE ME THEN USE LOGIC AND REASONING (if you know what they
are). IF YOU JUST WANT TO PROSELYTIZE, THEN GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR DISCUSSION!
*** Man has rejected God's government for 6000 years, soon it will be forced on
*** him. Arn't you glad God allows you to reject His Gospel. I'm not being
*** sarcastic, I'm glad too. I couldn't be developing character if I couldn't
*** choose whether to obey or not. (I don't always manage to obey God.)
*** If I gave any impression that I was proselytizing, I'm very sorry. I was
*** NOT. I thought I was just replying to some of Tim's statements that I
*** disagree with. I don't expect ANYONE to believe what I said, even though
*** it's the truth. I don't see any logic and reason in your comments. I
*** offered more details and scripture references if you really want them;
*** I gather you don't. (Maybe that's why you thought I was proselytizing.)
*** I hope to write some articles proving God's existance using logic and
*** reason.
I hereby move that we, being an anarcho-democratic society, require that persons
wishing to use net.religion for proselytizing place a warning in their header
(similar to the obscenity warning in net.jokes).
*** I'm all for this too, though I haven't noticed any proselytizing before.
*** Actually, I'd probably read it anyway, for the laughs.
This way, the reasonable
among us will be saved the trouble of having to put up with this crap, and
newcomers will not be caught unawares. Of course, all persons are still free
to take part in the discussions, but anyone proselytizing without warning
will be formally ignored.
--Alan (yes, I'm short-tempered on Mondays) Wexelblat
decvax!ittvax!wex
*** Sorry I hit you on a short tempered day -- John Rutis