bob@itm.UUCP (07/07/83)
To: Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
And why did Infinitely Merciful God drown all those innocent
beasts when He could have just vaporized the bad humans without fuss?
Answer: The Flood story is just another example of primitive man
attributing natural catastrophes to gods rather than leaving them
unexplained. It amazes me that any modern person could fail to see
this, particularly since it is impossible that various beasts which
are not and never were native to the Middle East could have been
saved by Noah. The story just doesn't make sense except as a
primitive explanation of a natural catastrophe.
______________________________________
Tim, this my reply to you concerning your artical above:
Psa. 145:17
"The Lord is righteous in all His ways,
And kind in all His deeds."
Job 11:7-11
"Can you discover the depths of God?
Can you discover the limits of the almighty?
They are high as the heavens, what can you do?
Deeper than Sheol, what can you know?
Its measure is longer than the earth,
And broader than the sea.
If He passes by or shuts up,
Or calls an assembly, who can restrain Him?"
Rom 11:33
"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge
of God! How unsearchable are His judgements and unfathomable
His ways!"
Isa 40:28
"Do you not know? Have you not heard?
The everlasting God, the Lord, the creator
of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired.
His understanding is inscrutable."
Isa 55:8,9
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Neither are your ways My ways, declares the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
Tim, is so hard for you to except the ways of the almighty God?
Is it so hard a thing for God who created heaven and earth to
gather the animals of the world together? God does love you
no matter what you say or do. I know God personally and have
a satisfied mind as well as a satisfied spirit. If you really wanted to
know the truth you would find it. But Vickie said it best when she
said you do not really want your questions answered. You are too
sarcastic to really be seeking. Seek with an open mind and an sincere
heart to know the truth. Then ask God to show you. But untill you
really seek to know you will go on asking vain and foolish question.
Never really wanting an answer.
Bob Langdon
itm-Atlanta Ga.
gatech!msdc!itm!bobtim@unc.UUCP (07/10/83)
This is a reply to an article titled "To Tim Maroney" from Bob
Langdon at Inter-Temple Ministries (itm). He is responding to an
article of mine that went in part as follows:
And why did Infinitely Merciful God drown all
those innocent beasts when He could have just
vaporized the bad humans without fuss?
I also borrowed a bit from Twain and asked how Noah could have
collected animals which never were native to that area of the world,
yet which have survived to the present day. Now, take it away, Bob!
Tim, this my reply to you concerning your artical
[sic] above:
[I have omitted five Bible quotes that appeared here.
Their gist is that God is a whole lot smarter than I
am, so I shouldn't ask too many questions. -- Tim]
Tim, is so hard for you to except [sic -- read
"accept"] the ways of the almighty God? Is it so hard a
thing for God who created heaven and earth to gather
the animals of the world together?
Apparently Bob does not understand the question. I am not saying
"Look, God did this and I reject it." I am expressing doubts about the
truth of such a nonsensical story. If you can point to something that
is definitely a work of God, then I will accept it. I do not happen
to accept the Bible as necessarily true in all cases, however. Get
this straight -- I AM NOT AGAINST GOD! I just don't believe in your
version.
About your second question: No, of course not. That is my whole
point. God can do anything, right? Then why did he go about this
whole business in such a needlessly cruel fashion? For him to use his
omnipotence to bring animals from the far corners of the Earth, only
to be loaded aboard a boat which he required to be built by a human,
when he could have just used his omnipotence to vaporize the evil
humans, seems rather unlikely, to say the least. (Drowning the infants
was also a pretty despicable act.) In fact, the omnipotence of God is
called into question by several incidents in Genesis. In particular,
when the Angel tells Lot to hurry up and get away to a nearby town,
since God COULD NOT ACT until Lot got there. How about just
teleporting him there? How about just excluding him from the
holocaust? After all, God is omnipotent, right? These bits just
don't make any sense, and that's why I can't accept them as absolute
truth.
God does love you no matter what you say or do. I
know God personally and have a satisfied mind as well
as a satisfied spirit. If you really wanted to know
the truth you would find it. But Vickie said it best
when she said you do not really want your questions
answered. You are too sarcastic to really be seeking.
Pardon, Bob, but you're being a bit hypocritical here. I could
say exactly the same things about the two questions to me with which
you began your article. You obviously didn't want answers to them.
(I love it when someone criticizes someone for doing something right
after doing it himself.) In any case, I don't think that God hates me.
I just don't believe that there is such a thing. Sentience seems to
be an attribute of certain phenomena within the universe, not of the
universe itself. Finally, I accept Thelemism, and I have a satisfied
mind and spirit. I don't believe that this means that I should turn
them off, though.
Seek with an open mind and an [sic] sincere heart to
know the truth. Then ask God to show you. But untill
[sic] you really seek to know you will go on asking
vain and foolish question [sic]. Never really wanting
an answer.
You're missing the point again. You are asking me to start by
accepting that the Bible is true and then trying to make sense of it.
>From my point of view, though, why should I accept a thing that is so
hard to make sense of? I can make a lot more sense of the scriptures
of some other religions, for instance Thelemism and Neo-Paganism, and
I can make an awful lot of sense out of just sticking to science as
the ultimate arbiter of truth (although this is not the tack I take).
Finally, about the quotes. We've talked about this before. Of
course the Bible claims that it is true. Of course it has excuses for
those parts of it that seem questionable. But what kind of excuse is
"God is a lot smarter than you, so just accept things that don't make
sense"? This is also popularly stated as "God works in mysterious
ways." I dealt with this a few weeks ago, but since it didn't seem to
sink in then, I'll try again now. If God is so all-fired mysterious,
then how do you KNOW that he is telling you the truth? Maybe in his
mysteriousness he derives satisfaction from seeing people believe
obvious absurdities. If he really is beyond human understanding, you
can never know whether or not this is true.
The fact is, Christians only use the excuse that "God is
mysterious" when there is simply no way around a contradiction in
their beliefs. At other times, they prattle on quite knowingly about
what God is, what God wants, what God does and doesn't approve of, and
so on. They continually give the lie to the mysteriousness claim,
which is nothing but a VERY weak excuse for the many contradictions in
their worldview. It is the last refuge of the person who cares more
about being right than being reasonable.
______________________________________
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hilllaura@utcsstat.UUCP (07/11/83)
Well, this is "to Tim Maroney" but I am going to field it anyway. I get enough of the same sort of "open mind" drivel around here anyway. The claim "one must have an open mind" is the first cry I hear from everybody who doesnt have a strong case and is arguing with me. I take it as a sign that I am "winning" the argument, as the other side has not found anything more constructive to say. There is a difference between an "open mind" and a "mind open at both ends". Sadly, too many people forget this. The work on the premise that they can say all manner of unreasonable things and then claim that I am not being "open-minded" if I do not accept them. This is silly. If I were truly closed-minded I wouldnt even be bothering to debate the whole point. How open-minded are the people who scream at me for being "close-minded"? They have immediately ended all possibility of further conversation and understanding. They have forced me to argue about my own personal grounds for the acceptance or non-acceptance of an idea, and they reserve the right to call me "closed-minded" when what I am saying is that my criteria seems different from theirs. If I call them closed-minded for not listening to me then we can argue like children until the cows come home, but if I am already open-minded then I have no place to go... The purpose of "having an open-mind" is to not miss out on some good idea that you might not recognise due to previous misconceptions. It is *not* to stagger around begging people to dump garbage in it. To get back to the ark: As a schoolchild, this question fascinated me. I was attending a Catholic school and every time the ark was discussed, I had the same 2 questions. 1. Why did God kill all the cats and dogs who had never harmed anybody? and 2. Why drowning? Is there any way to discover why? (If the answer is NO, then that is the answer. There is no need to blast somebody for closed-mindedness, after all, those who are looking for answers acknowledge the possibility of answers as opposed to those who staunchly claim there are none.) When I was in grade 3 the teacher said that all the cats and dogs went to heaven anyway and didnt mind being killed. (I skipped grade 4.) When I was in grade 5 the teacher said that God drowned all the creatures because it was a clean, painless death. I cant quite believe this, since I have watched rats drown and once nearly drowned myself. It is NOT painless. Arguments such as "Well, God killed them painlessly but then he washed them all away" dont answer why the painless deaths were never mentioned in the Christian Old Testament. The teacher also said that cats and dogs have no souls and dont go to heaven. My grade 6 teacher said that you were not supposed to take it literally. My grade 7 teacher told me that I would go to Hell if I kept asking such questions. My grade 8 teacher told me that I would go to Hell and that anyone who thought about what I was saying in class was likely to go to Hell as well. My grade 9 teacher said that the God of the Old Testament liked killing and destruction, while the God of the New tesament was the Merciful One. When pressed, he would never admit whether he thought that the New Testamnet God was a different God than the Old Testament God, and had actually ousted the former from Heaven, or whether God had matured over the ages, or whether the Old Testament was a crop of lies. He did say that the Jews were "bad people" because they believed the Old Testament rather than the New. At this point I gave up. I had already become well known as the resident heretic, even though on every religion exam I ever took in the whole school I did better than every other student in the class; and despite having gone to Church far more frequently than most of the teachers and nearly all of the students. If you already have all the answers, please understand why most of us do not. If you cannot understand this, then I am going to call *YOU* close-minded before you have a chance to level the same accusation at me. I am still interested in answers, if there are any. (But be warned, once I get an answer to this one I have lots of other questions left over.) laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
dccarr@ihuxq.UUCP (07/13/83)
To Bob Langdon Re: your comments and quotes directed to Tim - Garbage. Is it so hard for you to accept the fact that a goodly part of the Bible is myth? "Seek with an open mind and an sincere heart to know the truth." If you seek your truth in the Bible, at least do so openly and critically. The Bible should be read in the context of its historical, social, and cultural foundations. In addition, the inaccuracy of translation should make you wary of accepting the Bible as the literal Word. Blind faith is a hiding place for weak faith. True and strong faith is not only open to criticism - it will take to heart that criticism to see if there is truth in it. To Tim and Paul I don't always agree with either of you - but you make interesting reading. Keep up the effort and ignore people like Langdon. -- Dave Carr ihuxq!dccarr
bob@itm.UUCP (07/15/83)
To: Darrell Plank,
I Know you and Tim misunderstood what I was trying to convey.
But it is not your fault, but it is mine. God owes no man an
explanation for the things he does. It is impossible to find these
things out unless God choses to reveal His reasons for doing things.
You said, "Since God is beyond our limited understanding
don't even try to understand."
Remember thats your conclusion of what I said. God expects us to
use our reasoning facilities. That is what faith in God is based upon.
You also stated:
"If there is a God, He gave me a brain
to use. Why are you asking me to put it
on idle?"
No one has asked you to stop your thinking processes. God's ways
are literally past finding out. If God wanted man to know His every
reason for doing things He would have spelled it out. The problem
is an unregenerated mind trying to find out the ways of God before
he will except God. God gave us enough information to bring our
hearts and minds back to Him. The trouble with man is he is always
looking for a sign. Even if someone were raised from the dead man
still will not believe. The nation of Israel saw many signs and
wonders as God showed Himself as El Shaddai(the all powerful).
They saw the twelve plagues on Egypt, the pillar of fire by night,
the pillar of cloud by day, the parting of the Red Sea, the drowning of
the Egyptian Army, etc. etc. and still they refused to believe.
The prophets of old did many miracles and still they refused to
believe. Even when Jesus entered time according to scripture. The
nations of the world still sought to kill Him and those who believed
on Him. So it is today. Though many signs and miracles are performed
in Jesus' name you still will not believe. There is one coming who
will come in his own name and he the nations of the world will
follow to there destruction. He is the anti-christ. He will come
performing miracles and giving signs that will,if possible,deceive
even the very elect.
also you said:
"Why didn't he just make one(Ark) up and
hand it to Noah?"
God set apart one hundred and twenty years for man to repent(turn)
from there wicked ways. The building of the ark was a sign to them
of God's coming judgment upon them if they did not turn from their
wicked ways. During this 120yrs.,Noah preached to them righteousness
and warned them of the coming judgment. Man chose to ignore the warning
and to mock Noah. Noah by faith in what God told him, built the ark,
when rain and floods were never heard of. Noah believed God.
God even now is warning the world of a coming judgment. God said
"as it was in the days of Noah so shall it be in the last days.
They ate, they drank, they married, they built, until Noah entered
the ark and the rains came and the floods carried them away."
Note this "That in the last days will come scoffers saying, 'Where
is the promise of His coming?'" As they mocked Noah so shall they
mock those followers of Jesus who preach the coming judgment. That
is until they are carried away in judgment. I tell you now that it is
even at the door as you are reading this.
you also stated that:
"I could have "faith" that Rev. Moon is a
prophet."
Here you are proposing to put your mind on idle. Rev Moon, as well
as many others in the last 10 yrs., has claimed to be the messiah.
God warned that in the last days many will come saying "I am He"
(referring to the messiah). The key, my friend, is the middle east.
Take a good look to what is happening to Israel. Israel will defeat
the Arabs time and time again. They are God's people. Any nation
that has dared to pick on the nation of Israel was wiped out.
That is why Israel is wiping out the nations before them. Israel
is outnumbered by a great deal, but they have pushed their enemys
back even as to take part of their country(Egyptians sinai etc.)
Sorry this is so long. Just think about it.
Bob Langdon
itm!-Atlanta Ga.
msdc!itm!bobpmd@cbscd5.UUCP (08/02/83)
My apologies to those who may be seeing this for the second time.
I don't think it got out to the net the first time. I wish cbosgd
were more reliable. I would appreciate any civil comments on my
discussion here. Thanks.
[From Dave Carr:]
To Bob Langdon
Re: your comments and quotes directed to Tim - Garbage.
I wouldn't agree that the quotes are garbage. The use of them
was poor however. Scripture was given with a definite intent for
it's use. In the free marketplace of ideas the Bible does not
support itself. It makes no attempt to, and is not intended to do so.
It is revelation, not an apologetic. If the Bible were it's own
apologia it would become outdated with change in intellectual climate.
The scriptures Bob quoted in response to Tim's assertions/questions
about Noah's ark and the flood are not the Bible's attempt to explain
or proscribe questions asked by skeptics. They are statements describing
God's character and do not address themselves to any particular questions.
As I see it, the Bible encourages (even commands) the seeking of knowledge
and wisdom. (Prov. 2:1-17, Heb. 11:6, Jer. 29:13).
Is it so hard for you to accept the fact that a goodly part of
the Bible is myth?
I have trouble with your use of the word "fact" here. There is a
good deal of (unpopular) scientific and archeological support for
the "myths" of the Bible. I admit it has had poor representation
on the net, but it exists none the less. I think there are reasonable
answers to the original questions about the ark. Maybe I'll put
my 2 cents worth in if I get the time. Anyone who is really interested
should check out the book "The Genesis Flood" by Henry Morris and John
Witcomb (1977 I think).
"Seek with an open mind and an sincere heart to know the truth."
If you seek your truth in the Bible, at least do so openly and
critically. The Bible should be read in the context of its
historical, social, and cultural foundations. In addition,...
I couldn't agree more. But remember if Christianity is true, it is
not the servant of pure human reason. The element of faith and trust
in any religion is important. Otherwise, how do we know that we are
not believing some man-made philosophy instead of a real, infinite, God.
If the knowledge of God and his ways were completly comprehensible by
humans, either humans would be God (which is the essence of some religions)
or God would be finite--which still leaves open the possibility of the
existence of a still greater "God". Although reason can go a long way
in understanding Him, we should expect there to be limits if God is
indeed the Creator and man his creation. How would you expect to call
God "Lord" if you are on equal terms with him? So being open to the
possibility of Christianity being true involves (on the part of the
skeptic) the willingness to admit that man is not and never has been
his own god. That is the stumbling block for many.
... the inaccuracy of translation should make you wary of accepting
the Bible as the literal Word.
A translation in any language other than the original Hebrew (O.T.)
or Greek (N.T.) will not convey the exact meaning of the original text.
This is one of the commonly unpercieved difficulties in Bible interpretation
and the source of many conflicting doctrines umong Christians. The
English translations cannot be taken as the literal Word. We have
to rely on sound scolarship in this area.
Also, not all mandates of Scripture have equal weight. Jesus spoke
of the "weightier matters of the Law" and the "greatest" and "least"
of the commandments. So even with sound hermeneutics there are still
some things in Scripture that are not to be taken as hard doctrine or
are not to be emphasized as much as others. These cases are not
determined by our own whim but from the context of Scripture itself.
A good book on this is "Options in Contemporary Christian Ethics" by
Norman Geisler. I'd recommend it to any Christian.
Blind faith is a hiding place for weak faith.
True and strong faith is not only open to criticism -
it will take to heart that criticism to see if there
is truth in it.
AMEN!
What many Christians don't seem to realize is that the Bible is not
THE unabridged encyclopedia of all truth. It is a framework whithin
which there is great intellectual and practical freedom. Although
truth revealed from other sources does not carry the authority of
Scripture, it is truth none the less. When something that seems to
be true conflicts with Scripture, there are four possible reasons:
1) Scripture is wrong.
2) Scripture is right and the conflicting "truth" is actually false.
3) The conflict is only apparent and is resolved upon closer
examination.
4) I do not have enough of the facts to make a good judgement
and I can suspend judgement until I gain a better understanding
of the issue.
I must say that I have never been compelled to come to the first conclusion.
I often have doubts as to the truth of Scripture, but doubt usually is
the precursor of a better understanding. When I run into a conflict between
the Bible and a conflicting truism, my first action is to suppose the Bible
is true--for the moment. I do this because of my experience in resolving
past conflicts. If, after diligent study (degree of diligence depending
on how important the issue is) I cannot reconcile the difference (this is
rare) I am content to take the fourth position above. Often, when I follow
the Bible's instruction in spite of the conflict, the experience reveals,
in retrospect, that the Bible's instruction was in fact the better way.
It provides better results even though it didn't appear that it would at
the outset. I have so much experience in seeing so many apparently
irreconcilable conflicts resolved in this way that I have a deep trust in
Scripture as the revealed word of God. Because of this experience I
can have faith that the important conflicts I now experience will be
resolved in the future. God's faithfulness in the past is my (subjective
to be sure) assurance of His faithfulness now and in the future. He has
not always given me what I have wanted (just like my parents when I was
a kid) but I have to say that, looking back on it all, He has always given
me the best.
In the above paragraph I have breifly described the biblical relationship
I see between faith and reason. This is the essence of Heb. 11:6.
As I have said before, if the God of the Bible is who he claims to be, it
cannot be expected that the complete knowledge of him will fit into the
finite human intellect. There have to be limits, but their existence is
no excuse for being content not to find the limits; given the scriptural
admonitions cited above.
As C.S. Lewis once said, "One must look along, and at, everything".
I think people are wrong in insisting on an accurate view of true
Cristianity just by looking at it from the outside. You will never
be completely convinced of its truth if you limit yourself to this
view. Acceptance of the claims of Christianity can never be a passive
affair on the part of the individual. In anything God does on our
behalf (e.g. saving us from death, damnation, drugs, etc.; giving us knowledge,
wisdom, spiritual gifts, etc.) there is always an volitional act required
on our part. Otherwise God would be guilty of forcing his will on us
and making us dependent on him against our will. I want to illustrate this
by trying to answer one of the questions Tim asked about Noah's ark.
Tim:
You asked why and omnipotent God would require Noah to build an ark, Lot
to leave Sodom on foot and other such things on the part of individuals
instead of just doing it all for them. I would say that the reason is
because it would violate a cardinal principle God uses in his dealings
with humans. Humans have a right to (by their own actions) reject God's
benevolent acts done on their behalf. Noah, though he was righteous
had the right to act in disbelief that God would flood the earth as much
as anyone else. Building the ark was Noah's volitional act in acceptance
of God's deliverance. Otherwise it could be argued that God saved Noah
against his will. Sure no one likes to drown, but there is no way of
being sure God actually will do what he says he will until he does it--then
it's too late. What assurance was Noah given that he would not end up
being the fool everyone thought he was? Only God's word. That's all
anyone gets--at first. Afterword they know by experience that God's word
is good. God is not under the burden of proving himself emperically to
people before they even accept his existence. A loving, lasting commitement to
God cannot be made under duress or as the result of special demands.
Would you want God to scare you into "getting saved" by somehow showing
you that the threat of Hell is real? If he did that, what real choice
would you have? (I know that you said you would choose Hell rather than
worship the Christian God, but maybe you don't know what either is really like.)
If God were to scratch "YHWH" on the moon to prove
his existence to you, he would have to meet thousands of similar demands
made by others. God then becomes the servant of the whims of man. What kind
of God is that? What would you say if someone claimed E.T. did it or
that the Russians did it with their moon crawler as a joke? Prove them
wrong? How? My point is that no emperical proof is conclusive, people
would keep demanding greater and greater proof. Jesus was often wearied
by these demands. What would their fulfillment really accomplish in the
hearts of people?
Think about your own relationships with people. Would you value a relationship
with a person who was constantly demanding that you prove to them by
your actions that you are worthy of their friendship, respect, trust, or
admiration? Rember Jesus' words to Thomas after his resurrection?
Jesus made it plain to thousands of people in John ch. 6 that he does not
want to be loved for what he can do, but for who he is. If this is
the God for which you demand such proof, can you wonder any more why he
dosen't comply? This is not to say that he can't or won't prove himself
to you. But I think God is more concerned with the relationship that
the "proof" will produce than just the fact that you acknowledge his
existence. If you want proof of the existence of the God of the Bible,
you cannot expect him to prove himself in ways that are inconsistent
with his character and intentions. For then he would only prove that he is
not the God of the Bible at all.
One last point to consider:
A god that would intervene on your behalf without giving you full power
and opportunity for refusal only seeks to enslave you. Religious sects
that refuse medical treatment on the premise that their god will pluck them
free of any distress they happen to fall into, often experience the
consequences of this type of enslavement. What if Jesus continued
to meet the needs and desires of the thousands of people he fed in John 6?
Before long those people would be totally dependant on his supernatural
intervention because they would have neglected their own abilities to
provide food for themselves. If Jesus had sought to enslave those people
the thing to do would have been to keep feeding them until they had no
homes to return to and they had neglected their livelihoods long enough
to be unable to support themselves. Then spring the heavy teaching on
them when they would have no choice but to continue following him.
Isn't this what Jim Jones did at People's Temple?
The God I serve is often given to showing his love for people. Christian
or not, this God loves everyone equally (his "redeemed ones" often do not
follow suit, but that is another matter). The only difference between
people is how much they love God. If I want to "backslide" and go to
hell, God has got to let me. (Sorry all of you that believe the doctrine
of eternal security; it just dosen't make sense, biblically or otherwise).
In my relationship to others, I am God's servant. Ideally I should perform
his good will on your behalf (whatever that entails). In my relationship
with God, I am a son; I call him "Father".
Back to Dave Carr:
To Tim and Paul
I don't always agree with either of you - but you make interesting
reading. Keep up the effort and ignore people like Langdon.
--
Dave Carr
I hope I'm right in assuming I am the "Paul" your talking about (I
don't know of any other "Paul" that causes so much fuss in this news
group). I don't claim to be totally open minded, but I'm working on
it hard. People like Tim are a real help (I think :-)).
Thanks for the encouragement. I can't totally ignore people like
Bob, I have to love them just as much as unbelievers. I came down pretty
hard on him a couple of months ago when used Scripture as an
invective against Tim, but my desire is to see change, not to belittle.
I do think the Christian Faith is worth defending, (I will probably do
so till I die) I just want to see it done well.
By the way... are you THE Dave Carr? The one I know?
Paul Dubuc