[net.religion] Reply to Larry Bickford

wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (07/26/83)

Since Larry Bickford has chosen to reply to me via the net, instead
of by mail, I will reply in kind.  His articles (which I will include
parts of) contained many quotes.  I will try to make clear who is the
speaker when I indent things.

	Larry, in a reply to Darrell Plank:
	one slight point - when it was time to redeem mankind, 
	the Son of God came in the very form of a man

One slight point.  I deny that the Son of God ever existed.  In fact, I
claim that we are all children of god, each of us equally.  No Son (note
the capital), and no Savior.  Your argument (as usual) is based on
something I do not beleive.  How then do you expect me to beleive your
argument?

	Larry:
	I ask: Who's giving orders to whom? 
	
No one is giving orders to anyone.  God (since you asked) is laying down
a code of ethics by which one can live.

	Who is the final authority? 
	
I am.  That's why God gave me my brain: to live my life as I choose.  He
laid down his code to give me an example, but my mind can examine that
example and deal with it intellignetly, instead of falling on my knees and
simpering.

	If you want a god who meets your wishes and desires, go 
	find Aladdin's lamp, because what you are asking for is 
	not a god but a GENIE. 

You're correct here.  I wish on stars, not God.  I think, however, that
you're misinterpreting the people you are responding to.  I could be wrong,
though, so I'll say no more here.

	Could anyone ask for clearer proof of Romans 1:18-32? 
	
Yup.  I think Romans 1:18-32 is a fantasy.  It's the old quote-the-bible-to-
make-a-point argument, which I have already addressed.

	Inherent in being God is the position of final authority, 
	and this I see as being a major stumblingblock for many. 
	
No.  Inherent in \your/ God (or more properly, your concept of Him) is such a
position.  As I have already pointed out, this is not inherent in my God, and
I suspect not inherent in many others' gods.  (No offense to anyone intended.)

	(Larry is now quoting someone; speaker not identified.)
	"[God] creates a race that he knows is flawed." Contradicted 
	by Genesis 1.  Man WAS perfect, knew God personally, had all 
	the benefits - until he decided to be his own final authority 
	and do that which he was told NOT to do. (The problem was not 
	the particular tree they ate from - that might be #2 - but 
	that they disobeyed God to do it.) From that point on, NO ONE 
	was innocent - not even the children (Psalms 51, 53; Romans 3)

Bible again.  I still question whether God directly created man.  And if you
are seriously claiming that newborn, or even unborn, children are not 
innocent, then I regard you as a seriously sick person.

An interesting thought comes to mind, though:  if God created a "prefect" man,
how did that man do something imperfect, instead of perfectly following God's
orders (as you put them)?  It seems to me that man must have been in some way
imperfect, or he could never have disobeyed God!

	(Larry again quoting an unknown speaker)
	God "drowns millions of *innocent* beasts and thousands 
	of children, orders the slaughter of entire cities down 
	to the last man, woman, and child..." Who are *you* to 
	say who was "innocent"? Did *you* set up the rules? By 
	your own standards, you are probably not in a position to
	judge. But who are you to force God into your standards?

We've already gone through this.  God built my mind.  With that tool, I have
established concepts of innocence and guilt.  By those concepts, people who
have not done evil (another of my concepts) are innocent.  Animals are 
innocent (with certain rare exceptions).  No one said anything about "forcing"
God.  We are merely using our God-given minds to make a judgement about a 
situation.

	(Ditto)
	"[Hell] is at no time mentioned in the Old Testament." 
	The closest word in the Hebrew is Abaddon ("destruction") 
	which is mentioned in both Job and Proverbs - and always 
	in connection with Sheol (KJV "hell").  Further, Daniel 
	12:2 indicates a coming judgment ("shame and
	everlasting contempt").

I beleive that there is a misunderstanding here.  The word Abaddon is indeed
mentioned.  What is not mentioned is the Christion concept of "hell and
damnation," otherwise known as the eternal weinie roast.  The Jewish concept
of Judgment (including shame and contempt) does not involve anything like
torture forever.  That is a Christian invention.

	Have you forgotten this is the same God who:
		abated the waters from the earth,
	/* After drowning the innocents (see above)  */

		parted the waters to keep His people from being slaughtered,
	/* After leaving them in slavery for generations */

		and brought waters back to destroy the destroyers,
	/* After deliberately hardening the heart of Pharoah */

		provided food and drink in the middle of the 
			wilderness for 40 years,
	/* After causing them to wander unnecessarily in the first place */

		promised and delivered a kinsman-redeemer to do what they could
			not do for themselves,
	/* Says you */

		healed sickness, made the lame to walk, the blind to see,
	/* After making them sick, lame and blind in the first place */

One of the things God said to me last weekend comes to mind, here.  He said:
"One of the hardest things about being God is having to see what people will
do in My name, or attribute to Me."

	The only terror I worry about is the one others will face 
	because they think they are "free."

More of the patronization that was discussed earlier.  I'm not worried, so why
should you be?

	And you have no grounds for complaint if I should choose 
	to end world starvation (Tim's favorite) by nuking the 
	starving ones out of existence. Actually I think I would 
	prefer just five bombs: New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, 
	San Francisco, and Chapel Hill 8-))) What right(!) do *you* 
	have to complain?

The right as a thinking human being.  See above.

	(Larry is now quoting me:)
	"I suggest you read Kierkegaard for a very good 
	explanation of how reason can \lead/ to faith, but 
	not how faith can be 'based' on reason."
	1. Kierkegaard's idea was a "leap of faith" (like 
	going against gravity) rather than having a strong 
	supporting basis.

Precisely.  Kierkegaard traces the belief in God as far as logic can take it,
and then admits that a leap of faith is needed to beleive in God.  The point
I was trying to make is that you are wasting your (virtual) breath trying to
logically "prove" the existence of God.

	2. (From "Know Why You Believe" p.18) "Faith in the 
	Christian sense goes beyond reason but not against it." 
	"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the 
	evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1

Thank you Larry.  That supports my position perfectly.

	(Larry again quoting me:)
	"...are you telling me that if I make some form of 
	modification to my mind, I will be able to figure 
	out the ways of God?" Not *you* making the mod, Alan, 
	but *God* changing you. 

Two points: 1) I doubt that God engages in such petty meddling.  Of course,
I can't prove that He doesn't any more than you can prove that He does.  2)
Even if God \did/ change me, does that suddenly make me capable of 
understanding His ways?  I think you have said that the ways of God are
unknowable.

	(ditto)
	"Second, you had better believe that we remember 
	[the plagues]." Hmm...  Seems I read in Exodus and 
	Numbers ("In the Wilderness") about some very forgetful 
	people "unto whom [God] sware in [His] wrath that they
	should not enter into [His] rest." (Psalm 95)

Bible argument again.  Still, Larry has missed my point (as well as ignoring
my invitation):  the point I was making is that \now/, today, people (Jews
especially) remember the plagues.  Larry's original article claimed that 
people had forgotten about such things.  Therefore the Bible verses are
irrelevant.

	(Ditto)
	"How did the crops grow if there was no rain?" 
	Gen.2:5,6 say enough.

Not for me they don't.  See above.

	BTW, Wex, I haven't seen much (if any) 
	"Bible-thumping" in net.singles.

That was actually a bad joke.  Net.singles had a brief discussion of who 
"Thumper" was (Bambi's rabbit friend, I beleive), in reference to pet names.

	One last note about the "laws" of nature: natural 
	"laws" are NOT causative agents; they are the results 
	of observations that are used to base expectations. 
	The "law" of gravity does not cause a stone to fall;
	gravitational force does. The "law" tells what to 
	expect, not HOW or WHY it happened.

This is an interesting argument.  Presumably, if God set up the universe, He
also created the natural laws.  Presumably, if God "wrote" the Bible, then
He similarly laid down the laws therein.  Now, Larry, my question is:  Why
do you treat one set of laws differently from the other?

--Alan Wexelblat (#32 - and I'm not even trying!)
decvax!ittvax!wex