lab@qubix.UUCP (07/26/83)
(Single issue article. General replies are in a separate article.)
Seeing a lot of the replies on over the last week, no wonder the
Midwest and East Coast are having such a hot spell! Whew! I tell you,
if the articles were representative of the people, if I were their god,
I'd seize the opportunity to get away from them and get some freedom!
Anyway, let's see what some (patent-pending) ice storms can do.
Darrell Plank has provided a good springboard for discussion:
"In other words, Larry, you won't accept a God who can't create the
universe and I won't accept and love a God who looks upon the whole
human race as repugnant." [one slight point - when it was time to
redeem mankind, the Son of God came in the very form of a man]
It seems that the thermodynamics are getting back to one of the central
points of religion (this *is* net.religion, right?) - what purpose does
your god serve? Why do you have a god? Who is the final authority - you
or your god? Are you bound by it or is it bound by you? Let's see some
quotes:
"Nobody has the right to decide for me what my needs and motivations
are." (unc!Pamela) (I thought Dean Smith wouldn't allow double drivel:-)
"I don't LIKE this deity." (unc!tim)
"[He] restricts the *normal* expression of the sexual function" (ditto)
"there's something a little skewed in your perception of mankind" (")
"It could send me to the Hell...and I would walk in proudly." (is this
the same guy who said he would never respond to me again?)
"All I ask is a God who respects his people and is concerned with what
goes on here..." (ihlpf!dap1)
I ask: Who's giving orders to whom? Who is the final authority? 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. Likewise for
the attitude I've seen even in a feature column of a newspaper, to have
God help him out of trouble, but otherwise to leave him alone. Unh-unh.
That's no god.
Could anyone ask for clearer proof of Romans 1:18-32? They didn't like
the God that was there, so they made their own. Inherent in being God
is the position of final authority, and this I see as being a major
stumblingblock for many. They insist on God accounting to *them*, that
He abide by *their* reason, *their* definitions for good, right, and
mercy, *their* idea of innocence and sin, *their* idea of "rights."
(and where do they think those rights come from?)
Let's see how this applies:
"[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)
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?
"...restricts the *normal* expression of the sexual function..." Again,
who are *you* to define "normal expression"? Even among humans, the
definition of *normal* will vary, so why should yours be accepted?
"[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").
"the wrathful and threatening god of the Old Testament would hardly
omit any chance to *terrify* his worshippers." Oh really? Fitting God
into your mold again, huh? Have you forgotten this is the same God who:
gave man a will so he wouldn't be a puppet,
abated the waters from the earth,
parted the waters to keep His people from being slaughtered,
and brought waters back to destroy the destroyers,
provided food and drink in the middle of the wilderness for 40 years,
overthrew nations bigger and stronger than they to give them a home,
promised and delivered a kinsman-redeemer to do what they could
not do for themselves,
healed sickness, made the lame to walk, the blind to see,
promises a final vindication,
and so much more... (see Psalm 103 and Ephesians 1) The only terror I
worry about is the one others will face because they think they are "free."
(Paraphrasing) God "decided to send his son on a deadly mission instead
of going himself, when he was just as fit." The author of these words
has apparently never read Philippians 2:5-11, Hebrews 12:1-2 and other
such passages. Trying to impose himself on God again...
"Children are dying by the truckload, not for any sin, but just because
there isn't enough food to give them." (check with Steve den Beste)
May it serve as a lesson to all of us of what we deserve.
All the emphasis on the *rationality* in selecting a religion and a god
has gone to the point where man's reason must prevail over god;
essentially "if God doesn't fit *within* my reason, I don't want him!"
All that does is reveal the REAL god - *you* and your "reason."
One final thought one a point brought up earlier, and reflecting back
to something Pam Troy said a couple of weeks earlier, that her
atheistic father taught her to do certain things because they made the
world "better" and not to do others because they made it "uglier":
By what immutable standards do you define "better" or "uglier"?
Somewhere at the bottom of your logic/beliefs/values system, there are
some immutable standards. Even "what I think at the time" is going to be
measured by or against something. This also affects the issue of
"rights." As I noted in the other article, even Jefferson based the
concept of "rights" on a Creator - a fixed standard. Without the fixed
standard, you have no basis for any measurement of anything. 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?
Icing up before I make it to #1,
Larry Bickford,
{ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!lab