[net.religion] Not about abortion

lab@qubix.UUCP (07/16/83)

(Apologies for my third posting this week. #1 was intended a couple of weeks
ago, and #2 (yesterday) was single-subject. Maybe others ought to try not
posting anything for three weeks...)
Summary:
	Tim Sevener's facts aren't
	Mediation between Steve Boswell and JD Jensen
	"Separation of church and state"
	Ideas on the "Judeo-Christian ethic"
	The limited view of God & presuppositions of myths
	Christianity is NOT "blind faith"
	(Mincemeat will have to wait)

Tim Sevener: "[creationists] forget the larger picture which is conclusive"
"the conclusive evidence [of 'progression']" "...that there has been some
sort of progression ... is indubitable." "how might evolution have worked
into God's processes?" "Christians...deny established scientific fact."
Bold statements, sir! And not one of them true!

"Theistic evolution" is an insult both to creation and evolution. The main
purpose of evolution is to show God isn't necessary for the variety that
exists. And if God is so weak that He needs evolution, and then tells me in
His Book He created things, what kind of God is that? I wouldn't want Him!
As far as "established scientific fact" is concerned, you've got to be
putting me on! You come off as some sort of expert on historical geology
with evidence that was dismissed so long ago that it's no longer seriously
considered. "I am not really all that interested in responding to" you
"because I feel it is a waste of time." If you have some better evidence you
would like me to consider, mail it to me - I will read and respond.

May I put a little ice on the debate between JD Jensen and Stephen Boswell?
(Disclaimer - my view does not coincide with either's.) JD apparently didn't
get my mail on 'preached' in I Peter 3:19. It is not "evangelize" (as in 4:6)
but quite literally "herald" or "make proclamation" (from both NASB and
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance). JD's strong point seems to be a need for
everyone to hear the gospel. Psalm 19:1ff, Romans 1:18ff and Titus 2:11ff
indicate the gospel has ALREADY gone out.

One warning, JD (and everyone else): even a "fairly unbiased presentation"
is impossible in the realm of religion. The best you may able to get is
concurrent presentation of various biases, edited only by their authors;
what JD has quoted from the Interpreters Bible indicates it falls far short.

Tim Maroney claims "the principle of separation of church and state is [in
the First Amendment] as clear as day." Oh? "Congress" refers to the FEDERAL
Government, and the amendment was so written to avoid a NATIONAL church (see
Justice Joseph Story "Commentaries on the Constitution" 2nd.Ed. 1851, pp
593-95 and Edward S. Corwin "American Constitutional History" (1965) p205).
When the First Amendment was adopted in 1791, over 1/3 of the thirteen
colonies had established churches.

There have been some good questions on "Just what is the 'Judeo-Christian
ethic'?" My *opinion* is that is refers to the commonality of the decrees of
God as given in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the Ten Commandments and
the corresponding laws on morality and honest living - basically, that which
was carried to the Gentiles in the New Testament Church, wherein most of the
missionaries and evangelists were Jews.

(Extra ice, Watson!) Before anyone says anything more like:
"And why did Infinitely Merciful God drown all those innocent beasts when He
could have ..." "...abominable brutalities committed in Jehovah's name, with
the approbation of this all-merciful God." "I am expressing doubts about the
truth of such a nonsensical story [the Flood]." "Why did he go about all
this whole business in such a needlessly cruel fashion?" "These bits just
don't make any sense, and that's why I *can't* [my emphasis] accept them as
absolute truth." "Why are you asking me to put [my brain] on idle?" "Is it
so hard for you to accept the *fact* [my empahsis] that a goodly part of the
Bible is myth?" "Blind faith is a hiding place for weak faith."

- WAITAMINNIT !! - There's a whole lot of presupposition going on here, a
lot of opinions being passed off as fact, with man being the judge of God.

Let's go over the basics again: Isaiah 55, Romans 1, I Corinthians 1, and
Ephesians 1. God does what He wants, when He wants, the way He wants, for no
other purpose than to bring Himself glory. I could take unc!tim's problem
one step further - why didn't God just send angels to everyone telling them
to repent? It would have been a lot faster, and probably more effective (of
course, even a personal visit wouldn't convince our skeptics :-). Why didn't
he? "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God
(refer back to Romans 1), it PLEASED God by the foolishness of preaching to
save them that believe." (I Cor. 1:29) How can I make it any plainer?! Eph.
1:5 refers to God doing things "according to the good pleasure of his will"
and 1:11 "after the counsel of his own will." And why "his will"? Three
times in Ephesians 1 (the work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit)
"to the praise of his glory." The attitude I get, especially from unc!tim,
is that they want God to fit within their reason. Either God is God or
reason is God, but you can't have it both ways - one must be final. Tim tries
to cop out by saying "I just don't believe in your version" as though belief
altered facts. Got some bad news for you, Tim...

unc!tim in particular can't seem to grasp that there is more to God than
just love. Love includes punishing the wrongdoer according to the deed done.
Man's view of God is naturally limited unless he accepts what God has to say
about Himself. This is what unc!tim and others WON'T (*not* "can't") accept.
You can't begin to understand how repugnant man is in the sight of God until
you begin to realize His righteousness and holiness - so perfect that
whoever "offend[s] in one point, he is GUILTY OF ALL." (James 2:10) And since
tim and others have rejected (by "will") the message of creation (Romans 1),
they are deliberately limiting their view of God (to which view they are
enslaved). Thus, to them, the punishment is excessive. They *won't* (not
"can't", because of initial rejection) accept God's view that the crime was
worthy of the punishment. The Scriptures do not say in vain that the whole
earth was filled with corruption. The ark was built as a testimony against
the world; man rejected both ark and God - and paid the price. The slaughters
in Canaan are similarly justified - when you are free to see the crime.

Considering the amount of "rehetoric" [SIC] from Tobacco Road, I could go on
for another 300 lines, but I refuse to similarly flood the net. One last
thing to say, and maybe, just MAYBE, you'll pay attention and learn.

Paul Little starts "Know WHY You Believe" (Victor Books, Wheaton IL):
+	  "What is faith?" asked the Sunday School teacher. A young boy
+  answered in a flash, "Believing something you know isn't true."
+	  That many non-Christians feel this way is not surprising. That many
+  believers overtly of secretly feel this way is tragic.
+	  Frequently I have the opportunity to present the Gospel in a bull
+  session format. After a presentation, we have questions from the floor.
+  Following these discussions I am often gratified and often dismayed.
+  Unbelievers say the session has been helpful because it's the FIRST TIME
+  [emphasis his] they've heard something that makes sense. I'm also gratified,
+  but more deeply dismayed, when Christians tell me the same thing! They're
+  relieved to discover that the Gospel can be successfully defended in the
+  open marketplace of ideas and to discover they haven't kissed their brains
+  good-bye in becoming Christians!

	The entire book builds from there, with topics like
		"Is Christianity Rational?"
		"Is There a God?"
		"Why Does God Allow Suffering and Evil?"
		"Does Christianity Differ from Other World Religions?"
		"Do Science and Scripture Conflict?"

	and more than half a dozen others. Don't say you "can't" accept it -
if you reject it, it's because you *won't* (by will) accept it. Be bold and
shell out four bucks - and save us all a lot of time!

Again apologizing for length,
Larry Bickford,
{ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!lab, {amd70,ittvax}!qubix!lab

mark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore) (07/16/83)

from a recent defence of divine cruelty:

	"God does what He wants, ..., for no other purpose than to bring
	 Himself glory."

what would you think of a human whose only motivation was self-glorification?
and what do you think of double standards?

				mARK bLOORE
				univ of toronto
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!mark

laura@utcsstat.UUCP (07/18/83)

Larry Bickford writes:

	"Theistic evolution" is an insult both to creation and evolution. The
	main purpose of evolution is to show God isn't necessary for the
	variety that exists. And if God is so weak that He needs evolution,
	and then tells me in His Book He created things, what kind of God is
	that? I wouldn't want Him! 

This is a very bad thing. It enforces the idea that you must either believe in
God, or believe in evolution, but not both. This simply is not true.

There are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution, and there are also
non-Christians who believe in both God and evolution.

Evolution is an aesthetically pleasing theory which fits the facts of
observed nature. God, by definition, can create the world any way he
wants. If he decided to set everything up and let evolution take over,
that would not diminish from his greatness. Evolution exists as a theory,
like all other scientific theories, to explain the observable universe.
Darwin and Wallace independently came up with the theory of Evolution
based on their own observations in "Natural History" (which is what
science was called at that time). Nobody comes up with a theory to
challenge the existence of God. That the theory of evolution can be
used to disprove the literal interpretation of the Bible is not the very
same thing as saying that the main purpose of evolution is to disprove the
existence of God. You could as easily say that the main purpose of atomic
theory is to blow people to bits with bombs, or to provide efficient
generators of cheap energy.                  

The great harm is in enforcing a belief that you can believe in God or
evolution. By isolating both camps from each other it is no wonder that
the rocks start flying when the camps finally meet up with each other.

I have heard a lot of bad biology from the Creationists, and a lot of
bad theology from their detractors. Please dont continue the trend by
forcing people to decide before they have a chance to read all the evidence.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura

rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (07/19/83)

Another note on Theistic Evolution:  as I understand it, 
Darwin was very religious.
-- 
	Randwulf (Randy Haskins)
	genrad!mit-eddie!rh
 or...
  rh@mit-ee (via mit-mc)

hutch@dadla-b.UUCP (07/22/83)

What would I think of a human whose only motivation was self-glorification?

Loaded question.  I answer it as if mARK had thought about it rather than
leaping to conclusions.

I would think that a person whose ONLY motivation is self-glory, had a
God complex.  I.E. that said person thought they were capable of glory
and that they were sorely mistaken.

The statement "God does what He wants ... for no other purpose than to
bring Himself glory" does NOT say that God's ONLY motivation is self-glory
but rather that His PRIMARY motivation is His glory.

What would you think, mARK, of someone (an artist, for example) who created
incredibly beautiful things, and when asked why, said that it was so they
would be remembered and admired?  That is a very pale reflection of the
kind of Glory that is God's, and the motivation towards increasing it which
He has demonstrated.  When that motivation leads Him to cause His Son to
suffer and die, in order to restore and save part of His creation, then
how can you talk about double standards?

Hutch

bch@unc.UUCP (07/24/83)

With respect to Hutch's analogy between God enhancing his glory and the
artist creating works to be remembered by...

I don't object to the artist painting beautiful things to be remembered
by -- I do object to him pulling out his flame-thrower and zorching anyone
who thinks that some of his works are not quite so beautiful.

				Byron Howes
				UNC - Chapel Hill