lab@ihlpf.UUCP (07/19/83)
#R:qubix:-38300:ihlpf:22600023: 0:2710 ihlpf!dap1 Jul 18 23:14:00 1983 Larry, It seems that the only God you will accept is one who can create the universe in one fell swoop (you said so yourself) and then look upon his creation as repugnant. This God does only what he wants and is in essence a complete hedonist. His "love" consists of wiping out innocent infants (although you seem to know of some twisted logic which declares even babies as "deserving") and this is seen as "justice". He creates a Hell for everlasting torment for those who have the gall to think that all this is not perfectly fine and uses the excuse that they must be "separated" from all the "good" folks who admire this kind of behavior. For no good reason this separation must also consist of burning brimstone and eternal agony (Oh yes, I guess this was just one of his "whims" which we aren't supposed to complain about). Most people would call this "revenge". After all this, you say that those of us who look upon this with distaste simply "won't" rather than "can't" reconcile such a God with goodness and mercy. What precisely IS your definition of goodness and mercy? Where did you EVER mention the notion that God will take care of us "even as the lilies of the field" (we who are repugnant worms in his eyes). If goodness and mercy is only defined as everything that God does, then sure, he's a merciful God, but I no longer have a conception of what that "mercy" consists of. You know, Larry, I'm exactly your opposite. I really don't care if God created the universe or not. I don't think such things are all that important. All I ask is a God who respects his people and is concerned with what goes on here rather than producing mass killings just because he feels like it. 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. (you're right, I WON'T accept such a God. What I CAN'T accept is that if there was such a God that he also loves those repugnant beings he so enjoys toying with on his holy whims). I apologize for my tone in this note but this really got my dander up and I daresay that even if I were a Christian, such notions would get my dander up. I will try to revert in the future to my more reasonable tone. P.S. Larry, I'm still waiting to hear on whether you think you would still be Christian if you were brought up in a moslem family in Iran. P.P.S. Wouldn't it be interesting if one of his "whims" was to send all Fundamentalists to Hell on judgement day? Judging from his past erratic behavior, I figure there's about a fifty-fifty chance, perhaps greater in the cases of extreme fanaticism. After all, his ways are sometimes mysterious.
lab@ihlpf.UUCP (07/19/83)
#R:qubix:-38300:ihlpf:22600025: 0:1435
ihlpf!dap1 Jul 19 8: 9:00 1983
Just a quick quote from someone who undoubtedly does not share Larry's deep
insight concerning church and state, but who nevertheless deserves to be
heard:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the first amendment means at least
this: neither the state nor the federal government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another...No tax in any amount, large or small, can be
levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may
be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the federal government can, openly or secretly, participate
in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and VICE VERCE (emphasis
not my own - D.P.). In the words of Jefferson, the clause against the
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of seperation
between church and state".
United States Supreme Court
People ex rel.
McCullom vs. Board of Education of
Champaign, IL
333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Sure, Larry, the first amendment has nothing to do with the seperation of
church and state.
Darrell Plank
BTL-IH