mat (04/17/83)
I am replying to a reply ... a very dangerous thing, since it takes remarks
on remarks out of context out of context. (No, my kboard isn't bouncing.)
The original issue seems to have been the nature of the Christian God,
and upon the requirements of faith. I think that the Trials of Job got
tossed up in here. Note that I am not standing shoulder--to--shoulder
with Larry Bickford; I am not in any way a fundementalist, nor do I
claim to be free of any sin or guilt. What I am doing is taking remarks
made in reply to Larry DELIBERATELY OUT OF CONTEXT. I do this because I
think that even in this state they reflect SOME facet of the position of
their author and era. Here goes:
``<flame on>''
Come on, this should be a forum for serious discussion, not angry flames.
And you do raise some serious points below.
Doesn't it seem peculiar to you that your god is "merciful" in that it
opts to defer punishment for transgressions of laws that it wrote
itself?
Given the existence of an eternal God, it doesn't seem peculiar in the least.
SOMEONE had to write laws; God was there when we and our world were created.
Considering how poor we are at making our own laws, we ought to be grateful.
And please don't quote the Magna Carta, the American legal system, or the Codes
of Hammurabi or Justinian. NONE of them has been as good a code of behavior
as the simple ``and you shall love your neighbor as yourself''. Unfortunately,
this simple precept is unenforcible by civil authority. God sees the hearts
of men. That is His privilege. Why is it not ours? Well, perhaps it is
God's mercy again. Would you want another, who might not be so pure of intent,
to see all your motives?
Where is the legitimacy of its power from in the first place?
Well, if you believe that God created the universe, then the legitimacy is
clear. If you are angry that you are not god, then legitimacy once again
becomes the issue. Virtually every civilization has, in one way or another,
demonstrated that dominion over the birds and the beasts and the fish is not
sufficient for it; dominion over man is what man craves for; whether by
power of the sword, or by reckless tinkering with genetics and human
reproduction, the message is clear. Man wants to have power over man.
Why should anyone be more thankful for the absence of hostile actions
from a malicious deity than for being left alive by the last mugger
they met?
This statement may be TOO far out of context; I believe that Jeff is referring
to the Trials of Job here. I only point out that one man's despair is another's
salvation, that one person's suffering another's opportunity.
If some ruler were to write a law code that was impossible to follow,
then make all the rules punishable by death, occasionally torturing
a follower to see how far they could push them, then to announce
her great mercy in reducing the occasional sentence, I would not
consider them very merciful.
Well, consider the following: The laws are made for Man; not man for the
Law (Please don't ask which Gospel, nor chapter, nor verse). Why God
choose to make us imperfect is a question that I cannot answer; If you
would rather believe that there is no god beyond your own creation, you
have an answer. I do not consider it very satisfactory. And please remember
Pascal's wager (I hope we don't get too big a discussion out of this one)
A deity of that form, if it existed, doesn't need prayer, thanks,
or praise,
Well, if your picture of God is true, then you had sure as Hell better
be giving all three, and in quantity. If God is as you describe, then we are
all pretty well doomed. Of course, if you choose to discard God because
you don't like this picture of Him, that is your affair.
It needs replacement. It's broken.
Please see my comment above about man wanting dominion over man. Isn't
it obvious that Man wants to be god? Some modern philosopher or another
has said something very like:
``When man stops believing in God, he is left with two possibilities.
``Either he is God, or there is no god, and he is an animal. [ ... ]
``The symbol of the first is the clenched fist; of the second, the
``upraised phallus.''
It should be obvious that these two symbols describe our age. Not only
our age, it is true, but our age without a doubt.
<flame off>
-Jeffrey Soreff (hplabs!hplabsb!soreff)
No personal assault meant, Jeff; we are products of our age, and if there
is an indictment, then we all have to answer in some measure.
Mark Terribile
-!hou5e!mat