hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (02/27/85)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- God supposedly sent his only son, Jesus, to die for man's sins. Why? If god is omnipotent, he could have just forgiven us. Why "kill" his son? But Jesus really didn't die. He went to heaven, which is better than being on earth. Then what was God so upset about? It seems God was making a sacrifice. To whom? Himself? Huh? Is there a more powerful being? If so, God can't be omnipotent. If God is omniscient, he knows what I'm thinking and what I will do. Therefore, I don't have freedom of choice. If at some point in my life I will have to choose between a or b, God knows I will pick "a". Therefore I can't pick b. But yet he gets upset at people's choices, even though he knows they had no alternative. The only way out of this is if God doesn't know absolutely everything. Therefore, he isn't omniscient. Since omniscience is a power, he can't be omnipotent. Some christians believe people make a choice whether or not to believe in God. Bull. I could no more decide to believe in God or Christ than you could decide not too. (Try it. Just not believe in God for a minute or so and then switch back. Maybe then you'll be a born again christian). What really pisses me off is when some christians (read Jerry Falwell and the like) say that christians are happier and more content than people of other religions. How can they know? They must ask people who have been both. Either they ask people who were x and switched to christianity, or visa versa. I think we can deduce which method was used. What ninnies! Do they seriously think they are getting an unbiased opinion? Comments, anyone? Chris Larsen at CMU CL1C@CMU-CC-TD [BITNET] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- END-OF-MESSAGE
bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) (03/04/85)
>From hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) Tue Feb 26 20:01:53 1985 >Subject: QUESTIONS FROM A FRIEND >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >God supposedly sent his only son, Jesus, to die for man's sins. Why? >If god is omnipotent, he could have just forgiven us. Why "kill" his >son? But Jesus really didn't die. He went to heaven, which is better >than being on earth. Then what was God so upset about? I'm not sure I quite follow what you mean. God is upset by sin, and would be so if Christ died or not. God is angry at the killing of Jesus because it was murder, regardless of what good resulted. >It seems God was making a sacrifice. To whom? Himself? Huh? Is there >a more powerful being? If so, God can't be omnipotent. To himself. Strange-sounding stuff like this is one reason for having the doctrine of the trinity. The basic idea is that God wanted a perfect sacrifice for sin, but of course, only he himself could come up with one. This perfect sacrifice was God's gift to man. >If God is omniscient, he knows what I'm thinking and what I will do. >Therefore, I don't have freedom of choice. If at some point in my life >I will have to choose between a or b, God knows I will pick "a". Therefore >I can't pick b. But yet he gets upset at people's choices, even though >he knows they had no alternative. > >The only way out of this is if God doesn't know absolutely everything. >Therefore, he isn't omniscient. Since omniscience is a power, he can't >be omnipotent. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that God is locked in time as we are; God is omnipresent in time. For this reason, God's knowledge (now) of your actions (future), are not really separated in time from his perspective. Granted it sounds a little odd, but that is because we _are_ locked in time. Try thinking about it a while. >Some christians believe people make a choice whether or not to believe in >God. Bull. I could no more decide to believe in God or Christ than you >could decide not too. (Try it. Just not believe in God for a minute or so >and then switch back. Maybe then you'll be a born again christian). A person changes their beliefs about anything only after becomming con- vinced of a different position. When this takes place, there is a conscience decision to accept the new evidence. I agree that such a choice cannot be made arbitrarily. Christians who expect people to change their minds about things must give them good cause to do so. >What really pisses me off is when some christians (read Jerry Falwell and >the like) say that christians are happier and more content than people of >other religions. How can they know? They must ask people who have been >both. Either they ask people who were x and switched to christianity, or >visa versa. I think we can deduce which method was used. What ninnies! >Do they seriously think they are getting an unbiased opinion? Which side should they get the unbiased opinion from? :-) Actually, which religion makes people the happiest is really irrelevant: true religion is following God, and if he says to do things that make you miserable, you'd better do them. In the case of Christianity, we see God as loving, so he would not deliberately make his people miserable, yet I think we also see that God's concern is for the redemption of the Creation, hence he sometimes calls on believers to sacrifice and perhaps be less happy. Bottom line: who's happiest doesn't mean much, and Christians should not expect to be. >Comments, anyone? No, I refuse to say anything. >Chris Larsen at CMU >CL1C@CMU-CC-TD [BITNET] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Bennet @ University of Maryland ihnp4!seismo!umcp-cs!bennet
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (03/04/85)
In article <109@gymble.UUCP> bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) writes: > >.......................................... God is upset by sin, and would >be so if Christ died or not. God is angry at the killing of Jesus >because it was murder, regardless of what good resulted. > I find it odd that a God which a) knows everything beforehand, b) had the patience to create the entire universe and c) has unbounded love does something as primitive as getting angry. One would expect such a God to at least be slightly emotionally more mature than us mortal humans which are merely creations. This seems to be a perfect example of where man creates God in his own image. "Well, God gets angry so when I'm angry its certainly excusable." Another notable Biblical passage refers to God regretting that man was ever made. Its hard to think that an intelligent God that knows the future would regret the consequences of their own doing. OR couldn't think of a better way to run the world than to say "believe this or be doomed." Don't you think that even a third-grader with an inventive mind could come up with a better scenario? If there is such a universal entity such as God I would think that such Biblical passages would be blasphemous, or at least highly amusing. >A person changes their beliefs about anything only after becomming con- >vinced of a different position. When this takes place, there is a >conscience decision to accept the new evidence. I agree that such a >choice cannot be made arbitrarily. Christians who expect people to change >their minds about things must give them good cause to do so. As one who grew up a dedicated Christian I certainly agree with this point. As I learned to evaulate my belief system (something definitely discouraged in the church) I found reality to be more and more different than what my religion taught me was supposed to be happening. I could see the benefits of my old beliefs, but also the disadvantages. At first the rift was heart- wrenching. Shedding long and closely held beliefs is usually that way. But as time went on the process became easier since the search for Truth became increasingly more important than the urge to hang on to previous concepts. >yet I think we also see that God's concern is for the redemption of the >Creation .... What did God do wrong? Was it a bad decision on His/Her part? Just how intelligent is a God that can create the universe but not oversee its perfect functioning? If you insist that God wanted to create the universe in a non-perfect manner doesn't this show an imperfection? Couldn't God as smart as He/She is figure out a way of obtaining the same result with a perfect universe? It appears that God loses either way. Either God was incapable of creating a perfect universe or was incapable of figuring out how to do so to achieve His/Her/its ends. Comments welcomed. Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/04/85)
>[From Chris Larson:] >God supposedly sent his only son, Jesus, to die for man's sins. Why? Because a payment is required for sin. Only one who is sinless could atone for the sins of mankind. Jesus was, and he offered his life freely. >If god is omnipotent, he could have just forgiven us. Why "kill" his >son? But Jesus really didn't die. He went to heaven, which is better >than being on earth. Then what was God so upset about? "Just forgiving" isn't always just. Why don't we "just forgive" people (even those who neither desire it or are sorry for their offence)? You certainly don't have to be omnipotent to forgive. It's one thing for one sinner to forgive another (which of us hasn't sinned ourselves?). But God cannot tolerate evil without it being atoned for. Jesus in human form suffered all the temptations, trials, sorrows and pain of death. It helps to rember this when I'm tempted to think, "But God doesn't know what I go though. I'm only human. How can he make demands on me?" I don't understand your last question. God wasn't upset to send his Son. He did it out of love. >It seems God was making a sacrifice. To whom? Himself? Huh? Is there >a more powerful being? If so, God can't be omnipotent. No, not *to* whom ... *for* whom. That is us; any who will accept it. >If God is omniscient, he knows what I'm thinking and what I will do. >Therefore, I don't have freedom of choice. If at some point in my life >I will have to choose between a or b, God knows I will pick "a". Therefore >I can't pick b. But yet he gets upset at people's choices, even though >he knows they had no alternative. Precognition does not imply predetermination. Knowing something in advance does not automatically mean wanting it to happen. >Some christians believe people make a choice whether or not to believe in >God. Bull. I could no more decide to believe in God or Christ than you >could decide not too. (Try it. Just not believe in God for a minute or so >and then switch back. Maybe then you'll be a born again christian). People decide for reasons other than just deciding. What reason would you give for me to try it? I wouldn't ask you to try it without reason. We're not talking about make-believe here (i.e. trying to believe when you really don't). >What really pisses me off is when some christians (read Jerry Falwell and >the like) say that christians are happier and more content than people of >other religions. How can they know? They must ask people who have been >both. Either they ask people who were x and switched to christianity, or >visa versa. I think we can deduce which method was used. What ninnies! >Do they seriously think they are getting an unbiased opinion? Good point here. I don't believe Christians are always happier than others either. But then, I think there are things more important than happiness. Not that I am unhappy, I'm not. I am content. But, if what the world calls happiness is your highest aim, you'd best pursue things other than Christianity. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (03/06/85)
Chris, you asked some very good questions. I guess the story that Jesus tells about the King and the debtor may be of some assistance on this point. This King had a servant who owed him about a million dollars. Well, obviously the slave could not pay back this money if it took his whole life. So he asked the King to have mercy on him and the King had compassion and forgave him the whole debt. Well, who footed the bill? Well, the KIng of course. You see it cost God something to forgive us our debt of sin, so Jesus, also being God, paid the bill. Just because God knows what you are going to do doesn't mean you don't have a choice. You do. Some doctrine says that God decides but I agree with you that it just doesn't make sense. God knows your choice but leaves you free to make it. So therefore He can hold you responsible for it. Some things about God are hard to understand, but if you seek the answers through prayer, reading the Bible and talking to other christians, the Holy Spirit will speak to you. karen
mckeeman@wanginst.UUCP (William McKeeman) (03/08/85)
> In article <109@gymble.UUCP> bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) writes: > > What did God do wrong? Was it a bad decision on His/Her part? Just how > intelligent is a God that can create the universe but not oversee its > perfect functioning? If you insist that God wanted to create the universe > in a non-perfect manner doesn't this show an imperfection? Couldn't God > as smart as He/She is figure out a way of obtaining the same result with > a perfect universe? It appears that God loses either way. Either God > was incapable of creating a perfect universe or was incapable of figuring > out how to do so to achieve His/Her/its ends. > > Comments welcomed. > > Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet Your problem, I think, is accepting that your view of a perfect universe might be different from God's view. There are just lots of speculations on how something that does not suit you might please God. Anger is not a sign of lack of power, as you imply. It might, for example, just be there to get your attention. It surely worked on Job. At best we seek through a glass, darkly. I have trouble with World War II, for instance. Yet I have faith that, in the end, God knows best. /s/ Bill McKeeman ~decvax!wanginst!mckeeman
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/08/85)
In article <347@oakhill.UUCP> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes: >I find it odd that a God which a) knows everything beforehand, b) had the >patience to create the entire universe and c) has unbounded love does >something as primitive as getting angry. One would expect such a God to >at least be slightly emotionally more mature than us mortal humans which are >merely creations. >This seems to be a perfect example of where man creates God in his own image. >"Well, God gets angry so when I'm angry its certainly excusable." >Another notable Biblical passage refers to God regretting that man was ever >made. Its hard to think that an intelligent God that knows the future would >regret the consequences of their own doing. The business about G-d making man in his own image seems to relate precisely to these details of emotion. The problem I see with this whole argument is that it assumes that any deity would have to exist in time in precisely the same way that we do, i.e., linearly. But if God exists "outside of time", then he would see all of history "simultaneously"; the phrase "knows everything beforehand" would therefore be misleading because it implies that the act of knowing takes place in time. And besides, the appeal to the reasonability of God is precisely the kind of back reasoning from man the copy to God the divine model the Mr. Bennet deplores. >If there is such a universal entity such as God I would think that such >Biblical passages would be blasphemous, or at least highly amusing. Is not amusement one and the same with anger? Are they not both emotions? Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (03/09/85)
In article <347@oakhill.UUCP> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes: >In article <109@gymble.UUCP> bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) writes: >> >>.......................................... God is upset by sin, and would >>be so if Christ died or not. God is angry at the killing of Jesus >>because it was murder, regardless of what good resulted. >> > >I find it odd that a God which a) knows everything beforehand, b) had the >patience to create the entire universe and c) has unbounded love does >something as primitive as getting angry. One would expect such a God to >at least be slightly emotionally more mature than us mortal humans which are >merely creations. > >This seems to be a perfect example of where man creates God in his own image. >"Well, God gets angry so when I'm angry its certainly excusable." It seems to me that it is a perfect example of man attributing motives to God which may not be even remotely accurate. There are several traits which seem to be properties of God as He has revealed Himself. One of these is a sort of unbounded love (though the word "love" may be an inexact description) but another is an absolute justice. I eventually reconciled this conflict as being a sort of tradeoff. He knew that His creations would eventually rebel and severely damage not only themselves, but the whole world, which He had given them. He chose to do this because He wanted to do it this way, and at the risk of seeming to compress the Eternal God into a merely human framework, I suspect that the dignity which was part of the Image of Himself which He gave His creatures, was inconsistent with His denial of their choice. I prefer this because it seems to be a more elegant theory than the one which postulates a God whose interaction with man is in the form of tantrums. Anger is a legitimate emotion. There is nothing about anger that makes it evil of itself. However, like all emotions, it must be balanced by reason, and it must not be allowed to fester itself into hatred. >Another notable Biblical passage refers to God regretting that man was ever >made. Its hard to think that an intelligent God that knows the future would >regret the consequences of their own doing. OR couldn't think of a better >way to run the world than to say "believe this or be doomed." Don't you think >that even a third-grader with an inventive mind could come up with a better >scenario? > >If there is such a universal entity such as God I would think that such >Biblical passages would be blasphemous, or at least highly amusing. I believe you are referring to the Genesis account of Noah, where God is said to "Repent that He had made mankind". My assertion again is that (I assume the existance of God here) the PERCEPTION of God is at fault. It is consistent with the model of a merciful and loving God, who is at the same time a just God. He draws a line at which point He decided that man has gotten to the point where the demands of Justice outweigh the demands of Mercy. As for third graders coming up with "better ways", well, perhaps some inventive third grader could come up with a scheme that might appear to be better on the surface, but it would lack sophistication. >As one who grew up a dedicated Christian I certainly agree with this point. >As I learned to evaulate my belief system (something definitely discouraged >in the church) ... Really?! Which version of "church" do you mean here? If you mean, in the church you grew up in, I grant you that they might discourage inquiry. But I haven't found that the many different churches which I have gone to showed any uniform readiness to supress thoughtful evaluation of beliefs. Most wouldn't let you become a Christian through them WITHOUT thoughful evaluation. Overall, I haven't noticed any greater popular anti-intellectual sentiment inside the church than outside it. Not that there isn't any, just that it seems to be a more global thing. >What did God do wrong? Was it a bad decision on His/Her part? Just how >intelligent is a God that can create the universe but not oversee its >perfect functioning? This falls under the heading of "tradeoffs". And incidentally, it wasn't that God did anything wrong, but rather that man, having been created with the capacity for choosing, chose to rebel. >If you insist that God wanted to create the universe >in a non-perfect manner doesn't this show an imperfection? Couldn't God >as smart as He/She is figure out a way of obtaining the same result with >a perfect universe? It appears that God loses either way. Either God >was incapable of creating a perfect universe or was incapable of figuring >out how to do so to achieve His/Her/its ends. >Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet If God set out to create the PERFECT universe and failed to do so, it might show an imperfection. However, this argument fell into disuse around the time of Voltaire. God apparently chose to create the universe which we see around us. Since this is clearly not "the best of all possible worlds" then all we have shown is that God MAY have failed. There is still the possibility that He set out to create a Universe which would not remain perfect, since He would get more of what He wanted from it. Since He has not clearly demonstrated His goals in the creation of this universe, we can only speculate about them. Hutch
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (03/11/85)
Before we get into another debate (debacle?) about omniscience/ominpresence
again, like we did last year about this time, let me offer a few points.
Just because God knows everything that was, and is, and will be, does not mean
that no one has free will. You see, as far as we mortals are concerned, we
DO have free will, because WE are not omniscient nor omnipresent. If we were
to assume, for example, that there was no God (I don't think so, but anyhow),
that would not change the facts that our futures are determined from the day
we are born, in that in the day that we die we will have lived out our lives
according to the pattern that they were lived, and not according to any other
pattern. Put in simpler terms, after all is said and done, we did certain
things and did not do others and whether or not someone was around who knew
exactly what we were going to do does not change the fact that we did it any-
how. (If you are one of those persons, like me, who believe that the future
exists in much the same way as the present and the past, you will understand
what I said a little better.) It's not as if we have the options of forking
off clones of ourselves to live out certain decisions, terminating when the
results are unpleasant.
Now, letting God back into the picture does not change things. When He
created humans, he did not wish them to eat of the tree of knowledge. In that,
he withheld from us the ability to be like He is, to know all things. There-
fore, for every decision we make, we have a choice to do or not do something.
You can't say "God knows that I am not going to belive in Him, so I won't
belive in Him", because God is not pulling the strings on any of us, making
us do this and that. Rather, he is watching the story of the universe unfold
(rather like Iluvatar watching his Themes unfold in "The Silmarillion", if you
are into fantasy fiction).
The other point that is raised a lot in this newsgroup is "Why did God create
humans at all, if He knew they were going to fall and be sinners, and He then
had to send Jesus to save them, and have him killed ... Why didn't he just
leave well enough alone?" The answer to that is based on whether or not you
believe the Devil exists (if you don't, hit your 'n' key now).
In the beginning of the universe (before Man came to be), God created the an-
gels. (Don't ask me why he created the angels. Like Iluvatar, he wanted to
create beings to inhabit his creation, I guess.) Anyhow, one of his angels
(Lucifer) was the most powerful he created. Lucifer was unhappy with just
being the most powerful -- he wanted to be like God, and create his own things,
and order the universe the way he wanted it. (Lucifer was a lot like Melkor.)
There was a war in heaven, and the some of the angels rebelled. God and his
faithful angels (like the Ainur) were victorious over Lucifer and the rebel-
lious angels, and banished them to Hell. Afterwards, God decided to create
a new being (unlike the angels) called Man (no sexism intended) who would
inhabit a place called Earth. God wanted to show Lucifer and his rebellious
friends that His love and mercy were greater than Lucifer's hatred and jeal-
ousy. When Man was first created, God gave him everything (except the
tree of life and knowledge). Man had food, warmth -- everything he possibly
could have wanted or needed. But Lucifer had a stake in Man also, because
he wanted to prove to God that he was the mightier, and that with his tricks
and lies he could seduce anyone away from God's goodness. So, he tempted
Man in the garden, and Man fell, and you know the rest of the story. (A lot
of this is like Melkor's banishment from Arda.)
So you see, God was not out to create humans just to see them suffer. He
really wanted to give them all they needed. You can blame the devil for
enticing humans to fall, but you can only blame humans for actually falling,
because they had everything they needed, but wanted still more, and were
tempted and fell. No one made them fall, they had a choice, and chose to
take more than they needed. Likewise, we humans have a choice.
The Biblical account of this can be found in the books of Isaiah and Daniel,
I believe.
--
... hey, we've gotta get out of this place,
there's got to be something better than this ...
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo
gregbo%houxm.uucp@harvard.arpacb@hlwpc.UUCP (Carl Blesch) (03/12/85)
>God supposedly sent his only son, Jesus, to die for man's sins. Why? >If god is omnipotent, he could have just forgiven us. Why "kill" his >son? It has to do with God's perfect justice. God declared that the penalty for sin was death (read - separation from God). Since he is a perfect and unchangeable God, he couldn't go back on his word and excuse our sins without the death penalty being paid. But since He loved his people so much and didn't want to see them all die (i.e. be separated from Him), he sent Jesus to pay that penalty for all. How could Jesus do this? By living a perfect (sinless) life on earth. The death of anyone else wouldn't do, because those who sin (i.e. all people) deserve death. Only the death of someone who didn't deserve it would pay the price in God's eyes. This is what high-falutin' theologians call the concept of "penal substitutionary atonement." By putting our faith in Jesus, the price he paid is credited to us. >It seems God was making a sacrifice. In a way, yes. Jesus, who was God incarnate, made the sacrifice. >To whom? Himself? No, to God the Father. >Is there a more powerful being? If so, God can't be omnipotent. While Jesus was no less God than God the Father, there is a "reporting relationship" in the trinity. Jesus is fully God, but he "reports" to God the Father. The Holy Spirit is fully God, but it "reports" to Jesus. This analogy to the business world is a good one, because while subordinates report to superiors, both are fully and equally human. >If God is omniscient, he knows what I'm thinking and what I will do. >Therefore, I don't have freedom of choice. If at some point in my life >I will have to choose between a or b, God knows I will pick "a". Therefore >I can't pick b. But yet he gets upset at people's choices, even though >he knows they had no alternative. Just because he knows what you will do doesn't mean he orders you to do it. The problem here is one of perspective. The following explanation is from a C. S. Lewis book(sorry, can't remember which): Our perspective of time is one-dimensional. We can look back on a time line and see what has happened, and look forward and foresee what will happen in a limited way. But God can see the whole time line at once. He is not bound in time like we are. Another theological explanation to the above problem -- God has to give freedom of choice, because if he didn't we'd all be robots. And as robots, we wouldn't be capable of loving him fully, since true love cannot be ordered, programmed, extracted or coerced. Since God is a god of love, to not offer the freedom necessary to express love would be contrary to his nature. >The only way out of this is if God doesn't know absolutely everything. >Therefore, he isn't omniscient. Since omniscience is a power, he can't >be omnipotent. I think the above two explanations are "ways out" that don't compromise God's omniscience or omnipotence. >Some christians believe people make a choice whether or not to believe in >God. Bull. I agree, to an extent. Many Christians believe that man, on his own, is so mired in sin that he cannot choose to repent of his sin and accept the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ without first being moved by the Holy Spirit to do so. However, once moved by the Holy Spirit, the commitment to follow Christ has to be made by the individual. This becomes pretty complicated, and I'd prefer it if a trained theologian takes over the explanation from here. >What really pisses me off is when some christians (read Jerry Falwell and >the like) say that christians are happier and more content than people of >other religions. I'm a Christian, and that pisses me off too (I'm a bit short on Christian love and patience at times, I'll admit). I've seen troubled Christians and happy non-Christians, and I won't even stick my neck out and say that MOST Christians are happier, etc. In fact, there are times when being a Christian is tougher, which can mean less happiness and contentment in the short term. Like when you have to deal with sins that the secular world thinks nothing of. However, a Christian who is faithful will overcome these short-term disappointments and achieve a joy and peace that come from being in conformity to God's will. >Chris Larsen at CMU Carl Blesch
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/18/85)
From Hutch: Anger is a legitimate emotion. There is nothing about anger that makes it evil of itself. However, like all emotions, it must be balanced by reason, and it must not be allowed to fester itself into hatred. Does this mean that hatred is an illegitimate emotion? How can one tell the legitimate ones from the illegitimate ones, then? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (03/20/85)
>>Anger is a legitimate emotion. There is nothing about anger that makes >>it evil of itself. However, like all emotions, it must be balanced by >>reason, and it must not be allowed to fester itself into hatred. [HUTCH] > Does this mean that hatred is an illegitimate emotion? How can one tell > the legitimate ones from the illegitimate ones, then? [LAURA] As Hutch said, by how well they are balanced out by reason. If your reasons for having those emotions are irrational (i.e., "I hate you because you have more money than I do"), than the emotion is "illegitimate". What's more, an action carried out based on an irrational emotion that harms other people is also "illegitimate", if indeed one intends to classify such things through "legitimacy". Emotions themselves cannot be "evil" (in the sense of harmful) except if they incite to harmful action. They may be erroneous, based on misconceptions, or just plain irrational (even counterproductive), but that doesn't make them "harmful". (Actually, if it results in counterproductiveness dues to certain (in-)actions taken, then that may be harmful.) {Uh, excuse me, Laura, but is that you posting to net.religion.christian?} -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (03/22/85)
[ prayer bead to choke line eater ] In article <5288@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >From Hutch: > > Anger is a legitimate emotion. There is nothing about anger that makes > it evil of itself. However, like all emotions, it must be balanced by > reason, and it must not be allowed to fester itself into hatred. > >Does this mean that hatred is an illegitimate emotion? How can one tell >the legitimate ones from the illegitimate ones, then? > >Laura Creighton >utzoo!laura So pick on me for my lousy phrasing, why doncha! :=} The reason I consider hatred to be an "illegitimate" emotion is that I don't consider it to really be an emotion. I see I am being obscure. OK, well, it's like this. I refer to "emotions" when I talk about what used to be called "passions", that is, emotional states which come and go in relatively short order. Things like Love, or Hate, are actually HABITS which are formed by deliberate CHOICES! That is, I chose to nurture the affection, attraction and caritas which I felt for my dear friend Penny and deliberately built it into Love. This was not a cold, manipulative, icy-hearted thing, but it was a decision which I had to make. I also chose not to nurture the annoyance, anger, frustration and hurt which I have felt over some of Rich Rosen's articles and letters, which would have formed Hate, and instead have been concentrating on the more positive things which I find in his communications. (Sorry for using you as an example, Rich, but you must admit that everyone will understand what I mean.) So, the habit of love is the almost automatic surgence of positive emotions which I have nurtured towards a person, and the habit of hate is the similarly automatic surgence of anger, vengefulness, etc. which I might unknowingly have nurtured. I think this is why Jesus tells us not to let the sun set on our anger. If you let it fester, it can form the habit of hatred. What this means to me as a Christian is that I must recognize what my feelings are, but that I need not be controlled by them and that I need not deny or suppress them. Hutch
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/22/85)
> I'm not sure I quite follow what you mean. God is upset by sin, and would > be so if Christ died or not. God is angry at the killing of Jesus > because it was murder, regardless of what good resulted. Jesus accomplished his death. He committed his spirit. Was it murder? > Actually, which religion makes people the happiest is really > irrelevant: true religion is following God, and if he says to do things > that make you miserable, you'd better do them. Bravo! > In the case of Christianity, > we see God as loving, so he would not deliberately make his people miserable, > yet I think we also see that God's concern is for the redemption of the > Creation, hence he sometimes calls on believers to sacrifice and perhaps be > less happy. Bottom line: who's happiest doesn't mean much, and Christians > should not expect to be. He WOULD make his people deliberately miserable. If my daughter doesn't want to do her homework, I will DELIBERATELY make her miserable by making her do it. (Actually, this has never come up, but that's what I'd do if it did.) Last sentence is completely correct. But we can expect to be joyful, even if we're not happy. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- | "...still waiting for my name..." |