lindborg@mirror.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (04/21/91)
In article <Apr.13.22.06.12.1991.11577@athos.rutgers.edu> RJB@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu (Rich Belcinski) writes: >lindborg@basin.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) says: >>In article <Apr.5.04.11.50.1991.10252@athos.rutgers.edu> >>lindborg@snow.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: > The argument that "I had no choice" simply doesn't wash. We are all > given choices. I would not say that our wills are "free" (whatever > THAT means), but the essential choice between right and wrong will > be there. You are, of course, assuming there is some clear cut criteria for me to determine the "rightness" of worshiping your god as opposed to the "wrongness" of rejecting Him. You make it appear as though I can make an informed decision based on the facts that God exists but, because I am evil, I will choose to reject Him. This, as you said, simply does not wash. > Does that mean that (according to Christian beliefs) that you're > condemned because you've got a "skeptical mind?" Let me ask this: > do you think you need to committ intellectual suicide to believe > that Jesus was the son of God? No. Keep in mind I spent the better part of my life as a practicing Christian. I do not feel I was somehow intellectually inferior. > If your answer is "yes," then > consider also applying your "skeptical mind" to addressing the > question "did King Charlemagne ever exist?" This class, is the definition of a "straw man". Creating an argument that was not set forth and then sumarily destroying it. If you have a complex about your the intellectual viability of Christianity this is something you will have to deal with on your own... [rest of straw man argument deleted] >>Of course you are assuming the truth of the Bible... I, however, do not. > The reference would be relevant if it was considered to be true (or > at least has the POSSIBILITY of being true) by both parties. Am I > correct in assuming that there is no way that you'd consider that > the Bible could even *possibly* be true? I believe the Bible to be written by men (males of the human race) in much the same way every other religious text created throughout the history of the world are also products of human minds to serve human needs. >>I should think that I wont mind being separated from the so-called >>"love" that involves the eternal torment and pain of the majority of the >>human population for the sins committed within the period of a lifetime. > You are correct in that it is hard to see the "justice" in the above. > I think the crux of your argument (to paraphrase) is that "Your god > cannot be a loving god if he would inflict an eternity of punishment > for the comparitively small crime of sins in 50+ years of life." > The way I would answer is based on your two implicit assumptions: [unrelated assumption deleted] > 2) God metes out eternal torment and pain. I don't see > the necessity of this particular statement. God is complete... he doesn't > *need* external sources of satisfaction. Causing another to be in pain > isn't necessary. But it happens here quite a lot and (according to many) happens in the here after for nonbelievers too. Perhaps He doesn't *need* external sources of satisfaction... perhaps He *wants* them.... You have failed to answer God's motivation in creating a race of beings and then expecting them to behave and THINK in a way that satisfies Him. If they don't he punishes them for eternity. This was the crux of my argument and you ignored it completely... > However [crucial] God is holy. He will not tolerate unrighteousness in > his presence. Again, then, what was God's motivation for creating a being capable of the 'unrighteousness' that humans are. He had to have known before hand that mankind would "fall" into sin etc... what's the point. > Hell, then, is eternal separation from God. God doesn't inflict the pain > in hell... it is the *desire* to be with God that inflicts the pain. > (This is probably unbiblical... but there's freedom for interpretation here). Quite a lot apparently... > The Bible speaks in metaphors in many places. Many of the statements about > hell are, in fact, metaphorical. So says you. I could reference MANY people who would disagree with you. Further if the Bible speaks metaphorically about hell what about the rest of it? Christ does not appear to be speaking metaphorically when he was railing on about hell. How do you determine when the Bible is being figurative as opposed to literal? Anything that is difficult to rationalize is figurative? How convenient... >> ... then we are mere play things for His amusement. He can break his toys when >> they displease Him (as we see he does quite often in the Bible)... > I guess you're free to believe that. But in that belief, also know that > in your mind you've built-up a "straw-man" christian faith that's > only suitable for a seven-year-old Well then I know a lot of 7 year old Christians... Many people believe in a literal hell. Are you saying they are somehow less intelligent than yourself? Jeff Lindborg "... if there's any justice in the sky, if there's a reason to live or die, expose yourself, destroy our fears, loose you mask!" Queen
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/25/91)
In article <Apr.21.01.42.12.1991.19303@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@mirror.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >I believe the Bible to be written by men (males of the human race) in much >the same way every other religious text created throughout the history of the >world are also products of human minds to serve human needs. (The author the "The Book of J" may disagree with you on this one. He suggests that "J" [one of the theoretical Old Testament authors] may have been a women. [Female of the human race].) > Again, then, what was God's motivation for creating a being capable of the > 'unrighteousness' that humans are. He had to have known before hand that > mankind would "fall" into sin etc... what's the point. Well, let's see, we're created in God's image right? (Personally I don't believe we could be created in God's physical image. Assuming that God existed before the cosmos, if he had lungs he would have quickly died.) Therefore we must be like God spiritually (as suggested by Genesis). In order to create humans which were incapable of sin, God would needed to have created us with no free will. (No freedom to choose between good and evil.) Humans would need to be automatons. We would therefore be very poor images of God. (I seem to be suggesting that the serpant aided in the completion of the full creation of mankind [at least in the second creation story] interesting...). Think of the parent who must eventually allow their children "to make their own mistakes", even if those mistakes mean that the children will disobey their parents, and their parents will punish them. (I can't help it, I love the image of "God the Father"). The parent knows that unless they give their children the freedom to make their own mistakes, they will never learn, and they will never mature. Freedom to make mistakes does not mean freedom from consequences. We as children of God are responsible for the consequences of our actions, just as when we were children we were responsible to our parents for the consequences of our actions. You imply that a "loving" God would not punish his children. I assume your parents punished you as a child. Would you say that they didn't love you? Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton >"... if there's any justice in the sky, if there's a reason to live or die, >expose yourself, destroy our fears, loose you mask!" > Queen "Oh yes, we'll keep on tryin' We'll tread that fine line Oh oh we'll keep on tryin' Till the end of time." Queen
lindborg@deer.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (04/29/91)
In article <Apr.24.21.18.01.1991.7332@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >In article <Apr.21.01.42.12.1991.19303@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@mirror.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >>I believe the Bible to be written by men (males of the human race) in much >>the same way every other religious text created throughout the history of the >>world are also products of human minds to serve human needs. >(The author the "The Book of J" may disagree with you on this one. He >suggests that "J" [one of the theoretical Old Testament authors] may >have been a women. [Female of the human race].) Yes, and what else does he suggest? He says that it was probably a PLAY written by a woman (I've read the book in question). One of the reasons he comes to the conclusion it must have been a woman writing the sections credited to the J source is that these sections don't treat women at objects owned by men as much of the rest of the bible does. I assume, then, you don't buy this man's hypothesis? Or just the selected parts you like... >In order to create humans which were incapable of sin, God >would needed to have created us with no free will. (No freedom to >choose between good and evil.) Humans would need to be automatons. We >would therefore be very poor images of God. Yes but if we are capable of sin it stands to reason that at some point we would employ that option given the time and numbers of humans God must surely had anticipated would swarm the earth. If NOT ONE PERSON employed sin then I would argue that it was not TRUE free will. So by exercising that free will in a way that displeases God we 'earn' our spot in hell. >Think of the parent who must eventually allow their children "to make >their own mistakes", even if those mistakes mean that the children will >disobey their parents, and their parents will punish them. (I can't >help it, I love the image of "God the Father"). The parent knows that >unless they give their children the freedom to make their own mistakes, >they will never learn, and they will never mature. This is one of the most over-used annalagies in Christianity... God the "Father" if fine if He would reach down and spank us each time we get out of hand. However, we don't get such interaction and many times (unless we are told) we don't even realize we are sinning. My father always took care of the situation right up front when he caught me doing something wrong and used the belt right there... sent a pretty clear message. We get no such message (clear of otherwise) from your god. The only interaction I'll get from God (according to you) will be when I'm being 'sentenced' to hell after I die. At this point its obviously too late to do anything about it. It would seem that God weilds a much bigger instrument of punishment then my father's belt, and uses it in a very unproductive way. Its not an instrument of reform as my dad's belt, but an instrument revenge employed rather widely across the human population He supposedly loves. >You imply that a "loving" God would not punish his children. I assume >your parents punished you as a child. Would you say that they didn't >love you? If by "punishment" you mean my father kept out of my view and didn't make his presence known at all... doing nothing but keeping track of everything I did wrong and then picking some random moment to burn me to death for the wrong I committed, then no... my father did not "punish" me. He was more loving than that. Jeff Lindborg
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (04/29/91)
In article <Apr.24.21.18.01.1991.7332@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes:
Freedom to make mistakes does not mean freedom from consequences. We as
children of God are responsible for the consequences of our actions,
just as when we were children we were responsible to our parents for the
consequences of our actions.
You imply that a "loving" God would not punish his children. I assume
your parents punished you as a child. Would you say that they didn't
love you?
Would a loving parent torment and torture their child? I think not.
That is called child abuse, unless you are a particular sort of
Christian, in which case it is called "divine judgment". The loving
punishment of a parent stops somewhat short of the demonic actions
many Christians like to attribute to God.
-mibtblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/02/91)
In article <Apr.28.19.27.04.1991.20904@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@deer.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: (Jeff had stated that he believed the Bible was written by men [males]) (I attempting to make a minor point suggested that the author of the "Book of `J'" felt that one of the theoretical authors of the Old Testament was a woman [when will I learn?]. To which Jeff replies...) >Yes, and what else does he suggest? He says that it was probably a PLAY written >by a woman (I've read the book in question). One of the reasons he comes to the >conclusion it must have been a woman writing the sections credited to the J source >is that these sections don't treat women at objects owned by men as much of the >rest of the bible does. I assume, then, you don't buy this man's hypothesis? Or >just the selected parts you like... As I have stated before, I do not believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible. (Maybe someday I will, but not today.) I believe that it would be farer to say that the stories of the Old Testament are meant to instruct. Whether Adam, Eve et al existed or not, the stories in the Old Testament are provided to teach us about mankind, and our relationship with God. To me it really does not matter a great deal whether or not these people existed, what is of importance is why did the authors choose to include these accounts in the Bible. (What lessons are we to learn from Caine and Able?) While one of the theoretical authors was quite keen on numbers and such, J leaned more toward human interest. (Would you say this is a fair representation?) >>In order to create humans which were incapable of sin, God >>would needed to have created us with no free will. (No freedom to >>choose between good and evil.) Humans would need to be automatons. We >>would therefore be very poor images of God. > >Yes but if we are capable of sin it stands to reason that at some point we >would employ that option given the time and numbers of humans God must >surely had anticipated would swarm the earth. If NOT ONE PERSON employed >sin then I would argue that it was not TRUE free will. So by exercising >that free will in a way that displeases God we 'earn' our spot in hell. > >>Think of the parent who must eventually allow their children "to make >>their own mistakes", even if those mistakes mean that the children will >>disobey their parents, and their parents will punish them. (I can't >>help it, I love the image of "God the Father"). The parent knows that >>unless they give their children the freedom to make their own mistakes, >>they will never learn, and they will never mature. > >This is one of the most over-used annalagies in Christianity... God the >"Father" if fine if He would reach down and spank us each time we get out of >hand. However, we don't get such interaction and many times (unless we are >told) we don't even realize we are sinning. My father always took care of >the situation right up front when he caught me doing something wrong and used >the belt right there... sent a pretty clear message. We get no such message >(clear of otherwise) from your god. The only interaction I'll get from God >(according to you) will be when I'm being 'sentenced' to hell after I die. >At this point its obviously too late to do anything about it. On the contrary. You have a conscience. Paul makes the point that even those who do not have the Law have been given their consciences to remind them of what is right and what is wrong. >>You imply that a "loving" God would not punish his children. I assume >>your parents punished you as a child. Would you say that they didn't >>love you? > >If by "punishment" you mean my father kept out of my view and didn't make his >presence known at all... doing nothing but keeping track of everything I did wrong >and then picking some random moment to burn me to death for the wrong I committed, >then no... my father did not "punish" me. > He was more loving than that. You apparantly claim that God has not made his presense know to you. Well, your parents told you, but you didn't believe them. The Bible told you, but you didn't believe it. Something deep inside of you tells you, but you deny it. The world around you speaks testimony, but you choose to ignore it. What would it take for you to believe? A voice booming from the heavens? Some nice looking guy with a white beard saying, "Hi, I'm God, and you've really been screwing up lately..."? Our justice system says that ignorance of the law is no excuse. (You can get punnished for a crime even though you had no way of knowing what you were doing was illegal.) God's laws have been presented to you, will you blame God because *you chose* to ignore them, and he may hold you to task? Remember, Jesus said that all your sins can be forgiven, (except a sin against the spirit), will our justice system give you a deal like that? Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
scott@clmqt.marquette.mi.us (Scott Reynolds) (05/03/91)
In article <Apr.21.01.42.12.1991.19303@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@mirror.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >>>I should think that I wont mind being separated from the so-called >>>"love" that involves the eternal torment and pain of the majority of the >>>human population for the sins committed within the period of a lifetime. Whoa, wait just a minute here. "Eternal torment and pain" is not something that you can support, except by listening to a specific denomination's or individual's doctrine. Note the not-so-subtle difference between the phrases "eternal punishment" and "eternal punishing." It is unfortunate that so many people miss this, even people who should really know better. >You have failed to answer God's motivation in creating a race of beings >and then expecting them to behave and THINK in a way that satisfies Him. >If they don't he punishes them for eternity. This was the crux of my >argument and you ignored it completely... First let me state that eternal punishment need only happen once, not continuing on forever. A quite reasonable answer to your argument is simply this: it is far more rewarding to be loved by somebody by their choice rather than by forcing them to do so by your own choice. -- scott@clmqt.marquette.MI.US | Scott Reynolds - + - Enterprise Information System | Revive us, oh Lord! |