From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 15:29:08 GMT

In article <adams.703343481@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>
>>In article <adams.703284892@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>
>>Many Christians *do* seem to limit, in their minds, what God can do.  I
>>find it quite strange.
>Me too.  Since God is limitless, He may do anything He choses.  And any
>Christian who complains may expect to get exactly the same response that
>Job did.

You realize, of course, the implications of this?  Namely, that either
everything you see around you is the way God intends it, or God doesn't
particularly care how things are.  This gets back to the idea that God
appears to be either apathetic or malicious.

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that.  There exists suffering
in the world that results from the construction of the universe.  But
there also exists joy in the world that results from exactly the same
thing.

So: God is either apathetic, or he is both malicious and loving at the
same time (for if one blames God for the natural evil in the world, one
must thank God for the natural good in the world at the same time).

A *lot* of Christians, and members of other religions as well, see their
God as being responsible for the natural good while *not* being responsible
for the natural evil.  This, of course, is an inconsistent stance to take.
You can't be the creator of the universe and be responsible for only *one*
natural aspect of your creation.  As the creator of the universe, you would
be responsible for *all* such aspects.

>>>As for non-believers, there are a number of views among Christian
>>>theologians past and present.  Some believed that God continues to work on
>>>souls of those who have died, so that in the end, all souls are saved.
>>>Ireneaus wrote along these lines.  In his theology, every single soul is
>>>saved.  That would include Hitler, Ted Bundy, etc.
>>Interesting viewpoint, that.  Quite laid back, I must say.  :-)
>No kidding.  Augustine basically won this arguement...Ireneaus didn't
>believe in `perfect' creation, either.  Humans were created imperfect, and
>grow to be more perfect.  This continues after physical death.  Augustine
>was big on original sin, etc.

...and original sin "won".  Figures.

>>But it does make you wonder: if everyone is saved like that, then what's
>>there to worry about?  Just do your best and the rest is taken care of.
>Yep.  One of the reasons I think Ireneus lost the arguement - the Church
>would have had no authority over men....

Sounds about right to me.

>>Definitely not a philosophy that someone with a fundamentalist attitude
>>would agree with (it's too laid back :-)  ).
>Ireneus basic premise, if I recall correctly, was that a perfectly good
>God could never condemn a soul permanantly to Hell.

That's *not* a premise, if you ask me.  That's a logical conclusion!
Based, of course, on the common usage of the word "good".  Augustine
apparently used a twisted definition of "good" to describe his God...

I suppose it's possible that the common usage of the word "good" has
changed a lot between then and now, but I doubt it...

>>...In any case, thanks for answering my question.
>Thanx for listening.

Likewise!

> -Steve


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc