From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is satan really evil?
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:55:00 GMT

pwhite@ems.cdc.com writes:
>
>TO be without God is to be in eternal suffering. They are one and the
>same. 

I am without any god but myself, and I am not really suffering at all.
In fact, I'd call myself quite happy.  What's the basis for your
assertion?

>I assume that God is just and that he can see into the future. So rather
>than to say he killed "innocent babies" in the flood, it seems much more
>likely that he saved humanity from a fate worse even than the flood.

Mm, there you go, assuming things about your god again...

>Evolution is a theory, nothing more. It doesn't make much sense as a 
>theory.

Huh?!?  Makes perfect sense to me!  WHere do you find fault with it?

>Creation is far easier to believe than evolution. 

Agreed.  And it's also far easier to believe the sun and stars move
around the earth, and that the earth is flat, than that the earth is a
planet orbiting the sun.

>As far as conflicts with biology or physics, you'll need to get a bit
>more specific as to the conflicts if you'd like an answer.

Okay, how's this: On the first day God created the heavens; on the
second day he created light.  How could the galaxy exist without
light for a whole twenty-four hours?

>As far as why you should believe the Bible, that is your choice. 
>If you're looking for recommendations, I do recommend it highly. I have
>been studying it for over 20 years now and find no flaw or contradiction
>in it.

There's also no flaw or contradiction in the popular stories about
Santa Claus.  Does that make them true?  If you need more detail in
your fantasies, read the _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy by J. R. R.
Tolkien.  Does the fact that they're very detailed make them true?

>It's crowning recommendation is that it talks of a relationship
>with our creator that we can have because of the sacrifice of
>Jesus Christ.

Read some stuff by Richard Bach.  Its crowning achievment is that it
talks of a relationship we can have with the world around us to mold
our own destinies, and grow as people.  I think Bach paints a far
prettier picture than Jesus, because Bach doesn't require that anybody
die; does that make Bash's stuff true?

>Satan portrays himself in a great many ways. The result of believing him
>is always negative. He is the father of lies, so anything he says is not
>to be trusted as being true in the first place.

Who told you this?  Maybe God is the slicker liar?

>A problem with inventing your own morality, is what do you base it on
>and why can you trust it? Suppose there is something really wrong
>with your morality, but you don't see it. 

Agreed!  Try applying those words to yourself.  You base your morality
on your God, but he's done some pretty immoral things in his time --
just look at the suffering going on in the world.  Suppose there is
something really wrong with your morality, but you don't see it?

>What's so great about weakening religion, if there is really nothing to 
>it anyway? Certainly one must ask why that could be considered kind.
>Also, the fact that you suppose that it can be weakened says that you
>recognize that there really is something to it in the first place. Which
>says that one ought not to go about weakening religion, but investigating
>it.

Which we've done -- and found it lacking.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  Nolite te bastardes     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /  carborundorum.                                               -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc