From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:59:55 GMT

gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

><sbuckley.714458974@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) said:
>>Scott Gibson writes:
>>>Stephen Buckley writes:
>[worship]
>>>>  he doesn't need it, he deserves it.  worship is extreme gratitude
>>>>to the creator for being created. [my definition :) other def'ns exist]
>>
>>>Okay, then, why does an omnipotent being reward "extreme gratitude", and
>>>punish its lack?   Why does He even care one iota whether you're grateful
>>>or not?
>>
>>  because he created the universe with a sense of moral good inherent.

>Remember you said this.

>>why because he is just: he rewards obedience and punishes disobedience.

>He punished the children of the enemies of his chosen people.  how did
>they disobey him?  By being born to the wrong people?

  well, i'm not going into this anymore.  i'll mail you my faq on this. :)
i've responded to it 6 times in the last 3 weeks alone.  what i will say,
tho, is that if you accept [for the sake of argument] that god exists
and he is knowable in the bible, and you look to the bible for justification
for that and all the other really popular horrendous injustices people love
to dangle in front of christians, then you will find a logically coherent
explanation.  but if you don't buy god's existence or his knowability
in the bible, i can't even hope to show you how he claims to be just.

>>if you don't want god to be just, then don't believe in him.

>I don't follow the logic of this statement.

  i guess what i mean is that god presents himself in the bible in an
internally coherent manner and he is knowable and appealing to people
based on who he is.  if you don't accept the biblical account of him and
his relationship with us, don't believe in him.  i'm not going to waste
my breath, mind and bandwidth twisting your arm.

>>>>  because we didn't create reality and everything and require of us
>>>>to acknowledge his creation instead of rebelling and worshipping other
>>>>things unworthy of worship.
>>
>>>Oh, so you agree that God _is_ a vengeful, jealous being?  How does
>>>this jibe with God being "good?"
>>
>>  god is veangeful and jealous.  

>Now, since your god "created the universe with a sense of moral good inherent"
>it follows that being vengful and jealous is a "good thing".  Is this
>correct?

  no.  this is absurd.  read the bible.  look there for the nature of
god as veangeful, jealous, loving, just, etc.  i'm not going to try
to answer these questions especially since you do not respect the source
for my answers.  what is fine for god is not necessarily fine for us because
we are not god, and we did not create the universe.  it's a double standard,
yes, but you're free to disbelieve in it.

>>                         without god being just, there is no moral
>>imperative or precedent in the universe and we're free to do anything
>>without thought to whether it's good or bad.  

>Your logic doesn't parse.  Could you explain how being able to do anything
>we wanted to do would be "bad"?

  read the bible for the long list of instances where god objects to
human behaviour.  but i'll just mention one.  in eden, he said don't
eat of this one tree.  *we disobeyed him*.  this is the root of all our
sins.  god has ideas for what is good, absolutely good and binding on us
all.  so.  there are ways [knowable in the bible] for us to live that
god commands, and there are ways to live that he says not to do.  since
we have the freedom to do whatever is within our capacity, some of what
we can do, god considers bad.

>>                                 beyond that i choose to not judge god's
>>motives.  

>That's because you are afraid of him.

  and you should be more careful when you claim to know the motivations
of other people.  

>>          i think it was c.s. lewis [who everyone can trash as usual if
>>they want to] who said something like god's seeming injustice is merely
>>a source of further wisdom to be sought.  but i suppose you'll blow
>>that to pieces too.

>Either you believe that certain actions are heinous *regardless* of who
>does them, or you rationalize them away.

  no, god works by different rules than he makes for us.

>>>>  god has presented an autobiography and a personal manifestation to
>>>>tell us about himself.  both jesus and god's word live and work today.
>>
>>>That's funny, some other Christian just told me that the OT is _not_
>>>the word of God.  So, where's this autobiography?
>>
>>  the bible is the inspired, inerrant word of god.  

>"Inerrent"?  Are you aware that the bible speaks of rabbits chewing cuds,
>and locusts having 4 legs?  Are you aware that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all
>differ as to the account of Jesus' death?

  i can't see how you can be writing these questions if you understood
what it means for the bible to be inspired by god and inerrant.  logically,
the argument i make about it is circular because it ultimately rests in
the inerrancy and divine inspiration of the bible.  and i get the sense
that you really do know about it, but you just don't believe it.  so
we're each trying to convince the other of something neither of us
is prepared to accept.  

>>                                                    many disagree with me
>>and with all other christians who believe that.  they're free to believe
>>it is not god's autobiography.  i believe it is.

>It can't be.  It doesn't describe god's life and evolution, it supposedly 
>describes *man's* life and evolution.

  who says god has to tell us everything about him?  mightn't he only need
to tell us all we need to live a wonderful, flourishing life?

>>>>  in this world as it is, we have turned from god and need to turn back
>>>>to him in our free will.
>>
>>>This isn't an answer.  God could make himself unmistakenly known to
>>>all of us.  At that time, we could each decide to become "extremely
>>>grateful", or not.  Free will, right?  Why doesn't God do this?
>>
>>  i believe he has, in the bible.  clearly this isn't good enough for you.
>>i suppose you're getting as tired as this answer as i am in writing it.  :)

>It's a non-answer.

  then i'm going to stop giving it.

>...
>>>>  some sects have radically perverted the essential essence of jesus.
>>
>>>This isn't an answer.  You restated the condition.  _Why_ is this
>>>so?
>>
>>  ask the mormons and jehovah's witnesses.  i won't speak for them.

>Why are they wrong or "perverted" while you are right?

  what i said was that they have perverted the essential essence of 
jesus.  the jw's regularly re-write the bible to fit their arbitrary
feelings about life and the mormons have added tons of stuff that i'm
just not going to go into.

>>  i understand the questions you have scott,  but doesn't it sound like
>>we're going in circles?  you ask questions, i answer, you don't accept
>>my answer, you ask something else, repeat cycle.  i suppose we're both
>>growing weary of the cycle.

>You are giving non-responsive answers.  I don't blame you, given that you
>are using the bible as your source material.  I've read it and studied it
>and I know why you have non-responsive answers.  I was hoping that you
>might look at it in a different light - reason and logic.

  man, you're making too many presumptions about me.  i spent 10 years
critiquing the bible in the light of reason and logic.  i spent an entire
year actively reconciling my critiques and found the bible to be sound.
i didn't just open it one morning and say, "oh, this must be true."  much
more thot went into it or else i wouldn't be spending so much time
talking about it on the net and in other places.