From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:57:33 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <exuptr.407.714853033@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:

>In article <1992Aug24.170112.15116@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <exuptr.366.714349985@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:

>>>In article <1992Aug20.154805.27655@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>>>I'd like to thank Mr. Haugh for this fine example of the typical 'good
>>>>Christian'.  

>>>I love it when these guys do this.  Like Christians are not allowed to 
>>>do something he would do, or that he would not call someone else to the
>>>carpet on RE: their personal beliefs.

>>What 'these guys' are you talking about?  Anyone can be a hypocrite.
>>Militant Christians of Mr Haugh's stripe generally deny it, though,
>>even though they ROUTINELY act in ways that conflict with their
>>supposed religious beliefs.  Obviously, belief in God doesn't help
>>them much, insofar as being the kind of people they would like to
>>insist all the REST of us should be.

>This doesn't even make sense.  I think the misunderstanding is Mr Haugh does 
>not behave in the way you would understand his beliefs to indicate.

Sorry, but for most of the English-speaking world it makes quite good
sense.  'Christian virtues', and all that.

>His personal beliefs, like so many of us, cannot be found in a book, I would 
>guess.  The point is that you are the one supposing what his religious 
>beliefs are, don't be surprised if you find inconsistancies.  To really know 
>someone's beliefs, watch their actions AND the reasons behind them.

John Haugh's problem isn't that he is inconsistent.  He isn't.  He is
CONSISTENTLY a flaming asshole.  The inconsistency would appear to be
with his professed Christianity and his normal behaviour.

>>Because if they're wrong, either we just 'stop' when we die or else I
>>won't be in Hell to watch Mr. Haugh burn for acting the way he does
>>(since a 'reasonable' God would judge based on who a person was inside
>>and not on irrelevencies like 'faith').

>I don't think God ever promised to be reasonable :-)

Well, if he's not, then we may as well all flip coins and do whatever
we please, because God certainly will.  Afraid I can't have much
respect for a concept of God like what you describe sounds like.

>>>>Under his beliefs, of course, I will
>>>>undoubtedly land in Hell due to my lack of acceptance on faith alone.

>Maybe, maybe not.  God decides, no one else can know for sure, IMHO.  Of 
>course reading the Bible could give you some clues...

Assuming, of course, that the current translation of the Christian
religious book is THE correct book.

>>>No.  You cannot earn salvation as taught by Jesus.

>>So is it your contention that by merely having faith a place in Heaven
>>is earned, and that otherwise what a person does doesn't matter?

>Of course it matters.  But you cannot "earn" salvation.  It is a gift.  You 
>cannot possibly be good enough, by the OT law, to be sinless.

>What you can do is repent in good faith, and accept Jesus' covenant.  
>Covenant is what it is really about.  Not too many people In Covenant will
>go around blatantly sinning...

Then I guess we could safely say that John isn't In Covenant, couldn't
we? 

>>While this would certainly explain a lot of things I've seen
>>self-proclaimed Christians do (because "God will forgive me") that
>>other people would not (without a diety as an excuse, that kind of
>>hypocrisy tends to be too much for most people to convince themselves
>>to commit), I find it difficult to believe that an ostensibly
>>omnipotent, omniscient, kind, compassionate God would want to reward
>>people for that.

>To sin because you will be forgiven is one of the greatest insults to God.  
>This is not a Covenant relationship IMHO.  Doubtless they will have a 
>reward, but not in Heaven :-)

Like I said, the boy is gonna BURN.

>>>>Undoubtedly, my punishment will be just
>>>>being in Hell; his will be me being the person who gets to stoke his
>>>>personal fires.

>>>Perhaps.  Again, according to he NT, it is God who decides, and not any of 
>>>us (thank God), as we are _all_ fallable.

>>Some, like Mr. Haugh, just prove to be a hell of a lot more fallible
>>than others.

>You are entitled to your opinion, of course.  

Based on the realities of what I've seen of him.

>>>>Of course, it is also folks like Mr. Haugh who give religion a bad
>>>>name.  Try living by your own teachings for a while, John, instead of
>>>>going by your own lies and distortions about other people in rendering
>>>>judgements about them.  

>>>Not bad advice for anybody.  Most sensible thing I've ever seen you post.
>>>Careful, though, you're beginning to sound rather judgemental yourself.

>>I'm allowed to be judgemental.  Nothing in my religion says I can't
>>be.  

>Just that it's hypocritical of you to have a double-standard, regardless of
>John's beliefs.  Either you measure him by your standards, or you measure 
>you by his.  You can't compare meters and milliseconds.

Sure I can.  I (mostly) live up to my standards.  From what I
understand to be his (Christian) standards, Mr. Haugh does not live up
to his.  Apples to apples.  To be grossly unfair, I would judge Mr.
Haugh by my standards (another one of those things that Christians are
prone to -- particularly the ones like Mr. Haugh who don't live up to
their own standards).

>>That isn't the case for all these self-proclaimed 'good
>>Christians', though.  I've known some who have tried very hard to live
>>up to their ideals.  However, on the other hand, there seem to be all
>>too many like Mr. Haugh.

>Isn't it true that anyone can be a hypocrite, regardless of religion?  You 
>might say the demon of hypocrisy is an equal opportunity employer...

Yes, just like anyone can trip and fall.  There are, however, the major
differences of degree and frequency.  Quite a difference between
tripping over a crack in the sidewalk and falling down once a month
and tripping and falling off a 20-story building 6 times a day.

>(Note: I'm not endorsing that John is a hypocrite here)

That's, ok.  I'll do that.

>>>>Good luck, John, because barring some change in the way you think
>>>>(which I don't think you are capable of), I'll probably see you there
>>>>(if your religion is right -- if not, of course, all bets are off).

>>>If the NT is right, all bets _are_ off.  

>>Depends on your interpretation.

>No, only on the author's :-)

Whoever he/she/they might be.

[We'll neglect the translators, of course.]


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton