From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 06:20:15 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<sbuckley.714253889@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>Gordon Storga writes:
Note: these questions were a sample of the questions I had asked at bible
study as a youth.  I no longer ask these questions, having determined that
I was merely questioning a fable.

>>Why does an omnipotent being need 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]

Stephen, your "creator" vows to kill anyone who doesn't grant him his well
"deserved"  worship?  Sounds like blackmail to me.

>>Why does god get to be a jealous, vengeful being while we don't?
>
>  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.

But we were created in his image, were we not?  Is this the case of the
parent requiring better of the child than from himself?  Again, that
quality hardly strikes me as being worthy of worship.

>>Why is it ok for god to slaughter millions of people?
>
>  when god kills people in the old testament, he is enacting judgement.
>each instance is given context and explanation.  

Please explain what "judgement" your god could have given to a 6 month old
baby?  I'm sure there were a few of these drowned in the flood or
slaughtered by his "chosen ones".

>                                                 is god not allowed to
>judge disobedience?  

How does a 6 month old disobey god?  Or were the children only killed to
punish the adults?  This would mean he killed the innocent to punish the
guilty.  Any way you cut it, it sounds dispicable to me.

...
>>Why doesn't god speak to me?
>
>  god has presented an autobiography and a personal manifestation to
>tell us about himself.  both jesus and god's word live and work today.

This is exactly the kind of non-answer I always got in response to this
question.

>>Why doesn't god speak to everyone and stop all the suffering and killing?
>
>  in this world as it is, we have turned from god and need to turn back
>to him in our free will.  in turning from him we have invited evil, sin
>and suffering into our realm, against god's wishes--but hey we have
>free will, right?  instead of treating us like mindless automatons and
>fixing all our mistakes, thereby overuling our intended free will, he
>has made it possible to turn to him with our free will.

Again, a non-answer.

>>What did Jesus sacrifice, and why was it a big deal?
>
>  because the punishment of sin is death, we have all sinned and god so
>loved us he sent his only sun to live a perfect life, unworthy of judgement,
>to bear the punishment for us all.  

I repeat my question:
What did Jesus sacrifice, and why was it a big deal?
You did not answer my question, as I expected.

...
>                       it's a big deal because tho we originally disobeyed
>god [eden; apple] we deserve his judgement, but he gave us a way to be
>redeemed to him anyway.  quite nice if you ask me.

He didn't need to do this.  He could have just forgiven us.  Right?

>>Why is it so easy to kill a god?
>
>  what makes you think that human beings have the ability to kill a god?

Many Christians have carefully explained to me that Jesus IS/WAS god - the
exact same being.  Now if you take a god and nail him to a tree and he
dies it seems awfully wasteful to worship as omnipotent a being so easily
killed.

>we can sever our connection with God(tm), which feels like we kill him,
>but he's eternal existing.  there are no other gods, but of the other 
>spirits with spiritual power, we don't have the power to kill them either.

How do you know there are no others gods?  I mean, there is the exact same
evidence of these other gods that there is for yours.  Why do you pick
yours and not the others?

>>How do we know the bible is divinely inspired?
>
>  faith and its workings in lives of the believers.  there is no empirical
>proof.  

Right.

>>If the bible is so clear and Christianity the *one truth*, then why are
>>there so many sects?
>
>  some sects have radically perverted the essential essence of jesus.  

But, of course, you know the one *true* way.

>                                                                       some
>sects are doctrinally nearly identical to others, merely there are different
>styles of worship for different kinds of people.  and some sects have more
>fundamental disagreements over biblical theory in practice, yet still accept
>the role of jesus.  those that don't accept jesus don't even fit the 
>dictionary definition of christian.

God's words sure seems confusing.

>>Why does god allow Satan to make a fool of him?
>
>  i don't think god's being made a fool of.  satan just makes this world
>look foolish.

Oh, Satan appears to be far smarter than your god.  Heck, if someone could
trick you into killing your own children and not killing them I'd tend
to think you were being made a fool (let alone a murderer) by that
person.

>>How do you populate an entire world from two people in 6000 years?
>
>  i don't know, i wasn't there.  and it isn't the bible that says the 
>earth is however many thousand years old--it's certain *humans* deducing
>that from scripture--making certain *huge* assumptions.  

But that scripture is *divinely inspired*.  How could it be
misinterpreted?

>                                                         taking the bible
>as divinely inspired doesn't mean we take everything, including the 
>parables, poetry and metaphoric language, literally.  it means reading
>parable according to the rules of parable, poetry as poetry and metaphor
>as metaphor and literal description as literal description.

And if these "rules" existed there wouldn't be so many Christian sects,
now would there?

>>How come the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs?
>
>  i don't know.  does it really make a big difference in god's offer of
>salvation?

Yes, because it would lend some credence.  The ancient Jews knew nothing
of paleontology.  Mentioning of the dinosaurs would have revealed facts
that the ancient Jews could not possibly have known about.  Of course, the
fact that your god thinks a rabbit chews a cud, and that locust have 4
legs speaks for itself.

>>Why does god demand so many people kill each other with rocks for such
>>tiny transgressions (such as not observing the sabbath) while Jesus
>>claims to forgive *anyone* (including rapists and murderers) who believes
>>in him?
>
>  because the laws of the old testament were fulfilled *in* jesus.  

Why wait so long?  I mean he *knew* he'd end up doing that anyway - why
wait?

>  in asking the above questions we're going to have to accept [at least
>for the sake of argument] the premise that God(tm) exists as he is known
>in the bible.  i've answered the above questions based on that assumption.

I understand that.  But the god you believe in is so contradictory and
profane, and illogical I can't possibly believe that such a being would
exist.

>if people wish to disagree with or critique my responses, go to it, but
>if your disagreements are based on not buying the assumption, then say so.

My disagreements use only logic (which your god gave us, I suppose) and
the evidence provided in your own bible.

>>Why is it so many people are willing to take this all on faith but
>>*demand* that I provide _proof_ that there is no god?
>
>  whenever *i*'ve asked people to prove god doesn't exist, it's a rhetorical
>question.  i don't believe god can be empirically proved or disproved.  my
>point in the whole empirical proof thing is that people are being hasty
>in saying that god doesn't exist because he hasn't empirically proven himself.

And people are being hasty in discounting the existance of other god's
(like you did above) just because there is no empirical evidence.  Care to
rethink your theology based on your own words?

>>>                    and regarding the santa thing, there is one critical
>>>difference.  we are not talking about me hypothetically believing in god
>>>and the bible and the person of jesus. we are talking about a book, a
>>>physical book which i consider to be real.
>
>>Stephen, I could write a book, a physical book, that would support every
>>contention that Santa is alive and real.
>  
>  go ahead.  i'm an open-minded person and i'd probly read it.  but this
>is just a philosophical hypothetical.  in reality i know you wrote it and
>i would have far less inclination to believe that you know the word of god
>compared to the bible.

But it might be "divinely inspired".  Plus, in your owns words, you would
be "hasty" to discount Santa.

>>>                                            hypothetical speculation
>>>ultimately ends when reality takes over. 
>
>>Stephen, I believe the bible is a real book.  That does not make it an
>>accurate  account of events.  You do not necessariyl have reality just
>>because the book you read is *real*.
>
>  this is why it takes more than an appeal to empirical truth to believe
>or disbelieve in god.  it's faith or no faith.  this isn't to discount
>reality, because i believe in it enough to look to the bible [a book
>in reality], but the hypothetical santa scripture is the kind of thing 
>not grounded enough in reality to make a difference.

Heck, millions of children believe in Santa. They write him letters.  The
post office rarely returns these letters as "can't be delivered". Santa
is on every store window, tv screen, and street corner during the season.
How can you claim there isn't enough "reality"?  There is just as much
reality as your religion has (you do know there really is such a place as
teh North Pole - we also have a South Pole).

...
>>>god and santa are empirically unverifiable which means empirical observation
>>>can neither prove the truth nor falsity of god's or santa's existence.
>>>at that point i move to reality, find the bible [a document in reality]
>>>and drop the santa somantic/mind game.  reality always holds more water
>>>than a hypothetical.
>
>>So if I hand you a book written about Santa you'd automatically start
>>believing in him?  If the book said he was greater than your god, would
>>you stop believing in your god?
>
>  for a decade i believed the bible was unworthy of believing.  it took
>an entire year for me to become convinced of its truth.  as i said, i
>would probly read your santa book, but i wouldn't automatically believe
>it any more than i would automatically believe the cat in the hat is a
>deity i should worship, or any more than i would automatically worship
>the partridge family or the heroine of the attack of the killer tomatos
>[or is it tomatoes [ask mr. quayle]] as some severely mentally skewed
>people actually do.

Sorry, I was only using your above statement about dropping "mind games"
and finding a book, a "real document", as "holding more water".

[Pablo analogy deleted]
>>>  again the analogy between a hypothetical and a scripture living in reality
>>>breaks down.  see above paragraph.
>
>>A "scripture" doesn't "liv[ing] in reality".
>
>  well, i'll disagree.  the word is alive as is jesus.

Then he didn't die, ergo there was no sacrifice.  How can he die for our
sins if he is still alive?  If he was only dead for a day or two then what
was the sacrifice?

>>>reality checks often weed out the irrelevant arguments.
>
>>Incredible!  Just what is real about your religion?  Aside from the fact
>>there is a book written about it?
>
> defining real as empirically provable, i'd say absolutely nothing.  real
>in terms of historical authenticity, lots.  

"historical authenticity" implies empirical evidence.  How do you
authenticate something without evidence that can be examined?

>                                            the bible is one of the most
>historically authenticated texts available.  over 13,000 reconcilable
>original autographs [compare with one for plato's "alleged" writings].

Authenticated by whom?  Christian scholars?  Sounds a little biased to me.
BTW, I do not doubt that some of the references to geography referred to
in the bible is accurate, and there is evidence that many of the
personalities mentinoed in the bible actually existed.  But I don't think
you are looking at it as a history book.

And, the travels of Homer's Ulyseus are considered a myth, but recent
evidence has been discovered of most of the places he is claimed to have
visited - including the Cyclop's cave.  Of course, there is no evidence of
a cyclops, but many of the historical paths and events have been
authenticated.  Does this mean that there exists the possibility of a
*real* Greek pantheon?

>but the truth of the bible is derived in the workings of its truth in
>people--beyond empirical proof, but it's real.

You must supply me with your definition of "real".

...
>  you've asked some really good questions.  keep asking, but i'll ask
>you, do you believe there are absolute, objective and knowable answers?
>if not, then you don't need to ask any of these questions.

As I said, you had asked for the questions I originally asked when
studying the bible.  This was a list of them.  I got similar answers from
them as I did from you.  Answers that didn't make any sense logically or
theologically.  I no longer ask these questions just as I no longer
believe in Santa.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc