Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:11:24 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <adams.716182305@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> 
>> Or, in which Steve Adams demonstrates the bredth of his heresy...;-)

>As part of my new project to achieve moral perfection, I'm not going to
>call Steve names anymore. 

Hey!  Wait!   Around here, being called a heretic is a badge of honor!

>>>So we're still left with the problem of: why did God have to pay a price
>>>to himself? 
>> To fulfill his own rules of justice.  The price HAD to be paid.  There was
>> no other way to save humanity that was truly just.  This was the only way.
>> A God/Man combination.

>Okay...but why? Couldn't God waive his own rules?  Especially regarding a
>price to be paid to himself by himself?  I still don't understand.

If God had waived the rules, that would have violated justice.  Of course,
now you'll ask why he didn't wave that one...the point is, that God
demonstrated mercy and justice, and still followed the rules.  The price
HAD to be paid somehow by someone.

>>JC, as you call him, was, in this version of the passion idea, the 'perfect
>>sacrifice', the 'sin offering' from the Deuteronomic laws.

>I'm still unclear as to why this sacrifice was necessary, I'm afraid.

To stay in the 'rules' of the game, as it were.  See above.

>take a look at Emerson's "The Divinity School
>Address."  It has influenced my attitude towards Christianity greatly.
>I was ready to write it off as a silly old superstition until I 
>rapproach to Christianity, ead the text of this lecture.
OK...it's on my reading list.  I'll zip off to the library...when I have
time.  I've got lots of reading to do for school.

>> Catching me in a heresy.  How novel.  Not. ;-)  But note, that I gave that
>> as an alternative...my belief is that Jesus WAS God, others disagree!

>This is, as I have learned, an extremely tricky issue. However, it seems
>that your belief is pretty orthodox, since you concede that he was also
>fully human, too. Have I got this straight? 
Yep.  Fully human, fully God.  That's where I am.  The whole thing is, as
you say, tricky.  Very easy to go down the wrong path, although it's not as
rigid as it appears.  You have to get to the extremes of denying one or the
other, or subordinating one or the other in a big way before you are
outside the scope of the creeds.

>>>Still, this kind of language is VERY fuzzy. How did he "take the pain of
>>>the world onto himself?"  A) Jesus was supposed to be sinless, so HE never
>>>felt the eternal pain of sin...B) A lot of sin is just good fun! 
>>>C) is pain some kind of "thing" etc. etc. etc... blah blah...
>>No, it was through his suffering and death on the cross that Jesus took all
>>of the 'pain' of sin onto himself...remember the OT sacrificial lamb.

>I'm afraid I still don't get it. How did he take _all_ of the pain of
>sin for the whole world onto himself?   Can one person pay the moral
>price for another?  I beat up my brother and then convince my sister to
>take the punishment? Something doesn't seem right... have I got this
>straight?

Back to Original Sin for a moment...according to Paul (yeah, him again)
Adam's sin bound all men to sin, Jesus death and resurection broke the
bonds.  So just as the price of sin was being paid by all men, so the 
redemption is to all men.

The whole issues is that it's not right!  That was how the hold of Satan
(let's use him for a moment, shall we) was broken.  Satan was not entitled
to Jesus' soul, but conspired for it anyway.  Once he took the soul of the
just and sinless Jesus, he lost his rights over anyone.

This puts Satan in a role that has power...and is darn near dualist...I
have my own problems with this...

>I think you admitted that you could generate decisions _ex nihilo_, that 
>you are a miniature First Cause. The doctrine of free will requires that you
>be a small-scale "unmoved mover," an independant source of motion. (i.e.
>decisions)  This doesn't deny God, as you say, but it _does_ say that
>you can be an _independent_ source of value. 
This is correct.  After thinking about the ramifications of what I've been
saying, clearly 'Free Will' requires some independent, non-caused action.
Hmm.  Now you've got me wondering if this is really possible...

>>>That means God is not the sole creator of the universe. 
>> Not the conclusion I drew, but a possible conclusion, nonetheless.

>I think it's a valid conclusion, if you say that "humans assist with 
>a continuing creation."

Correct.  And this is becoming more attractive.  You know, it's
interesting.  I'm more than happy to read the OT and form an independent
conclusion based on what I read and what I observe.  Tougher to do that
with the NT, though with the Gospels, I've done some of the same thing.  I
guess the problem with Paul is that denying his theology puts me outside
the circle I still want to be in.

I'm beginning to understand the appeal of fundamentalism.  And why when
things get tough it is SO attractive.

>> Hmm.  I don't think we can create independantly, but can shape our world to
>> make it better.

>It seems to me that the free will doctrine implies that we CAN create
>independantly. 
Yeah, this is the conclusion I came to, also.  This MUST be the case,
unless we apply some limits that effective deny free will.

>Unless you would qualify it by saying that there is no
>such thing as human creativity, that our decisions are free but that 
>every other thought that arises in our minds gets there deterministically.
Yes.  Free will would imply that we can arrive at independent thoughts that
have no cause.

>It's just a stripped-down interpretation of history since the
>Renaissance. Subject to all the limitations of one man's interpretation.
But fairly accurate, I'd say.

>However - I think it is true that if we have free will, than we are
>independant sources of good and evil.  On reflection, though, a Christian
>perspective defines "good" as having existence only in relation to
>God i.e. what God does/wants = good.  Or does it?
I have toyed with changing my definition of 'good' to make things work.
But I don't want to simply resort to the claim that 'whatever God does is
good, no matter how bad it looks to us'.  I suppose I could claim that
God's good is so trancendent that we can never understand it.  But in that
case, then we can never understand good, period, and our notion of good is
so far wrong that it is useless.

>I suspect the notion of "human
>rights" comes from the combination of the free-will doctrine with the
>idea of objective (non-God-related) good. 
Yes, to some extent.  It's interesting that Jefferson, et al, claimed God-
given rights in the declaration.  Being a deist, though, this would have
to have been some part of 'nature' that God created, which could be discenred 
by man.  I wonder what was behind his appeal to God...perhaps 'appeal to
authority' higher than the King? ;-)

>>>Of course, there are a lot of people around who are happy sinners.  
>>
>>Hmm, I suppose if Christie Brinkley were to magically appear in my bed
>>while my wife was away, I'd be a pretty happy sinner, too.  At least until
>>judgement...(appeal to fear!)

>Remarkable, isn't it?  In this respect, I admire the Catholics, who have
>always managed to keep Puritanism from taking over the Church. 
But only to some extent, for the recent letters on homosexuality, family,
abortion, women, etc are still along very conservative lines.  Not puritan,
but darn close.  Certainly not the extremes of Cromwell, as you pointed
out.

>Mark Twain thought it amazing, BTW, that the one thing that everybody
>agrees is more fun than just about anything is totally excluded from
>our concept of heaven. For another fascinating perspective on Christian
>faith, take a look at Twain's "Letters from Earth." 
Yeah.  During my days as a fallen-away Roman Catholic, when I more or less
ignored God and had some universalist leanings, I wondered if heaven might
be in the mind of the beholder, in which case I'd be surrounded by
beautiful women at my beck and call...;-)

Alas, no more...but that's more because heaven is a state, not a place, in
my mind.  Just as hell is the absolute separation of God, heaven is the
full presence of God.  Great joy for the soul in contrast to great pain in
'hell'.

>>Appeal to authority?  Hmm.  That's a violation of logical thought isn't it.
>>Well, uhm, <squirm>, yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at right now.
>>Actually closer to "lots of people have accepted Paul, so I start there
>>too because of my basic religious upbringing." 
>>It's a starting point.

>I can't argue with this, really, as it is a matter of choice, and you admit
>that it is not entirely logically kosher.  
Yeah, the unfortunate product of a logic class...appeal to authority was on
the list of 'illogical though', just like personal attacks, poisoning the
well and bandwagon arguments.  Hmm.  My comments on the number of people
who follow Paul fit that last one, too.  Strike two.

>However, to use Paul as a
>starting point...isn't there a computer expression "garbage in, garbage out?"
>If you start with a bad assumption, you are unlikely to get anywhere.
>Your first step should be: evaluation of your starting points, shouldn't it?
Of course.  What do you think is going on here???  ;-)  You don't think
this whole series of threads has done exactly this?

>Not "discard," doubt...Jesus is a mysterious figure. He is very difficult
>to figure out on his own. Even his own apostles never understood him,
>if one can extrapolate from the gospels. They're always standing around
>scratching their heads every time Jesus says something, then they wait
>until the crowd leaves and rush up, "So explain all that to us, boss!"

Yeah, and a couple of times he actually called them dense, and wondered
just how long it was going to take for them to get the picture.  I found
this very interesting, myself.  And it does sort of lead to the idea of
'secret' knowldege, too.  For Jesus spoke in parables, but didn't explain
everything to the unwashed masses.  Hmm.

>>>I have my own thoughts about Genesis 3 - English student thoughts. Big,
>>>important, SECRET, English student thoughts...:)
>> 
>> Oh yeah?  I bet that this big ol' secret it that Gen3 is, <gasp> POETRY!
>> Ahhhhhggghhh!!!...Run...hide the kids!  I've let his secret out of the bag!

>Ahhh....but what is poetry, grasshopper?

Becoming one in spirit with language, revealing truths that can not be
expressed any other way...

>>>Come on, tell me AGAIN that there's such thing as free will! Even YOU don't
>>>believe it! :)
>> 
>>Keep it up.  Some day you might even get me to say it exactly that way...

>I have actually been thinking more about this, and I think I may have
>another way to approach this whole free will business. Interested?
Of course!

>Disclaimer: I am probably wrong.
Me too.

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams   "Space-age cybernomad"     Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc