From: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The After-life
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:11:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: oasys.18332
Reply-To: lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

I wrote:
>small remark:  Hell is the absence of God.  Life can be hell.

Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com) responded:
>>Okay.  If that's the case, then there's no real problem, *provided* that
>>one can get out of hell (i.e., absence of God) when one wants to.
Where's the problem?  It might be your problem.  This is just like reality.  
When you gamble, you can't decide not to after you've already lost.

>WRONG.  Yes, "God" did set up the rules, BUT so that YOU [everyone]
>get to set up the rules.  
>>Oh, bull.  If that were the case, we'd be omnipotent.
...not if He was the creator and you were not.

>Whether you let God into your life is YOUR 
>choice NOT His.  You will always be EMPOWERED to reject Him from your life.  

>>Which is fine as far as things go.  But if what you say is true, then
>>why the fancy pyrotechnics?  Why didn't God simply say as much (and
>>arrange things that way to begin with): "If you want to be with me, I
>>have no problem with that.  If you don't want to be with me, I have no
>>problem with that, either".

Maybe he did.  Perhaps He does have no problem whichever way you go.
The problem is yours not His.

>IMHO, the day you die, you have no more choices, the window of opportunity 
>has closed, and you will eternally be without Him if you never sought Him.  

>>And this *flies* in the face of the concept of a "loving" God.  Do you
>>really think that a truly loving God would INFINITELY penalize someone
>>for FINITE acts?

When you gamble, you can't decide not to after you've already lost.

>>And just how do you define "sought" here?  I've questioned the existence
>>of God, and I've searched for evidence of God.  In a very real sense, I
>>have "sought" God.

Why do I suspect you sought with the intention to use God rather
than to serve God?  You certainly seem to want Him to be what you
want Him to be rather than what He is.

>God has been begging you to let Him into your life nevertheless 
>(to radical extremes--see J Emery's note above).  If that's not clear, 
>maybe you do not hear the like of John Emery, who to some extent, 
>are the means by which God now uses to get his messages across.  

>>Yeah, right.  "You're just not listening hard enough".  Strange how a
>>God that wants my love and attention so badly (a) has done *nothing*
>>to make his presence known to me (and obviously has had similar
>>problems with a *lot* of other people, since there exist so many
>>*conflicting* religions all claiming to be the One True Way to God),
>>and (b) sets up all these extra bullshit rules that "must" be followed.

like Thou shalt not have any gods besides me?

>>What, is your God a wimp or something?  Is it just that he likes to
>>play games?  What's the deal?  He created the universe, he can easily
>>deal with his creations in a *sensible* fashion, i.e. one conducive
>>to both him *and* his creations.

That's a good question.  I have no idea.  I suppose we'll all get a 
better idea when we die.  I'll try to remember to ask when I get there.

>>Yet here you are claiming, in effect, that he *doesn't* do this.  You
>>claim that one must follow all these arbitrary rules.
                 ^^^^
You are certainly free to try your own rules.
                  ^^^^    ^^^
>Big miracles just don't seem to work, the compassion of your fellow 
>humans does.  

>>"Compassion".  Yeah, right.  "Compassion" as in "believe or fry"???
>>Christians do not seem to be any more compassionate as a group than
>>any other group I've encountered.  Indeed, they (as a group) seem to
>>be *less* compassionate than some groups I have encountered.

Like the people to whom you try to inflict disgrace for what they
believe, and who still come back to try to help you?

>The substance lies in the peace in the hearts of those 
>who've stopped rejecting God.  

>>That's something that I simply cannot evaluate.  I'm not a mindreader.
>>But I will say this: despite appearances, I'm quite at peace with
>>myself and the world.  
good for you, ...we can still be friends.
>>And I know a number of people who are *more* at peace with themselves 
>>and the world NOW THAT THEY HAVE REJECTED CHRISTIANITY.

>>Got an explanation for that one???
I'm not asking anyone not to reject Christianity, I'm asking you not to
reject God.

>From who else will you ever find such 
>abundance of stringless love.  

>>Hahahahaha!  "Stringless love"?  You mean the love that these people
>>show in such "abundance" to their homosexual brothers?

...the love that these people show in such "abundance" to all their 
brothers who reject God including the homosexual ones.

>>There are probably others on this newsgroup who can address this point
>>much better than I can, as I tend not to track who the best "dogooders"
>>in the world are.  Suffice it to say, however, that I don't buy the
>>idea that Christians have a monopoly on love, charity, or compassion.
>>I'm quite sure there are lots of agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, etc.,
>>that have these attributes in large quantities.

yes.  There are others.  But they don't seem to last nearly as long.
And their motivations (like your Buddhists) are more often selfish.
They also seem to demand much greater media coverage too.
"Look mom, I'm on t.v."  (e.g. Live Aid)  "If you donate,
we'll give you a concert..."

>>You don't get it, do you?  

No, I don't get it.  Will you die for me? 

>>God can define the consequences of things *differently* and do 
>>so *without* affecting free will.  You don't believe me?

I agree with you.  But no, I don't believe you.  How and when did 
you make all this up?  

>>Then tell me how the following violates free will:
I agreed with you.  The following must not be applicable.
>> [deleted...Kevin's design of better rules for God to go by]
>>Well???

Again, I don't believe you.  Are you for real?  How and when did 
you make all this up?  You were certainly free to weren't you?

>>*I* claim that it does a *better* job of giving people free will than
>>your system does, because your choice is *never* restricted in *any*
>>way in the above.

Who said it was *my* system?  There's your way and there's Yahweh.
I chose the latter.  Which one will you choose?

>If you want to get fancy, you will find that His RULES ARE DUE TO CHANGE.
>IMHO, you'd better not wait for the new rules.
>>Why should he have to change the rules at all?  Why doesn't he simply
>>set things up optimally, much the way I described above, and leave it
>>at that?

...I'm not sure why?  maybe because I believe He said He would.
Personally, I'm not concerned.  I'm just concerned about you.
...you're welcome.

>>Fortunately for me, I don't have to believe the way you do.
                              ^^^^^^^
Who said you have to?  I just thought you might be interested.

>>Probably because I have a great deal of trouble believing things that
>>are mutually exclusive.  For some reason, you seem not to have such
>>trouble.

I guess you're not up on the pure sciences.

>>Sorry, I've already tried [to find God].  All I heard was silence.

bummer


Terence