From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Athletes thanking Jesus for victory
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:03:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Distribution: usa


(rpitts)
/Are you suggesting a system without freewill and so we'd be robots?

There is little difference between being a robot and being judged by
standards that you know nothing about.

Or have you forgotten?  you still owe me an explanation of how people
who have never heard the gospel deserve to go to hell.



/(rpitts)
/Or are you suggesting one that has no sin because no one would be
/responsible for anything one does?  Our own legal/justice system 
/argues against the latter. 

Our own legal system also argues for proportional punishment. Xtianity
does not.  There is only one crime, and the penalty is the same and
it is permanent.  

Comparisons with human justice inevitably make Xtianity look like a 
barbarian religion.



/(rpitts)
/God's nature is that of unmitigated holiness.  We could not exist
/there.  An analogy my pastor gave Sunday about God's nature was that
/of a fire.  The nature of fire is to burn and if you put something
/in the fire, it is going to get hot and if it cannot withstand the
/heat, it will burn up.  That's the nature of fire.  One can argue
/that "I've never done anything to the fire - why should it burn me,"
/but you are agruing against the very nature of fire.  The same with
/God.  

I am afraid it is not so easy.  Fire is an inanimate, non-intelligent
chemical process. According to you, your god is not.  

Since this god is all-powerful, his/her nature is NOT unchangeable; it is
by his/her choice that he/she remains in a state of intolerance to mankind.
If an all-powerful god wanted to reverse gravity permanently, he/she
should be able to do it.  Same with the god's own nature.




/(rpitts)
/Adam was able to be in the presence of God until
/he fell - after that he was ashamed - he had sinned.

Pitts, why do you consistently misquote and twist your own book of
scripture?

That is not what the scripture says; it says he was ashamed because he
was naked.  In fact, that is what God asked Adam.  Paraphrased, Adam 
says, "I heard your voice in the garden, and I hid from you, because I was 
naked".  God said,  "Who told you that you were naked?  Have you 
eaten of the tree?"



>Why even present a standard in the first place?  Why create humans with a
>predisposition toward curiosity, and then tell them to avoid *only one* thing
>in Eden?  How could an omniscient god still decide to set the Fall in motion
>and still be considered omnibenevolent?  Would I have passed?  No.  Nobody 
>could have.  That's the problem.  

(rpitts)
Eve was decieved, but Adam just ate.  

Again, that is not what scripture says.  Why are you twisting it?

Also, you have never addressed the original poster's excellent question.
Why this kind of test?  And who gave Adam and Eve the authority to make
the choice for me?  Suppose I want to have the same test set before me;
why shouldn't I be allowed?



/(rpitts)
/What did Adam lack that he needed to eat the fruit?  He had all 
/he needed physically.  God was his friend. 

Obviously Adam felt otherwise.  And since you and I weren't there, how do
you know that Adam lacked nothing?  People don't do things for no reason
whatsoever.  No actions are done simply for no reason. 



Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27610 alt.messianic:4185