From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: some questions about God(tm)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:51:29 GMT

Gordon Storga writes:

>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]

>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.

>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.  is god not allowed to
judge disobedience?  if so, who are we to judge him?  our initial 
commandment in eden was to obey one command [don't eat the apple]
or face death.  he has the right to judge transgression.

>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.

>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.

>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.  the net effect is that us imperfect 
people who accept his sacrifice can be reconciled with God(tm) the holy
perfect creator who cannot co-exist with sin and imperfection without
an act of redemption.  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.

>Why is it so easy to kill a god?

  what makes you think that human beings have the ability to kill a god?
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 we know the bible is divinely inspired?

  faith and its workings in lives of the believers.  there is no empirical
proof.  

>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.  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.

>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.

>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.  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.

>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?

>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.  the plot
progression of the bible is that the old covenant is evolved into the 
new covenant in jesus.  ignoring the movement from the old covenant to the
new covenant makes the issue in your question seem like a contradiction.
the truth is we have been offered the new covenant in which the old laws
do not bind us, while jesus and him as role model do bind us.

  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.
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.
if you want to critique my answers i ask that for the sake of discussion, you
accept the premise, because that was the spirit in which the answers were 
given.

>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 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.

>>                                            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.

>>                                         my life and my spritual existence
>>are at stake...as is everyone else's spiritual existence and hypothetical
>>issues are forever subordinate to real scripture.  

>This, to me, is an oxymoronic statement: "real scripture".

  sorry, scripture rooted in historical reality.

>>                                                   and you're right about
>>me not having substantiated evidence for god's or santa's existence. 

>Thank you.

>>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.

>>>If you met someone who wanted to tell you all about their invisible friend
>>>"Pablo" who talks to them, does nice things for them, is going to save
>>>their soul, and of course, is going to send everyone else to hell...
>>>you'd probably move quickly away from them and/or call the authorities to
>>>get this person off the street and into a mental health facility (at the
>>>very least you probably wouldn't want your children around this person).
>>>But, change the name from "Pablo" to "Jesus" and you'd probably invite this
>>>person into your home.
>>
>>  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.  ask any christian
who claims to know jesus, and intend to acknowledge their experience
and accept it.

>>>And you don't even see this as being logically inconsistent.
>>
>>  because they aren't logically inconsistent.  if both were realistic options
>>for me, the analogy may be better, but there is no gospel of pablo.

>Again, I could write one for you real quick.  I feel it coming on now...

 see above regarding your writing santa scripture.

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

  irrelevant non-reality   reality-based  beyond-empirical-reality
  ----------------------   -------------  ------------------------

  santa scripture           bible            the truth of God(tm)

the second two columns say that something rooted in authentically reality
has merit, but not enough to prove god, for which we need to go beyond
authentic reality, but not to column one [which is also outside of
authentic reality].

  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.


---                          
     Stephen Buckley        /    the meaning of life is the answer
     sbuckley@sfu.ca       /      to God's question in the Bible:
   TrueNorthStrong&Free   /        
      1-800-REALITY      /    "What are you going to do with my Son?"