From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:54:36 GMT

Gordon Storga writes:

>Stephen Buckley writes:
>>Gordon Storga writes:
>>>I think this is the crux of the problem for many people, Christian and
>>>non-Christian.  How the heck did *we* disobey god thousands of years ago
>>>when *we* weren't born yet?  Doesn't it sound the least little bit
>>>ridiculous to persecute the offspring for the "sins" of the parents?
>> 
>>  eden's original sin was just the beginning.  we all fall short of
>>god's glory, so we sin on our own.

>It doesn't sound to me like your god does a very good job of creating.  He
>created Satan, who was corrupt, apparently for the sole purpose of
>corrupting us.

  *our* god did a fine job.  he created satan, who in free will chose
to try to become god.  not allowed.  disobey god.  goes to hell.  and
don't bring in god's foreknowledge into this because we're recognizing
the relevance of free will as a premise for this discussion.  if you
wanna debate that premise, there's another thread doing just that.

>>>>since we have the freedom to do whatever is within our capacity, some of what
>>>>we can do, god considers bad.
>>
>>>And much of what god has done we consider bad.
>>
>>  speak for youself.  :)

>I guess I have to.  I *personally* feel that drowning babies and
>raping and slaughtering innocent women are _bad_.  Apparently, according
>to you, most Christians think these things are great.  That's pretty
>repulsive in my book.

  never did i say they were great.  i mourn for all those who died, 
whether it was because they crossed god or not.  you paint me as heartless
to suggest that i'm not emotionally moved by these events.  so please
don't speak for me.

>>>>>>                                 beyond that i choose to not judge god's
>>>>>>motives.  
>>>>
>>>>>That's because you are afraid of him.
>>>>
>>>>  and you should be more careful when you claim to know the motivations
>>>>of other people.  
>>
>>>That was a conclusion I reached from your postings.  You seem to think
>>>that your god is above his own rules.  Why?  Because he has the power to
>>>be above the rules.  "Might makes right."  Therefore it seems to follow
>>>that while you wouldn't tolerate a *human* child molester or infant killer,
>>>you tolerate a *god* who does these things because you can't stop him.
>>
>>>It appears that you fear god's wrath.
>>
>>  yeah, i do.  but that is a small part of my relationship with him.  

>Why do you argue with me, only to agree with me later.  What's the point?
>You imply I'm wrong when I say that you are afraid of your god, then 10
>lines later you say I was right in the first place.

  no you say i believe this and that because i fear god.  it sounds like
you're saying nothing motivates me but fear of punishment.  that is in-
correct.  it's one of the lesser motives in seeking god.

>>and yeah, god's rules are different than ours.
>>  isaiah 55:8-9 [NIV]
>>  "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,'
>>declares the Lord.  'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are
>>my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
>>
>>  seems reasonable to me.

>You enjoy and rejoice when women and babies are slaughtered?  This seems
>reasonable to you?  Someday your god might come to you and tell you that
>your wife and children are of the "wrong tribe".  He'll order you to kill
>them all.  You'd find this reasonable.

  no.  i don't rejoice.  see above.  but it is explained and it is consistent
with god's revelation in the bible.  god will not say this to me.  you
have no grounds to suggest this is possible.  especially because this
contradicts god's pledge to us as found in the bible.  so there's no 
reason to consider this as relevant.  it's like saying god may come to
me one day in the form of a 70 foot tall marshmellow man, pick up a 
cadillac and whack me over the head with it.  let's stick with reality
and the premise that god exists and is known in the bible.

>>>>  no, god works by different rules than he makes for us.
>>
>>>So you choose to rationalize.  That's fine.  I just wanted to know your
>>>beliefs.
>>
>>  see the isaiah quote.

>I see a scripture that says you can't judge your god, so you choose not
>to because he's god.  Even though he perpetrates the most heinous of
>crimes against humans and the world.

  and you simply are not accepting the biblical explanation and context
of events.  there's nothing more to say on this.  we are discussing
this in the context of the bible as god's revelation.  we must accept
this as true for the sake of the discussion.  to abandon this premise
makes this discussion meaningless.

>>>>>>                                                    many disagree with me
>>>>>>and with all other christians who believe that.  they're free to believe
>>>>>>it is not god's autobiography.  i believe it is.
>>>>
>>>>>It can't be.  It doesn't describe god's life and evolution, it supposedly 
>>>>>describes *man's* life and evolution.
>>>>
>>>>  who says god has to tell us everything about him?  mightn't he only need
>>>>to tell us all we need to live a wonderful, flourishing life?
>>
>>>Then it's *NOT* his autobiography.  That was my point.
>>
>>  fine, but i don't think it matters.

>Then why did you bring it up?

  because it's the premise of our discussion:  god exists and is known
in the bible.  without accepting this premise for discussion about
God(tm) and christianity, we aren't talking about God(tm) and christianity.

>>>>>Why are they wrong or "perverted" while you are right?
>>>>
>>>>  what i said was that they have perverted the essential essence of 
>>>>jesus.  the jw's regularly re-write the bible to fit their arbitrary
>>>>feelings about life and the mormons have added tons of stuff that i'm
>>>>just not going to go into.
>>
>>>But, what if they were "inspired"?  Who are you to tell them differently?
>>>Where is your *proof* that they weren't "inspired"?
>>
>>  none, i just don't believe it.  

>Then you might be damned to hell for all eternity.

  yup.  if i don't get my mormon holy underwear i might go to hell.  but
i'm not worried, the holes in their theology are big enough to drive 
a bus through.  look.  if the bible was as severely whacked as the mormon's
scriptures, there'd be no hope for humanity.  a hopelessly inadequate
scripture has no credibility for me to have faith in it.  that's the mormons.

>>                                  my disbelief in the mormons [i assume
>>you aren't going to argue on behalf of the jw's here. :) ]

>My, your religious bigotry shows through nice and clear here.  Perhaps
>you'd supply us with a prioritized list of "good Christian sects" in
>declining order of "believability"?  Just so we'd know which ones were
>*really* out in left field.

  you should be more careful with your words.  it isn't my random dislike
or prejudice against jw's that makes me think their theology is absurd.
it's well documented and well founded.  bigotry is a serious allegation
that isn't supported by the widespread coherent critiques of the jw's
flawed and incorrect theology.  christianity is rooted in the bible,
mainly in jesus' divinity and offer of salvation, death and resurrection.
sects that influence things not rooted in the bible don't even fit
the dictionary definition of christianity.

>>                                                           is not
>>based on proof like my faith in jesus is not based on proof.  what i
>>look to beyond proof is what i trust in thinking the mormon's bible
>>is irrelevant.

>And since they have as much proof as you do they are just as right as you
>are.

  read their bible.  it's virtually impossible to take seriously.
you'll see for yourself how big the holes are in their theology.  but
do you really want to be arguing on the mormon and jw side?  you have
no idea the kind of allies you're alligning with and your credibility
will take a beating if you stick up for the authenticity of their
theology, especially since you probly haven't studied it.