From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:37:16 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<adams.713716004@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><adams.713105930@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>><adams.712847954@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>>>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>>>><adams.712335175@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>>>>>>>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
...
>>In the second example I can see the possiblity of a setup, yes I agree.
>>But not in the first example.  Also, can you tell me who god was talking
>>to when Adam and Eve heard him coming?  
>The NIV says that they 'heard the sound of the Lord'...not heard him
>talking.  I suspect God would have heavy footsteps...;-)

I'd expect so, but my translation says "voice of god".

>>And, not to change the subject,
>>but if Adam and Eve were truly the mother and father of the entire race,
>>then who did Cain marry?  In 4:17, after god banishes him, Cain goes off
>>and gets married.  Who did he marry?  His sister?
>Oh goody, my favorite question from Genesis.  The answer to which usually
>gets me royally flamed by my fundamentalist friends...;-)
>
>Yes, the usual answer to the question is that he married one of his
>sisters, and that Adam & Eve had other children prior to this, they just
>aren't mentioned.  Ahem.
>
>Anyhow, my own personal opinion differs massively.  It has to do with my
>own understanding of Gen 1:1-2:4 and Gen 2:5ff.  Basically, on day 6 of
>creation (Gen 1:27ff) God creates man and woman.  THEN He rests on day 7.
>Then, in Gen 2:4 He plants a garden and creates Adam.  God brings all of
>the animals to Adam in search for a 'helper', and they are all rejected.
>After this, God creates Eve, etc.
>
>Basically, when Cain is banished from the area around Eden, he marries one
>of the 'Day 6' people...

Doesn't follow - Gen 2:5 says that "there was no man to cultivate the
ground".  So much for your theory. ;-)

>>>>When Jesus is cruxified he supposedly looks up and begs forgiveness for
>>>>his executiioners.  Why would god be mad that they executed his "son"?  He
>>>>supposedely would know this.  Heck, it was *required* that they execute
>>>>him, else there wouldn't be a salvation.
>>>That doesn't mean they can't be forgiven?  Christ showed that we are, no
>>>matter what the circumstances, and whatever happens, to forgive those who
>>>do an injustice against us.
>
>>I wasn't commenting on the forgiveness aspect but the anger aspect.  Your
>>god *ordained* that Jesus must die.  He set it up that way, on purpose.
>>Why would an omnipotent being do something that he *knows* will just make
>>him angry later?
>
>God's goal, in my opinion, (and if I can speak to this, which is quite an
>presumption on my part) was freely given love and freely ordained worship.

If it was freely given and freely ordained (how can you really have "free
worship"?) then why were there rules and regulations?  And penalties for
breaking them?

>God, in order to gain this, had to allow for the possibility of evil.  

"had to"?  You mean an omnipotent being was incapable of creating free
will without evil?

>>>>In another viewpoint of his cruxifiction he supposedly crys out to his
>>>>"father", "Why have you forsaken me?".  Is this because Jesus missed the
>>>>memo where his earthly death was required?  (I bring this up because many
>>>>Christians believe Jesus *WAS* god, as in *the exact same being*)
>>>No, not at all.  Jesus knew that the Father (remember the Trinity?) was in
>>>control of the situation, and Jesus would obey.  Look at what transpired in
>>>Gethsemenee.  Jesus asked that the outcome be changed, but bowed to the
>>>Father's will.  No contradiction.  God, the Father, left His son to die an
>>>ignoble death.
>
>>This doesn't explain why Jesus is apparently unware of the reasons behind
>>his death.
>
>Jesus gave up some of his divine powers so that He could truly suffer as a
>man.

It doesn't follow that he wouldn't kow *why* it was done?  And when did he
give up these powers?  Just before he was nailed to a tree?  I ask this
because up to that time he was walking on water and killing fig trees
without any problem.

>>>>Also, your god seems surprised by the amount of evil in the world just
>>>>before he floods the entire globe.
>>>
>>>Not at all.  He was grieved that men were doing the amount of evil that
>>>they were.  Even though God knew in advance, that doesn't mean he wasn't
>>>saddened and offedned.
>
>>It seems to me that he should get it right the second time, but he didn't.
>
>One of the unavoidable aspects of creation was evil.  

This doesn't jive with the concept of a truly omnipotent being.  Nothing
should be unavoidable for him.

>                                                      Basically, the one
>and only thing that God (cannot/will not) do is create another god.  Thus,
>whatever He creates is slightly less perfect and slightly less good than
>He.  Or, to look at it another way, God being the 'best', the created being
>is the 'worst'...God being the most 'good', the created being is the most
>'evil' thing in existence.  Not evil per se, but more so than God.

I've seen these examples of yours before where "your love for god is so
great that your love for other must appear as hate" and now this one.  I
don't believe that this is a reasonable premise.  For example, my love for
my wife is the greatest love I could possibly have for a woman.  That
doesn't mean that I hate my mother, or that I hate other women.

...
>>>perspective of men, these acts were despicable.  But, and I know you refuse
>>>to accept this reasoning, God can do as He pleases.  He has no requirement
>>>to justify Himself to us.  Look at what happened when Job asked God to do
>>>exactly this...
>
>>Once again, "might makes right".
>
>Being God makes Him right....I concede that!  It's part of the definition!

Fine.  That's all I originally started with anyway.

...
>>I see no evidence to support the contentions of the bible.  With all the
>>errors in the bible it hardly qualifies as reliable.
>
>That's perfectly valid opinion.  We disagree on the topic, and it is
>unlikely that I will convince you to change, or vice-versa.  I'll respect
>your opinion, if you'll respect mine....course that means ya gotta listen
>to me...;-)...or ignore me...you chose!  Ya never know, someday you might
>just change your opinoin.

I doubt that I'd ever change my opinion, unless some pretty impressive
evidence was found.  But I do respect your opinions.  It's just that
sometimes you voice your opinions like they are accepted *fact*.

...
>>It's tough to keep up on this thread though.  This damn work-stuff gets in
>>the way. ;-)
>
>That is true...;-)  Gotta do SOMETHING to get paid...hmm, I wonder if I
>could get a job that paid for posting to the net? ;-)

If you find one, please let me know.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame