From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 07:05:31 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

I'm willing to drop this thread since you don't want to continue it.
However, I have some observations which others might like to answer.

<sbuckley.714787195@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><sbuckley.714458974@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) said:
>>>Scott Gibson writes:
>>>>Stephen Buckley writes:
>>>                         without god being just, there is no moral
>>>imperative or precedent in the universe and we're free to do anything
>>>without thought to whether it's good or bad.  
>
>>Your logic doesn't parse.  Could you explain how being able to do anything
>>we wanted to do would be "bad"?
>
>  read the bible for the long list of instances where god objects to
>human behaviour.  but i'll just mention one.  in eden, he said don't
>eat of this one tree.  *we disobeyed him*.  

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?

>                                            this is the root of all our
>sins.  god has ideas for what is good, absolutely good and binding on us
>all.  so.  there are ways [knowable in the bible] for us to live that
>god commands, and there are ways to live that he says not to do.  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.

>>>                                 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.

>>>          i think it was c.s. lewis [who everyone can trash as usual if
>>>they want to] who said something like god's seeming injustice is merely
>>>a source of further wisdom to be sought.  but i suppose you'll blow
>>>that to pieces too.
>
>>Either you believe that certain actions are heinous *regardless* of who
>>does them, or you rationalize them away.
>
>  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.

>>>>>  god has presented an autobiography and a personal manifestation to
>>>>>tell us about himself.  both jesus and god's word live and work today.
>>>
>>>>That's funny, some other Christian just told me that the OT is _not_
>>>>the word of God.  So, where's this autobiography?
>>>
>>>  the bible is the inspired, inerrant word of god.  
>
>>"Inerrent"?  Are you aware that the bible speaks of rabbits chewing cuds,
>>and locusts having 4 legs?  Are you aware that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all
>>differ as to the account of Jesus' death?
>
>  i can't see how you can be writing these questions if you understood
>what it means for the bible to be inspired by god and inerrant.  logically,
>the argument i make about it is circular because it ultimately rests in
>the inerrancy and divine inspiration of the bible.  and i get the sense
>that you really do know about it, but you just don't believe it.  so
>we're each trying to convince the other of something neither of us
>is prepared to accept.  

I don't know...  A book that I'm supposed to base my life upon... The
unerring word of *the* omnipotent being...  And he can't even get a
rabbits digestive processes correct???  What other things did he make
mistakes with?

>>>                                                    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.

...
>>>>>  some sects have radically perverted the essential essence of jesus.
>>>
>>>>This isn't an answer.  You restated the condition.  _Why_ is this
>>>>so?
>>>
>>>  ask the mormons and jehovah's witnesses.  i won't speak for them.
>
>>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"?

>>>  i understand the questions you have scott,  but doesn't it sound like
>>>we're going in circles?  you ask questions, i answer, you don't accept
>>>my answer, you ask something else, repeat cycle.  i suppose we're both
>>>growing weary of the cycle.
>
>>You are giving non-responsive answers.  I don't blame you, given that you
>>are using the bible as your source material.  I've read it and studied it
>>and I know why you have non-responsive answers.  I was hoping that you
>>might look at it in a different light - reason and logic.
>
>  man, you're making too many presumptions about me.  i spent 10 years
>critiquing the bible in the light of reason and logic.  i spent an entire
>year actively reconciling my critiques and found the bible to be sound.
>i didn't just open it one morning and say, "oh, this must be true."  much
>more thot went into it or else i wouldn't be spending so much time
>talking about it on the net and in other places.

Ditto (except for the "finding it to be sound" part).


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.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics,sci.anthropology