From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:52:13 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <adams.716310684@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

Re: God's schizophrenia
 
>>Okay...but why? Couldn't God waive his own rules?  Especially regarding a
>>price to be paid to himself by himself?  I still don't understand.
> 
> If God had waived the rules, that would have violated justice.  Of course,
> now you'll ask why he didn't wave that one...the point is, that God
> demonstrated mercy and justice, and still followed the rules.  The price
> HAD to be paid somehow by someone.

Why _didn't_ he waive that one?  If we say that God had no choice but to
be just (i.e. he couldn't just be merciful)  then aren't we saying that
God has no free will?  Aren't we saying that he is _determined_ by the laws
of his own nature?

If he _did_ have a choice, then he sacrificed himself to himself 
pointlessly, and the result is that lots of his kiddies are going to Hell,
because they don't believe this rather bizarre story.
 
>>I'm afraid I still don't get it. How did he take _all_ of the pain of
>>sin for the whole world onto himself?   Can one person pay the moral
>>price for another?  I beat up my brother and then convince my sister to
>>take the punishment? Something doesn't seem right... have I got this
>>straight?
> 
> Back to Original Sin for a moment...according to Paul (yeah, him again)
> Adam's sin bound all men to sin, Jesus death and resurection broke the
> bonds.  So just as the price of sin was being paid by all men, so the 
> redemption is to all men.
> 
> The whole issues is that it's not right!  That was how the hold of Satan
> (let's use him for a moment, shall we) was broken.  Satan was not entitled
> to Jesus' soul, but conspired for it anyway.  Once he took the soul of the
> just and sinless Jesus, he lost his rights over anyone.
> 
> This puts Satan in a role that has power...and is darn near dualist...I
> have my own problems with this...

It also makes Satan pretty dumb. As an archangel, you'd think he'd see
through such a simple scheme and refuse to take Jesus' soul. As you say,
it also seems to indicate that he can take any soul he wants, even if it's
sinless.  

I still don't understand this corporate responsibility stuff.  Is it 
just that Adam's sin should bind everybody?   It doesn't even make sense,
anyway, because you said that we're sinners because God needs us to be
so that we'll freely turn to him.  Combine this with the Fall, and the only
conclusion is that the Fall was a set-up! God _needed_ Adam and Eve to fall
so that everybody would have original sin and have to freely choose to
return to Him...yuck-o-rama...that would mean Satan is either working for
God or is too stupid to see that his supposed "rebellion" only serves the
purposes of the Big Guy.  Now, if _I'm_ bright enough to see that, surely
an archangel could see it.  I don't know, Steve, this just sounds
nuttier and nuttier the deeper we go into it.  Well, maybe I've just
misunderstood. Can you clarify all this for me?
 
> You know, it's
> interesting.  I'm more than happy to read the OT and form an independent
> conclusion based on what I read and what I observe.  Tougher to do that
> with the NT, though with the Gospels, I've done some of the same thing.  I
> guess the problem with Paul is that denying his theology puts me outside
> the circle I still want to be in.
> 
> I'm beginning to understand the appeal of fundamentalism.  And why when
> things get tough it is SO attractive.

Could you elaborate on this?
 
>>It's just a stripped-down interpretation of history since the
>>Renaissance. Subject to all the limitations of one man's interpretation.
> But fairly accurate, I'd say.
> 
>>However - I think it is true that if we have free will, than we are
>>independant sources of good and evil.  On reflection, though, a Christian
>>perspective defines "good" as having existence only in relation to
>>God i.e. what God does/wants = good.  Or does it?
> I have toyed with changing my definition of 'good' to make things work.
> But I don't want to simply resort to the claim that 'whatever God does is
> good, no matter how bad it looks to us'.  I suppose I could claim that
> God's good is so trancendent that we can never understand it.  But in that
> case, then we can never understand good, period, and our notion of good is
> so far wrong that it is useless.

I agree.

"Good" becomes a matter of following rules one doesn't understand, at that
point. In what sense is one free, if this is how one chooses "good?" The
only possible reason to choose God at this point would be fear of hell.
If one is choosing X out of fear, is that a free choice? 

But hang on a minute...
If one is choosing X out of _love_, is _that_ a free choice? 

>>I suspect the notion of "human
>>rights" comes from the combination of the free-will doctrine with the
>>idea of objective (non-God-related) good. 
> Yes, to some extent.  It's interesting that Jefferson, et al, claimed God-
> given rights in the declaration.  Being a deist, though, this would have
> to have been some part of 'nature' that God created, which could be discenred 
> by man.  I wonder what was behind his appeal to God...perhaps 'appeal to
> authority' higher than the King? ;-)
 
I suspect it was an attempt to claim ultimate validity for these "rights,"
since they were part of nature.  That way, as you say, someone who
believed in these rights could stand up to human authority justifiably.

>>Remarkable, isn't it?  In this respect, I admire the Catholics, who have
>>always managed to keep Puritanism from taking over the Church. 
> But only to some extent, for the recent letters on homosexuality, family,
> abortion, women, etc are still along very conservative lines.  Not puritan,
> but darn close.  Certainly not the extremes of Cromwell, as you pointed
> out.

Good point. Generalization ought to be one of the Seven Deadlies. 

Re: Paul
 
>>However, to use Paul as a
>>starting point...isn't there a computer expression "garbage in, garbage out?"
>>If you start with a bad assumption, you are unlikely to get anywhere.
>>Your first step should be: evaluation of your starting points, shouldn't it?
>
> Of course.  What do you think is going on here???  ;-)  You don't think
> this whole series of threads has done exactly this?

Whoops! Sorry...
 
>>Not "discard," doubt...Jesus is a mysterious figure. He is very difficult
>>to figure out on his own. Even his own apostles never understood him,
>>if one can extrapolate from the gospels. They're always standing around
>>scratching their heads every time Jesus says something, then they wait
>>until the crowd leaves and rush up, "So explain all that to us, boss!"
> 
> Yeah, and a couple of times he actually called them dense, and wondered
> just how long it was going to take for them to get the picture.  I found
> this very interesting, myself.  And it does sort of lead to the idea of
> 'secret' knowldege, too.  For Jesus spoke in parables, but didn't explain
> everything to the unwashed masses.  Hmm.

The Valentinian Gnostics, I seem to recall, claimed that Paul taught 
a "secret doctrine" as well. In Sencond Corinthians 2:16? I think (?)
he says that he has a teaching only for those who are spiritually mature.
They went on to say that Valentinus, the leader of their group, learned
this secret doctrine from one of Paul's "initiate" disciples. 
Their version of Gnosticism was supposedly an enaction of Paul's
secret teaching...which makes a lot more sense to me than his 
public one!
 
>>I have actually been thinking more about this, and I think I may have
>>another way to approach this whole free will business. Interested?
>
> Of course!

Tomorrow or Monday, then. I need to sort it out a bit more. Maybe I'll
start a new Free Will thread, only for that end of the discussion.

>  -Steve

"Space-age cyberheretic" :)

Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

Disclaimer: Everything I say is false.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc