From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: some questions about God(tm)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 09:01:40 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

Stephen doesn't seem to realize that I am not arguing from ignorance wrt
Christianity and biblical verse.
Some deletions will be done to keep it a reasonable length.

<sbuckley.715474476@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>Gordon Storga writes:
>>Stephen Buckley writes:
>>>Gordon Storga writes:
...
>>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.  

Please cite me one scripture that says that *Satan* said he wants to be
god.

>                       not allowed.  disobey god.  goes to hell.  

What's he waiting for?  For Satan to mislead and kill a few million more
people?

>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.

I've already debated that premise.  Look Stephen, you seem to do a fine
point of deciding under what premise you'll argue.  Frankly I'm getting
tired of it.  If you can't argue objectively then don't bother trying.

>>>>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.

Hey, *you* are the one who is worshipping a being who ordered inncoent
women and children slaughtered because the *men* of their tribe warred
with the chosen people.

...
>>>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.  

Sorry, I read a little farther along (ISA 55:12).

>                                     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.  

You are saying that it is impossible for your god to speak to you?  I;m
shocked.  I thought nothing was beyond this omnipotent being.  Apparently
you believe he has limitations.

>                                              especially because this
>contradicts god's pledge to us as found in the bible.  

God's contradicted his own pledges and commandments all the time.  Why do
you believe he'll hold to any of them?

>                                                       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.

"Reality"?  I thought we were discussing theology here?  Seriously.

...
>>>  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.  

What is the context of slaughtering women and children who had no say in
their tribe's politics or battle plans?  What merciful loving god would
*command* that women be raped for the "crime" of belonging to the wrong 
man?

>            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.

You are right there.  You require that I believe in your god and his bible
in order for your arguments to make sense.  That isn't open-minded 
discussion.

[autobiogrpahy argument deleted]
>>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.

Sure we are.  I don't need to accept the existence of the Olympic
Pantheon to discuss Pagan religions.  I don't need to accept the
existence of the United Federation of PLanets to discuss the logic in
an episode of Star Trek.  I don't need to accept the existence of many of
the characters in a work of fiction in order to discuss their motives
later with others.

...
>>>>>  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.  

Yeah, and I'm sure your brand of Christianity has *no* symbolism.

>                                                                     but
>i'm not worried, the holes in their theology are big enough to drive 
>a bus through.  

Look who's talking.

>                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.

That's exactly my take on your bible.  No credibility.

>>>                                  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.

Well, if it's not your dislike or your prejudice against them, what is it?

>it's well documented and well founded.  

By other Christian sects that disagree with them.  Ooh!  That's
surprising.

>                                        bigotry is a serious allegation
>that isn't supported by the widespread coherent critiques of the jw's
>flawed and incorrect theology.  

Come on.  You call them perverts, and then joke about how I couldn't
possibly be defending *them*.

That sure sounded bigotted to me.

>                                christianity is rooted in the bible,

So is JW.

>mainly in jesus' divinity and offer of salvation, death and resurrection.

So are the JWs.

>sects that influence things not rooted in the bible don't even fit
>the dictionary definition of christianity.

Sure they do.  If they believe that Jesus is the son of god and the
saviour then they qualify as Christian.

...
>>>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?  

Why?  Will you burn a cross of my lawn for daring to defend those
"perverts"?  Won't abide nobody talking to them uppity <insert favorite
biggoted slur here>, eh?  Don't you hear how you sound?

>                                                             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.

Stephen, I bible studied for 2 years with the JW.  Then off and on with
other born again sects for several years.  My ex-wife was a Mormon.  I
am not arguing from ignorance.  On the contrary, I've seen it all up
close and personal.  It's intellectual dishonesty to claim Christianity
and the bible as reality, and force others to argue from that premise.  If
you haven't studied with the JW ad the Mormons then you are the one
arguing from ignorance.

I doubt now you'll want to continue this thread.  


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.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:15355 alt.atheism:16309