From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:37:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: spssig.adams.703539443
Distribution: na
Organization: SPSS Inc.

kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:

>In article <adams.703432170@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>[Amazingly, Steve seems to agree with me on just about every point I
>make.  At the very least, he doesn't seem to disagree.  :-)  Anyway,
>I figured my points were made long ago, and apparently Ireneus was the
>one to make them.  And I had such hopes.  Ah, I can feel the fame
>slipping through my fingers.  :-)   Anyway, I asked Steve to describe
>his belief system.  Thus:]
:-)  Of course, I tend to get into trouble with some of the more
fundamental literalists in my church, by hey, it sure keeps things
interesting!

Sorry about your ideology, though, since Ireneaus beat you to it by
something like 1700 years...:-)

>>Anyway, there is one thing that appears to be a logical impossibility.
>>Even though God is all-powerful, there is one thing that He cannot
>>logically do.  And that is to create another God.  Were He to do that, He
>>would cease to be unique and thus, no longer be Supreme.  Actually, a
>>better way of saying this it not that God "can't", but that God "wouldn't".
>>In either case, it cannot or will not be done.

>Interesting, though I must ask: what is this obsession God has with
>being Supreme?  :-)

One of the definitions...:-)  But seriously, it is certainly required that
He be supreme if we are to believe that He must, in the end, conquor evil.
Also, since God is the only thing that is eternal, it's hard to see how
there could be anything more supreme than God.

>>Given this particular assumption, there is a way to harmonize the 4
>>premises above.  When we then look at creation, whether we refer to the
>>creation of the Angels or Adam and Eve, the same situation holds.  I'll use
>>the Angels first, since that allows for the allegorical story of Satan in
>>the form of the serpent misleading Eve.
>>
>>When God created the Angels, they were slightly less than Gods.  They were
>>created to be very, very much like God, but they were not God.  Since this
>>is the case, we now have two grades in existance for the first time.  Since
>>by definition (one of our assumptions was God being omnibonum) God is the
>>most perfectly good thing in the universe, the Angels are slightly less
>>good than Him.  Thus, God is the most good, the Angels the least good.  Or,
>>said differently, God is the most good, and the Angels are the most evil.
>>Remember, we only have two groups, and given our assumptions of God being
>>perfectly good, the Angels cannot be perfect replicas of God.

>Okay.  No problems so far.

Jeez, and this is where I expected trouble...:-)

>>Thus, evil came into being through no 'fault' of God, but simply as a part
>>of creation.  Since I restricted God in the small way above, I don't think
>>it was possible for God to create without something less good (even
>>minutely so) than He.

>Well, more likely that he couldn't create something as good and remain
>Supreme.  :-)

Exactly, hence a logical impossibility, at least to me.

>Actually, I'm not sure that would follow.  See, the only time you really
>have a problem with multiple Gods is when they have conflicting desires.
>But that doesn't happen if you make a copy of yourself [well, it's not
>quite *that* simple.  If you happen to be the Jealous Type, e.g. you
>would want to kill anything that is your equal, and you make a copy
>of yourself, then you get everyone trying to kill everyone else.  Such
>is the stuff of legendary wars in heaven.  Imagine the fireworks!  :-) ]

>The point being that unless God is the Jealous Type like I described
>above, he could make exact duplicates of himself without ever running
>into problems.  But it would be real boring...:-)
Yes, of course, but since our God declares himself to be a Jealous God (cf
Exodus 20:5), then this fits...Assuming of course that we are allowing the
Bible as evidence here.:-)  And since it's my theology, I can!

>>The same thing holds for man.  Man was corporeal, and thus slightly less
>>good than the Angels.  Etc.

>Okay...

>>As for man's original sin, since God's desire (IMHO) was to be worshiped
>>freely, man had to have a real option of not worshiping God.  And of not
>>following his rules.  This is again a function of God.
>>
>>So although I do assign the responsibility to God, I do not 'blame' him.
>>It's a fine line.

>Errrmm...I can see the difference that you're talking about here.
Good...I didn't lose you completely.  And it is a fine line I'm walking.

>>As for salvation, my basic problem with Ireneus is that since there is no
>>Hell, what would God do with someone who in the end refused Him.

>Can you say "Q"?  :-)
"Q" :-)  Interesting reference...:-)

>In fact, I would do that for *everyone*.  Those that wanted my presence
>would have it, that those that wanted my absence would get that.  And
>either type could change their mind at any time.
Well, since heaven is to be a 'paradise' it is entirely possible that this
is the case.  I don't think, though, that it's a physical place, but a
state of the full presence and glory of God.  But, hey, I haven't been
there so I haven't got a real clue...:-)

>Hey, yeah...*that's* what life on earth is for...:-)
Yes, a learning experience...see below.

>>Basically, my theology professor answered that with the belief that God
>>would be forced to simply destroy that soul, based on interpolations from
>>Ireneus teachings.  I find this a horrible prospect, though, for if one soul
>>can be destroyed, it perhaps isn't a problem.  But if two can be, then all
>>can be, and THAT's a problem!

>Hmm...so what do you think of my idea above?  I mean, God *can* create
>autonomous beings that do not require his presence to exist (such an
>ability does not depend on being God's equal)...
It is possible, and it doesn't contradict anything Scriptural.  No specific
definition of heaven (or salvation for that matter) is given.  More or
less, this whole idea of eschatology and salvation is one of the major
spliting factors among Christians.  My theology dictionary says that things
are up in the air scripturally, with different ideas running through both
the Old and New Testaments.  I just try to fit my theology into the things
I do know.

>>I do believe, though, that salvation is open to a much wider range of
>>people than Augustine, or a typical Christian, does.  This tends to put me
>>at odds with other Christians.  My point is that I don't believe a truly
>>loving, good God would condemn someone who lived a good life, even though
>>not being a believer, yet would save a "stinking, sinning Christian" (to
>>borrow a phrase from Luther).

>I agree.  See above.  I'm real interested in knowing whether or not you
>agree with me on the "set him up and leave him alone" idea...
Not quite.  This is basically the definition of a Deist.  In Deism,
basically, God is remote from man, set him up and leave him alone as you
say.  And Deists generally reject dogmatism based on revelation.  My
theology dictionary lists Voltaire and Thomas Paine as noted Deists.  It
also says that it developed as a counter to dogmatism masquerading as
Christian virtue.  Scripture was much less important, and rational moralism
was the reigning value.  Something you might like!

>A God that set things up like that would be the ultimate Cool Dude...
As I said...too bad their aren't any Deists left around...they more or less
disappeared in the 18th century, though the dictionary says that they may
surface again to counter the fundamentalists...

>>This isn't perhaps the best way I can explain it, but I haven't really had
>>to write it out since I came to it.  I was led in this direction after
>>writing a term paper on Free Will (which I had supported 100% at the time) and
>>thinking about it for the last year or so.

>A bit of time to be thinking about this stuff, to be sure.
Not nearly as long as others, but I have to be comfortable with it.  I'm
still working on it, too.

>I would say that, all in all, you've found a good compromise.  If I may
>extrapolate a bit, I get the impression that you don't have much of a
>problem with the beliefs of others (provided that they're at least
>reasonable and harmless).  This is a welcome contrast to some of the
>raving lunatics out there preaching "God's Word".  Such raving lunatics
>are downright dangerous if they get real power...
I agree.  And thanks for the complement.  Being a technically minded
person, who puts good stock in science, I cannot reject things that are
clearly shown by science to be true.  As such, I have to fit my theology
within the framework of our knowledge.  Not quite a "God of the Gaps",
since I don't use God to fill in the gaps of science - scientists are doing
that every day.

As for reasoned, intelligent disagreement, yes.  I'd hate to be in a world
where everyone agreed with me...how boring...no debates!  And since I wish
to be free to exercise my beliefs and ideas, so must you be allowed to
exercise yours.  I think our Fouding Fathers did an excellent job setting
up our country.  Including separating church and state.

>There are some things about your beliefs, thouth, that I have problems with,
>e.g. why did God create such a hostile place (the universe) for humans to
>live in if he's so Good???  Did I answer it somewhere above?  :-)
Ireneus answer was that it was a learning experience.  That without
experiencing evil first hand, it would not be possible to know the good.
So yes, earth is a learning experience, just as you said.  Hmm, maybe I'm
gonna have to start believing in reincarnation...you sound a lot like
Ireneus...ever been to Lyon?  (Where Ireneus was Bishop) :-)

 -Steve
-- 
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558