Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: RJB@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu (Rich Belcinski) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Unforgiveable Sins Message-ID: Date: 14 Apr 91 02:06:14 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Lines: 137 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , lindborg@basin.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) says: >In article >lindborg@snow.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: > >>>What about those of us who are not able to believe your hypothesis? >>>Quite simply I am not able to force myself to believe that Christ was the >>>Son of God (or that there is, indeed, a god in the first place). I >>>believe that (according to you) your god is responsible for giving me my >>>skeptical mind... is He not then responsible for my eternal damnation >>>too? Responsibility for what we *are* rests with God (or whatever higher power you might believe in). Responsibility for what you *do* with the attributes that are given you rests entirely with you. The argument that "I had no choice" simply doesn't wash. We are all given choices. I would not say that our wills are "free" (whatever THAT means), but the essential choice between right and wrong will be there. Does that mean that (according to Christian beliefs) that you're condemned because you've got a "skeptical mind?" Let me ask this: do you think you need to committ intellectual suicide to believe that Jesus was the son of God? If your answer is "yes," then consider also applying your "skeptical mind" to addressing the question "did King Charlemagne ever exist?" You have not seen him in the flesh; you only accept "historical evidence." There are things your "skeptical mind" accept without question! There is historical evidence that Jesus lived. Most Christians say that there is more than ample evidence (by the standards employed by historians themselves) that he even rose from the dead. Now, I'm not trying to give you the Christian "hard-sell," but I am trying to point-up an inconsistency. You say you cannot believe that Jesus was the son of God. You indeed have the choice to believe that. But to argue that somehow being a Christian involves being intellectually irresponsible is indefensible. Ask yourself seriously about what you *really* know... I think alot of hard feelings erupt in discussions like this because personal morals come to the fore fairly quickly. Non-Christians quickly become tired of the smug self-righteousness that is exuded by some of the weaker brothers. A good friend of mine is an agnostic, and his friendship has enriched me greatly. Our (infrequent) religious discussions are fun, lively, and exude a feeling of respect and intellectual playfulness. I am a particle physicist, and he is a talented robotics scientist. Please understand: the Christian is not commanded to point-out your short-comings to you. He has no right to do this as a Christian. It is not given to us to know who is "saved" and who is "not." >Of course you are assuming the truth of the Bible... I, however, do not. It >is also written that "I will not eat green eggs and ham, said Sam I am!" >What's your point? The reference would be relevant if it was considered to be true (or at least has the POSSIBILITY of being true) by both parties. Am I correct in assuming that there is no way that you'd consider that the Bible could even *possibly* be true (even in light of what I've written above)? A principle I usually adhere to when discussing apologetics with Agnostics is not to "beat 'em with a bible." This is probably the single "worst" thing one can do. If they start trying to blast *me* with it, however... all bets are off! >>>I should think that I wont mind being separated from the so-called >>>"love" that involves the eternal torment and pain of the majority of the >>>human population for the sins committed within the period of a lifetime. You are correct in that it is hard to see the "justice" in the above. I think the crux of your argument (to paraphrase) is that "Your god cannot be a loving god if he would inflict an eternity of punishment for the comparitively small crime of sins in 50+ years of life." The way I would answer is based on your two implicit assumptions: 1) You know how the Christian God sees sin. You, in fact, don't. (Nobody does.) I struggle all of the time with personal sins, and arguments like "its just a small thing... God really doesn't care about this particular sin all that much" come to my mind all of the time. We don't really know what the consequences of our sins are. How do we really know how serious they are with God, then? You see, the biblical principle that "God hates all sin equally" isn't entirely senseless. 2) God metes out eternal torment and pain. I don't see the necessity of this particular statement. God is complete... he doesn't *need* external sources of satisfaction. Causing another to be in pain isn't necessary. However [crucial] God is holy. He will not tolerate unrighteousness in his presence. Hell, then, is eternal separation from God. Descriptions of hell are usually couched in painful terms because, to the Christian, such separation would really be painful. God doesn't inflict the pain in hell... it is the *desire* to be with God that inflicts the pain. Have you ever been tormented by a desire before? I, personally, believe that hell is where you will want to be if that's where you're going. Its the place you go if self is the only thing you want to serve. You get set-up in front of a mirror for eternity to worship yourself as god, and to relish in your "incompleteness." (This is probably unbiblical... but there's freedom for interpretation here). The Bible speaks in metaphores in many places. Many of the statements about hell are, in fact, metaphorical. >Excellent! I'd been fishing for an explanation of the motivations God had in >creating human life for some time... now I have an answer. We are mere play >things for His amusement. He can break his toys when they displease Him (as >we see he does quite often in the Bible). I guess you're free to believe that. But in that belief, also know that in your mind you've built-up a "straw-man" christian faith that's only suitable for a seven-year-old (and you've shown your considerable intellectual prowess in knocking down such a construct). The questions you raise aren't easy. No one should put you down for asking them. If you're interested in my arguments for why I belive that the Christian God is not a capricious God, then e-mail me (I've already used lots of band-width! :-) ). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard J. Belcinski | Any opinion expressed above is not | Bitnet: RJB@SLACVM.BITNET | necessarily that of SLAC or the US DOE. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [Note that there's a difference between Jeff's saying that he cannot bring himself to believe something and making a general assertion that being a Christian involves being intellectually irresponsible. At least in the posting you quote, Jeff was saying only the former. While I certainly believe there is good evidence for God's action in history, it also seems clear that this evidence is not unambiguous enough to convince everyone. It seems that attempts to provide "historical proof" are not convincing unless the listener is also being convinced in their heart by the Spirit. People who believe they have presented completely convincing arguments are likely to get frustrated, and I fear (based on a history of reading talk.religion.misc) that at times this frustration affects their ability to deal with non-Christians in an understanding manner. --clh]