Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: lindborg@mirror.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: man mere play things? Message-ID: Date: 21 Apr 91 05:42:13 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 117 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article RJB@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu (Rich Belcinski) writes: >lindborg@basin.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) says: >>In article >>lindborg@snow.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: > 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. You are, of course, assuming there is some clear cut criteria for me to determine the "rightness" of worshiping your god as opposed to the "wrongness" of rejecting Him. You make it appear as though I can make an informed decision based on the facts that God exists but, because I am evil, I will choose to reject Him. This, as you said, simply does not wash. > 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? No. Keep in mind I spent the better part of my life as a practicing Christian. I do not feel I was somehow intellectually inferior. > If your answer is "yes," then > consider also applying your "skeptical mind" to addressing the > question "did King Charlemagne ever exist?" This class, is the definition of a "straw man". Creating an argument that was not set forth and then sumarily destroying it. If you have a complex about your the intellectual viability of Christianity this is something you will have to deal with on your own... [rest of straw man argument deleted] >>Of course you are assuming the truth of the Bible... I, however, do not. > 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? I believe the Bible to be written by men (males of the human race) in much the same way every other religious text created throughout the history of the world are also products of human minds to serve human needs. >>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: [unrelated assumption deleted] > 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. But it happens here quite a lot and (according to many) happens in the here after for nonbelievers too. Perhaps He doesn't *need* external sources of satisfaction... perhaps He *wants* them.... You have failed to answer God's motivation in creating a race of beings and then expecting them to behave and THINK in a way that satisfies Him. If they don't he punishes them for eternity. This was the crux of my argument and you ignored it completely... > However [crucial] God is holy. He will not tolerate unrighteousness in > his presence. Again, then, what was God's motivation for creating a being capable of the 'unrighteousness' that humans are. He had to have known before hand that mankind would "fall" into sin etc... what's the point. > Hell, then, is eternal separation from God. God doesn't inflict the pain > in hell... it is the *desire* to be with God that inflicts the pain. > (This is probably unbiblical... but there's freedom for interpretation here). Quite a lot apparently... > The Bible speaks in metaphors in many places. Many of the statements about > hell are, in fact, metaphorical. So says you. I could reference MANY people who would disagree with you. Further if the Bible speaks metaphorically about hell what about the rest of it? Christ does not appear to be speaking metaphorically when he was railing on about hell. How do you determine when the Bible is being figurative as opposed to literal? Anything that is difficult to rationalize is figurative? How convenient... >> ... then 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 Well then I know a lot of 7 year old Christians... Many people believe in a literal hell. Are you saying they are somehow less intelligent than yourself? Jeff Lindborg "... if there's any justice in the sky, if there's a reason to live or die, expose yourself, destroy our fears, loose you mask!" Queen