Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: lindborg@deer.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: man mere play things? Message-ID: Date: 28 Apr 91 23:27:06 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Washington Computer Science Lines: 62 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >In article lindborg@mirror.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >>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. >(The author the "The Book of J" may disagree with you on this one. He >suggests that "J" [one of the theoretical Old Testament authors] may >have been a women. [Female of the human race].) Yes, and what else does he suggest? He says that it was probably a PLAY written by a woman (I've read the book in question). One of the reasons he comes to the conclusion it must have been a woman writing the sections credited to the J source is that these sections don't treat women at objects owned by men as much of the rest of the bible does. I assume, then, you don't buy this man's hypothesis? Or just the selected parts you like... >In order to create humans which were incapable of sin, God >would needed to have created us with no free will. (No freedom to >choose between good and evil.) Humans would need to be automatons. We >would therefore be very poor images of God. Yes but if we are capable of sin it stands to reason that at some point we would employ that option given the time and numbers of humans God must surely had anticipated would swarm the earth. If NOT ONE PERSON employed sin then I would argue that it was not TRUE free will. So by exercising that free will in a way that displeases God we 'earn' our spot in hell. >Think of the parent who must eventually allow their children "to make >their own mistakes", even if those mistakes mean that the children will >disobey their parents, and their parents will punish them. (I can't >help it, I love the image of "God the Father"). The parent knows that >unless they give their children the freedom to make their own mistakes, >they will never learn, and they will never mature. This is one of the most over-used annalagies in Christianity... God the "Father" if fine if He would reach down and spank us each time we get out of hand. However, we don't get such interaction and many times (unless we are told) we don't even realize we are sinning. My father always took care of the situation right up front when he caught me doing something wrong and used the belt right there... sent a pretty clear message. We get no such message (clear of otherwise) from your god. The only interaction I'll get from God (according to you) will be when I'm being 'sentenced' to hell after I die. At this point its obviously too late to do anything about it. It would seem that God weilds a much bigger instrument of punishment then my father's belt, and uses it in a very unproductive way. Its not an instrument of reform as my dad's belt, but an instrument revenge employed rather widely across the human population He supposedly loves. >You imply that a "loving" God would not punish his children. I assume >your parents punished you as a child. Would you say that they didn't >love you? If by "punishment" you mean my father kept out of my view and didn't make his presence known at all... doing nothing but keeping track of everything I did wrong and then picking some random moment to burn me to death for the wrong I committed, then no... my father did not "punish" me. He was more loving than that. Jeff Lindborg