Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CSvax:Pucc-H:aeq
From: CSvax:Pucc-H:aeq@pur-ee.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: "Re: A Belated Reply to Paul Dubuc [from - (nf)"
Message-ID: <352@pucc-h>
Date: Tue, 1-Nov-83 12:56:49 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.352
Posted: Tue Nov  1 12:56:49 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Nov-83 02:30:21 EST
References: <198@ihlpf.UUCP>, <333@pyuxn.UUCP>
Lines: 102


        It would seem that a fundamental principle of religionism (the
        belief in the desire or need for a religion, esp. for all people)
        is a low opinion of humanity.  Without god, humankind is nothing. 
        Without god, people would only resort to doing evil things and
        would have no reason to be "good".  Without god, there would
        be no guidelines for us to live by.  Without god, our origins
        would be ascribed to "natural" processes like evolution (GASP!),
        and our very existence could only be based on pure chance
        (HORRORS!).  Therefore there must be a god.
        (I just LOVE that last sentence.)

In a way, it is the non-believers in God who have a low opinion of humanity.
Is it not an insult to tell people that they are basically the same as
primordial ooze, that they exist only by chance, and that therefore they have
neither value nor meaning?  Also, where did the ideas of "good" and "evil"
come from?  As C.S. Lewis points out in "Mere Christianity" (especially the
first part, which is philosophical rather than religious), the action that we
really feel is "good" is not necessarily the one that is "best" for us; but we
often feel that an action is the good thing to do despite the fact that it may
have risk of being bad for us.  (He uses the example of rescuing a drowning
person at some peril to yourself.)  But where did this obstinate idea of
"good", that seems so at odds with our usual self, come from?  Lewis's
reasoning is a lot better than my vague memories thereof, but he comes to the
conclusion (quite logically) that there must be some outside agency that came
up with this idea of "good" and "evil".

I might also point out that the use of sarcasm suggests weakness in your own
position; perhaps you are afraid that there really is a God, and you are
attacking Him in every way possible?
        
        This is one reason why the notion of "humanism" is so frightening to
        religionists; it promotes the idea of humans being in charge of their
        own destiny, as far as their bodies and minds can take them, and not
        subject to the whims of an incorporeal entity.  (The other reason
        that religionists fear humanism is that such a belief, if widely held,
        would shake their power base out from under them.)

You make humanism sound like such a lonely and terrible thing!  According to
you, humans are, just by chance, stuck here to fend for themselves, without
assistance from an entity not so finite.  Christians (at least the ones I
hang around with) believe that we have an infinite source of help available,
and that it is much better to have this source in charge of us, because He
designed us and thus knows how to repair us (that's really a big part of the
Christian life--it could be said, even the entire Christian life: a repair
job, to bring the human back up to spec).  I grant that often the things God
wishes us to do may LOOK like "whims" initially (i.e. they may appear to be
totally arbitrary, useless, even damaging to us); but they tend to turn out to
be, usually in a susprising way, the best possible thing for us.  Finally, I
would turn your last sentence around:  The reason humanists fear God is that
belief in Him would shake their power base out from under them, i.e. you are
afraid to abandon yourself to the One who made you, who knows you better than
you know yourself, who loves you beyond compare, who knows what is really best
for you (though it may not feel that way); you don't dare let God handle your
life, because you can't tell or control how it will turn out, and it could
hurt a lot.  (I, as a Christian, still feel the same fear, so I'm not blaming
you for feeling it.)

        A few questions for Christians and other religionists:  Why must
        there be a god?  What is the difference between praying to god
        for help and helping yourself?  (If the Lord helps those who help
        themselves, isn't prayer just a methodology for getting yourself
        in the frame of mind to help yourself?) What is wrong with the
        idea that, as long as I don't interfere in the rights of other
        human beings, I should be free to live to my best potential as I
        see fit?

I could say that it isn't a question of whether there "must" be a god; there
simply IS one.  However, I refer you again to "Mere Christianity", which makes
a good case for the existence of God (and in which Lewis admits that he looked
feverishly for denials of Christianity when he began to be afraid that it was
true).  As for "God helps those who help themselves", there is some truth to
that; there is a Bible verse which reads something like "Work out your own
salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you"--i.e. God
does work in you, but you do a lot of the work yourself.  God gives you plenty
of freedom; He doesn't want to force Himself on you; He is waiting for you to
discover that it is best--i.e. it makes your life optimal--to follow Him, and
to voluntarily choose to do so.  Prayer IS a way to get yourself in a frame of
mind where you can do what is needed to help yourself and others; I have
received some incredible psychological healing through prayer.  (There is one
recent example which is rather personal, so I hesitate to post it to the net,
but I will send it to you in a letter if you ask me to.)  Your last idea is
not really wrong; it just isn't best.  It is a good thing to live up to your
best potential; but again, God knows your best potential better than you do,
so you have a better chance of reaching your potential with God than without.
But if you choose to disbelieve in God, it is still better to live up to your
potential as best you can on your own; God will quite likely work through you
even if you're not aware of it.  God has been known to work through many
people who don't acknowledge a relationship to him (as witness numerous
"secular" songs which have obvious religious overtones, such as an early
Billy Joel song entitled "You're My Home" or something similar).  And that
brings out another point--Christianity is not just a "religion" in the sense
of believing a bunch of doctrines and obeying a bunch of strictures.  The
whole point is to have a personal relationship with God.  And that
relationship will change you (it has certainly changed me).  I vaguely recall
another Bible passage (probably in Acts) in which, because of their unique
character, "they took notice of them [the disciples], that they had been with
Jesus."  Let me just finish by saying that if I had not "been with Jesus" for
nearly half my life, I would very possibly have been at least one of insane,
in prison, or dead (probably by my own hand).

-- Jeff Sargent/...pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq