Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!uokvax!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: L-O-N-G response to Tim Maroney - (nf)
Message-ID: <4827@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Jan-84 22:54:08 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4827
Posted: Sun Jan  8 22:54:08 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jan-84 03:20:20 EST
Lines: 115

#R:ssc-vax:-72700:uokvax:8300025:000:5834
uokvax!emjej    Jan  7 14:10:00 1984

Lines prefixed with ">" are from David Norris's response to Tim Maroney.
(Apologies for the length of this note.)

>...  [Tim's] argument [about why he does not worship the Christian God]
>seems sort of circular to me.

I think not; it's of the form of the proverbial Caliph's argument for
burning the Alexandrian library (the comparison is intended *solely*
as a brief description of logical form, not to indicate disapproval),
i.e.			1. p -> q
			2. !p -> q
	therefore	q.

>1. God does not condemn anyone to eternal torment who has not made that choice
>already.  You don't have to go, you know.  God has condemned Tim Maroney to
>eternal torment because Tim Maroney wants to go there instead of heaven (see
>final paragraph on Pride).  You may as well blame the rock when it falls on
>your head because you didn't move, or the professor who gives you an "F"
>because you didn't turn in a term paper.

Well, perhaps, but then my professors are neither omniscient nor my creator.
I refer people to the literature of the problem of evil. (Gee--if people are
willing to accept methods that say that odds are better than 1 - epsilon
that a given integer is prime, how much better might God be able to say that
the odds are, even if one presumes that humans have free will, that
disobedience will spread to practically the entire human population. Once
again, given that knowledge, a God that creates humans anyway strikes me
as unspeakably sadistic.)

>4. Man was not "flawed".  But he had free will, and the choice to obey or to
>disobey God.  You do not seem to understand the doctrine that God was under
>no need to create.  "God, who needs nothing, loves into existence wholly 
>superfluous creatures in order that He may love and perfect them."  Creates
>because, being Love, desires to give.

I'd greatly appreciate a description of what you mean by the term "free will,"
and what it means for a creature to have free will given the existence of an
omniscient and omnipotent God.

>As I have already said, God has not committed any serious crimes.  That Hell
>is a concentration camp is, I think, a very bad analogy.  You are sent to a
>concentration camp; you volunteer for Hell.  God does not want you to go
>there.

Surely God is aware we all fall short, or rather at the time (if that makes
any sense) we (or the universe) were created He knew we would all fall short
of His standards. If we were created despite that knowledge, then God either
indeed wants many of us to go to Hell or considers it worth the suffering of
the vast majority of us to have a few escape. (This brings to mind

>You may as well say that I am destroying an automobile when I take the
>engine out, when, if you had been around for a little longer, you would
>see I am only repairing it.

That analogy holds if one is only concerned with the automobile as a whole,
or to follow the inverse map, humanity as a whole. If one accepts this analogy,
one grants that it's worth the eternal suffering of some to save others,
although under this analogy the proportions are skewed.)

>You have stated that [evidence for the existence of God] would not
>sway you, so why bring it up?  God has presented plenty of evidence for
>his existence through His chosen people and through His Son.

Only those people who already believe consider that to be evidence of the
Christian God's existence. 

>Then you will have to abandon most of what you have learned, for you have 
>accepted most of it on faith.  Do not confuse faith with blind faith; faith
>is continuing to believe that which you know to be true, when your feelings
>or even temporary circumstances say otherwise.  I have faith that my little
>home computer (usually :-) does not randomly destroy my files;  but there are
>times that I frantically search a disk for a "destroyed" file (I lose "faith"
>in my computer), only to find I have the wrong disk.  Jesus said "blessed are
>those who do not see and believe"; but this does not imply blind acceptance.
>I believe on faith that a fellow named "Galileo" existed, but I have never
>seen him.  This puts the rest of the paragraph in a different light. 

I fear that your usage of the word "faith" differs from that of
everyone else I have heard use the word. As for accepting knowledge on
faith--perhaps.  Much knowledge is such that if I wished to spend the
time necessary, I could verify it myself. Historical "facts" are rather
more difficult to pin down, and religious propositions just about
impossible. Belief in a God has infinite explanatory power (if you're
willing to accept the same explanation practically every time) but zero
predictive power.

>Some time ago I actually was upset that Adam committed the original
>sin; "we would have been better off", I thought.  But this just stems
>out of pride again.  I wouldn't have done any better than Adam, nor
>would anyone else.

OK. Granted that, surely God knows that as well as you do, so again, why
would He create a race that was certain to wind up in eternal torment?

>But Tim has ignored the fact that God works through His believers....
>God's spirit works through the hearts of his believers.  He seems to
>view God as an entity that lives "up in heaven", as opposed to "within
>Christians".  He does not understand that God's love is transmitted
>through His believers to others; it is a living thing.

Operationally, that's not distinguishable from there being no God at
all, but just people.

>The possibility of pain is inherent in any usable system for the universe.
>People who do not understand this do not understand what love is.

You may be right; please give details of the proof of the former statement,
being sure to include what you mean by "usable" (I assume that information
about what love is will be included).

						James Jones
				Usenet: ...!ctvax!uokvax!emjej