Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!lab
From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: More unfinished business
Message-ID: <804@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Feb-84 01:05:23 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.804
Posted: Thu Feb  2 01:05:23 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Jan-84 00:48:57 EST
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA
Lines: 99

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
			Proverbs 26:4,5

The logic of "Even if I DID believe" fails to impress me. Check that -
it does impress me, in its fallacy. Since there is no net.logic, Tim's
essay will have to be graded here.

How Tim wants us to perceive his argument:
PREMISE: The Bible is true in all that it speaks of.
CONCLUSION: The God described in the Bible is not worthy of man's worship.

PROBLEM: Tim denies the first premise repeatedly throughout his essay.
Instead, he limits the amount of Scripture he will accept, then adds in
his own beliefs which contradict Scripture.

PARTICULARS: Tim does not accept the Biblical doctrines on God, man, or sin.
Because of this, he distorts justice, and does not allow God to execute
judgment based on the laws He has set down. He refuses to accept that
Adam's disobedience has consequences still in effect today.  Tim does
not accept the examples of history as recorded in the Bible to show that
what he would do with omnipotence would not improve man's lot one bit.
Tim assumes he knows more and better than One Who is omniscient. He
further confuses by failing to distinguish what man worships as a god
from that which would have any power as a god.

Since Tim's argument is supposedly based on the veracity of Scripture,
all that follows will be based on that premise. If you don't like such
arguments, forget about Tim's useless essay and hit 'n'.

IN THE BEGINNING: God is Absolute - the reference point for everything
and the standard by which all else is measured. Since He is changeless,
He matches His standard perfectly, and any judgment of Him by His standard
declares Him just. Further, since He is the highest authority, He is
accountable only to Himself for His actions, which, by His nature, are
always consistent with His character (otherwise He would change).

Man does not measure up to God's standard, and failing to measure up is
exactly what "sin" means. Man's basic sin is that he has decided to be
his own final authority (Genesis 3:6,12; I Tim 2:14), attempting to
take upon himself a glory that belongs only to God. Because of Adam's
sin, all of Adam's descendants are born sinners. Man sins because he is
a sinner by nature, and thus also becomes a sinner by choice. Thus, no
one is innocent and Tim's ravings about God drowning "millions of
innocent" beings or killing "uniformly blameless" people are specious.

Quite the opposite - those acts evidence an attribute of God, an
essential possession that is part of His nature: Justice.  God must
deal with sin; He cannot allow it to go unpunished.  We deserve all the
punishment we get and more; even an eternity in the lake of fire is
insufficient to pay for sin. It is His mercy that we are not consumed
(Lamentations 3:22). The Great Act of Mercy was taking wrath that was
due sinners and executing it on One who didn't deserve any of it,
because He had met God's standard. God, in turn, gave Him everything,
including life (faithfulness is rewarded).

Further, God is just in using any part of his creation to execute
justice on any other part of it. Habakkuk wondered why Israel's sin was
being allowed to continue, so God told He would use Babylon to punish
them. Habakkuk nearly choked on the idea of God using heathen to punish
His chosen people, but God showed Habakkuk that it was indeed just.

Another result of Adam's sin was a curse on all of man's dominion,
resulting in disease, starvation (producing food was easier before the
Fall), thorns, thistles, and a host of other things. (According to Tim's
essay, he should be "greatly surprised.") Man doesn't like to make the
connection, because that only shows him how bad he really is.

On the use of omnipotence: throughout the ages, God has placed man under
various forms of administration: perfect environment with sinless
beings, conscience, promise, human government, law, grace, and yet one
to come with correct and swift justice. In all of these, man has failed.
Abolishing hunger and disease would not cause man to worship God one bit
more. Indeed, if we had no needs, we would never acknowledge God.
(Revelation 3:17,18; compare 2:9)

Tim thinks that God is restricting the "normal expression of the sexual
function." By what authority does the limited creature say to omniscient
Creator what constitutes "normal expression"? Sure, let some 2-year-olds
decide what the "normal" use of a terminal is... Re-read Isaiah 55.

Tim makes several points on other gods, and states that if there were
any, the God of Israel "refuses to deal with [them] on a friendly basis."
Isaiah 43-46 clearly and repeatedly state that God is the only God that
is, was, or ever will be. In there, it also describes the ludicrous
situation of a guy who takes a tree, uses part of it to heat and cook,
then makes a god out of the rest of it, falling down and worshipping it!
It has no power, and thus is no god; yet because man worships it, it
becomes a god to him. Thus God specifically says "You shall have no
other gods before me," and Jesus reiterated this during His temptation
"You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve."

CONCLUSION: Man owes God everything, but God owes man nothing. No one
has given to God that it should be given back to him. For His love and
benevolence in withholding what man deserves and giving what he does not
deserve, God is worthy of man's worship. Tim's conclusion does not follow.

Also bored by Tim's followups (although I may comment later),
Larry Bickford, {sun,amd70,decwrl,ittvax}!qubix!lab