Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site qantel.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!qantel!ken From: ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: A pridefull man's reaction to a Holy God. Message-ID: <263@qantel.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Oct-84 12:47:08 EST Article-I.D.: qantel.263 Posted: Fri Oct 26 12:47:08 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Oct-84 05:53:11 EST References: <516@watdcsu.UUCP>, <246@qantel.UUCP> <543@watdcsu.UUCP> Organization: MDS Qantel, Hayward, CA Lines: 118 David writes in response to me in resoponse to him in reponse to me, >>> 1) Morality is whatever God says it is, because he can effortlessly blow >>> anyone who disagrees away. >> That's right. Now you have finally got the right idea. God sets the standards >> not AT&T (or anyone else) (no offense to AT&T). > Ie. Might makes right. At least you're honest about it. If you wish to view it this way. Fine, might makes right, but so does perfection. >>> 2) We are all guilty of Adam's and Eve's rebelliousness. We are all guilty >>> of crucifying Christ. If this doesn't make sense to you, see rule 1. >> >> We are all guilty of our own rebelliousness. Adam and Eve were merely the ones >> that started the fad. Because of our sin of rebellion against God, Christ came >> to die. In this, we had a small part in killing Him. > > You mentioned original sin briefly in your article. You also led me to > believe that we have more than a "small part" of the guilt for the crucifiction > with your remarks: > Man deserves even worse for his blatent hatred and rebellion against God. > Look what mankind did to Jesus Christ. > And since you say that in God's sight we *all* deserve damnation, it must be > for one of these two sins. (These are the only sins we *all* have in common. > I'll have more to say about rebellion below.) Either way, we are all being > held responsible for the actions of others over which we had no possible > control, and we are subject to the worst possible punishment for it. You're > unwittingly helping Tim Maroney make his point. It's clear that your God is > arbitrary and cruel. O.K., don't beleive in the theology of original sin for the moment. I think it is safe to say that all man has sinned at least once in there lifetime, right. Well, one sin is enough to send you to hell. It doesn't take a lot to make you guilty. As for God being arbitrary, He doesn't sit there and condemn one person while saving another. Everyone is guilty, and all are condemned. But Jesus Christ took the punishment of God for us. All we have to do is accept the fact that He did so, and desire to live for Him because of it. >>> 4) All mankind deserves eternal torment, not because of anything done >>> wrong, but just because. See rule 1. >> All men are born in rebellion to God. This act is sin and deserving >> of punishment. > In order to rebel against some authority (eg. God), we need to know about > the authority, know (or believe we know) what the authority wants, and then > go ahead and do something else. Any knowledge about God or what he wants > from us is beyond our understanding for the first year of our lives, and > probably somewhat longer. To say that we are already rebelling against > God on the day we are born is ridiculous. Man is born with an inward knowledge of God. His attributes are displayed throughout nature. Though a man can see this, He will over the course of his life, find ways to explain away the evidences and knowledge of God that he once possesed. When the difference between good and evil has become obvious to a child, they are old enough to understand the plan of salvation and to be saved from hell. I beleive that children who die before this age are sent directly into the presence of God. Although this may be wishfull thinking. Men instinctivly go against the will of God in nothing more than the desire to run their own lives. God deserves to have charge over your life, and in denying Him this, you are in rebellion. Pride keeps most men from God, as I have said before. >>> I think the title of my article describes Ken Nichols's method for getting to >>> heaven. Below is my idea of the correct way to pray to Ken's god: >> I think the title to your article was quite disgusting, and I would greatly >> appreciate it if you would not refer to my God in your disgusting manerisms, >> thank you! > That title makes me wince with embarrassment when I see it. I apologize for > the unnecessary crudity. Some more polite word, such as "grovelling" would > have been better. I accept your apology. And I think grovelling is a better word. God requires that a man humble himself. If you choose not to now, you will not recieve salvation. You will in the end be humbled, whether you wish to be or not. >>> Oh, Lord, you are great and powerful; in your sight I am lower than a worm. >>> You are wise and wonderful; I am but two-day-old maggot-infested dog shit to >>> you. If I lick your mighty feet, will you mercifully refrain from turning me >>> into carp food? If I kiss your holy ass will you resist the understandable >>> urge to evaporate me on the spot? > >> The last statement is a good example of a prideful man's response to God. >> It's classic. > > Thank you! Your welcome! >> You do not want to except the fact that there is a deity >> over you that you will be accountable to, so you flame at it. > > No, I wasn't flaming at God, I was parodying some of the more ridiculous > attitudes that you expressed in your article. > > Prideful and proud of it, > David Canzi But the first part of my sentence is true. You do now want to accept the fact that there is a deity that you will be accountable to. You have so much pride in yourself, that you will not allow yourself to be helped out of your sad condition by the only person that can help you, Jesus Christ. You will not know God until you deny that silly pride. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken ------------