Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: morals, and the low correlation with religion Message-ID: <432@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Nov-84 10:59:21 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.432 Posted: Mon Nov 5 10:59:21 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 19:03:56 EST References: <453@pucc-k> <248@qantel.UUCP> <468@pucc-k> Organization: UW Primate Center Lines: 132 >[Andy Banta] >Ken, >You obviously have some pretty set beliefs, and I'm not here to try to >tell you that you should change them. I am going to comment on my >feelingson them. They differ from yours a fair amount, and I hope you >realize that I'm not condemning you for them. > > >>Laurie writes, > >>> ... I would most certainly >>> burn in hell because I had not accepted jesus christ as my personal saviour. >> >>She was right. > >My, you must be in on something that the rest of the world isn't. I have >no complaint if these are your own beliefs, but to make a statement that >this is FACT is going just a little too far! Not all the world accepts >these facts, and I see no reason they should. These are beliefs, not >facts. Each person has their own beliefs. Facts are undeniable truths. >The two are not the same, and I don't see any reason to try to say that >ones own beliefs are factual, except to simply better his argument. Prove it. Turn your own argument on itself and see how much you believe it. >It irks me when other people try to >push their God on me. Why should I believe in their God? If I have my >own, and don't have any complaints, nobody has to "save" me from >anything. There is nothing of danger out there, I don't need to be >"saved" from some terrible "burning" that is going to happen when I die. There's a rather loud assumption in that last statment. See previous comment. >>> Anyway, about every May, we would be deluged with students from the local >>> baptist high school. They apparently had to 'save' x number of people to >>> graduate from high school. >>> It got to be a game to see how many times we were going to be >>> saved in a given month. >> >> That was not a very good approach to use on a child, to be sure. But they >> were basically right in there motives for doing it. They didn't want to >> see little children live without the joy of accepting Christ. > >"They were basically right in there [sic] motives for doing it."?!! It >seems to me that a major problem with "Christianity", when viewed this >way is, that it IS a game to see how many people you can wheedle into >your way of thinking but nothing more than scare tactics. I realize this >probably is going to be planty of flame food for you out there, but what >other way is there to explain it? Your lack of understanding, perhaps. Ken isn't trying to scare anyone into Hell; he knows that that doesn't work. Ken has been stating what he (and, obviously, I) know (excuse me!) to be the state of man's relationship to God before and after salvation. Fear and terror need have nothing to do with stating a proposition. >>> Well, the jist of this is that the fundamentalist movement appears to have >>> a rather odd idea of what you need to be a *good* person. Apparently >>> inherent morality isn't worth anything. >> >> That is absolutely right. Why should you get to make the standards that you >> live by. The Bible says, "There is a way that seemeth right to a man, and >> the end thereof is death." Your 'good' deeds are nothing but dirty rags in >> the sight of a holy God. Nothing you do is going to make you deserving of >> anything from God but death and punishment in hell forever and ever. > >If this is what you and your "God" advocate, I'm not sure that I would >want to even try to argue with you. I don't really feel there is >anything after this life, then what harm are good deeds during this life You don't feel there's an afterlife? How do you know? It's easy enough to say that Christians can't prove that there *is* an afterlife, but what can you say in defense of your own proposition? >going to do? If I feel good being kind to others, then isn't that enough >for me (obviously not for you) to make myself happy while I'm alive on >Earth? Why do you feel this need to change me? Perhaps because God says that we all need to be changed. You may not (and, I assume, do not) admit that our deeds are filthy rags in the sight of God, but surely you can agree that *if* our deeds are such, we need to be changed (not, note, to change, but *to be* changed). >You hit it right on the head ... "you know what we believe." Right, we >know what you believe. But that is no reason for us to accept it as our >own belief. You give us a list of things to do to be like you. What if Pshaw. Ken hasn't tried to convince anyone to be *like him*. To the extent that every Christian is conformed to the image of Christ, and to the extent that Ken in particular is so conformed, anyone who becomes a Christian will become *like Ken*, but that is a coincidental result, not the primary end. The primary end is to manifest Godliness in our conformity to Christ. To put it another way (and perhaps reopen a past discussion), to manifest saintliness. >we don't want to be like you? What if we are happy the way we are? I >think I'd feel pretty miserable if my one purpose in life would be to >make other people believe like I do. If they believe something >different, and I can't prove them wrong, why should I interfere? You >can't prove your position is right. You obvously feel that you are Can you prove your own position? Hardly. >right. Why can't we just say "I'm OK, You're OK", and leave it at that. Tell it to God. He will say to you, just as He did to myself and Ken, "I'm OK, you're not." >If I do a "good" deed, it isn't because I'm showing off to a God, it's >because I wanted to do it, because I wanted to feel good about it myself >and maybe have someone else feel good about it. It wasn't because I had >to, or because if I don't, I won't be "saved". It is because I wanted to >do it. You're remarkably close to Christian doctrine here. The missing piece is that we do good deeds not just because we want to, but because it is a good way of showing our love for God. >> Man's morality is worth nothing in the sight of a holy and just God. > >I find it a bit hard to believe that anyone would ever admit that their >morality was "mere meaningless chanting of words.", but I guess you just >did it. If that's what you want, who am I to complain? Ken didn't say "mere meaningless chanting of words", you did, by way of setting up a straw man. As for finding it hard to admit this about our morality is meaningless, I guess I would ask, "why?" Really - why? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois