Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!intelca!mipos3!omepd!max
From: max@omepd (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: net.religion,talk.religion
Subject: Re: Freedom
Message-ID: <126@omepd>
Date: Mon, 1-Sep-86 13:07:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: omepd.126
Posted: Mon Sep  1 13:07:51 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Sep-86 04:30:53 EDT
References: <131@hcx1.UUCP>  <117@omepd>
Reply-To: max@omepd.UUCP (Max Webb)
Organization: Intel Corp. Hillsboro, Oregon
Lines: 57
Xref: linus net.religion:10679 talk.religion:41
Summary: Again, i wasn't implying damnation.

In article <> gordon@uw-june.UUCP (Gordon Davisson) writes:
>In article <117@omepd> max@omepd.UUCP (Max Webb) writes:
>>*flame on*
>>Mr Zimmerman is indulging in what we in the midwest used to call 'bear-baiting'.
>Even if God does exist and control the afterlife, all Paul's done is examine
>the evidence available to him (incomplete and inconsistent as it is), and
>reach what he thinks is the most reasonable conclusion about God based on
>it.  If he's wrong, and God is a reasonable fellow, then why would a
>reasonable God want to punish him for that?

Either you haven't read my reply to gary, or it hasn't reached you. The
implication was not that Paul is headed to hell. The implication is that
his viewpoint might change and he might regret this game of 'bearbaiting'.
After all, i find it hard to believe that Paul really believes that God exists
as the 'damager god'. If at some time, he should change his mind about the
existence of a good God, and arrive at a different understanding of the
motives attributed to Him in the bible, then paul will regret the fact that
he has poured out screen after screen of namecalling of God. As i posted
in my reply to Gary, i doubt if there is 'regret' in hell. Regret, on some
level, implies repentance, and repentance  implies the presence of God in
the conscience, whereas Hell is simply the eternal version of life without
God. I suspect, that in hell there will not be regret, but self-justification
and the kind of name-calling of God.

>On the other hand, if God is egotistical, petty, and vindictive enough, He
>probably will subject Paul to eternal torture.  The question Paul faces in
>this case is which is more important to him: his comfort, or his integrity.
>He would seem to have chosen the second, and I must applaud his bravery in
>doing so.

I would say that Paul seems to have chosen an effective way of attacking
christians, by slandering something they love, more than their church, more
(if they are christians) than themselves. I wonder if that isn't the real
reason for his posting - to arouse the response - rather than a real belief
in the sadism of God. I understand the motive - as i clearly stated, i used
to do it myself.

>I have a question for you, Max: Why do you worship God?  Is it because you
>think he's an All Right Guy (or some stronger version therof), or because
>you're afraid of what he might do to you if you don't worship him?  If the
>latter is the case, I must say that I find Paul's term 'whorshipper'
>singularly appropriate.
>Human:    Gordon Davisson

Ignoring the personal attack, i worship him the same way i draw near to
a fire when i am cold. He is the source of all life and truth.
To hate him is dry up and die, to cut off your own source of life.

And that is why it is so meaningless to talk about God arbitrarily throwing
people into hell. When i stay out of the sun, why does the sun punish me
by taking my tan away?

Here, in time, we have a choice, because things/people change. In eternity,
nothing changes. So if you go out filled with hate and closed off to God
He has no way to help you - you shall have to starve without Him forever.

	Max