Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Wow.... great topic, Richard.  I happen to agree with what you 
    have said so far.  One of my dearest friends, who I went to journalism
    school with and who now is an ace reporter, covering state government
    in Ohio for the Cleveland Plain Dealer -- she dug up the scoop on
    Quayle's padded resume during the 88 campaign -- is not technically
    an atheist, but she is agnostic to the hilt.  She thinks religion
    and any discussion about the existence of God is downright silly
    and a waste of time because it can't be "proven."
    
    Yet she is a living saint.  And I honestly, truly believe that she,
    for whatever reason, has been given the gift of God's graces, as I
    believe the Holy Spirit does indeed flow through her vigorously.
    I know some Christians say that unless you go through the motions
    of acknowledging/accepting the person Jesus as your personal Lord
    and Savior, then all the Christ-like behavior, love, compassion,
    and good-heartedness in the world won't save you -- that we are all
    sinners, all imperfect, and therefore, unable via our OWN means, to
    realize the Holy Spirit indwelling.  I understand all this.
    
    But I essentially disagree with it.  I think the Spirit can enter
    in any number of ways, many of which appear downright mysterious
    ... and who are we to write off all but one of these ways?  
    
    To make a long story short, I think my friend essentially opened her
    heart to the essence of God's Divine goodness.  She may not have 
    consciously thought about it or put a label/name on it, but it did
    happen nonetheless, because I am convinced the Spirit inspires her
    words/deeds in this lifetime.
    
    In an unspoken, unacknowledged sense I think she KNOWS the essence
    of the Holy Spirit, because it flows through her gut -- much more so 
    than many of us who call ourselves Christians.   Therefore, I think
    connecting with the Spirit of God need not involve conscious choices,
    verbal affirmations, or ritual, although all these things can be
    quite beautiful and essential for many people.  Nevertheless, the 
    Spirit, IMHO, "just is" and "just does."
    
    Paul         

	To be honest I find it hard to understand how someone could believe
	that there is no God. It's like not believing in air almost. Not
	believing in my God is a lot easier to understand.


>	Many atheists maintain extremely high moral standards 

	This two has always surprised me. I've taken a number of courses
	in philosophy and ethics. My conclusion is that without God a
	philosophical basis for ethical and/or moral behavior is on shaky
	ground. This makes me somewhat less easy with atheists than with
	believers in a religion. I know and am friendly with a number of
	people who are atheists or agnostics. If I don't know that they
	are one I tend to assume that they are not. Otherwise I'd need time
	to understand them and trust takes longer to develop.

>A few atheists I've known actually spend more time and energy in
>the consideration of God and religion than most Christians I know.

	I would expect this. It takes more work to rationalize an, imho,
	irrational belief.

			Alfred

    There a verse in scripture that says "The fool hath said in his heart
    there is no God"   He doesn't necessarily say out loud there is no God.
    Someone who is an atheist will have himself for a God. This may result
    in apparently high standards because serving others is often the best
    way to serve self. Ayn Rand's philosophy in her book, The Virtue of
     Selfishness is along these lines.
    
    john (who is an agnostic about most people's God)

    re   .3    What exactly are you saying?
    
      - That atheists/agnostics worship themsleves as 'Gods'?
    
      - That athesists/agnostics are selfish?
    
    Did I completely misread your message?  Please elaborate.
    
    Thanks,
    Paul

    The theologian Paul Tillich used the term "Ultimate Concern" to refer
    to that which is Ultimate in people's lives; I infer that Tillich was
    saying that everyone has a "god" in the sense of having some ultimate
    concern.  As I recall, Tillich identified idolatry with having a
    ultimate concern that lacked true ultimacy.  I don't remember the
    details of his position, though.
    
    -- Mike

    
    	I think there are VERY FEW 'true' Atheists.  Most people who claim
    to be are really agnostics.
    
    	I think it takes A LOT MORE faith to be Atheist then to believe in
    a god.
    
    	my 2�
    	 _ed-

    I heard a priest say once, something to the effect of, "all the 
    reasons that atheist have told me  why they don't believe in God are good 
    ones. They're just not the same reasons about  God that I believe in.
    The god they searched for doesn't exist, I can agree. But, hopefully they'll
    keep searching until they find the God I found and know to be real."

     It's better to be a good atheist than a bad Christian. The good
    atheist hasn't found God, but is still searching. The bad Christian
    found God, but somehow missed his message.

    Peace
    Jim

    What's intersesting about an atheist is their belief is really
    unfounded more than a Christians is.  That is because you can't say 
    that God does not exist, because once you acknowledge that God 
    does not exist your saying He does because you cannot believe
    in something that never existed.  To properly deny God you must
    say God is dead.
    
    j

There used to be a "Dial-an-Atheist" number which I used to call.  The recorded
message changed about once a week.

What I heard I found very interesting and challenging.  There were usually
2 or 3 newswire items that pointed directly to the hypocrisy of some church,
religious institution, or believer, followed by a editorial-type commentary
and announcements of future meetings.

After listening several times, I concluded that their strongest arguement
was not against God, but God's representatives.  With this, I could certainly
sympathize.

Peace,
Richard

Re: .8 j

You can't say that the Easter bunny does not exist, because once you
acknowledge that the Easter bunny does not exist you're saying he does
because you cannot believe in something that never existed.  To properly
deny the Easter bunny you must say that the Easter bunny is dead.

Think about it...

				-- Bob

Note 342.10

........that the Easter bunny is dead.

-- Omigod Bob, I hadn't heard this.  I am so sorry.

Richard

    Re .10
    
    You can't say that Bob Messenger does not exist, because once you
    acknowledge that the Bob Messenger does not exist you're saying
    he does because you cannot believe in something that never existed.
    To properly deny Bob Messenger you must exit out of notes...;^) ;^)
    
    Think about it...
    
    Jeff

    So Jeff, are you saying that the Easter Bunny exists?
    
    -- Mike

    God (or the easter bunny) can exist as a mental construct yet have no
    objective exitence outside the mind. The idea that man created God in
    his own image results from this. Then there is the idea that if enough
    minds all together believe in the same thing they can give it an
    objective existence.
    The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that an agnostic
    doesn't necessarily deny that there is a God, but doubts that it is
    possible to know about him. This is an inconclusive position. An atheist
     seems to have reached a definite conclusion that there is not a God. This
     seems to me to be more a position of rebellion ie a asserted stance
     against the existence of God. As others have pointed out, this is usually
     more against those who claim to represent Him. Perhaps his position is
     similar to that of a Jew, who is peresecuted in the name of Jesus. No
     matter how much his personal principles are in harmony with those actually
     stated by Jesus, that name will be repugnant to him. Perhaps many
    people are atheists
    because they have higher principles than any  christians they have met.
     Therefore God is an illogical concept to them because He can't create
     followers  who can live up to His demands. I believe that if they have
    honestly come to this position, they will eventually resolve it by
    gaining a true knowledge of God.
    
    john
    	

    The Energizer Bunny took over for the Easter bunny who was TFSO'd and
    retired last year. The decline in egg and chocolate sales verses
    increase in battery sales prompted by the electronic game market, was the 
    motivating factor in giving the Easter Bunny the buy-out.

    Jim

    Hi Mike,
    
    Yes, the easter bunny can exist.  Let me see if I can put this in 
    words here..;^)  The easter bunny, as John said can exist in a 
    mental construct without having objective exitstance.  I think what
    makes the easter bunny example different than God is that we know 
    what a rabbit is in form.  Ears, tail, fur, etc...is what makes 
    a bunny a "bunny".  I can SHOW you what a bunny looks like.  I 
    would also think that when someone says that the easter bunny does
    not exist, he's would be saying the Easter bunny does not exist
    because that which we refer as a "bunny" does not have capability
    of carrying a basket around delivering eggs to children. But, the 
    qualities that make the easter bunny the "easter bunny" can exist.
    Now taking that arguement stated above and applying it to God does
    not really come out to the same conclusion.  I believe that God
    became flesh and became man, but I can't show you God, but only someone
    that is created in his image.  Unlike the easter bunny with the tail
    and the ears, I cannot point to anything in particular to say "That is
    God".  So, if someone says "God does not exist" you can turn to him and
    say "How do you know?"  And he can respond "Because I cannot see him or
    touch him, or refer to something as being God", and you can say, "But
    God never made that claim that he is something that can be seen or 
    touched.  God can be something above our most wild imagination that 
    cannot be explained.  Unless you can prove to me that he doesn't exist
    then he does exist."
    
    What do you think?  I never looked at it from this way before...I don't
    think I'm explaining this very well.  Does anyone have any opinion on
    what I stated?  Maybe someones arguement could help us determine this. 
    
    The Lord be with you all,
    
    Jeff

    Well, Jeff, what you are presenting sounds like a variant of Anselm's
    Ontolological Argument, which asserted that that God's existence is
    necessarily inherent in the conception of God.  One point of contention
    that arose in response to Anselm  was that, as Bob pointed out, we can
    all conceive of things that don't exist outside of our own imagination. 
    Is God an exception to this?  Anselm's argument was that God is that
    than which nothing is greater, and since a non-existent God would be
    inferior to a God who existed, God must therefore exist.  Immanual
    Kant's reply to this was that existence is not a predicate (Kant did
    believe in God, by the way).   Whether this counter-argument applies to
    an infinite being can in turn be debated.  I have to admit that at
    times I find the Ontological Proof totally unacceptable, and yet at
    other times it holds a certain fascination for me.

    Though we can conceive of can be said to exist in our imagination, even
    atheists would agree that God "exists" in the imagination.  But the
    issue is not the conception of God, but his/her objective existence. 
    Part of the problem, as you point out, is in determining what we mean
    when we say "God".  God's attributes can be debated, and atheism may be
    predicated on a rejection of a particular God-concept, when in fact
    particular God-concepts may not be necessary attributes of God. 

    The point is that when an atheist says that "God" doesn't exist, they
    probably refer to some understanding of an Ultimate being, such as one
    who is infinitely good and who is the Creator of the Universe.  They
    may or may not assume that other attributes of God come with the
    territory, and they may find in those other attributes additional
    reasons for not believing in God.  For example, divine omnipotence
    might serve as an issue for an atheist who considers "the problem of
    evil" to be an argument against the existence of God; this assumes, of
    course, that omnipotence is a necessary attribute of God.

    So, although God is not fully accessible to us, it's not like atheists
    don't have at least some sort of idea of what they are not believing
    in.  But, as you pointed out, probably the more firmly held argument
    that atheists use is that you cannot point to God through normal
    empirical experience, and therefore God cannot exist.  Pointing out in
    response that neither can they prove that God doesn't exist would not
    be very convincing to a die-hard positivist, who would believe that
    anything that cannot be confirmed empirically is pure metaphysical
    nonsense.  Unfortunately, the premises of logical positivism seem to
    have a great cultural appeal, even though its heyday in the philosophy
    of science has long since passed.  I think God has to be understood in
    a way that transcends pure empiricism, but it is often difficult to
    express this point.

    My own feeling about the proofs of God's existence are that they tend
    to be exercises in understanding one's faith.  I don't know that they 
    can be convincing to anyone who doesn't believe in God to begin with.  
    For example, I think Whitehead's belief, that God is necessary as a
    source of novel abstract forms in the process of creation, says a lot
    about his metaphysics and his understanding of God's role, but that
    would probably not convince an atheist (not to mention anyone who
    didn't agree with his metaphysics).

    -- Mike

    This probably belongs in the humor topic but it pertains to the subject
    at hand so I couldn't resist.  moderators, feel free to move this at
    will.  This is not meant to offend and my apologies in advance if
    anybody takes this personally.  I just thought it was kind of cute.
    
    
    What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an atheist?
    
    
    
    ...someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason.
    
    
    
    Nanci  
    
    

	"So I am a humanist.  And if you charge me with being the most
virulent kind - a secular humanist - I accept the accusation, but I do
not want to be accused of being an atheist.  No man who loves the book
of Deuteronomy and the first chapter of the General Epistle of St. James,
as I do, can be totally anti-religious."

					- James A. Michener

	Are humanists atheists or not?  Pat Robertson says, "Yes!"  James
Michener seems to be saying, "No!"

	What is your perspective?

Peace,
Richard

    I think it depends on whether you are a "secular" humanist or a
    "Christian" humanist....  I am the latter.
    
    Nancy

For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature;
 and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know
  the one who exists,
   nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works;

But they supposed that either fire or wind or swift air,
 or the circle of the stars, or turbulent water,
  or the luminaries of heaven were the gods that rule the world.

If through delight in the beauty of these things
 people assumed them to be gods,
  let them know how much better than these is their Lord,
   for the author of beauty created them.

And if people were amazed at their power and working,
 let them perceive from them
  how much more powerful is the one who formed them.

For from the greatness and beauty of created things
 comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.

Yet these people are little to be blamed,
 for perhaps they go astray
  while seeking God and desiring to find him.

For while they live among his works,
 they keep searching,
  and they trust in what they see,
   because the things they see are beautiful.

Yet again, not even they are to be excused;
 for if they had the power to know so much
  that they could investigate the world,
   how did they fail to find sooner the Lord of these things?
					--Book of Wisdom

Re: .22
John, thanks for entering this note, otherwise I might never have stumbled
across this topic!

The note appears somewhat dated, but with your kind permissions I will 
eventually address all of the previous notes that I feel need addressing,
particularly those that postulate upon what the response of an atheist might
be, if we had one to respond. 

I can't, of course, answer for all atheists (or anyone other than myself) any
more than anyone here could answer for all Christians. I haven't put a lot
of time into studying the great philosophers and their arguments. My basic 
premise is simple (and stated in another topic)

If you do not have faith, God in general and religions in particular do not
make logical sense, and if you do have faith, they don't have to.

In replies following this one will address the notes one at a time from the
beginning from my viewpoint. Perhaps it will help some of you that wrote you
just can't understand the atheist view where we may be coming from. (I am in
this conference, in part, because I honestly can't conceive of where the 
Christian beliefs come from).

Steve

    
    	Steve,
    
    		do you think it may help you to believe in a Creator
    	if what is mentioned in the Bible were explained in such a
    	manner that the story would have logic and it would make sense
    	to you.  Of course, it goes without saying that the explanation
    	would be far off from a literal interpretation.
    
    			Juan
    	

Juan,

I am not sure that anything could convince me at this point (see 660.97).

It would help if it weren't so full of contradictions, but to be honest I
view the bible much the same I see other books of Greek and Roman mythology.

It would take much more than a book to do it anyway, it would take some sort
of physical evidence.

Steve

>It would take much more than a book to do it anyway, it would take some sort
>of physical evidence.

    Steve,

    Are you challanging us? :-)

    Tom

    Steve,
    
    	It may come as a bit of a relief to you that I, for one, have no
    intention of trying to convert you.  Notesfiles make very poor
    mission fields, I've found.
    
    	It is my hope that you'll simply grow in understanding.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

>It would take much more than a book to do it anyway, it would take some sort
>of physical evidence.


 What physical evidence do we have that the Boston Red Sox won last night (other
 than the looks of astonishment on the faces of their fans)?  We have newspaper
 accounts.  I'm sure if we were to find some of the 50+ thousand people that 
 were at the game they'd say "Yep, the Red Sox won".  What other proof do we
 have? 

 We have, preserved for 2000 years, eyewitness accounts of the birth, death
 and ressurection of Jesus Christ.  We have fulfilled prophecies about the
 birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  We have eyewitness accounts of
 the lives that were changed by the birth, death and ressurection of Jesus
 Christ; we have millions of Christians who have and still do (including this
 writer) testify to the changed lives because of the birth, death and ressurec-
 tion of Jesus Christ.

 What kind of physical proof does one require?  I suspect that upon the return
 of Jesus Christ there will still be those who will question His existance.  I
 suspect that if He were to appear to those demanding physical proof, many would
 STILL not believe and will wish to engage Him in a philosphical discussion 
 or arguement.


 Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.





 Jim

    
    
    
    	
        Steve,
    
    	Staying away from religious dogmatism, which I don't care for,
    	let's go down to the basics.  Everyone talks about atoms,
    	electrons, protons, x-rays, microwaves, yet no-one has seen any of
    	those things because they are energy manifestations of some other
    	invisible force.  Scientists will show you a graph that shows some 
    	lines and will tell you that those specks of light on the paper were
    	produced by an electron that was split open.  Does that prove that
    	atoms and electrons exist ?.  A scientist will say yes.
    
    	Do you believe a scientist when he says that ?.  Most people do,
    	I don't know if an atheist would.  God, whatever God is, is like
    	that, it's an unprovable undefinable force that permeates all there
    	is, it can't be physically demonstrated.  That's the best analogy  
    	I can come up with for now.  I'm not trying to convert you from what
    	you have chosen to believe,  I'm just giving you some things to
    	ponder about, and I would be interested to know how you feel about
    	those things which can be felt but not seen.
    	
			Juan

re .28
Jim,
Boston won last night? Really? That is a miracle and I think you've converted
me! :^) And how did they get 50000 into Fenway (or were they out of town)?

I believe that Boston won (or lost, generically) because 
- I see it on the news
- I see it in the paper
- The two match
- The standings reflect the result and will stay static for the rest of the
  season
- I have seen baseball games, I know they exist
- There is no real reason to disbelieve (I even believed your account, alhtough
  I haven't seen today's paper yet).
- It is also much closer in time and is not heavily contested as a non-fact

We have also preserved (for more than 2000 years) eyewitness accounts of the
feats of Zeus, Hercules, Achilles, etc. We have eyewitness accounts of Mohammed.
We have the legends of Merlin and King Arthur. We have eyewitness accounts of
ghosts, demons, UFO's, levitations, Pink Elephants, etc. As far as the sheer 
number of believers, there are more Muslims than Christians (I think). I do not
deny the number of changed lives due to the BELIEF in the birth, death and 
ressurection of Jesus Christ.

You are correct in that I would be skeptical if Jesus appeared before me and 
I would ask for proof. Proof would then have to consist of his showing me the
creation of an alternate universe, in six days or less. I might then be 
convinced that the being in front of me IS the Jesus of the bible, and I still
probably would not follow.

Gullible are they who did not see, and yet believed (not meant as mean spirited,
but to emphasize my point).

(I warned you I was hopeless :^)


re .29
Juan,

As I implied above, I don't have to observe something directly to believe it.
I do have to have some faith (there's that word) in the methods described that
lead to the description of invisible atoms, however. I know that there are
experiments that can be done, have been done and will be done that will be
reproducible time after time. I know that atomic theory adequately explains 
the results, and, in many instances, correctly predicted the results. I do
take on faith some of the more esoteric work, or work which is beyond my 
current ability to understand, because I can see and prove and clearly 
understand the base from which it was derived. If I were to devote myself
to the study of physics, I believe that I too could prove the theories (and
understand the proofs). I also understand that the theories may be wrong, and
will keep an open mind toward changing them as our data accumulates.

If I were to attend a theological school, however, I firmly believe that I 
could complete the course of study and still not have the base, with the step
by step learning, to believe in a god. In short, 'something' has to happen
(mystical experience) to convince a person that they should believe despite 
the complete lack of evidence other than their personal experience.

Now, if it is true that you have to have this experience, and that the
experience has to come from God, why does he choose to give it to some and
not to others? I have read notes from some in the conference in which they
state that they simply CAN NOT comprehend how anyone could not believe. I can
empathize with that frustration because I have *exactly* the same feeling,
with the same level of conviction, in the other direction. I just CAN NOT 
understand. Why would God 'wire' me with this inability to understand, and
then send me to hell for it? It just doesn't make sense.

Steve

P.S. What was the score?

>there are more Muslims than Christians (I think).

Not by a long shot!

Christians	1,833,022,000		Roman Catholic	1,025,585,000
Muslims		  971,328,700		Protestants	  373,698,000
Nonreligious	  876,232,000		Orthodox	  170,422,000
Hindus		  732,812,000		Anglicans	   74,883,400
Buddhists	  314,939,000		Other		  188,433,600
Atheists	  240,310,000
Chinese folk	  187,107,000
New		  143,415,000		Source: Encyclop�dia Britannica
Tribal		   96,581,000			Mid-1992 data
Sikhs		   18,800,500
Jews		   17,822,000
Confucians	   10,493,000
Shamanists	    6,028,000
Baha'is		    5,517,000
Jains		    3,794,000
Shintoists	    3,322,800
Other		   18,586,000

I stand corrected. (Actually, I'm sitting corrected)

My basic point remains, however. Christians are not a majority, and there are 
a LOT of different viewpoints, many of which claim to be the ONLY CORRECT 
viewpoint. 

Also, I didn't realize there were so many atheists! I wonder if they are lumping
agnostics in there also?

Steve

Agnostics are in "non-religious".

My experience with atheists is that they tend to see themselves as pragmatic,
realistic and rational, but not necessarily pessimistic or filled with despair.

The atheists I've known have been no more materialistic than the average
person of faith.

Peace,
Richard

Richard,

That describes my self image quite well.

Steve

Richard,
	When I used the term "materialistic" I guess I meant that they
focused on the material rather than the spiritual.

	Maybe you can fill this in more for me Steve, but if one is an
atheist, how does one determine what is good or bad?  As a Christian, it
is God who not only gives me worth but also determines the standard. Without
him, on  what basis do individual's have worth and how does one define a
standard of good and bad?  Are things defined in terms of utility?  In another
note I made the comment that nature doesn't have anything to say to us
about morality, ie whether or not it is "right" that a lion eat an antelope.
It would seem to me that if God is taken out of the equation then the standards
have to come from someplace else, and I'm not sure where that someplace else
would be.

	These may be simplistic questions, and if so
please forgive me, but I'm trying to think this stuff through to a logical
conclusion, with apologies to those of us who don't think that logic is
a requirement for dealing with spiritual issues. 8-)

Thanks,
Paul

-- 
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Paul,

Everyone defines good or bad according to their own beliefs, Christians in 
general simply accept their morality as defined by the bible. My philosophy is
simple, and probably closer to biblical morality than you might think, although
considerably more liberal. The basic tenet is known as objectivism.

This basically means that if I do not 'initiate violence' (and there are many
kinds of violence), anything I do should be OK. Now, I don't follow this 
strictly. For example, a strict objectivist might say that I can drive 
as fast and as drunk as I want to as long as I don't actually hurt anything. 
I would disagree with this. 

There are many laws (and biblical morals) that I disagree with quite strongly,
however. Among these are prostitution, drug use, and pretty much all sexually
related laws. And there are many gray areas. There are also passages in the 
bible that, taken literally, advise stoning to death unruly children, I don't 
quite agree with that.

Now, given this as background, how did I arrive at this morality? It's
basically derived from the golden rule, with a twist, ie. Do unto others as you
would do unto yourself, but as long as they aren't doing unto you (or someone
else) leave them alone :^)

To answer some of your other questions directly:

- Without him, on  what basis do individual's have worth and how does one 
  define a standard of good and bad?
->Each individual has worth as an individual, it makes no difference what their
  personal beliefs may or may not be. I also believe that each individual 
  derives their own standards of good/bad, and even Christians may disagree on
  exactly what is meant in the bible. (At times it seems that everyone has their
  own copy and no two are quite the same).
- Are things defined in terms of utility?
->I don't understand what you mean by utility.
- In another note I made the comment that nature doesn't have anything to 
  say to us about morality, ie whether or not it is "right" that a lion eat an 
  antelope.
->I agree, nature (which some define as God) has nothing to say about morality.
  It is purely a human concept. Fortunately most people can agree on a similar
  set of standards and society functions fairly well. It's never perfect to any
  one individual but it is probably a pretty good comprimise. 

I hope this helps a little, I have just as much trouble imagining accepting 
someone else's morality without question as you do imagining where it could
come from if not from God. :^)

Steve

    RE:  .37
    
    A nit, please forgive.  About your example of the lion eating the
    antelope, I don't think we can apply morality to animals.  Can we? 
    
    Actually, using predator and prey as a moral example doesn't work.  No
    question in my mind, the predator is not wrong.  One could even make an
    argument that the predator is "right", based on a complex ecology.  For
    example, bats keep mosquitos in check.  I do think it is erroneous to
    argue the rightness of predator-prey based on human needs (e.g.
    mosquito=bad, antelope=good).
    
    Here's a more challenging question - the pet dog that, despite
    extensive housebreaking and training, persists in destroying its
    master's property.  The dog knows better and acts "guilty" (or is it
    submissive?) when found.  As a smart dog owner, I then follow a course
    of intensive domination (dogs are pack animals and destructive
    behaviors are evidence of their attempt to be top dog in the family
    pack), removing tempting items, and other steps,  Anyway, is this dog
    morally wrong?
    
    Curious...
    
    Laura
    

Re:  .37

Reading your reply reminds me of Judges:

  "everyone did what was right in his own eyes"

Re:  sexual laws

The pain, the hurt, the consequences of improper sex (as well
as "proper" sex at times) are (amazingly) usually overlooked by
those whose main concern is to find a partner because of their
sex drive.  By they are REAL and they cause TREMENDOUS problems
for you, for me and for everyone.

Rejection, abortion, AIDS, venereal disease, hopelessness,
broken families and more are primarily related to the type of
"carefree" sex that you evidently espouse.  Sex without
commitment is killing our society.

Collis

>  Sex without commitment is killing our society.

    That ain't the half of it.

In article <342.37-930517-161136@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>,
[email protected] writes:


Thanks for replying Steve.

|>
|>Everyone defines good or bad according to their own beliefs, Christians in 
|>general simply accept their morality as defined by the bible. My philosophy is
|>simple, and probably closer to biblical morality than you might think, although
|>considerably more liberal. The basic tenet is known as objectivism.
|>
|>This basically means that if I do not 'initiate violence' (and there are many
|>kinds of violence), anything I do should be OK. Now, I don't follow this 
|>strictly. For example, a strict objectivist might say that I can drive 
|>as fast and as drunk as I want to as long as I don't actually hurt anything. 
|>I would disagree with this. 

	Why did you pick 'initiate violence' as your standard? Do you feel
that your standard should be followed by everyone else?

|>There are many laws (and biblical morals) that I disagree with quite strongly,
|>however. Among these are prostitution, drug use, and pretty much all sexually
|>related laws. And there are many gray areas. There are also passages in the 
|>bible that, taken literally, advise stoning to death unruly children, I don't 
|>quite agree with that.

	A lot of the laws that folks don't currently like seem to have at
the root a prohibition against seeing people as objects and letting them
act against each other as though they were objects.  Christians see humans,
not as objects (hopefully), but as individuals loved by God.  Behaviors which
encourage me to see an individual as an object in effect reject that
person't worth. 


|>Now, given this as background, how did I arrive at this morality? It's
|>basically derived from the golden rule, with a twist, ie. Do unto others as you
|>would do unto yourself, but as long as they aren't doing unto you (or someone
|>else) leave them alone :^)

	I asked it above, but I'll ask hear again. 8-)  Why did you pick
this particular rule.  Is it because you believe that this rule will
maximize your happiness while you are alive? I guess, that is where the
utility question comes in.  It seems to me that an atheist must consider
actions only within the context of their life and so a morality must be
judged on whether it accomplishes what they want to accomplish in their
life, rather than on any other criteria.


|>To answer some of your other questions directly:
|>
|>- Without him, on  what basis do individual's have worth and how does one 
|>  define a standard of good and bad?
|>->Each individual has worth as an individual, it makes no difference what their
|>  personal beliefs may or may not be. I also believe that each individual 
|>  derives their own standards of good/bad, and even Christians may disagree on
|>  exactly what is meant in the bible. (At times it seems that everyone has their
|>  own copy and no two are quite the same).

	Do individuals have any more worth than plants?  I guess this gets at
what you mean by worth?  I'll tell you where I'm starting from... I see
Communism as practised by the former Soviet Union to be one way that atheistic
beliefs can go (although I'm not saying they all end up there).  People were
seen as resources like grain or anything else.  Their worth was tied to their
utility to help those in power accomplish whatever it was they wanted to
accomplish.  This allowed those in power to justify whatever they needed to
justify.  I'm not equating you with them, by any means 8-), but it seems
to me that without any outside reference point, the worth of a person is
a pretty uncertain thing.  If the here and now is all that there is, it seems
logical to try to maximize this experience along some line.

|>- Are things defined in terms of utility?
|>->I don't understand what you mean by utility.

	I think I explained it above, but I meant utility towards maximizing
whatever you're decided to maximize in this your only life.  It would seem
as well, that if two atheists have radically different views of morality, ie
one like yours that follows the golden rule and another like a Stalin, that
there is no way to distinguish between the two; that one is better than the
other.  I guess you could measure them on whether or not the individuals
got what they wanted out of their life, but that is pretty scary.

|>- In another note I made the comment that nature doesn't have anything to 
|>  say to us about morality, ie whether or not it is "right" that a lion eat an 
|>  antelope.
|>->I agree, nature (which some define as God) has nothing to say about morality.
|>  It is purely a human concept. Fortunately most people can agree on a similar
|>  set of standards and society functions fairly well. It's never perfect to any
|>  one individual but it is probably a pretty good comprimise. 
|>
|>I hope this helps a little, I have just as much trouble imagining accepting 
|>someone else's morality without question as you do imagining where it could
|>come from if not from God. :^)

	It does, thanks.

|>Steve
|>

Paul

-- 
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

In article <342.38-930518-085124@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (Back in the high life again) writes:

Laura,

|>
|>    RE:  .37
|>    
|>    A nit, please forgive.  About your example of the lion eating the
|>    antelope, I don't think we can apply morality to animals.  Can we? 

	No, I don't think we can, and that was my point.  We have to look
outside of nature for morality.  If Steve only sees nature, I was curious
as to where his morality came from.
    
|>    Actually, using predator and prey as a moral example doesn't work.  No
|>    question in my mind, the predator is not wrong.  One could even make an
|>    argument that the predator is "right", based on a complex ecology.  For
|>    example, bats keep mosquitos in check.  I do think it is erroneous to
|>    argue the rightness of predator-prey based on human needs (e.g.
|>    mosquito=bad, antelope=good).
    
	You end up talking about utility, what is the best use of the
lion and the antelope.

|>    Here's a more challenging question - the pet dog that, despite
|>    extensive housebreaking and training, persists in destroying its
|>    master's property.  The dog knows better and acts "guilty" (or is it
|>    submissive?) when found.  As a smart dog owner, I then follow a course
|>    of intensive domination (dogs are pack animals and destructive
|>    behaviors are evidence of their attempt to be top dog in the family
|>    pack), removing tempting items, and other steps,  Anyway, is this dog
|>    morally wrong?

	I don't think so, but I don't know. 8-) The Bible doesn't say much
about animal morality.  It does talk about animals doing things (ox goring
a human I think), but only in the context of interacting with humans.

    
|>    Curious...

	C.S. Lewis, by the way, in The Problem of Pain, speculates that
some pets may be saved simply by living with their owners who will be saved.
He seculates that some pets take on some characteristics of their owners, and
to the extent that the owners might be saved, so also the pets might be. 8-)
He does admit to speculating...  I know our kids want our cat to go to
heaven, but we'll probably have to just wait and see. 8-)

    
|>    Laura
|>    
|>


Paul

-- 
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Note: I had this note 90% typed in and left it open for lunch. The machine then
crashed so I have to re-enter it. Maybe I am on the wrong side :^)

.39
  "everyone did what was right in his own eyes"

Correct. And everyone still does. You have taken what you believe to be right 
from the bible. If the bible did not exist, would you then go around harming 
people?

Re:  sexual laws
>The pain, the hurt, the consequences of improper sex (as well
>as "proper" sex at times) are (amazingly) usually overlooked by
>those whose main concern is to find a partner because of their
>sex drive.  By they are REAL and they cause TREMENDOUS problems
>for you, for me and for everyone.

First, please explain 'proper' and 'improper sex. Also, please specify where 
the pain and hurt come from. Finally, explain what consequences you are 
referring to, if they are different than those in the following paragraph.

>Rejection, abortion, AIDS, venereal disease, hopelessness,
>broken families and more are primarily related to the type of
>"carefree" sex that you evidently espouse.  Sex without
>commitment is killing our society.

The above problems have nothing to do with the physical act of sex. If someone
simply shows a little common sense the medical problems above disappear. I
would argue that rejection and broken families have little, if anything, to
do with sex. Sex is not a pre-condition of rejection. I had a marriage break
up and sex was not a factor. Sex without commitment is not killing our society.
Now, if you want to talk about sex without RESPECT, we may have a common ground.
But you can have sex, and respect, without commitment, and it may do both
parties nothing but good. My point is, that sex in and of itself is not the
problem.

A final request, would you please point out where in my note I espouse carefree
sex? The nearest I can come is my reference to my dislike of laws that regulate
private behavior between consenting adults, which are usually sexual in nature.
In no way do I advocate careless sex or sex without respect, but I do advocate
allowing adults to do what they wish in private.

Collis, this appears to be a hot topic with you, and I would be glad to discuss
it. However, please do not read things into my words that are not there, such
as espousing carefree sex. Also, you may not have meant it this way, but the 
implication seems to be that I am the one charging around looking for random
victims with which to quench my sexual appetites. This is not me. In fact, I am
willing to bet that I am in the lower ten percent of Christians (and less than
that for televangelists :^) as far as the number of sexual partners I have had.

That aside, however, I would be very interested in exploring this particular
topic, as it is an example (I believe) of morally based rules that the religious
right would force upon me given half a chance.

Respectfully, Steve

Paul,

Thanks for the response. And now (drum roll please) for my replies to your 
questions, and a few new ones of my own.

(Ahem, you can stop the drum roll now.....Thank you).

>	Why did you pick 'initiate violence' as your standard? Do you feel
>that your standard should be followed by everyone else?

I heard the term initiation of violence as an explanation for the basis of 
objectivism, and I liked the sound of it. It seems to fit with my basis
which is based (as you know) upon the golden rule. Of course I feel my standard
should be universal, doesn't everyone? :^) Seriously, it is as good a basis
as I can come up with. I have had endless hours of discussion with folks around
this, and although there are numerous grey areas (which is why laws were 
invented in the first place), it fits nicely with my personal views on 
respecting other people and their views. People may do things that I don't
personally care for, but as long as they are not hurting me (or someone else)
that is their business.

>	A lot of the laws that folks don't currently like seem to have at
>the root a prohibition against seeing people as objects and letting them
>act against each other as though they were objects.  Christians see humans,
>not as objects (hopefully), but as individuals loved by God.  Behaviors which
>encourage me to see an individual as an object in effect reject that
>person't worth. 

If you would provide some specifics here it would be helpful. The only one
I can think of that would fit the description off of the top of my head is
that of prostitution. It is true that some men see those women as objects,
but as long as the woman isn't being forced it is up to them if they want to
be viewed as such. I am not christian, but I also try very hard to view people
as people and not as objects, and can usually succeed. I agree that seeing
people as objects is dehumanizing and can be degrading, but you can't pass
laws (yet) regarding folks attitudes.

>	I asked it above, but I'll ask hear again. 8-)  Why did you pick
>this particular rule.  Is it because you believe that this rule will
>maximize your happiness while you are alive? I guess, that is where the
>utility question comes in.  It seems to me that an atheist must consider
>actions only within the context of their life and so a morality must be
>judged on whether it accomplishes what they want to accomplish in their
>life, rather than on any other criteria.

I picked this rule because I believe that it maximizes respect for the 
individual. My happiness while I am alive is very important to me, since I 
don't believe in heaven, reincarnation, etc., but certainly this isn't my day
to day driving motivation. Your last statements are close, but with a 
possibly incorrect (in my opinion) undertone. This is hard to explain, but
I do care about the legacy I leave behind. I want to be remembered as someone
who really did care about other folks, and that provides part of my motivation.
I am not sure how to put this, but I do not (necessarily) believe the ends 
justifies the means morality that I think you hint at above.

>	Do individuals have any more worth than plants?  I guess this gets at
>what you mean by worth?  I'll tell you where I'm starting from... I see
>Communism as practised by the former Soviet Union to be one way that atheistic
>beliefs can go (although I'm not saying they all end up there).  People were
>seen as resources like grain or anything else.  Their worth was tied to their
>utility to help those in power accomplish whatever it was they wanted to
>accomplish.  This allowed those in power to justify whatever they needed to
>justify.  I'm not equating you with them, by any means 8-), but it seems
>to me that without any outside reference point, the worth of a person is
>a pretty uncertain thing.  If the here and now is all that there is, it seems
>logical to try to maximize this experience along some line.

Not to the plants :^) And I see the Crusades, Islamic Jihads, Iran, Belfast,
the former Yugoslavia, etc. (I'll bet I can find more examples than you can:^)
as where religious beliefs can go. Viewing people as resources rather than 
people is not a direct result of atheism! All the statements you make around
the people in power using people for their own ends I can make about religious
leaders (David Koresh springs to mind). You may argue that these are not true
Christians, and I will argue that your examples are not true atheists. 
(Actually, I would argue that it doesn't matter). And I do try to maximize the
here and now for me. I have to try to fit my good deeds into one lifetime as
I don't believe that I have eternity to make up for my mistakes.

>	I think I explained it above, but I meant utility towards maximizing
>whatever you're decided to maximize in this your only life.  It would seem
>as well, that if two atheists have radically different views of morality, ie
>one like yours that follows the golden rule and another like a Stalin, that
>there is no way to distinguish between the two; that one is better than the
>other.  I guess you could measure them on whether or not the individuals
>got what they wanted out of their life, but that is pretty scary.

You will measure them on whatever you believe. If you were to measure me against
the way Christians are supposed to act, rather than what they believe, I think
that I would come off well. And I don't agree with what Stalin did, either.
(I also don't agree with those that ran the inquisition). And yes it can be
scary. Taking responsibility for ones own actions frequently is.

Oops, got to go. If I don't get a haircut today I'm in BIG trouble with my 
wife! :^)

Steve

                    <<< Note 342.43 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF >>>
                    -< So many replies, so little time... >-

>Note: I had this note 90% typed in and left it open for lunch. The machine then
>crashed so I have to re-enter it. Maybe I am on the wrong side :^)


Could be, Steve.  Except I had a 60 line quote 99% done when *my* system 
crashed and I lost all of it.  But then, I used to be an atheist........


Sandy

Re:  342.43

     >>"everyone did what was right in his own eyes"

  >Correct. And everyone still does. 

Not really.  There is a considerable difference between consciously conforming
your views to an *EXTERNAL* source and determining *for yourself* what is
true.  The difference is who the ultimate determiner of "right" is.

  >First, please explain 'proper' and 'improper sex. 

The Bible is clear on this, but I'll summarize here.  Sex within a lifelong
marriage between a man and a woman can be (but is not necessarily :-) )
"proper" (i.e. people abuse sex even within marriage relationships).

  >Also, please specify where the pain and hurt come from. 

We're built that way.  It's all around us.  Have you no ears to hear or
eyes to see?  I'm serious.  Think about the emotional *consequences* of
inappropriate sex.  Perhaps as a man, you don't get so emotionally tied
up with the person.  We see these consequences in real life as well as
movies and drama all the time.  We see the shattered lives of girls at
the Crisis Pregnancy Center, too, who believe the lies of their boyfriends
and society) and I'm not talking just about the pregnant girls, either.
Perhaps you consider this emotional (and physical) trauma just part of
life - but it was never meant to be that way.

  >The above problems have nothing to do with the physical act of sex. 

wrong.  WRONG!  WRONG!!!

  >If someone simply shows a little common sense the medical problems above 
  >disappear. 

wrong.  WRONG!  WRONG!!!

  >would argue that rejection and broken families have little, if anything, to
  >do with sex. 

How many man-woman couples in a lifelong relationship who are sexually faithful
to each other end up divorced?  Do you have any idea?  Would you believe that
it is an *extremely small* percentage?  And you don't think that sex has much
to do with broken families?  In my opinion (and I'm not alone in this opinion),
misuse of sex is a *primary* cause of broken families.

  >Sex is not a pre-condition of rejection.

Never said it was.

  >I had a marriage break up and sex was not a factor.

I'm sorry that your commitment to each other did not overcome the obstacles
of marriage.

  >Sex without commitment is not killing our society.

It sure is.  Of course, it's not the only thing.  But it does probably head
the list.

  >My point is, that sex in and of itself is not the problem.

True.  Sex is good (as God created it).  It's sex outside of God's bounds
that is a *tremendous* problem.

  >A final request, would you please point out where in my note I espouse 
  >carefree sex?

I'm stating what the Bible states and sharing some observations about what
happens when we, as a society, go our own way.

  >In fact, I am willing to bet that I am in the lower ten percent of Christians 
  >(and less than that for televangelists :^) as far as the number of sexual 
  >partners I have had.

You lose.

Collis

>We're built that way.  It's all around us.  Have you no ears to hear or
>eyes to see?  I'm serious.  Think about the emotional *consequences* of
>inappropriate sex.  
    
    Well, sorry, but I know plenty of people who have "inappropriate sex"
    by your standard, Collis,who are doing just fine and well emotionally. 
    I know a number of male-male, female-female, commited, monogamous and
    plan-to-be life-long partners who are happy, healthy and emotionally
    stable.
    
    But by the standard you profess, that does not matter -- because the
    sex is "wrong."
    
    Daniel

>to do with broken families?  In my opinion (and I'm not alone in this opinion),
>misuse of sex is a *primary* cause of broken families.

>True.  Sex is good (as God created it).  It's sex outside of God's bounds
>that is a *tremendous* problem.

 

 AMEN to both!  I'm here to tell  you that sex outside of marriage (on my part)
 destroyed my marriage and sent me on a spiritual and emotional tailspin from 
 which I am just now recovering (thanks be to the Lord Jesus Christ) after 5
 years and Praise God it would appear that maybe my family can be put back to-
 gether.  Now, I'm fully aware that my experience does not speak for everyone,
 but I'd be willing to bet (were I a gambling man) that there are many who read
 this file who can make a similar claim, Christian or not.




 Jim

Re: .41 Paul

>It would seem
>as well, that if two atheists have radically different views of morality, ie
>one like yours that follows the golden rule and another like a Stalin, that
>there is no way to distinguish between the two; that one is better than the
>other.  I guess you could measure them on whether or not the individuals
>got what they wanted out of their life, but that is pretty scary.

I don't think there is a universal, absolute way to say that one is better
than the other.  Within any given moral system, though, it's possible to
distinguish them.  To the golden-rule-atheist, the Stalin-atheist is a
monster.  To the Stalin-atheist, the golden-rule-atheist is (probably) a
useful idiot.

Once you've eliminated religion as a basis for morality, that doesn't mean
that you have no moral code at all.  Each person has their own moral code.
Some people use Christian teaching as their moral code.  Some people use
Humanism.  Some people do whatever is in their own self-interest.

				-- Bob

    I'm entering this as a supplement to the idea that, in fact, atheists
    can/do have moral development even without a theology.
    
    
  Lawrence Kohlberg based his work upon the cognitive
    developmental research done by Piaget.  I can post that data as well
    if necessary
    
Definition of Kohlberg's Moral Stages

I. Preconventional Level

At this level, the child is responsive to cultural rules and labels of good 
and bad, right ot wrong, but interprets these labels either in terms of the
physical or the hedonistic consequences of the action (punishment, reward,
exchange of favors) or in terms of the physical powers of those who enunciate
the rules and labels.  The level is divided into the following two stages:

Stage 1:  The punishment and obedience orientation:  The physical consequences
of action determine its goodness or badness, regardless of the human meaning
or value of these consequences.  Avoidance ofp unishment and unquestioning
deference to power are valued in their own right, not in terms of respect
for an underlying moral order supported by punishment and authority (the latter 
being Stage 4)

Stage 2:  The instrumental-relativist orientation.  Right action consists
of that which instrumentally satisfies one's own needs and occasionally the
needs of others.  Human relations are viewed in terms like those of a market-
place.  Elements of fairness, of reciprocity, and of equal sharing are
present, but they are allways interpreted in a physical, pragmatic way.
Reciprocity is a matter of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours,"
not of loyalty, gratitude or justice.

II. Convential Level

At this level, maintaining the expectations of the individual's family,
group or nation is perceived as valuable in its own right, regardless of
immediate and obvious consequences.  The attitude is not one of *conformity*
to personal expectations and social order, but of loyalty to it, of actively
*maintaining*, supporting and justifying the order, and of identifying with
the persons or group involved in it.  At this level, there are the following 
two stages:

Stage 3: The interpersonal concordance or "good boy - nice girl" orientation:
Good behavior is that which pleases or helps others and is approved of by them. 
There is much conformity to stereotypical images of what is majority or
"natural" behavior.  Behavior is frequently judged by intention - "he means
well" becomes important for the first time.  One earns approval by being
"nice" Commonly known as the "Golden Rule."

Stage 4: The "law and order" orientation.  There is orientation toward
authority, fixed rules and the maintenance of the social order.  Right
behavior consists of doing one's duty, showing respect for authority,
and maintaining the given social order for its own sake.  Often perceived
as a regressive stage and commonly confused with stage 2.

III. Postconventional, autonomous or principled level

At this level, there is a clear effort to define moral values and principles
that have validity and application apart from the authority of the groups
or persons holding these principles and apart from the individual's own
identification with these groups.  This level also has two stages:

Level 5 The social-contract, legalistic orientation, generally with 
utilitarian overtones.  Right action tends to be defined in terms of general
individual rights and standards which have been critically examined and
agreed upon by the whole society.  There is a clear awareness of the 
relativism of personal values and opinions and a corresponding emphasis
upon procedural rules for reaching consensus.  Aside from what is 
constitutionally and democratically agrred upon, the right is a matter
of personal "values" and opinion."  The result is an emphasis upon the 
"legal point of view" but with an emphasis upon the possibility of changing
law in terms of rational considerations of social utility (rather than
freezing it in terms of Stage 4 "law and order").  Outside the legal realm,
free agreement and contract is the binding element of obligation.  This is the
"official" morality of the American government and Constitution.

Stage 6:  The universal ethical-principle orientation.  Right is defined
by the decision of conscience in accord with self-chosen *ethical principles*
appealing to logical comprehensiveness, universality and consistency.  These
principles are abstract and ethical (ie: the categorical imperitive); they
are not concrete moral rules like the Ten Commandments.  At heart, these
are the universal principals of *justice*, of the *reciprocity* and 
*eqaulity* of human *rights* and of the respect for the dignity of human beings
as *individual persons*  Note: Kohlberg never found a subject who consistently
and universally applied stage 6 reasoning.
                                                          

>Not really.  There is a considerable difference between consciously conforming
>your views to an *EXTERNAL* source and determining *for yourself* what is
>true.  The difference is who the ultimate determiner of "right" is.

I still don't see it. Do you disagree with the doctrine you follow? If not, you 
are still doing what is right in your own eyes. In this case you simply happen
to agree with an external source.

>The Bible is clear on this, but I'll summarize here.  Sex within a lifelong
>marriage between a man and a woman can be (but is not necessarily :-) )
>"proper" (i.e. people abuse sex even within marriage relationships).

Are you saying that there is no such thing as proper sex other than in the 
*first* marriage? Also, do you believe that sex for any reason other than
procreation is improper?

  >Also, please specify where the pain and hurt come from. 

>We're built that way.  It's all around us.  Have you no ears to hear or
>eyes to see?  I'm serious.  Think about the emotional *consequences* of
>inappropriate sex.  Perhaps as a man, you don't get so emotionally tied
>up with the person.  We see these consequences in real life as well as
>movies and drama all the time.  We see the shattered lives of girls at
>the Crisis Pregnancy Center, too, who believe the lies of their boyfriends
>and society) and I'm not talking just about the pregnant girls, either.
>Perhaps you consider this emotional (and physical) trauma just part of
>life - but it was never meant to be that way.

I have ears and eyes, enough to sense your frustration with my lack of 
understanding. Please try to understand that I have the same frustration
from the other side of the street. 

I believe that the emotional consequences you speak of are from a lack of
respect for the partner, not the act of sex. Speaking for me personally, I 
do get emotionally tied up. Sex without commitment, for ME, doesn't happen.
That doesn't mean it is wrong. Anyone who is lying just to get a partner 
into bed is wrong, in my opinion. But it is the intent that is wrong. Two
unmarried people that just enjoy being together are not destroying our 
society. Unwanted pregnancies are a tragedy, no doubt. However a little 
planning on the part of one or both partners and this can easily be avoided.
Two questions. I have not been a part of this conference long, and something
you said above made me wonder, what is your gender? I haven't run into your
name before. Secondly, if you had the power to make it illegal, punishable 
by jail, to have improper sex, would you?

>  >The above problems have nothing to do with the physical act of sex. 

>wrong.  WRONG!  WRONG!!!

>  >If someone simply shows a little common sense the medical problems above 
 > >disappear. 

>wrong.  WRONG!  WRONG!!!

Um, I see that you feel strongly about this, but you've left me little to 
respond to :-)

>How many man-woman couples in a lifelong relationship who are sexually faithful
>to each other end up divorced?  Do you have any idea?  Would you believe that
>it is an *extremely small* percentage?  And you don't think that sex has much
>to do with broken families?  In my opinion (and I'm not alone in this opinion),
>misuse of sex is a *primary* cause of broken families.

By definition, zero (otherwise it isn't a life long relationship). In the 
divorce cases that I have some knowledge of, only one (out of 4) had infidelity
as a major factor. Also, I would argue that the infidelity was a result of 
the problems that split the marriage, and might have triggered the actual split,
but I'm not convinced that it is the underlying cause in the majority of cases.
Again, it comes down to respect. If you respect your spouse, even if the love
has gone out of the relationship, you're not going to cheat. By misuse of sex
do also mean improper marital sex?

>True.  Sex is good (as God created it).  It's sex outside of God's bounds
>that is a *tremendous* problem.

I'm still not sure exactly what the bounds are, but you haven't shown me that
it is a tremendous problem.

>  >A final request, would you please point out where in my note I espouse 
>  >carefree sex?

>I'm stating what the Bible states and sharing some observations about what
>happens when we, as a society, go our own way.

Actually you rather specifically accused me of espousing carefree sex, and I
don't.

>  >In fact, I am willing to bet that I am in the lower ten percent of Christians 
>  >(and less than that for televangelists :^) as far as the number of sexual 
>  >partners I have had.

>You lose.

Since you didn't include a smiley face, I can only assume you are serious. On
what do you base this? How many partners has the avaerage Christian had. How
many have I had? And I am still willing to bet, and I believe I would win.

Steve

    I guess I've been hanging around too long.  I knew who .51 was
    addressing by the words replied to alone.  For the sake of others
    not so familiar, .51 is responding .46.
    
    Richard
    

re: .1

My apologies. When I began the note it was 'next in line'. I tempted the fates 
again and went off to lunch, by the time I got back and entered it there were 
several intervening notes. At least I didn't lose it this time! :^)

Steve

The re: .1 in note .53 was supposed to be re: .-1 and should have read .52, and
I was responding to .46

(Should this have gone in the 'Numbers' note?)

Steve

>How many man-woman couples in a lifelong relationship who are sexually faithful
>to each other end up divorced?  Do you have any idea?  Would you believe that
>it is an *extremely small* percentage?  And you don't think that sex has much
>to do with broken families?  In my opinion (and I'm not alone in this opinion),
>misuse of sex is a *primary* cause of broken families.

    My brother, who is a Christian, has been divorced twice.  Both
    marriages involved people who were Christians, and who were sexually
    faithful to one another.  Of course, Steve pointed out an important
    point, which is that sexual infidelity is often a symptom, rather than
    a cause, of deeper marital problems.  

    It would be nice to believe that once a person becomes a Christian,
    they will have found  offers a panacea for the world's marital
    problems:  inner peace, lifelong marriages, and all will be well in
    their life.  Unfortunately, this tidy philosophy of life conflicts with
    the real world.  There are plenty of Christians who suffer from things
    like clinical depression, or whose marriages break down, even after
    they follow all the rules and do everything that they are supposed to. 
    Life isn't always fair, unfortunately, and the world isn't as tidy as
    pie-in-the-sky theology and our own wishes would like it to be.  It is
    sheer magical thinking, and an exercise in considerable naivete, to
    believe otherwise.

    -- Mike

In article <342.49-930519-121803@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (Bob Messenger) writes:
|>>It would seem
|>>as well, that if two atheists have radically different views of morality, ie
|>>one like yours that follows the golden rule and another like a Stalin, that
|>>there is no way to distinguish between the two; that one is better than the
|>>other.  I guess you could measure them on whether or not the individuals
|>>got what they wanted out of their life, but that is pretty scary.
|>
|>I don't think there is a universal, absolute way to say that one is better
|>than the other.  Within any given moral system, though, it's possible to
|>distinguish them.  To the golden-rule-atheist, the Stalin-atheist is a
|>monster.  To the Stalin-atheist, the golden-rule-atheist is (probably) a
|>useful idiot.
|>
|>Once you've eliminated religion as a basis for morality, that doesn't mean
|>that you have no moral code at all.  Each person has their own moral code.
|>Some people use Christian teaching as their moral code.  Some people use
|>Humanism.  Some people do whatever is in their own self-interest.

	I wasn't trying to say that atheists don't have a moral code, rather
I was curious as to how they justified the moral code that they had. As a
Christian, I point to something outside of people as the source of my standard.
Not being really familiar with atheistic arguments, I was and am curious as
to the justification for atheistic moral codes.  Steve talked a little about
this in his reply to me.

	I guess I'd also be interested in how an atheist justified criticizing
any other atheistic moral code.  On what basis does a golden-rule-atheist
see the Stalin-atheist as a monster?  Maybe I'm asking the wrong questions. 8-)
When I orignally used the word materialistic in the same sentence with the
word atheist, I was wondering if for the atheist humans were of any more
value than anything else in the world.  As an outside observer, I would think
not, since it would seem to me that if there is nothing else outside of
life then there is no way to ascribe more value to one form of life than
another, or for that matter, ascribe more life to a human than to a rock,
since they both exist and there is no outside standard to say that one is more
objectively valuable than the other.  Now, I'm sure that atheists have good
responses to these questions I'm asking, but I'm not sure what the responses
are. 8-)


|>				-- Bob
|>

Paul

-- 
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Re:  342.51

     >>There is a considerable difference between consciously conforming
     >>your views to an *EXTERNAL* source and determining *for yourself* what is
     >>true.  The difference is who the ultimate determiner of "right" is.

  >I still don't see it. 

That is about as clear as I can make it.

     >>The Bible is clear on this, but I'll summarize here.  Sex within a lifelong
     >>marriage between a man and a woman can be (but is not necessarily :-) )
     >>"proper" (i.e. people abuse sex even within marriage relationships).

  >Are you saying that there is no such thing as proper sex other than in the 
  >*first* marriage? 

No.

  >Also, do you believe that sex for any reason other than procreation is improper?

Consider this:  "'tis better to marry than to burn".  What do you think?

  >I believe that the emotional consequences you speak of are from a lack of
  >respect for the partner, not the act of sex.

The commitment you speak of is a commitment for the day or for the week or
for the month.  It's not for life.  And what happens when this commitment
ends?

Sex is a very real part of this commitment.  It is sex that makes us one
flesh.  It is sex that produces children.

  >However a little planning on the part of one or both partners and this can 
  >easily be avoided.

What a foolish statement.  Unplanned pregnancies HAPPEN.  Consistently.  My
daughter is proof of that.  In fact ONE OUT OF FOUR pregnancies are not
planned.  A little planning?  This is ridiculous.  Remember, ONE out of FOUR.

  >...what is your gender?

I'm a bearded, 36-year old man.

  >Secondly, if you had the power to make it illegal, punishable by jail, to 
  >have improper sex, would you?

I don't know.  The problem of (sexual) sin is much deeper than what the appropriate
punishment is.  Certainly this is a totally impracticle solution in today's
society.

  >Um, I see that you feel strongly about this, but you've left me little to 
  >respond to :-)

There's one response I can think of.  :-)

  >By definition, zero (otherwise it isn't a life long relationship). 

Neatly sidestepping the issue.

  >Also, I would argue that the infidelity was a result of the problems that split 
  >the marriage, and might have triggered the actual split, but I'm not convinced that 
  >it is the underlying cause in the majority of cases.

Point well taken.  Statistics indicate that money issues top the list and sex
is "only" second. 

  >I'm still not sure exactly what the bounds are, but you haven't shown me that
  >it is a tremendous problem.

You've got to believe that there is a God who designed us and know best for us -
better than me or you - and that the rules He has given us are for our own
benefit.  I believe this.  The tragedy that I see in American society is a fitting
witness to what happens as we stray further and further from proper behavior.
You believe the issue isn't strongly related to loose sexual bounds (or at least
not the bounds that you hold to).  But it is.  Disease spreads, pregnancies happen,
people are torn apart in *exactly* the types of relationships that you espouse.
In a society where marriage is the norm when there is a lifelong commitment,
it is pretty clear that most who refuse marriage are also refusing this commitment.

  >Actually you rather specifically accused me of espousing carefree sex, and I
  >don't.

I accept your position as stated (note that I said "evidently" in my orignal).
The sex you espouse is not totally carefree.

Collis

Re:  342.55

  >There are plenty of Christians who suffer from things like clinical depression, or
  >whose marriages break down, even after they follow all the rules and do everything 
  >that they are supposed to. 

No one follows all the rules.

  >Life isn't always fair, unfortunately, and the world isn't as tidy as
  >pie-in-the-sky theology and our own wishes would like it to be.  It is
  >sheer magical thinking, and an exercise in considerable naivete, to
  >believe otherwise.

Indeed, we are reminded of this often.  However, it is NOT naive to trust God and
rely on Him for a solution.   God will work out even the worst situation.  I
totally believe this.

Collis

.46

For the life of me, I still do not see why something *EXTERNAL* should be
considered to be of superior value to something *INTERNAL*, except that it
might give the illusion of being objective or empirical.

How you understand the Bible is completely an internal process.  The Bible
is just a hunk of hardware until the thinking process (internal and subjective)
comes into play.

Richard

Re: .50 Daniel

Kohlberg's Moral Stages are certainly food for thought.  The problem I
have with them is that by ordering the stages from 1 to 6 Kohlberg implies
that stage 2 is superior to 1, stage 3 is superior to 2, etc.  Thus, stage
6 is presented as being the ultimate in morality: universal ethical
principals.  On the one hand Kohlberg says that the ethical principles are
self-chosen, but on the other hand he is very specific about what those
principles are: justice, the reciprocity and equality of human rights, and
respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons.  But aren't
those just the ethical principles that Kohlberg has chosen and raised up
as being the pinnacle of ethical thinking?  Someone else might decide that
a different set of ethical principles represent stage 6. Having said that,
though, I think Kohlberg's stage 6 principles are pretty good ones.

I'm not sure where I fit in terms of Kohlberg's six stages.  My moral code
can be summed up as "enlightened self-interest": if all the citizens of a
community follow the golden rule and act in the interest of the community,
that community will be more likely to prosper.  Therefore from that
standpoint I tend to follow the golden rule.  This is balanced against raw
self-interest, i.e. doing what is best for myself.  In giving to a
charity, the golden rule might say that I should give $10,000 and narrow
self-interest might say that I should give $0, so I compromise and give
$100.

I can identify to some extent with all six of Kohlberg's stages of moral
development.  If I get into an argument with someone why don't I kill that
person?  Because I might be punished (stage 1).  Because it wouldn't be
profitable (stage 2?).  Because nice guys don't kill people (stage 3).
Because murder is against the law (stage 4).  Because murder harms society
(stage 5).  Because murder violates the victim's rights (stage 6).

				-- Bob

Re: .56 Paul

>	I wasn't trying to say that atheists don't have a moral code, rather
>I was curious as to how they justified the moral code that they had.

Different atheists & agnostics justify their codes differently.  I
justified my code in my previous reply.  A lot of it also has to do with
upbringing: if you are taught a moral code as a child (directly or
implicitly) that code tends to become ingrained in you.

> As a
>Christian, I point to something outside of people as the source of my standard.
>Not being really familiar with atheistic arguments, I was and am curious as
>to the justification for atheistic moral codes.  Steve talked a little about
>this in his reply to me.

Well, from my point of view, even though you point to God as being your
source for morality, you were still taught this morality by other humans
and decided at some level that this code was better than any other.  You
have your own personal moral code, which happens to be identical to or
similar to the codes of many other Christians.

>	I guess I'd also be interested in how an atheist justified criticizing
>any other atheistic moral code.  On what basis does a golden-rule-atheist
>see the Stalin-atheist as a monster?

On the basis that the Stalin-atheist isn't following the golden rule.

>  Maybe I'm asking the wrong questions. 8-)
>When I orignally used the word materialistic in the same sentence with the
>word atheist, I was wondering if for the atheist humans were of any more
>value than anything else in the world.

I consider myself a Humanist, so for me humans are much more valuable than
anything else in the world.  Other agnostics or atheists might see things
differently.

>  As an outside observer, I would think
>not, since it would seem to me that if there is nothing else outside of
>life then there is no way to ascribe more value to one form of life than
>another

I don't follow your reasoning here.  If there is nothing else outside of
life I can ascribe greater or lesser value to anything that I want to.  Of
course this choice will have consequences that may be good or bad for me.

>, or for that matter, ascribe more life to a human than to a rock,
>since they both exist and there is no outside standard to say that one is more
>objectively valuable than the other.

The whole point is that there doesn't need to be an outside standard.  I
decide for myself what is right.  As just one person my decision won't
have much effect except on me and maybe some of the people around me, but
when millions of people agree on some aspects of morality it shapes the
way we live our lives.

				-- Bob

     >>>There is a considerable difference between consciously conforming
     >>>your views to an *EXTERNAL* source and determining *for yourself* what is
     >>>true.  The difference is who the ultimate determiner of "right" is.

  >>I still don't see it. 

>That is about as clear as I can make it.
 
It would help if you answered the clarifying questions I asked as a part of my
response to the question, ie. 'Do you agree with the doctrine you follow'. If
you do then you are still doing what is right for yourself, no?


  >>Are you saying that there is no such thing as proper sex other than in the 
  >>*first* marriage? 

>No.

Okay.

  >>Also, do you believe that sex for any reason other than procreation is improper?

>Consider this:  "'tis better to marry than to burn".  What do you think?

I honestly don't understand the message. My interpretation is that sex out of
wedlock is not good, but is sex between marrieds for enjoyment OK? I guess a
more concise question might be is birth control evil?

>What a foolish statement.  Unplanned pregnancies HAPPEN.  Consistently.  My
>daughter is proof of that.  In fact ONE OUT OF FOUR pregnancies are not
>planned.  A little planning?  This is ridiculous.  Remember, ONE out of FOUR.

All this means to me is that 25% of couples either aren't careful or don't 
plan. I have been married (twice) for a total of 12 years. I have NEVER gotten
anyone pregnant. I am careful and I do plan. I am not foolish.

>I'm a bearded, 36-year old man.

Thanks, it helps me picture you :^) I am bearded also but I am 37, which means
I must be older and wiser :^)

>I don't know.  The problem of (sexual) sin is much deeper than what the appropriate
>punishment is.  Certainly this is a totally impracticle solution in today's
>society.

But you would consider it if it were practical? Collis, no offense intended, but
this is why I am afraid of the religious right.

>There's one response I can think of.  :-)

OK, am not.  AM NOT!  AM NOT!!! :^)

  >>By definition, zero (otherwise it isn't a life long relationship). 

>Neatly sidestepping the issue.

Twasn't a sidestep, I just don't know what else I can say given the phrasing
of the question. As I stated, I personally know of three cases (including my
own) in which infidelity was NOT an issue, and didn't happen.

>Point well taken.  Statistics indicate that money issues top the list and sex
>is "only" second. 

Interestingly, I believe the third leading cause is a lack of agreement around
what 'clean' means, ie. different levels of tolerance for clutter.

>You've got to believe that there is a God who designed us and know best for us -
>better than me or you - and that the rules He has given us are for our own
>benefit.  I believe this.  The tragedy that I see in American society is a fitting
>witness to what happens as we stray further and further from proper behavior.
>You believe the issue isn't strongly related to loose sexual bounds (or at least
>not the bounds that you hold to).  But it is.  Disease spreads, pregnancies happen,
>people are torn apart in *exactly* the types of relationships that you espouse.
>In a society where marriage is the norm when there is a lifelong commitment,
>it is pretty clear that most who refuse marriage are also refusing this commitment.

But I don't believe. And my definitions of proper behaviour obviously differ 
from yours. And I BELIEVE that my morals are every bit as righteous as yours,
and I believe this every bit as strongly as you do (although I suspect you
won't believe me). All of the bad things you mention do happen, although I still
maintain that it IS preventable with a little care. Strict monogamy
might halt the disease problem, but it will never happen. People are torn 
apart in *exactly* the types of relationships you are advocating too. Before
divorce became a little more acceptable, they just had to suffer with it for
their entire lives. I am not arguing that someone who refueses to marry may
be ducking commitment, but that is their right. If the people they seek for
sex are aware of their antipathy to commitment (ie. no lies), then so what if
they sleep together.

My impression from these notes is that you consider me a person of loose morals.
That's OK, according to your code I may be. But I would be interested in how
you view me, ie. as a shark cruising bars doing anything to get women into bed,
sowing havoc in my wake? But I might surprise you. Just because I believe in 
the right of someone to do something doesn't mean that I think it is good, or
that I would do it.

Actually, I'll reveal myself a bit to you, maybe it will help you understand
where I am coming from. I have slept with two women in my life, and I married 
both of them. My first marriage broke up at my wife's discretion, infidelity
was not involved. I was single, and celibate, for two years before I met and
married my second wife, and we are still very happily married (and monogomous)
after 7 years. I would not dream of cheating on her. Does this me fit with your 
picture, or am I much closer to the ideals that you have than many other 
Christian families you know?

Steve

    A good atheist can make the connection between a widely-held secular
    morality, the sense of personal accountability and maturity, and good
    outcomes for society:
    
    stable families, less teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease,
    less abortion and infanticide, respect for the lives of the handicapped
    and elderly, less drug abuse, less poverty, justice for all, etc. 
    
    The consensus around what's wrong with the world is broad enough,
    unless you are despairist (believing it can't be improved) or an
    anarchist (valuing the disintegration of society)
    
    Where sides line up for the cultural war is over causes of the present
    state of the world and the means to change it.

    I find it extremely interesting and amusing that this note about 
    atheism vs. Christianity has turned into a discussion of sexuality.

    Maybe that's the big picture somehow.  Maybe all this talk about
    religion is really disguised talk about sexuality.  (Dr. Freud, are you
    reading this?)    :^)

    Ruth

    Atheists and radical anti-religionists have come around to the
    consensus that some choices that some people make regarding sexuality
    have consequences that are destroying the stability of families and
    therefore society in the United States.
    
    Only an nihilist takes delight in the number of women raising children
    in poverty, or the fact the more the half the young women entering
    college are infected or treating a sexually transmitted disease.
                  
    One doesn't need to read the Bible or Dr. Freud to describe this as
    dysfunctional.

    .61
    
    Bob,
    
    Good point about Kohlberg's stages.  I certainly think they are open to
    questioning on many levels.  For example, Kohlberg, like Piaget, only
    studied male subjects, completely ignoring the different kind of
    socialization that girls undergo.  Carol Gilligan makes excellent
    distinctions between "justice based reasoning" and "care based
    reasoning."  My own research with different evaluation instruments
    indicates to me that most people are cognizant of both methods of
    reasoning, although most tend to gravitate more strongly in one
    direction.
    
    Kohlberg saw his stages as "natural" progressions along congnitive
    developmental lines.  I don't think, however, that he meant to see
    people *only* functioning at a single level at a time.
    
    Daniel

Re:  .60

God makes it very clear that I am not God nor am I a
part of God.  It is true that some who claim to be
Christians believe differently, but they have no support
for their claim to be Christian (Biblical or historical).

Given that this is the case, something that is external
to me can be from God.  Something that is internal to me
(such as my reasoning) is not God, but is me.

I fail to see why some believe that what is from God cannot
be (or actually is not) superior to that which is from me.
In fact, logic drives me to exactly the opposite conclusion -
that it is indeed superior.

Collis

In article <342.59-930519-164748@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (Mars needs flip flops.) writes:

Mike,

|>    Au contraire, monsieur.  It is the height of naivete to believe that
|>    everything will work out for the best just because you are a faithful,
|>    believing Christian.  We are talking about the real world here, not
|>    fairy tales.  There are Christians with real experiences. who know what
|>    you apparently do not, that things don't always turn out well, that
|>    marriages fail even when both partners are faithful, that Christians
|>    can an do suffer from clinical depression, or debilitating physical
|>    illnesses.  Wishful thinking doesn't change this fact one iota.

	God's word promises that things will work out for the good for those
who love him, ie that they will be conformed to the image of his son more and
more each day.

	Marriages that fail when both partners are faithful, fail because
the partners see their love as a matter of the will.  You decide to love
somebody or not, and marriages that fail, fail because at some point one or
both of the partners decided that they weren't going to will to love the
other any more.  Admittedly, things may be allowed to build up over time
in the relationship through neglect, but given that both Christian partner's
have the same Holy Spirit, I don't believe that there is anything that cannot
be overcome.  It is impossible for some Christian marriages to be saved
by the best work of the two partners because they've let things go too
long, but it is not impossible for God.  It is the partners' choices that
determine the outcome. They can choose to save the marriage or not, they can
choose to call out to God for help or not, they can choose to nurture each
other and put the other first or not.  

	What do clinical depression, or debilitating physical illnesses have
to do with marriage commitment?  I belive that it is possible to commit
to someone regardless of the circumstances.  The whole idea of marriage is
giving yourself up for the other regardless of their loveliness.  It is no
big deal to love somebody who is loveable, the real test of love is when
you love somebody who is unloveable (as we all usually are 8-) ).  My "rights"
in a marriage are to love my spouse as I love my own body, to love her as
Christ loved the church, ie giving himself up for her even when she might
not have cared about the sacrifice.  You haven't given a full definition of
what marriage means to you and I'd appreciate some more information since
it certainly sounds as though you see marriage as much more focused on an
individual's self-interest, although I realize you must not really mean that.
	
	As you can tell, this is a bit of a hot button with me. 8-)

|>    -- Mike
|>

Paul


-- 
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

re: 62 (Bob)

Thanks for your sharing your perspective Bob.

-- 
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Re:  342.63
 
  >Do you agree with the doctrine you follow'. 

Usually.

  >If you do then you are still doing what is right for yourself, no?

Irrelevant.  It appears to be relevant to you in your philosophy of life,
but it is irrelevant to me.

     >>Consider this:  "'tis better to marry than to burn".  What do you think?

  >I honestly don't understand the message. 

Read I Corinthians 7.

  >All this means to me is that 25% of couples either aren't careful or don't 
  >plan. 

NO, that is NOT what this means.  You obviously can not hear what I'm saying.
Statistics mean nothing to you - you simply explain them away.  You are foolish
if you think an act of sex with a possible fertile woman is anything less than
a potential pregnancy.  There is NO method of birth control which is 100%.
Even vasectomies sometimes reverse themselves.  Are you aware of this?  Do
you know what the failure rates of birth control are?  If so, why do you claim
(not only for yourself, but for others) to be immune from these failure rates?

  >I am bearded also but I am 37, which means I must be older and wiser :^)

The first I'll grant.  Regarding wisdom, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning
of wisdom."

  >But you would consider it if it were practical? 

Yes, I would consider it.  

  >Collis, no offense intended, but this is why I am afraid of the religious right.

Your attitudes are why I fear the liberal left.  You go about thinking of yourselves
as doing very reasonable behaviors which are perfectly acceptable - but the behaviors
you espouse are a major cause of individual and societal problems.

Part of the problem is that we are to be *examples* to others.  Regardless of what
your personal standard of ethics is, if you are willing to sleep with someone whom
you have not married, that encourages *others* to sleep with someone that they are
not married to.

We had an interesting problem once at a church I attended while going to seminary.
Another member of the church who was also attending seminary stayed overnigth at his
fiancee's house somewhat regularly.  They did not engage in sexual activity, but this
situation is *fraught* with danger.  It is also a *very* poor example to others who
may now consider this to be acceptable behavior.  He was taken out of leadership at
the local church and I believe that this matter was brought up with his advisor at
the seminary.

We have a responsibility before God (this includes you!) to not only *be* blameless,
but to *appear* blameless, lest God be defamed because of our actions/witness.  As a
practical matter, again, we need to appear blameless less we encourage activity that
we believe to be wrong.

  >...I believe this every bit as strongly as you do (although I suspect you
  >won't believe me). 

I have no problems believing you.

  >People are torn apart in *exactly* the types of relationships you are advocating 
  >too.

Indeed this is true.  Sex can be one major problem, but it is clearly not the only
problem that relationships can suffer from.  Your relationship with your first wife
shows that.

  >Before divorce became a little more acceptable, they just had to suffer with 
  >it for their entire lives. 

or actually resolve it.  Amazing, isn't it, what some people will do when they don't
look to divorce.

  >But I would be interested in how you view me...

As a man who wants sex, but within well-defined controls.  As a man that God
can use if you'll just hear Him knocking and say, "come in".

Collis

Re:  .69

Well said, Paul.

Paul and I have the exact same perspective on marriage, because
we use the same source (which is external to either of us!)

Collis

Interesting that you should mention the morality and sex connection, Ruth, .65.
It's a phenomena I've noticed repeatedly.

If there are no pelvic implications, it's a rare Christian who will stand up
for morality.

Richard

    >As you can tell, this is a bit of a hot button with me. 8-)

    Paul, it just so happens that this is a *major* hot button with me. 
    :-)  

    >	Marriages that fail when both partners are faithful, fail because
    >the partners see their love as a matter of the will.  

    One reason that this is such a hot button with me is that this is comes
    across as a clear case of finger pointing.  If a marriage fails, it is
    said to be because the partners didn't follow the rules, they didn't
    listen to God enough, or whatever--if only they had done X, it would
    have worked out.  This is, in my view, a pie-in-the-sky vision of
    religion and marriage that bears no relationship with the real world,
    and I would argue that it is extremely insulting to those people who
    were sincere in their marriages which simply did not work out.  This
    is, in my view, a clear case of trying to make the world conform to
    one's vision of how it ought to work, rather than how it really does
    work.

    >	What do clinical depression, or debilitating physical illnesses
    >have to do with marriage commitment?  

    They have nothing to do with it.  I was addressing the more general
    issue, which is that religion is not a panacea.  Marriage is one way in
    which this is the case, but that is not the only aspect of our lives in
    which there is no guarantee.

    -- Mike

RE.: 68

>God makes it very clear that I am not God nor am I a
>part of God.

    This goes contrary to what I believe in, if God is everything that is,
    visible and invisible, then how can anything that is, not be part of 
    God ?.  That doesn't make any sense to me.
    
    If we are not part of God, then what are we part of of ?.
    
    Who created us ?.
    
    			Juan
    

    > God makes it very clear that I am not God nor am I a
    > part of God.
    
    Hmmm.  I understand that God is everywhere, in everything and nowhere
    is there not God.  What makes you so special that you are where God
    isn't?
    
    Tom

    If God is perfectly omniscient, which I believe he/she to be, then we
    are necessarily *all* a part of God.  This is because God perfectly
    shares in all of our experiences, in effect he/she experiences what we
    experience, and is necessarily affected by everything that happens. 
    The idea that God is unaffected by what we do is actually quite
    unbiblical, although this is what Anselm and Thomas believed--which led
    to some rather absurd conclusions on their part.  This was discussed in
    the topic on panentheism.

    Being a part of God doesn't mean that we are the same as God.  This is
    the difference between pantheism, which I do not believe in, and
    panentheism.

    -- Mike

re: .77

>    If God is perfectly omniscient, which I believe he/she to be, then we
>    are necessarily *all* a part of God.  This is because God perfectly
 
If God is Omni\scient\potent, then how can I be blamed if he created me such that
I don't believe in him? An old question, but one that has never been 
satisfactorily answered, and one that helps to keep me an atheist.

Steve

    >If God is Omni\scient\potent, then how can I be blamed if he created me
    >such that I don't believe in him? An old question, but one that has
    >never been  satisfactorily answered, and one that helps to keep me an
    >atheist.

    I mentioned that I believed that God is omniscient; notice that I
    *didn't* say anything about God being omnipotent.  But that's a whole
    separate issue.

    My personal opinion is that I don't think that you there is any "blame"
    involved for not believing in God.  I don't believe that God judges
    people on the basis of having the "right" faith and condemns them to
    hell for not believing in him/her.  That is a particular notion of
    certain brands of religious belief; orthodox Christian theology is not
    the only kind of theism in the world.  You don't have to be an atheist
    to not accept that God would "blame" you for not believing in him.  If
    that's what keeps you an atheist, you'll have to come up with a better
    reason than that.  :-)

    -- Mike

    In this vein, there are lots of places in the Bible, especially in
    Genesis where it appears there is something God doesn't know
    (God is supposed to be all-knowing, ya' know).
    
    For example, God didn't know how many righteous men (women didn't
    count apparently) lived in Sodom.
    
    God didn't know why Sarah laughed when she was informed she was
    pregnant.  God asked Abraham about it.
    
    God didn't know what Cain had done.  God had to ask him what he'd done.
    
    These are just to cite a few.  Of course, some'll say these were just
    rhetorical questions on God's part, rather than conceding that God
    might not have had an answer.
    
    Richard
    

    
    	RE.: .80
    
    	Then again, those accounts where it says that God said this
    	or God said that may not be true or accurate or mistranslated
    	to make it appear so.  I rather believe that than believe that
    	God doesn't know everything or that we are not part of God.
    
    	That's why I don't believe anyone when they say that God said
    	this or that, the one making the statement was a human person
    	not God.  
    
    			Juan

    RE: .78 Steve

>If God is Omni\scient\potent, then how can I be blamed if he created me such 
>that I don't believe in him? 

    And *you* thought *you* had a choice about it.

    It takes all kinds, you know.  You're being *used*, set up
    for the rest of us.

    :-) :-) :-)

    Tom

Re:  .75

  >...if God is everything that is, visible and invisible, then 
  >how can anything that is, not be part of God ?

I agree with your logic.  Your premise is wrong - God is not
everything that is.  God is totally pure - in Him there is no
darkness (sin) at all (I John).  This is just example of God's
revelation to us that contradicts your premise.

Re:  .76

Sitting in a chair does not make me a chair, neither does God's
awareness and presence everywhere make Him everything.

Collis

  >If God is perfectly omniscient, which I believe he/she to be, then we
  >are necessarily *all* a part of God.  This is because God perfectly
  >shares in all of our experiences, in effect he/she experiences what we
  >experience, and is necessarily affected by everything that happens. 

Your definition of omnisience (all-knowing) is quite different than mine.
It is clear that I can know some things about you without *being* you.
Are you saying that if I know all things about you than you are part of
me?  Knowledge somehow or other makes us one?  I don't understand why
you believe this must be (or even why it has anything to do with
omniscience at all since I am me and don't know a lot about me!)

Collis

    
>Are you saying that if I know all things about you than you are part of
>me?  
    I believe that I *can't* know all about you unless you are a part of
    me.
    
    Tom

>It is clear that I can know some things about you without *being* you.
>Are you saying that if I know all things about you than you are part of
>me?  Knowledge somehow or other makes us one?  I don't understand why
>you believe this must be (or even why it has anything to do with
>omniscience at all since I am me and don't know a lot about me!)

    There are two things to bear in mind.  First of all, I believe that
    everything in the universe is basically a part of everything else in
    the universe--that we are all interrelated and interconnected in a
    certain sense.  To the extent that we influence one another (which it
    is impossible for us not to do to one another), then we are a part of
    one another.  I thus accept what Whitehead called an "organic"
    metaphysics.

    More importantly, you may have knowledge of other things, but you don't
    have perfect omniscience.  Your knowledge of things is fundamentally
    different from God's perfect knowledge of everything.  You cannot know
    the subjective experiences of others except indirectly.  This is not
    the case with God.  Because God's knowledge is perfect, he encompasses
    not just everything objectively, but subjectively as well--he knows
    what you think, feel, and experience perfectly.  Thus he experiences
    exactly what you experience as you experience it, as if he were
    experiencing it himself.  God thus encompasses you, and you are a part
    of God.

    -- Mike

re: .71

>  >Do you agree with the doctrine you follow'. 
>
>Usually.
>
>  >If you do then you are still doing what is right for yourself, no?
>
>Irrelevant.  It appears to be relevant to you in your philosophy of life,
>but it is irrelevant to me.

What tenants don't you agree with that you still follow? I'm not disagreeing
with you, in this case I'm just trying to understand.

>  >All this means to me is that 25% of couples either aren't careful or don't 
>  >plan. 
>
>NO, that is NOT what this means.  You obviously can not hear what I'm saying.
>Statistics mean nothing to you - you simply explain them away.  You are foolish
>if you think an act of sex with a possible fertile woman is anything less than
>a potential pregnancy.  There is NO method of birth control which is 100%.
>Even vasectomies sometimes reverse themselves.  Are you aware of this?  Do
>you know what the failure rates of birth control are?  If so, why do you claim
>(not only for yourself, but for others) to be immune from these failure rates?

You are right, there is always the chance of failure, but it can be made VERY
low. I don't recall the odds of a vasectomy reversing itself, but it is also
extremely low. I have seen it argued that the pill is 100% effective, but the
people using it aren't. Put another way, the 95% effective rate for the pill
would be much higher if we could truly rule out 'user error'. But even 
abstinence is not 100% effective. I do not claim to be immune, but consider,
when a claim is made (such as for birth control pills) that it is 95% effective,
it means that 95% of people that use it will NEVER get pregnant, not that 95 
out of 100 encounters will not result in pregnancy. Life is full of calculated
risks, like driving, this can just be another.


>Your attitudes are why I fear the liberal left.  You go about thinking of yourselves
>as doing very reasonable behaviors which are perfectly acceptable - but the behaviors
>you espouse are a major cause of individual and societal problems.

You still haven't even begun to convince that sexual activity is a root cause
of the problems. I still see them as a symptom.

>Part of the problem is that we are to be *examples* to others.  Regardless of what
>your personal standard of ethics is, if you are willing to sleep with someone whom
>you have not married, that encourages *others* to sleep with someone that they are
>not married to.

And again, I see no problem whatsoever in two consenting non-married adults 
sleeping together. 

>We have a responsibility before God (this includes you!) to not only *be* blameless,
>but to *appear* blameless, lest God be defamed because of our actions/witness.  As a
>practical matter, again, we need to appear blameless less we encourage activity that
>we believe to be wrong.

How do you figure that I have a 'responsibility before God'. Realize that to me
this is the same as saying that I have a responsibility before the Easter
Bunny. I do set the example for things that I believe in.

>or actually resolve it.  Amazing, isn't it, what some people will do when they don't
>look to divorce.

You may be right, when deprived of a particular choice some people that may have
otherwise divorced probably do solve it. On the other hand, it simply can't
always be worked out. Do you believe that ALL broken relationships can be
repaired?

>As a man who wants sex, but within well-defined controls.  As a man that God
>can use if you'll just hear Him knocking and say, "come in".

Which must be why you are still debating with me :^)

Steve

    
    	Well, I'm glad that not all Christians think that we are not part of
    	God, but it's incomprehensible to me that any Christian would think 
    	that we are not part of God.  It looks like some brothers are placing 
    	the Bible over God Himself. 
    
			    Juan                          

re: Note 342.58 by Collis "Roll away with a half sashay" 

>Re:  342.55
>
>>There are plenty of Christians who suffer from things like clinical depression, or
>>whose marriages break down, even after they follow all the rules and do everything 
>>that they are supposed to. 
>
>No one follows all the rules.
 ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^

Collis, this sounds very much like blaming the victim to me.

Peace,

Jim

Re:  .90

You totally lost me.

Collis

re: Note 342.91 by Collis "Roll away with a half sashay" 

>Re:  .90
>
>You totally lost me.

It's like telling a rape victim that they deserved it because of the clothes 
they were wearing.  "It's your own fault, if you would just follow the rules!"

"If you just followed all the rules, you wouldn't be clinically depressed."

I hope this helps.

Peace,

Jim

Re:  .89

Hi Juan,

Christianity has always made a careful distinction between the
Creator and the creation.  I can make a chair, but that does not
make the chair a "part" of me.  Sure, we talk about things that
way sometimes.  But it is not truly part of me.  My hair, my
eyes, my feet - they are all a part of me.  But the chair that
I made?  No.

God made us.  He breathed life into us.  We are NOT begotten
(which is what would be needed for us to be the essentially the
same as God), we are created.  Before we were, God was complete.
If we were no more (at all), God would still be complete.

Admittedly, there are many who choose to believe differently.  Some
claim to be Christians as well.  I don't know of a single Christian
denomination that proclaims that we are a part of God.  Perhaps you
can enlighten me.

This is just orthodox, historical Christian doctrine.  I'm surprised
(and a little dissapointed) that such orthodox doctrine would be
incomprehensible to you.  Perhaps you're not as well informed about
what Christianity is you had thought.

Collis

    Just because someone doesn't swallow some doctrine doesn't mean s/he
    can't comprehend it.  I comprehend communism, I just don't accept it.

Re:  .88

About failure rates.

If there is a failure rate of 95%, that means that 5% of the
women using that form of birth control for 1 year will become
pregnant.  Over time, many more than 5% become pregnant.

Failure rates of condoms vary between the mid-80's and the
mid-90's with a figure in the low 90s often used.  The failure
rate of the pill is somewhere around 98%.  My wife took the
pill faithfully.  She became pregnant.  User error?  No.
Failure rate?  Yes.

  >...abstinence is not 100% effective.

I'm sure we're all interested in knowing why this is.  I expect
your definition of abstinence allows some form of sex (willing or
unwilling) and, as such, is a very misleading statement.

  >You still haven't even begun to convince that sexual activity is a 
  >root cause of the problems. I still see them as a symptom.

I doubt that you're about to change your mind.  I know that I cannot
change it for you.  I've presented some facts and some thoughts.
Isn't that what this conference is about?  I'll leave the rest to God.

  >How do you figure that I have a 'responsibility before God'. 

Are you a member of the human race?  Then God created you and you (like
everyone else) has a responsibility before God.  Your denial of this
does not make it any less true.  The day of judgment will come and then
you and I will stand before God and truly see how we failed in our
responsibilities.

Collis

  >If you just followed all the rules, you wouldn't be clinically depressed.

Thanks, Jim.  I did not say that nor do I believe that.  My wife is
a manic-depressive who "follows all the rules" and she has been
hospitilized a number of times in her life (twice while we've been
married).  I would hardly be foolish enough to claim that following
all the rules would prevent either mania or depression.

Collis

Re:  .94

  >Just because someone doesn't swallow some doctrine doesn't mean s/he
  >can't comprehend it.

If Juan had said he didn't accept Christian teaching (which he has
said a number of times), I probably wouldn't have even made a
comment.  However, we specifically said it was incomprehensible
(that is not comprehensible), which leads me to believe that he
never knew what Christian teaching on this subject was previously
and now that he does not, he can't fathom why Christians would
believe it.

Collis

Thanks, Collis, for clearing that up for me.  
I'm glad what it sounded to me you were saying was not what you meant.

Peace & prayers,

Jim

Collis,

Keeping your wife in my prayers.  I was married to a manic-depressive 
and unfortunately that was coupled with a violent temper.

Warm thoughts,

Ro

    
    	Collis,
    
    		If Christianism teaches that we are not part of God,
    	then I admit my ignorance, I certainly don't claim to know
    	everything there is about Christianism, and that came as a
    	big surprise to me.
    
    		Now, can you tell me something, I am curious...
    
    		If we are not part of God, then what are we part of ?.
    
    		I'm asking that question keeping in mind that the real me
    	is a soul, a tiny extension of God occupying a physical body which 
    	will die sometime and I will go on to other more subtle planes of 
    	existance after passing out of the physical body.  
    
				Juan	
                                                   

God is transcendent, as Collis chooses to emphasize, and God is imminent,
as others insist.  God is both.  There is biblical support for both.

Richard

re Note 342.90 by TFH::KIRK:

> Collis, this sounds very much like blaming the victim to me.
  
        Jim,

        Well there certainly are times when the victim IS at fault
        (wholly or partially) for the problems that befell them. 
        E.g., if I get drunk go out and drive and permanently injure
        myself, then I have the blame.

        Bob

>God is transcendent, as Collis chooses to emphasize, and God is imminent,
>as others insist.  God is both.  There is biblical support for both.

That's "immanent" (as in Emmanuel); however, when we say "Jesus, Lord, come
soon", we also think He is imminent.  :-)

Christians (including Collis) believe that God is both trancendant and
immanent.  Yet as Collis has continually said, God's presence among us
does not make us God.

We are part of what God created out of nothing.  I repeat: historic Jewish
and Christian doctrine is that God created everything out of nothing, not
out of himself.

/john

In article <342.73-930520-105748@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (We will rise!) writes:

Richard,

|>If there are no pelvic implications, it's a rare Christian who will stand up
|>for morality.

	I feel sorry for you that the Lord has seen to fit to bring you
into contact, evidently almost exclusively, with only those types of
Christians.  God's word sees sexual purity (which means good sex for those
who are married and no sex for those who aren't) as important but as just
one aspect of the new, fulfilling, person-validating, joyful  life he has
called us to live by his grace and the Holy Spirit.

	I imagine you consider yourself fortunate to have this notes conference
where the vast majority of Christians stand up for morality even when
there are no pelvic implications, given the lack of such attitudes in the
rest of the Christians with which you interact.
  
|>
|>Richard
|>
|>

8-)

Paul

-- 
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    .103  Thanks for the spelling correction.
    
    I don't think I've seen anybody here say humans are the same as God.
    I believe we humans do have what might be called "a family resemblance,"
    however.
    
    Richard
    

    Paul .104,
    
    	I am grateful for this conference, but I see a microcosm of the
    world herein rather than a sanctuary from it.
    
    Richard
    

Steve,

	I want to say that I appreciate your candidness with us here.
Few people would be willing to share the intimate and personal information
you have.

Richard

re: Note 342.102 by Bob "without vision the people perish 

Yes, Bob, but I think there is some context missing there.

Peace, and back to the main topic of discussion...

Jim

Re: .107

Thanks Richard.

Actually, I debated for quite some time, but I could come up with no other way
to make my point to Collis, ie. that I was not what he seemed to believe I was,
despite what I said.

Steve

    The only way I can see creation ex nihilo being "debatable" as being
    Christian doctrine (as opposed to being true) is to apply
    unconventional or deceptive meaning to the words "creation","part of",
    "matter", etc.
    
    What Hartshorne argues is "impossible" (to whom) is not only possible
    but a common belief among Christians throughout the world throughout
    history.
    
    We share existence with God.  We are "created".  God is "uncreated": he
    always was and always will be.  Promoting ambiguity of this is
    substituting Christian theology with pantheism.
    
    What's "impossible" is to reconcile pantheism with Christianity.

    Collis,

    I'm holding you and your wife in my prayers.  No one truly understands
    the anguish of depression until they have experienced it themselves. 

    Peace,

    Ruth

    >The only way I can see creation ex nihilo being "debatable" as being
    >Christian doctrine (as opposed to being true) is to apply
    >unconventional or deceptive meaning to the words "creation","part of",
    >"matter", etc.
    
    That might indeed be the only way *you* can see it.

    >What Hartshorne argues is "impossible" (to whom) is not only possible
    >but a common belief among Christians throughout the world throughout
    >history.

    Hartshorne did not argue it was "impossible" to believe in creation ex
    nihilo.  It is certainly possible for people to believe anything they
    want.  What Hartshorne discussed was the logic of this position, not
    its possibility--and the logic of such bizarre conclusions as those of
    Anselm and Thomas, who believed that God only *seemed* to be
    compassionate.
    
    >Promoting ambiguity of this is substituting Christian theology with
    >pantheism.

    You are confusing pantheism with panentheism.  I thought I had already
    pointed out that Hartshorne was not a pantheist.

    -- Mike

    It is debateable as to whether or not Jewish and Christian doctrine
    necessitates a doctrine of creation ex nihilo.  One could make a case
    that it does not.  Be that as it may, there are several points to
    remember about the idea that we are being a part of God.  For one
    thing, in a limited sense, everything in the universe is related to
    everything else in the universe, and we are all a part of one another. 
    Newtonian metaphysics might view the world as a set of independent and
    disjoint objects, but another way of viewing the world is to note that
    all of us partake in the reality of everything else that occurs in the
    universe, even if it is in alimited sense.  We are all a part of one
    another.

    More importantly, Hartshorne has argued that it is really impossible to
    completely separate completely between the bein gof the creator and the
    creation if God is to have the attributes that Christianity assigns to
    him/her.  If God relates to us not just externally (in the sense of
    affected what we do), but also internally (in the sense of being
    affected by what we do), then we are necessarily a part of God.  Humans
    who create chairs are not God--they are not infinite and omnipresent. 
    God, who is perfectly omniscient, incorporates through his/her perfect
    knowlege all that happens in the universe.  To the limited extent that
    we know and are affected by what happens in the universe, the rest of
    the universe is also a part of us; this is extended to infinite
    dimensions by God's perfect knowledge.

    It appears that the real problem that people seem to have with
    panentheism is not that it is philosphically invalid, but that it
    doesn't conform to some particular dogma.  This is the same, tired old
    kind of objection that we so frequently see.  The argument is "this
    isn't orthodox", rather than "this isn't reasonable."  The philosphical
    issues involved are thus glossed over, and it becomes a matter of
    unthinking acceptance of dogma.

    -- Mike

    .111  In whose image are we (alledgedly) created?
    
    Richard
    

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion around freedom of religion in this
country, most of in reference to the branch davidians. My question is around your
views of the freedom to practice no religion. A few leading questions so that you
can see what I am getting at...

- Is it OK for a religious organization to refuse to hire, or to fire, someone
  because they are atheistic, or of a different religion?
- Is it OK for a non-religious organization to refues to hire, or to fire, 
  someone because they belong to a particular religion or because they are
  atheistic.
- Is it OK for a store open to the public to refuse to serve someone if because
  of their religious views.
- Is it OK to legislate morals based on religious convictions?

There are lots more of these types of issues, but by now you probably get my 
drift. It is around these kinds of issues that my fear of organized religions
originates, I am looking forward to your responses.

Steve

    Excuse me, did I open "Atheist Perspective" by mistake?

These are pretty leading questions.

- Is it OK for a religious organization to refuse to hire, or to fire, someone
  because they are atheistic, or of a different religion?

No.  But who else but a member would want to work for the wages
most of the folks are paid?

- Is it OK for a non-religious organization to refues to hire, or to fire, 
  someone because they belong to a particular religion or because they are
  atheistic.

Also, no.  They also tend to pay better :-)

- Is it OK for a store open to the public to refuse to serve someone if because
  of their religious views.

No.  But it would be dumb to do so.

- Is it OK to legislate morals based on religious convictions?

Morals?  Do you mean like giving money to the poor?  Like discouraging
drug use?  Like providing health care to the poor and elderly?

Tom

    Can't respond....lots of run ons with my VT420 screen.
    
    Marc H.

    
>- Is it OK for a religious organization to refuse to hire, or to fire, someone
>  because they are atheistic, or of a different religion?

    I would have to say yes. I've been on the hiring committee for two jobs
    in a Catholic school. I've also talked to the Principal about his
    hiring of teachers. I'm a non Catholic member of the Board. That's 
    background. The purpose of the school is to provide a Catholic
    education. Can a non Catholic do that? In some roles yes. In others,
    not so easily. The principal of the school is expected to be a
    religious leader. Could an atheist do that? I tend to doubt it. It would
    be morally wrong to force a religious school to hire non religious
    people.

>- Is it OK for a non-religious organization to refues to hire, or to fire, 
>  someone because they belong to a particular religion or because they are
>  atheistic.

    No, I think not. It would however be ok for them to refuse to hire
    someone with beliefs and philosophies that were incompatible with the
    organizations charter.

>- Is it OK for a store open to the public to refuse to serve someone if because
>  of their religious views.

    No I think not.

>- Is it OK to legislate morals based on religious convictions?

    Is it possible not to? I don't think so. Religious convictions are one
    facet of a persons personal beliefs and philosophies. All of these
    things are a factor in what legislation people support. To not call
    for legislation based on ones religious convictions is to deny one
    the right to live their own life or to act as a free person.

    			Alfred

    			Alfred

re: .116
No, but you are in the atheism/atheist topic. I already know the atheist 
perspective, that's why I'm exploring others. If I offended you, I apologize.

re: .117
You're right, they were supposed to be leading questions :^)

>- Is it OK for a religious organization to refuse to hire, or to fire, someone
>  because they are atheistic, or of a different religion?
>
>No.  But who else but a member would want to work for the wages
>most of the folks are paid?

Actually, I believe that a religious organization does have the right to 
discriminate against those that don't adhere to the particular doctrine. This
can be hard to defend, however...

I agree on the other points. The types of legislation I was thinking of 
specifically were blue laws.

re: .118 
Oops. Sorry.

re: .119
I agree with most of your answers, although allowing a group to discriminate
based on their charter can get tricky, ie. I wonder what the KKK's charter
would read?

I do disagree with your last point (I think). 
>>- Is it OK to legislate morals based on religious convictions?
>
>    Is it possible not to? I don't think so. Religious convictions are one
>    facet of a persons personal beliefs and philosophies. All of these
>    things are a factor in what legislation people support. To not call
>    for legislation based on ones religious convictions is to deny one
>    the right to live their own life or to act as a free person.

I agree that religious convictions are a facet of a persons beliefs, but that 
does not necessarily mean that you should call for legislation based on that
belief. And to pass legislation based on your beliefs may very well DENY 
another the opportunity to live *their* own life or act as a free person.
(In this case I am referring to laws that restrict behaviors that do not
 infringe on someone else's rights).

Thanks for the responses,

Steve

    Now that you have cleared the air over the insincerity of asking such
    questions, let's understand what you are really asking.

    Can religion be tolerated in a society that has a constitutional
    guarantee of religious freedom?

    The conclusion that one can draw from a hypothetical law that requires
    a religious association to employ people who are hostile to that
    religion is that the intent of such a law is to destroy the religious
    association, not to guarantee the employment of people who are hostile
    that religion.

    The government in this view is the tool to destroy religion by
    targeting any recognition of religion in law as "establishment" unless
    it serves the purpose of the suppression of religion.
                                                          

>    The conclusion that one can draw from a hypothetical law that requires
>    a religious association to employ people who are hostile to that
>    religion is that the intent of such a law is to destroy the religious
>    association, not to guarantee the employment of people who are hostile
>    that religion.

    I disagree.  If someone comes into Digital (when we're hiring) and
    does nothing but complain how horrible Digital is we aren't going
    to hire her (him?).

    If once hired by a church, an employee disrupts moral by criticizing
    the organization's core beliefs he will rightfully be dismissed.

    But is someone's lifestyle conflicts with the morals of an
    organization but it doesn't interfer with him or her doing
    their duties then I see no conflict.

    Tom

    re: .-1

    The belief that "Digital is horrible" is not a protected belief.  The
    belief that "Christianity is horrible" is a religious belief and hence
    protected.

    The law, in this view, protects this individual from the discrimination
    by the religious association who must be hire him regardless of his
    beliefs.                 

    If you can persuade this conference's readership that lifestyle has
    nothing at all to do with religious beliefs, I will be impressed with
    your power of persuasion.

>Actually, I believe that a religious organization does have the right to 
>discriminate against those that don't adhere to the particular doctrine. This
>can be hard to defend, however...

I think that "discrimination" is not the right word.  As Alfred mentioned
in .119, it's more of a qualification issue.  Some jobs for religious
organizations require things that an atheist won't have, by definition.

If someone came into Digital applying for a position as a software
engineer but had never programmed a line in his life, he couldn't very
well claim discrimination.

-Steve

    I don't understand what you mean "by definition, an atheist won't
    have."

    If an atheist believes that religion is superstition, he has a
    religious belief that is protected.

    The law, in this view, prohibits under penalty of fine and imprisonment
    employers including and perhaps especially religious associations from
    considering applicants' religious views as part of the screening
    process.

re: .121
>    Now that you have cleared the air over the insincerity of asking such
>    questions, let's understand what you are really asking.

Huh? What insincerity, and how did I clear the air? And if I wasn't asking what 
I was asking, then what was I asking?

>    Can religion be tolerated in a society that has a constitutional
>    guarantee of religious freedom?

Again, I don't understand. I would never argue against tolerance for a religion,
my concerns are more over potential religious INtolerance to those that don't
share the predominant religious beliefs.

And I don't disagree with your last two points, ie. forcing a religious 
organization to hire someone hostile to their beliefs is also not right.

re: last several

Steve, I will withdraw the word discrimination, it is harsher sounding 
than I intended.

Let me pin it down a bit. In this area there are several religious organizations
that require prospective employees to sign 'letters of faith' (or affirmation,
I don't recall which) that state that they believe a particular doctrine, and 
in some cases they need to be able to prove such. Now some of these jobs are
for programmers. Although I am an excellent programmer, I am automatically 
excluded from these jobs due to my views, even if I never mention religion
at all at work. This is not hypothetical, it happens here every day. Is this
OK?

Steve

 What type of religious organization are you talking about in regards
 to these job openings?





 Jim

    Focus on the Family and another group that prints and distributes
    bibles worldwide are the two that I know about. FotF handles radio
    ministries as well as seminars and a large publication business.
    
    As far as I know, they have not required the people doing construction
    work to make these affirmations.
    
    Steve

It would seem that jobs which involve programming could directly affect the
evangelizing work that these groups are doing -- in ways that a construction
job would not.

/john

    Hmmm... It's illegal to ask a person about their religion during a job
    interview.
    
    Want to pick up some quick bucks?  Apply, get turned down and file
    a law suit.
    

 Isn't Focus on the Family a non-profit organization supported largely
 (if not entirely) by donations, thus exempt from the regulations?




 Jim

    re: Note 342.130 by RANGER::TBAKER

    >> Hmmm... It's illegal to ask a person about their religion during a job
    >> interview.
    
    >> Want to pick up some quick bucks?  Apply, get turned down and file
    >> a law suit.

    I was asked earlier about insincerity.  What's sincere about the above
    tactic?

    What's discussion about anyway?  The principle is that religious
    associations are free to inquire into the religious beliefs of a person
    seeking employment.
    
    Religious freedom means that religious associations are not required to
    hire someone that is indifferent or hostile to the principles of the
    that association without the threat of fines or imprisonment for that
    employer.

    Or is it the specific employer (Focus on the Family, a
    non-denominational but avowedly Christian organization) or the specific
    job? (janitor, counselor, executive director) or the specific
    jurisdiction, Colorado.
                           

    RE: .132
>    I was asked earlier about insincerity.  What's sincere about the above
>    tactic?

    Errr... 'twasn't me to bring up insincere.  Pointing out 
    that your questions were leading, maybe, but not insincere.

    I guess all us Christians look alike....	   :-)

    I believe it's wrong for someone to be turned down for employment
    simply because of his/her religious beliefs if those beliefs will
    not interfere with the carrying out of duties.

    I don't agree with Bob Palmer on everything, but that doesn't stop
    me from doing my best for DEC... errr... I mean Digital.

    Tom

    In front line jobs that are specifically promoting the purpose of an
    organization, the person applying should believe in that organization
    regardless of whether it is identified as a religious organization or
    not.  For instance, if the goal of a religious school is to instill
    religious teaching and ethics in the children, the school may need to
    screen the religious preference of the candidates.  I am part of a
    committee potentially hiring a new director of Religious Education for
    my church.  That candidates perspective on implementing the goals of our 
    RE program is critical.  The candidate needs to be a religious liberal
    to present  liberal religious perspectives to our children.  However
    our church secretary may not need to be a religious liberal.  Non
    program jobs should not descriminate based on religion or any other
    factor.
    
    As a religious liberal I believe that all aspects of our lifes have
    religious and theological perspectives.  I vote based on my values and
    my values are based on my religion.  Only those values that perserve
    the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all people should be
    legislated.  The laws should protect individuals and not force an
    ideology on anyone. 
    
    Patricia

Re: .129 - .134
I don't see how a programming job would directly affect the work (assuming 
that the programmer was actively trying to do a good job and not into 
sabatoge). 

Jim, I believe that both organizations are non-profit. FotF, although they 
accept donations, I believe are primarily supported via sales of their 
products, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars/year (might be higher,
I'm not sure). That is a good point, and I believe that this does exempt them
from the various laws we are discussing.

Around the sincerity confusion, I was accused of being insincere around my
orginal questions (which I deny), and I did not post the note suggesting a 
lawsuit. 

I also happen to agree that religious organizations may screen out whom they
wish, if they don't agree with the doctrine. This makes me a bit uncomfortable,
however, because I don't know how to differentiate a religious organization 
screening 'heathens' from the John Birch society screening blacks, which I
don't agree with.

Patricia, I agree 100% with your words around legislation. I am completely in
favor of the free practice of whatever religion you choose, as long as it
doesn't attempt to legislate morality. 

To help clarify, my definitions of laws driven by morality include blue laws,
all laws regulating consensual sexual behavior between adults, drug laws, etc.
Basically any law regulating a behavior that does not infringe directly upon
someone else, or present a clear and present chance of impacting another party.

Pretty simple, eh? :^)

It is this type of thing that keeps me paranoid about active religions. 

Steve
(Question, has anyone ever had an atheist come to their door and attempt to 
 convert them :^)

    Well, I reject the paradigms that are presumed in .135:

    Legislation itself is the expression of the morality of a society.

    A religious association and not a agency of the government is competent
    to evaluate if a job has a religious requirement.  Courts have rejected
    this entanglement with religion in refusing to certify or decertify
    rabbis who determine if food is kosher or if a person teaching religion
    has the status of Catholic theologian.

    Religious belief is a characteristic different from race in a profound
    way.  Religious belief is a matter of choice as an adult and not a fact
    of birth.

    The idea that any act done in consent of those with whom its done is a
    moral act is a philosophical perspective, but not a Christian
    perspective.

    As for your question, it's far easier for atheists to persecute
    Christians with the power of the state than to covert their hearts to
    emptiness.

re:.136

Patrick,

I agree with you that legislation (in a democracy) reflects the nation's
morality. In this country, however, we also have a constitution which can (and
does) temper legislation to some extent.

Again, I agree with you that religious organizations can exclude whomever they
like for whatever reason they like. This still creates a very fuzzy area 
around the permissible reasons for excluding individuals.

I can't argue that religious belief is a choice whereas race is not, but I fail
to see how that bears on your argument. If I understand (and I don't think I 
do), you are saying that we should be able to discriminate based upon race but
not on religion. If you would clarify what you meant here I would appreciate it.

>    The idea that any act done in consent of those with whom its done is a
>    moral act is a philosophical perspective, but not a Christian
>    perspective.

I never stated that all consensual acts are moral. Morals are individual and
there are many legal acts that are immoral in my opinion. My argument simply
states that it is not up to me to try to prohibit anything based on this, as
long as it does not directly impact me or someone else. My concerns here are
around the Christian (which is just another philosophy) perspective. As I 
understand it, a part of that perspective to some is that there is a duty to
attempt to control the behavior of non-Christians to match the Christian moral
code, ie. immoral acts (according to the bible) should be illegal, even if 
they affect nobody else and are done in private. For instance, the Pope (who
is in Denver, 60 miles to the north, today), and hence the Catholic church,
does not believe in birth control. Would you then prohibit birth control if
you had the authority?

Finally, do you believe atheists are currently using the state is to persecute
religions in this country? It's interesting, I'll bet a lot of our perspectives
are colored by our locations. Colorado Springs is rapidly becoming a world 
center for evangelical organizations, and the impact is fairly large on a local
basis. (Not necessarily from the organizations themselves, but from the influx
of evangelically minded individuals). I travel frequently, and notice a definite
difference when I am out of state. You, on the other, reside in the New York
City area (I think), which is probably one of the more secular regions of the
country. From here, I see many perceived attacks on civil rights in the name
of religious rightousness, whereas you probably see many attacks on your faith
in the name of secular humanism. Do you perceive me as attacking your faith?

Respectfully, Steve

    First, of all, my fear is not irrational.  That is what the word
    "paranoia" implies.  The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and I
    have and can cite more specific cases where the avowed goal of the
    litigants is "freedom from religion" twisting the religious freedom
    guarantee of the Constitution to meet those ends.  These are liberal
    mainstream efforts which recieve litigation support from the ACLU and
    People for the American Way which may or may not agree with the groups
    agenda, but will send lawyers and money anyway.  In the Lamb's Chapel
    case access to public facilities was denied soley because religion was
    the topic.

    The Constitution is "legislation" in the general sense.  It can by its
    own definition do little to "temper" other legislation should
    amendments ratify greater restriction on freedom.  The Constitution is
    the second charter of federal government in the former colonies of
    British North America.  The document that defined the intent of the
    framers refers to their rights from the Creator, and the "separate and
    equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle
    them".  The Congress of 1776 acknowledged that their claim to govern
    was derived from nature and from God.
    
    The Christian perspective is that one has a relationship with God, that
    God is the giver of the gift of all life, and that we make a choice in
    this life to live our eternal life with or to live our eternal life
    without God.  The experience of our lives is towards that one choice.
    
    Your understanding that there is a "duty to attempt to control the
    behavior of non-Christians..." is not a universal belief or even a
    common one.  Generally, it is the nature of all societies "to control
    bahavior" in one way, shape, or form.  The "total control" societies of
    the 20th Century were atheistic and hostile to religion of course.
    
    There's a Christian belief (once again not a universal belief, but here
    a common one) that marriage is between one man and one woman in
    faithful love for each other for life.  Legislation to promote this is
    motivated by the fact that this assists in the stability of society. 
    Without marriage and fidelity in marriage, there are problems that tear
    a society apart.  The recent experience of this country is proof of
    that.  There is no legislative attempt to restore the importance
    marriage and fidelity in marriage.  It's a cultural thing.  This
    Christian perspective on marriage has moved from a mainstream view to a
    marginalized and ridiculed one.  This is a step or two away from
    persecution.
    
    The Pope "does not believe in birth control":  The Pope believes and
    teaches with authority over all Roman Catholics that human sexuality
    has a special role in that human experience that requires it to be
    fulfilled in a lifelong committed marriage.  The sexual act has a dual
    purpose of confirming the love that a man and a woman have for each
    other and participation with God in the creation of a new human being.
    
    As a citizen of the United States, I would argue that the technical
    facts as they are taught now are inaccurate (namely that condoms are
    "highly effective" in preventing the transmission of AIDS among
    teenagers), and even if corrected to be accurate are incomplete in
    denying that there's a value to the personal integrity of human
    sexuality that can be celebrated in defering sexual intercourse until
    marriage.  This value without any religious connotation ought to be part
    of any intruction to teens.
    
    As a Christian, I see that there's no longer a moral context outside
    the Roman Catholic Church, that would lead one to the belief that
    artificial contraception is immoral.  So the problem isn't a lack of
    "authority", it's a lack of "insight" into how to make an appeal to the
    conscience of the many non-Catholics who use artifical contraception
    that this is immoral.
    
    You've been pretty non-specific in "perceived attacks on civil rights
    in the name of religious righteousness" (Boy Scouts?  Focus on the
    Family?).  Where are these attacks anyway?
    
    The attacks on religious freedom are not in the name of secular
    humanism but in the name of the suppression of religion in all forms
    from public life.
              

re Note 342.138 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     There is no legislative attempt to restore the importance
>     marriage and fidelity in marriage.  

        At least for some, the reason for this is that they see no
        way in which legislation per se can actually do anything to
        restore "the importance [of] marriage and fidelity in
        marriage."  I personally believe that recent historical
        changes in legislation and court decisions regarding marriage
        at most reflected changes in cultural attitudes, and did in
        no (fundamental) way cause them to change.

        I believe that those who think that a change in law and the
        courts could "restore the importance [of] marriage and
        fidelity in marriage" are seriously mistaken.  The law is
        changing merely because it must address problems resulting
        from a breakdown that already occurred.

>     This
>     Christian perspective on marriage has moved from a mainstream view to a
>     marginalized and ridiculed one.  

        To some extent, agreed.  It had nothing to do with
        legislation and court decisions.  (It probably had a lot to
        do with free speech.)

>     As a Christian, I see that there's no longer a moral context outside
>     the Roman Catholic Church, that would lead one to the belief that
>     artificial contraception is immoral.  

        As a Roman Catholic, I must observe that even within the
        Roman Catholic Church there has never been a single clear and
        unambiguous context that would lead one to the belief that
        artificial contraception is immoral.

        Bob

re: 87.230 JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"
(Moved at Richard's request)

    So you believe that your lack of faith in God constitute faith in
    nothing?   Perhaps you are still searching where to place your faith
    and until then have you placed it in yourself?

Not really. When I talk about faith I am using the definition "Belief that does
not rest on logical truth or material evidence". I don't have a lack of faith in
God any more than I have a lack of faith in *anything* that people tell me but
cannot prove. I don't have 'faith in nothing', in fact I'm not sure what you
mean.

I am not searching for anyplace to put my faith. From the definintion I listed
above, having faith in anything would not be me. While I do have faith ("Loyalty
to a person or thing, allegience) in myself, (and friends, family, etc.) it is
based upon past experiences with that person.

>I don't have 'faith in nothing', in fact I'm not sure what you mean.

    See Jill's note about using the word axiom.
    
>I am not searching for anyplace to put my faith. From the definintion I listed
>above, having faith in anything would not be me. While I do have faith ("Loyalty
>to a person or thing, allegience) in myself, (and friends, family, etc.) it is
>based upon past experiences with that person.
    
    So as an atheist do you believe that there is no life after death? 
    What do you actually think happens to the soul?  Do you believe that we
    have souls?
    

    

re: 87.234 COMET::DYBEN

     Steve,
      Why is there a universe? 

If I misunderstand your question, please forgive me.

I believe that you are asking something along the lines of where does the
universe come from if there is no God. I don't know, but your argument is
circular. You say (or at least others I have had this conversation with say)
that He always was, is and will be, or something like that. That's fine, but I
have no problem saying the same thing for the universe in general. Neither
explanation really answers the question to my satisfaction...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: 87.236 CSC32::KINSELLA "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand."

Jill,

Good note. And you've hit on my reasons for conversing in this file. I am not
looking for an understanding of God, but I am looking for an understanding of
those that believe so strongly in what appears to me to be unsupportable. You
are obviously intelligent, and would not buy much of anything else simply
because it is in a book, so I attempt to understand what it is that led you to
the conclusions that result in your faith. As to not having seen any evidence, I
having been looking for solid evidence from anyone (it is a part of the
understanding alluded to above) and have yet to see it. And the existance of the
universe in general does not work for me (see reply above the dashed line). 

Steve

.141 JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"

    See Jill's note about using the word axiom.

Which note?

    So as an atheist do you believe that there is no life after death? 
    What do you actually think happens to the soul?  Do you believe that we
    have souls?

Correct, I do believe that there is no life after death, although stories of
ghosts, reincarnation, etc. are intriguing. BTW, this does not leave me feeling
empty, or having nothing to live for, etc. 

Souls as in "The animating and vital principle in man, credited with the
faculties of thought, action and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial
entity", yes. Soul as in "The spiritual nature of man, regarded as immortal,
seperable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a
future state", no.

Steve

    .143
    
    What is the purpose to life?  Why do we exist?  

    The answer is "43."
    
     - Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy
    

re: Note 342.145 by Richard "The rocks will cry out!" 

>    The answer is "43."
    
Well, actually it is "42".

What I want to know is between birth and death, why do we spend so much time 
wearing digital watches?

.-)

Jim

    And thanks for all the fish!
    

re: .144 JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"

(Although, regarding the titles, I know that you don't see them as Answers :^)

    What is the purpose to life?  Why do we exist?  

Easy. The purpose in life is whatever you care to make it. My purpose is to have
fun and to try to leave the world a little better than it was before I got here.
Yours (in the generic sense, for this conference) is probably to serve God and
get into heaven. I don't see either as inherintly superior, and both probably
serve the greater good for people, an admirable goal no matter what the motive.

I believe that your question touches on the ultimate reason for the existance of
religion in general, i.e. many (most) people can't (understandably) tolerate the
idea that this is 'all for naught', and that there isn't a greater purpose. The
fear of death and that once your gone, your gone, and all of your activity was
worthless can be very uncomfortable. (Hey, no one said being atheist was easy,
but *someone's* gotta do it!) So we create a higher purpose. 

I realize that most of you are reading this with a sad smile, a gentle shaking
of the head and a clucking of the tongue, but it does feel good to try to
explain a different viewpoint. And if I leave you amused, then I have
contributed in some small way to making the world a better place.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I prefer 49, but who am I to argue with Deep Thought?

Steve

    Steve,
    
    I understand, appreciate, and respect your position.  As a Religious
    Liberal I believe that "God" represents our ultimate concern.  That
    which is outside of ourselves that we would commit our lifes and dreams
    too.
    
    I believe in Goddess/God.  I believe in a spiritual reality that is
    more than our physical make up.
    
    I do not know what happens to us after we die.  My spirituality is not
    based on any hope for an afterlife.  It is based on trying to live my
    life in harmony with the wishes of my Higher Power as those laws and
    wishes are written in my heart.  It is congruent with Paul's call for
    each of us to live "in Christ" with God's Law written in our hearts.
    
    I call myself Christian ( some times) because it is the Christian
    symbols that elicit meaning for me.  The Cross, the Flame.  It is the
    Jesus stories that elicit meaning.  The life of Jesus.  The parables. 
    The call to serve God by loving our neighbors.  The call to find
    meaning not in absolute obedience to the Law but in love and community
    with all that is around us.
    
    I considered myself an atheist for eighteen years until I discovered
    for myself the thing that I believe that atheist and Fundementalists share
    in common.   A literal reading of the Bible.  If I read the Bible
    literally, I have to reject it because it is contrary to reason.  If I
    read the Bible as story then I elicit much meaning from it.  The story
    of God's liberation of a people and God's molding the people into a
    holy community.  The symbolic hope and dream that we all share for a
    community of peace, harmony, and love.  A dream that can only be
    fulfilled by letting go of our own selfish desires and giving ourself
    to a greater love.
    
    Patricia
    
    Patricia

    The following two notes are a testimony of an atheist that received
    Christ as Savior...
    
================================================================================
Note 38.19            How did you meet Jesus? [testimonies]             19 of 52
"Golf is a good walk spoiled-M.Twa" 48 lines   4-FEB-1992 04:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, OK I finally got my thoughts together, both of them.  Although these 
events took place only a few months ago, it seems like I've lived a 
lifetime.  Please excuse my verbosity.  I'm normally a noter of few 
words, but the events that follow are the most exciting of my life, 
surpassing worldly events susch as playing in the Boston Pops and 
working for DEC for 14 years.

I was raised an atheist in southeastern Massachusetts and as far back as 
I can remember I loathed anything to do with religion.  God was for 
insecure individuals with IQ's smaller than their shoe size and I 
avoided them religiously (pun intended ;^) ).

Then I reached a point in my life wher I thought I could sink no lower.  
I was in the midst of an ugly custody battle with my ex-husband for our 
two daughters and felt separated and alone.  When I was at my worst, God 
reached out to me and put a very special person in my life.  Diane was 
my daughter's first grade teacher (Andrea is now an active third grader) 
and as PTA president, I often saw her at school.  One night last spring, 
she awoke in the early hours of the morning with my name in her head and 
felt compelled to pray for me.  Bear in mind, we had only a passing 
acquaintance and I was just another parent to her at the time.  I passed 
by her room the next day and she flagged me down to ask me how I was.  
I'm a very private person but I found myself telling her that I was 
scheduled to appear in court that afternoon to defend myself in a 
custody hearing.  She promised to pray for me, which touched me deeply 
even though I didn't believe in prayer, and asked me to call her that 
night, which I did.  At that time she mentioned a woman's support group 
tha tmet at her home once a week and I said thanks, but no thanks.  
Diane insists that she actualy told me that it was a bible study and, 
knowning her to be a devout Christian, I believe her but I never heard 
those words.  If she had mentioned anything even remotely religious I 
would have shut her down and not spoken to her again.  My ears were 
obviously closed as part of a greater plan.

We had no more contact until September when school started and again she 
stopped me in the hall.  She had heard from a fellow teacher that my 
legal battles were heating up and again she invite me to the support 
group/bible study (still didn't hear those words!)  Her love and caring 
(I had yet to learn about the Holy Spirit) moved me and I accepted the 
invitation for later in the week.


Part II to follow zzzz.................



Sandy

    

Note 38.20            How did you meet Jesus? [testimonies]             20 of 52
"Golf is a good walk spoiled-M.Twa" 79 lines   4-FEB-1992 05:53
                                  -< Part II >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I showed up at what Iexpected to be a woman's support group and mingled 
with the women there (I'm an extremely social animal).  Then Diane 
handed me a book.  I looked at the title, "Trusting God" and nearly had 
a stroke.  I looked for a quick exit and could find no escape so I 
decided, for Diane's sake, to stick it out and distance myself from this 
group of losers as soon as possible.  Midway through the discussion, I 
anounced that I was a non-believer but that I was curious about what 
they had to say (awfully big of me, wasn't it?).  I expected a rash of 
horrified faces but got instead an outpouring of love.  I puzzled as to 
why these strangers were being so nice to me and when requests for 
prayers were made, I felt an overpowering urger to ask for prayer for my 
twin sister, who was undergoing surgery fo cancer of the colon the 
following week.  I was totally unfamiliar with prayer and was amazed at 
how those ladies prayed for the "enemy".  After everyone left, Diane 
asked me to stay and I thumbed through her bible while we talked.  I was 
familiar with only the King James Version which I was never able to read 
and was facinated with her Life Application Version.

Ididn't show up the next week, using the lame excuse to myself that I 
didn't want to get a sitter for my daughters.  Diane called me several 
days later on a Saturday morning and asked me very gently to give the 
bible study another chance.  I made a decision the following Monday to 
pick a bible like Diane's and mentioned it to her that day.  Her face 
lit up and we headed out to the local Christian bookstore where I took 
out a second mortgage to pay for everything I bought. ;^)  While we were 
ther I was admiringr the crosses on display and Diane asked me if I was 
ready towear one.  I said yes and she bought it for me.  Wearing a cross 
in Utah sends a public message that you're not Mormon and as such, was a 
major step for me.  I wasn't used to a public display of my religion.  
We spent until 1:30 that night/morning going over my new bible and when 
I finally got home, I spent the remainder of the night reading it.

I made it to the next bible study and Diane again asked me to stay after 
everyone had left.  I had so many questions and she patiently answered 
all of them.  For the first time, all doubts were erased from my mind 
and I implicitly believed that the bible was true.  Diane told me that 
she was a born again Christian and was I willing to give myself to 
Christ.  At 3:20 that morning I took her hands as we prayed together and 
asked Jesus to enter my life.  I felt a peace and cleansing that I had 
never felt before and new immediately that what had happened was real.  
My daughter Sally came to the Lord a week later in Diane's arms at a 
Continental's concert and her sister Andrea followed her two weeks 
later.

It's been four months to the hour since I gave my life to Jesus and, 
with your patience, I've been able to re-live that miraculous event 
tonignt. In that short time, I've grown immensely in my love for Jesus, 
yet I'm still a young enough Christian to see life through the eyes of a 
child.  Please this child to make some observations to you "adults".

     1. God's plan is truly perfect - he sent the one person to me that 
        I had total respect for and granted her the will to stay with 
        me.  I was to be in Boston the week that I came to the Lord, but
        he created a set of legal circumstances that kept me in Salt  
        Lake.  I'm convinced that if I'd gone to MArlboro as I should 
        have, would still be an avowed atheist.  His plan for me has 
        been exact and has overwhelmed my comprehension.

     2. Stay the course - I was a rabid atheist and, as such, a 
        challenge fo everyone.  Numerous trained Mormon missionaries
        plied their wares on me, to no avail.  My heart was heartened
        and yet a first-grade teacher was the instrument for a 
        remarkable change in my life.  in addition, bringing someone to  
        Jesus brings an additional responsibility.  You've brought a new
        child into the world; don't desert it, but nurture it until it 
        can stand on it's own.


It's almost 4:00 am and I feel as if I've re-lived that special night 
all over agai.  The peace that passes all understanding has infilled 
me again and I can only thank the Lord for his gracious love and 
understanding.


Forever in His Word



    

    
    RE:  .142
    
    Why do I believe what seems unsupportable to you?
    
    Steve, the only answer I can give you is one you haven't experienced
    and will be hard for you to accept and possibly understand.  I met
    someone and have an intimate relationship with Him.  I've learned 
    through experiences to rely on Him, to trust Him and I realize that
    He'll never let me down.  Because of this relationship I see that 
    evidence of Him that even though you choose not to believe, is indeed, 
    right in front of your face.  I mean it.  I'm trying to be insulting or
    anything else.  Sometimes it drives me insane...I walk out of work
    and think "How come he can't see this?  It's right there."  You may 
    never have this experience and that could be because you've so 
    hardened yourself against even the possibility of the existence of God.
    Maybe you should leave the door open just a crack.
    
    Jill
    
    P.S.  I believe my reference to axioms was in 87.236

    RE: .152 (Jill)
    
    If you don't mind my asking....
    
    What is it you "see" that is right in front of your face that
    allows you to believe?   What does "it" look like?   In this
    intimate relationship (with Jesus Christ) - do you have 
    conversations?  Does Christ actually have a voice that you
    can hear (like a radio or another physical person talking
    to you) - or is it more like a voice inside your head?
    
    Just curious....
    
    /Greg
    

    
    Sorry Greg...I realize that you're newer and probably don't have a
    backdrop of my other notes to base my comments on.  I was talking
    about creation.  Here in Colorado Springs I walk out the front doors
    of Digital into view of Pikes Peak and the surrounding Rockies.  I'm
    one who focuses on God's creation a great deal.  I'm usually quite
    enthralled with the little nuances.  I'm always thinking up questions
    like "Why blue for the sky?" or even "Color - coming up with the
    concept of color.  That's amazing, isn't it?"  I can almost imagine
    Jesus as a sculptor shaping Pikes Peak.  His thumb making that rather
    large impression down the face of it.  I'm one to say to Jesus...no,
    this isn't just good...it's awesome!  Thanks.
     
    As for the voice of Christ...hmmm...that's a good one.  It's kind of a
    combination of experiences.  Mostly, it's an internal voice not
    audible. There are times when I've asked about things and He's
    responded with action. Times when He's responded with bringing
    Scripture to light in a way I'd never seen it before that gave me
    insight into the situation I'm in. Times when He's even responded with
    silence.  Those are tougher because I have to persevere and wait on
    Him...I'm not always very patient. But that's something He's working on
    in me.  Actually I believe that God does test us with His quietness to
    see if we'll remain faithful...Christians call them dry times.  I've 
    even had a brief vision (audible even) once...definitely different 
    than just a dream.  You would have to experience it to fully understand 
    it.  It's not exactly like a human relationship, well...because He's God.  
    Although, it's similar to a friendship because He is my friend.  He's 
    always there for me.  But there is that balance because He's also 
    Almighty God who I owe everything to. If I had to choose only one goal 
    in life it would be to know His love more fully.  Indeed, I'm working 
    on surrendering my life to that point. He's in my life on a daily 
    basis.  My life is affected by His presence.
    
    I realize that others may try to explain these things away as seeing
    what we want to, or coincidence, or delusion, but they're not living 
    my life so they don't really know what's happened in my life. They can 
    want to believe whatever they will about my experiences, but nobody 
    truly knows about them but me and God.
      
    Jill

re:  Note 342.152 by Jill "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand." 

>  I mean it.  I'm trying to be insulting or anything else.  

Of course you mean you are NOT trying to be insulting. 

(or was that a Freudian slip)  .-)

Peace,

Jim

I'm again reminded of a book by Moritmer Adler (a well known philosopher
and I believe an editor of Encyclopedia Brittanica) titled _How to Think About 
God_.

He starts off by noting that the universe exists and continues to exist, so 
there must exist SOMETHING that was creative and sustaining.  He calls that
force god, with a little "g".  This god is impersonal, and may simply be the
various laws of physics that describe matter.  Philosophy cannot take us much
farther than that. 

Realizing that we exist in this sterile universe, he invites one to ask the 
question "Am I loved in this universe?"  If one can answer yes to this
question, then one can capitalize the "g" and believe in a loving God.
This is not philosophy but theology.

Note that this is a very brief condensation of a book I haven't read for 10 
years or so, so this  is kind of sketchy.  YMMV.

Peace,

Jim

	Jill, quick question. You talked of Jesus bringing down His thumb and
making the mountains. Are you at the point where you view the big 3 as one and
you only use the word Jesus when describing things? Cause I thought it was God
who created the earth, and Jesus came around centuries later. Just curious.


Glen

.149 POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien"

Patricia,

    I understand, appreciate, and respect your position.

Thank you :^)

    If I read the Bible
    literally, I have to reject it because it is contrary to reason.  If I
    read the Bible as story then I elicit much meaning from it.

This is much the way I see it, as a book of good stories. For me, it just
doesn't hang together well as a single story, and many parts (as well as life in
general) are contrary to the normal description of the Christian God. 
-------------------
.150, .151 JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"

Nancy,

Interesting piece, and I'm glad that your friend found something that helped
her. You must know, however, that I hear stories of Christians changing to
atheists all the time also. 
-------------------
.152, .154 CSC32::KINSELLA "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand."
(This reply is a bit lengthy and may be too intense for young children :^)

Jill,

    Because of this relationship I see that 
    evidence of Him that even though you choose not to believe, is indeed, 
    right in front of your face.  I mean it.  I'm trying to be insulting or
    anything else.  Sometimes it drives me insane...I walk out of work
    and think "How come he can't see this?  It's right there."

By any chance should there have been a "not" in front of "I'm trying to be
insulting"? :^)

I assume the evidence you refer to is the world in general, and Pikes Peak in
particular. It is indeed a glorious sight and I do get inspiration from it. But
on another level, it is just another geological formation, created by (natural)
forces we are just beginning to understand. I have no need to attribute it to
something outside of, well, nature. A tendency of believers, when they talk abut
what they see as proof, is too put it in terms that imply that I do see and
understand, I just 'choose' not to acknowledge it. This is not the case (and I
find it a bit annoying). When I tell you that I see no evidence, I am sincere. I
am not choosing not to see, nor am I 'hardening my heart'. I simply *do not (can
not?) see it*. 

Then, for my part, I cannot understand how you could possibly believe in the
concept of an omnipotent, omniscient and loving God (which explains my presence
in this conference). If you remove any one of those characteristics then I can
at least understand the logic, otherwise the contradictions are simply too
obvious and too numerous to go into. In my quest to understand where you (the
generic you) are coming from, I have had discussions with believers in many
different religions (I have been condemned to hell in three different religions
because the condemners failed to convert me). And I try to treat people with
respect, even if I disagree or cannot see where they are coming from. 

I also do not have a hole, or gap in my life. I am perfectly content, and have
the same trials, tribulations and problems that Christians do. I deal with them
without petitioning an outside power for help, with about the same
success/failure rate I observe in those that pray for assistance.

A question, if knowing God is so wonderful, and God is omnipotent, why did he
create me such that I cannot see? (This is not, as it might sound, a desperate
plea for help. It is simply a question). 

There's more, but this note has rambled far too long as it is. Hopefully it will
give you an insight into the thinking of at least one of those that doesn't
agree with you, as I have gained insight (if not understanding) around the views
that you hold.

Steve

.156 TFH::KIRK "a simple song"

   He starts off by noting that the universe exists and continues to exist, so 
   there must exist SOMETHING that was creative and sustaining.  He calls that
   force god, with a little "g".  This god is impersonal, and may simply be the
   various laws of physics that describe matter.  Philosophy cannot take us much
   farther than that. 

I like this. I can go for 'god'. 

Steve

    
    Steve,
    
      Thanks for the response. For what it is worth I found your answer
    consistent with many other atheists. I will admit that I find the
    atheistic approach appealing at first i.e. if I cannot touch it,feel
    it, measure it, it is not worth pondering. However my philosophical
    side demands a little more of me, especially when it is a clear night
    and the Milky Way stretches across the heavens. Someone made this,
    perhaps just for the very reason of compelling us to question how
    and why. To only believe in what I can measure would make me a very
    incomplete individual......
    
    David

.160 COMET::DYBEN

David,

[
      Thanks for the response. For what it is worth I found your answer
    consistent with many other atheists. I will admit that I find the
    atheistic approach appealing at first i.e. if I cannot touch it,feel
    it, measure it, it is not worth pondering. However my philosophical
    side demands a little more of me, especially when it is a clear night
    and the Milky Way stretches across the heavens. Someone made this,
    perhaps just for the very reason of compelling us to question how
    and why. To only believe in what I can measure would make me a very
    incomplete individual......
]

An interesting way to put it. I don't find the atheistic approach particularly 
appealing, to me it simply makes the most sense. My philosophical side also
longs for answers, in the Milky Way, in Pikes Peak, or in a simple blade of
grass. I just have not made the leap to the universe exists, so *someone* must
have made it. If I were to make that leap, my philosophical musings would force
the next question; who made Him? The argument then becomes circular, or rather,
infinite, stretching off into the void as does the universe that began the
spawned the question. I prefer to answer the question of the origin of the
universe with we don't know, we may never know, and I kind of like it that way.

Steve
 

    >A question, if knowing God is so wonderful, and God is omnipotent, why
    >did he create me such that I cannot see? 
    
    There is a difference between cannot and will not. Are you sure you
    cannot see?

quickie, re .161

>I just have not made the leap to the universe exists, so *someone* must
>have made it. If I were to make that leap, my philosophical musings would
>force the next question; who made Him?

God exists independently of the creation.  He's not part of the cosmic
machine, or bound by time, etc.  If the creation were to vanish tomorrow,
God would still be God, existing as much as today.

He just is.  No start or finish.

-Steve

    
    
    Steve,
    
      Ever study Aristotles? Does " Prime Mover " ring a bell? How about
    the theory of infinite regress?
         
    
    
    David
    
    

    Hey,
    
    I just read the first twenty notes in this note string.  They are great
    notes.  Well worth looking at.
    
    Patricia

.162 JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"

Nancy,

This is one of the most common questions (accusation?) I hear. The reasoning
seems to be that if you do not agree with me it is because, although you know I
am right, you are too stubborn to admit it. 

To me, this says that you believe I am lying, that I know that you are right but
stubbornly refuse to admit it. All I can do is to assure you that I am sincere
in this, I haven't got a clue as to what you see. If you choose not to believe
me there will be little else I can say to convince you.

Steve

.163 CFSCTC::HUSTON "Steve Huston"

  He just is.  No start or finish.

To me, a cop out. I can just as easily imagine the same thing about the
universe. It doesn't answer the question, it simply moves it somewhere else.

----------

.164 COMET::DYBEN

    Ever study Aristotles? Does " Prime Mover " ring a bell? How about
    the theory of infinite regress?
 
Nope, and nope, although the second sounds interesting.

    
    RE: .157
    
    Great question Glen.  Thanks for asking.  I don't claim to understand
    the Trinity completely, but I do have a working knowledge of it.  I
    usually use God in the sense of the triune God or God the Father.  I
    also call the first person of the trinity the Father.  If I'm speaking
    specifically about the second person of the trinity, the Son. I use the
    name that I know Him best by...Jesus or Christ which is really more of 
    a title.  If I'm speaking specifically about the third person of the
    trinity, I refer to the Holy Spirit.  True, God did create the
    universe, actually each person of the trinity had a part, but it was
    the 2nd person, the Son, that did actually created it.   It is clear
    from Colossians, as well as other passages I don't have readily at
    hand, that the Son created all things.
    
    Col 1:15-17
    
      "He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
      (signifying rank) over all creation.  For by him all things were 
      created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, 
      whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things 
      were created by him and for Him.  He is before all things, and 
      in him all things hold together."
    
    A book I'm not through yet, but I am thoroughly enjoying is "Christ
    before the Manger".  It deals with what the Son was doing before He 
    took on bodily form to make our redemption complete.  I would highly 
    recommend it.  It's written by Ron Rhodes of the Christian Research 
    Institute and it's spawned several good studies in the Bible for me 
    which is why I'm not very far into the book.  Call around and see if 
    you can find it.  I think you'd enjoy it.
    
    Jill

    The really interesting thing though that Christ before the manger was
    identified as Divine Wisdom.  A woman.
    
                                     Patricia

    
    RE:  .158
    
    HA, HA, HA, HA, HA....I'm so sorry.  I should proofread my writing
    better. No, no freudian slips intended.  I meant absolutely no insult
    whatsoever. I completely respect you and meant nothing by that.  Talk
    about a red face!!!  I've done that twice today - once in mail too.  
    Hopefully there will be none in here, but beware!!!  :-)
    
    Steve, I do understand that you don't accept the world as God's
    creation. Where the theory of the earth just popping into existence
    becomes a problem for me is that explosions don't create masterpieces
    and certainly things don't just go into motion where no motion has
    existed and where did it all come from...and well I could go on but 
    I'm sure you know it by now.  ;^)
    
    You say you gain inspiration from it?  It stimulates something in you.
    It evokes a response.  Is it possible that's because someone wants you
    to respond?  That something or someone is beckoning to you to respond?
    Can you even allow the remotest chance for that possibility?  What
    should be so inspirational about a bunch of rocks getting crammed
    together? Again, please don't take this as an insult.  I mean think of
    other things that inspire you...isn't there usually a person somehow
    linked with those things?  Art, music, words, achievements...someone 
    caused them and they touch us deeply.  Isn't it possible that there is 
    a person behind the inspiration you feel when you look at the world?  It
    might seem like a long shot to you right now, but can't you allow a
    tiny bit of space in your mind for that possibility?
    
    > I cannot understand how you could possibly believe in the concept of
    > an omnipotent, omniscient and loving God.
    
    I don't wish to ramble here...so allow me to check my understanding of
    what you're saying before I respond so that I'm not answering the wrong
    question.  Please correct my premise here if I miss the mark, but it
    appears that you're saying something along the lines of I see plenty of
    evil in this world and if there was some all-loving, all-knowing, and
    all-powerful God, he would have wiped it out by now.  Therefore you
    conclude that since evil exists, God does not.
    
    > have been condemned to hell in three different religions
    > because the condemners failed to convert me).
    
    As if they had the power to condemn you or anyone else!  If you were
    told by anyone that they condemned you I certainly wouldn't worry. 
    Actually I'd probably think them pious idiots and laugh at their
    foolishness.  I believe there is only One with the power both to save
    and to condemn.  Now Him... I think you need to concern yourself with.
    
    > I also do not have a hole, or gap in my life. I am perfectly content,
    > and have the same trials, tribulations and problems that Christians
    > do.  I deal with them without petitioning an outside power for help, 
    > with about the same success/failure rate I observe in those that pray 
    > for assistance.
      
    Hmmm...I'm curious.  Do you see petitioning for help as a weakness?
    I mean...some people have trouble asking for help from anyone.  I don't
    think that's the case with you.  Or perhaps you're proud of being able
    to do it all on your own?  Believe me when I say this Steve.  We
    Christians do try to do things on our own and sometimes they work out
    just fine.  We're not all, myself especially, as prayerful as we should
    be.  God certainly never promised a Christian a bed of roses.  For the
    most part He said that life would be full of sorrow, but that He'd be
    there with us.  It's an inner peace that I don't think a non-Christian
    can even imagine or even think he's missing.  Maybe you're not missing
    it, maybe it's something extra God gives Christians.  I don't believe
    that life is easy for a Christian, indeed often times I think it's far
    harder.  I mean it's so much easier just to act on impulse and do what
    I want, believe me, I often find myself doing just that.  It can be
    much harder to bend my will to that of God's will.  I can't do it in
    my own power, He has to help me.  No...easy is not a word I would
    choose to describe the Christian life.  Fulfilling, yes, on another
    level that I'm not sure I can express well enough for you to
    understand, but I'll try if you'd like me to.
    
    >why did he create me such that I cannot see?  (This is not, as it
    >might sound, a desperate plea for help. It is simply a question).
    
    Don't worry I didn't see it as any kind of plea.  Forgive me for
    annoying you one more time.  You can see if you choose to.  Now WAIT!!! 
    Let me explain a bit before smoke starts coming out of all your
    orifices. ;^) How about a familiar atheist argument to rebut you
    with...as a Christian I've been told at times that I simply see what I
    want to see.  If this could be true of me...could it not also be true
    of you?  Here's an analogy...my little brother used to have a hearing
    problem.  Any time Mom or Dad would tell him to do his homework or
    clean his room, he couldn't hear them.  But if they mentioned candy, or
    ice cream, or a new bicycle or whatever he could be instantly cured. 
    Now...we used to play with him alot because of this and it is my belief
    that he honestly wasn't always ignoring my parents.  I believe he had so
    geared himself to what he wanted to hear, that his brain filtered out
    anything else.  How often do we have the TV on while doing other things
    and don't hear a thing, but then certain words, a name, or music catch 
    our attention.  I believe that at some point in the past you decided 
    that religion and God was bunk and your brain has simply been trained to 
    filter out what it doesn't need to hear or see.  Ah but what a glorious 
    creation the brain is because it can be retrained.  You've chosen your 
    filters just as I have mine. You have to be the one to say "Okay, 
    I'll allow for the smallest chance that all this was caused by a 
    creator and that he wants me to respond. I don't see any reason why I 
    should believe it right now, but if it were true, I would want to 
    know it."   You know how the brain works as well as I do Steve, perhaps 
    even better.  You know that we're capable of filtering things out.  
    Isn't it possible that the reason you can't see even though your eyes 
    are open is because you have a filter?
    
    I've gotta go...let me know if I understood you right regarding
    the evil exists therefore God doesn't premise so I can finish up.
    
    Thanks for hearing me out Steve.
    
    Jill
     

>This is one of the most common questions (accusation?) I hear. The reasoning
>seems to be that if you do not agree with me it is because, although you know I
>am right, you are too stubborn to admit it. 
    
    You have already concluded the absurdity of the possibility of seeing
    that which we claim to see.  Your truth is very apparent in this last
    sentence.  I do not know that you are right, if I did I wouldn't be
    noting here with you.

>To me, this says that you believe I am lying, that I know that you are right but
>stubbornly refuse to admit it. All I can do is to assure you that I am sincere
>in this, I haven't got a clue as to what you see. If you choose not to believe
>me there will be little else I can say to convince you.

    Uh, no... be very careful to not read more into the question then is
    intended.  I do not believe that you KNOW that I am right... again, I
    wouldn't be noting here with you if that were the case.
    
    Let me explain ... the implication of my question is that just because
    you cannot see doesn't negate the fact that it can be seen and is seen. 
    
    
    

re:  Note 342.170 by Jill "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand." 

>   Where the theory of the earth just popping into existence
>   becomes a problem for me is that explosions don't create masterpieces...

Jill, are you familiar with fractal images or the Mandelbrot set?  They are 
very simple mathematical constructs that can produce beautiful images; 
masterpieces, if you will.  

Fractal math can produce images of non-existent landscapes that are hard to 
tell from genuine landscapes.  The mathematics is Very Simple.

Peace,

Jim

p.s. according to science the earth as we know it did not just pop into 
existence.

>    The really interesting thing though that Christ before the manger was
>    identified as Divine Wisdom.  A woman.

That's not at all clear.

Divine Wisdom is more associated with the Holy Spirit than with Christ.

And Divine Wisdom is not a woman; it is a word in the feminine gender
in Greek.  Don't confuse the grammatical gender of a word with human sex.

/john

 Re .169;  .173  Woman


  "Happy is the man who finds wisdom and the man who finds understanding
   for her proceeds are better than the profits of silver and her gain than
   fine gold. She is more precious than rubies and all you can desire cannot
   compare with her. Length of days is in her right hand, in her left hand
   riches and honor. Her ways are the ways of pleasantness and all her paths
   are peace. She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her, and happy
   are all who retain her".
   
  "She cries out by the gates, at the entry of the city; at the entrance of
   the doors: 'To you O men I call and my voice is to the sons of men. O you
   simple ones, understand prudence and you fools, be of an understanding
   heart... The Lord possessed me from the beginning'..."

  "I have been established from everlasting (eternity) from the beginning 
   before there was ever an earth"

  "now therefore listen to me my children, for blessed are those who keep
   my ways... blessed is the man who listens to me".

  "But he who sins against me, wrongs his own soul; all those who hate me
   love death".
   

	Jill, thanks for the input. I really enjoyed reading that response. It
has prompted another question though. If Corinthians says Jesus created
everything, doesn't that contradict what Genesis says?


Glen

    Henry,
    
    Thank you for entering that.
    
    Patricia

    
    .172
    
    Sorry Jim, despite my unfamiliarity with fractal images and Mandelbrot
    set, I still don't buy it.  You're talking mathematics...form,
    arrangement, associated relationships, using rigorously defined literal, 
    numerical, and operational symbols.  Contrast that with an explosion - 
    a sudden, violent, chaotic burst that causes matter to be thrown every 
    which way but somehow ends up in a beautiful masterpiece.
      
    Jill

.170 CSC32::KINSELLA "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand."

I meant absolutely no insult whatsoever.

	I didn't for a minute think you did. 

No, no freudian slips intended.

	Freudian slips are never *intended*! :^)

...explosions don't create masterpieces and certainly things don't just go into
motion where no motion has existed and where did it all come...

	I don't have any problems here. Given the Big Bang (which I know you
	don't accept), the laws of physics as we understand them pretty much
	dictate the creation of worlds, suns, solar systems, etc. We can argue
	the details but the bottom line is that I don't have a problem with the
	mundane physical explanation of how.

Isn't it possible that there is a person behind the inspiration you feel when
you look at the world?  It might seem like a long shot to you right now, but
can't you allow a tiny bit of space in your mind for that possibility?

	Anything is possible. I try to leave space in my mind for any
	possibility (many of my friends might say that i have nothing *but*
	space in my mind). But I see no evidence of this.

...all-powerful God, he would have wiped it out by now.  Therefore you conclude
that since evil exists, God does not.

	Close. But rather than wipe it out, would never have allowed it to 	
	exist. Basically, given the three assumptions (Omniscience, Omnipotence,
	all-loving) when he created the earth and people, he also knowingly and
	deliberately created evil. If you remove any one of the attributes then 
	we reach the point where we can begin to have what I would consider to 
	be a logical (ie. not self-contradictory) discussion.

As if they had the power to condemn you or anyone else!  If you were told by
anyone that they condemned you I certainly wouldn't worry. 

	I don't lose any sleep over it. (One of the condemnations was by a
	Russian Orthodox minister, and was due completely to a                  
        misunderstanding). I don't recall all of the details, but I'm sure the
	others were along the lines of if you don't change your thinking you're
	going to hell. 

Hmmm...I'm curious.  Do you see petitioning for help as a weakness? I
mean...some people have trouble asking for help from anyone.  I don't think
that's the case with you.  Or perhaps you're proud of being able to do it all on
your own? 

	Weakness? No, not at all. I'm constantly asking for help doing things 
	that I can't. I do take pride in being as self-reliant as possible (ie.
	not burdening others without cause), but I am under no illusions that
	I can do *everything* on my own. I also get pleasure by helping others
	out when they are in need. 

God certainly never promised a Christian a bed of roses.

	Or atheists, apparantly, a bed of thorns. Near as I can tell it's 
	completely random.

It's an inner peace that I don't think a non-Christian can even imagine or even
think he's missing.

	I can't argue with this. (I didn't know I *needed* chocolate until I 
	first tasted it :^) All I know is that I am reasonably content, and 
	feel no emptiness.

Forgive me for annoying you one more time.

	If it were really a problem I wouldn't be in this conference!

You know how the brain works as well as I do Steve, perhaps even better. You
know that we're capable of filtering things out.

	Fer shure. Let me turn it around, though. Are you willing to allow for
	even the tiniest chance that you have been misled? To be honest, I'm
	not sure that the filters (at this point) can be turned off, as I see
	the filters as logical thinking on my part. In other discussions I have
	talked about what it would take to convince me that God exists, and
	have reached the conclusion that it may not be possible (short of divine
	intervention in the forming of simply changing my mind). This is not to
	say that I couldn't buy the reality of a creator, or creators. What I
	cannot reconcile is the three attributes of God I talked about 
	previously in this note. 

Steve 

P.S. Speaking of inspirations, did you happen to catch the wall cloud to the
east of the building on Tuesday, dropping little tornadolets from the edge?

    
    .175
    
    Another good question Glen.  No, the records (Colossians and Genesis)
    do not contradict each other.  It's important to remember that Genesis
    is the first record of God revealing Himself.  Throughout the Bible we
    learn more about God; more of His character; more about who this God
    is.  But even in Genesis we see a Godhead..."let US make man..."  At
    this point it doesn't really specify who US is...you have to go on 
    and read the continuing revelation of the Bible to see that revealed.  
    As we study God and walk with Him we learn more about His nature.  Our 
    view of God is constantly developing...don't you find that true in
    your own walk?
    
    Jill
    [EOB]

.171 JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"

>This is one of the most common questions (accusation?) I hear. The reasoning
>seems to be that if you do not agree with me it is because, although you know I
>am right, you are too stubborn to admit it. 
    
    You have already concluded the absurdity of the possibility of seeing
    that which we claim to see.  Your truth is very apparent in this last
    sentence.  I do not know that you are right, if I did I wouldn't be
    noting here with you.

Nancy, I apologize. The sentence was poorly constructed. The last sentence was 
not something I was saying to you, it was an example of the argument that is
normally presented to me. If I used the term absurdity, I apologize. I simply
mean that it makes no sense at all, to *me*.

    Uh, no... be very careful to not read more into the question then is
    intended.  I do not believe that you KNOW that I am right... again, I
    wouldn't be noting here with you if that were the case.
    
    Let me explain ... the implication of my question is that just because
    you cannot see doesn't negate the fact that it can be seen and is seen. 

I understand, I've heard this question before :^) Then let me ask you to
clarify, how does one choose not to see?

Steve

From note 950.25 and other notes in that thread...

Moved here as it seemed more appropriate.

WARNING: Following is a note that may appear mean spirited, although that is
not the intent. It uses sarcasm to attempt to make a point. It cover many
(although by no means all) of the basic incongruities I see in most Christian
teachings. It is an attempt to give you some insight as to why I rejected those
teachings (I had many of these discussions with Nuns in religion classes way
back when. I usually wound up being punished for my impertinence). DO NOT READ
THIS NOTE IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A 'THICK SKIN'.

Thanks, Steve













So let me see if I've gotten this right...

God creates Adam and Eve.
With the whole world to hide it in, he creates an apple tree in the middle of 
	the garden of Eden where they can't miss it.
Eve bites the big one (apple, that is).
Mankind is now damned for eternity (all of us, even though many of us have 
	never even met Eve).
(Sidebar: God is omniscient, therefor he *KNEW* when he made Eve that she would
 have the character flaw that allowed her to listen to Satan and eat the apple,
 he *KNEW* this would happen).
God sends Jesus to die on the cross. (Sidebar: What happened to all of the 
	people that died before this?)
Now we're saved, all we need to do is to worship the God that made all of this 
	happen, and we're in. 
It is even OK to live a life of total evil as long as we repent at the last 
	second. (Sidebar: What if Hitler repented just before his death?)
Living like a saint won't cut it. 
Repenting after death (and seeing the first proof of God) isn't good enough
	either.

OK, so let's say I have a kid.
In the middle of his room, I place a toy and say don't touch this. (He does
	have plenty of other toys, after all)
The kid plays with the toy (big surprise).
I kick him out of the house.
I have more kids. I tell each of them that Billy (who they never met) has 
	really screwed it up for them (BTW, they can play with Billy's 
	forbidden toy, the damage has been done).
I go away physically, but every now and again I write or tell someone to give
	them a message.
I have uncle Bob killed to atone for Billy's mistake.
I have uncle John tell my kids (who may or may not remember me) and my 
	grandkids (who have never met me personally, but are told that I am
	real because they live in my house) that if they don't worship me, and
	do what uncle John says that I told him, they are in big trouble way
	down the road. 
Little Frankie says yeah, right. He becomes a career criminal and hurts lots
	of people. At the last second he says, ya know, maybe that Steve guy is
	OK, and I really appreciate that uncle Bob committed suicide for me. I 
	invite him to live in my wonderful mansion.
Little Sarah says yeah, right. She goes on to become a humanitarian. She helps
	many people and saves a lot of suffering. But she still says 'Who is
	uncle Bob?'. I have her tortured.
Little Tommy says, uncle Bob, Steve, all right! It doesn't matter what he does
	he comes to live in the mansion too.
Is this any way to run a kingdom?

Obviously you can pick this apart, quote scripture, etc. But I would rather you
showed me where I made the fundamental mistake of understanding that would
allow this to make sense.

   
 Re  .181 Not offensive, just a natural reaction.
 
 You want to live your own life, do your own thing, live by 
 your own law, etc...

 Hank D

re Note 342.182 by DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR:

>  You want to live your own life, do your own thing, live by 
>  your own law, etc...
  
        If nobody can convince him that there is some other law he
        should be following, this is the most appropriate thing for
        him to do.

        Bob

re: Note 342.177 by Jill "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand." 
    
>    Sorry Jim, despite my unfamiliarity with fractal images and Mandelbrot
>    set, I still don't buy it.  You're talking mathematics...form,
>    arrangement, associated relationships, using rigorously defined literal, 
>    numerical, and operational symbols.  Contrast that with an explosion - 
>    a sudden, violent, chaotic burst that causes matter to be thrown every 
>    which way but somehow ends up in a beautiful masterpiece.
      
Ah, but that's the point!  Simple, elegant mathematical equations CAN define a 
chaotic image, an explosion.  And a beautiful image.

Since you aren't familiar with fractals, I highly suggest you find some to 
view.  There are books and calendars avaliable, and many programs for PCs that
will draw them for you.  I don't know where you work, but your local software
engineer is likely to have some images hanging around.  I urge you to see
these mainly because of their beauty.  I think you may enjoy them.  If you 
want, I can print some (in color!) for you, just let me know where to send 
them.

Peace,

Jim

    
    > The really interesting thing though that christ before the manger was
    > identified as Divine Wisdow.  A woman
    
      Since Patricia is not speaking with me would someone please ask her
     to explain what she meant by the above??
    
    David    A Man

  Re .183 Appropriate thing
  
  > If nobody can convince him...

  I don't exactly agree. He hasn't been enlightened to the Truth yet, 
  so He is still His own God because He dosn't know any better.

  Hank D

>So let me see if I've gotten this right...
>
>God creates Adam and Eve.

So far so good.  He might have created evolution to do this, by the way,
but evolution is still only a theory, and even if it is true, it doesn't
change the fact that God created mankind.

>With the whole world to hide it in, he creates an apple tree in the middle of 
>the garden of Eden where they can't miss it.  Eve bites the big one (apple,
>that is).  Mankind is now damned for eternity (all of us, even though many
>of us have never even met Eve).  (Sidebar: God is omniscient, therefor he
>*KNEW* when he made Eve that she would have the character flaw that allowed
>her to listen to Satan and eat the apple, he *KNEW* this would happen).

This is important.  God wanted to create beings free to respond to him in
love.  If the created beings were not capable of rejecting God, they would
also not be capable of freely choosing to love God.  A love that is not
freely chosen is no love at all.

This is the necessary fundamental understanding.

>God sends Jesus to die on the cross. (Sidebar: What happened to all of the 
>people that died before this?)

Jesus preached the gospel to them in the place of the departed spirits (Sheol).

>Now we're saved, all we need to do is to worship the God that made all of this 
>happen, and we're in.

Well, we need to have faith, and we need to show the fruits of that faith in
our lives by keeping God's commandments and using whatever talents God has
given us profitably for God.

>It is even OK to live a life of total evil as long as we repent at the last 
>second. (Sidebar: What if Hitler repented just before his death?)

It better be a true repentance.  Deliberately doing evil, knowing that God
will forgive, is the sin of presumption.  Pretty soon you've gotten yourself
into an infinite loop, where you may or may not be able to repent of all of
your sins.  You may have essentially sold too much of yourself to the devil
to be able to recover.  And you may not.  You may be fortunate enough to
truly see the light at the end and truly come to believe and be saved.

But you do not know at what hour your soul will be demanded of you.

>Repenting after death (and seeing the first proof of God) isn't good enough
>either.

It might be; we don't know that for sure.  It isn't something that is
revealed, so it isn't something that anyone should teach anyone else to
bet his eternal life on.

/john

re Note 342.186 by DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR:

>                                -< He's sleeping >-

        And you're a deluded fool!  :-}

        (My point is: what is accomplished by characterizations such
        as the above "he's sleeping"?  He probably thinks he's just
        as "enlightened" as you think you are.  The only difference
        seems to be that his "enlightenment" doesn't require him to
        think of you as one who is sleeping -- or worse.  That sounds
        like a more enlightened enlightenment.)

        Bob

| <<< Note 342.179 by CSC32::KINSELLA "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand." >>>




| Another good question Glen.  No, the records (Colossians and Genesis)

	Thank you Jill for setting me straight on the 2 chapters you were
talking about. Why I ever said corithians is beyond me....

| do not contradict each other.  It's important to remember that Genesis
| is the first record of God revealing Himself.  Throughout the Bible we
| learn more about God; more of His character; more about who this God
| is.  But even in Genesis we see a Godhead..."let US make man..."  At

	I am going to go back and reread that. I had never noticed the word us.
I had always seen the word God. I'll get back to you tomorrow.

| Our view of God is constantly developing...don't you find that true in your 
| own walk?

	I notice a lot of different things developing with my walk. Much more
than my view of God, more as to how He reveals His love, how He is there for
me, allows me to be there for Him, things like that. He is definitely much more
powerful than I could ever imagine. :-)



Glen

  Re  .188  Deluded fool...

  Only God can wake you up.
 

    > A love that is not freely chosen is no love at all.

    Your own admonishments that one should not bet one's eternal soul on 
    "incorrect" interpretations of God's will indicates that this is 
    something more than a free choice.  God says you are free to love him or 
    suffer eternity in a lake of fire.  Given that God created us with an 
    innate distaste for extremes of pain, the idea that chosing him is a 
    completely free choice seems weak.  What is "lovable" about an entity that 
    would force his own creation into such a choice, anyway?

    Of course, if hell is just a metaphor for "separation from God" and the 
    eternal souls of the faithless simply vanish into painless oblivion when 
    they die, the deal doesn't strike me as being quite so harsh.   The 
    payment, if you will, for eternal joy in paradise (after whatever 
    nightmare you might endure here on earth) is loving (and obeying) the 
    creator.  If you aren't willing to pay the price....then what?  

    The ability to freely choose to love or not to love God also doesn't 
    explain why God would allow so *MUCH* misery and pain - especially in the 
    lives of people whom never get a chance to know God well enough to decide 
    whether or not they love him in the first place.

    /Greg

    David,
    
    Look at the discussion in 899.0, 899.30, 899.31, and 899.38 for the
    discussion of Divine Wisdom.  
    
    My belief is that the belief in the preexistent Son of God as defined
    in the Gospel of John was a evolution from Hebrew Wisdom literature.
    
    It is divine Wisdom, identified as a women who was with God from the
    beginning of creation.
    
    Sophia is another name sometimes used.  My contention is that Sophia
    and the Christ just might be the same person.
    
    Patricia
    
    
    
    Patricia
    

    
    
    Patricia,
    
      Thank you. 
    
    David

    
    RE:  .184
    
    Jim,
    
    Ah, but noooo...that isn't the point.  There is *intelligence* behind
    the mathematical equations the equations just didn't pop into being.
    That's different from matter just randomly exploding with no 
    intelligence behind it and instead of there being just what you would 
    expect...a big, chaotic mess there is instead this beautifully crafted 
    masterpiece.  This is what I don't buy.  I don't buy it was done without 
    intelligence and I certainly don't buy that intelligence exists devoid
    of any being. 
       
    Jill
    
    P.S.  I'd be happy to view that fractal images though especially in
    color.  I'm at 305 N. Rockrimmon Blvd South.  Colorado Springs, CO
    80919  MS:  CXO3, NETsupport, Pole 2/N10.  Thanks.  
    

re: .187

>>God sends Jesus to die on the cross. (Sidebar: What happened to all of the 
>>people that died before this?)
>
>Jesus preached the gospel to them in the place of the departed spirits (Sheol).

"God presented him [Jesus] as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith
in his blood.  He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his
forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Romans 3:25 (NIV)

-Steve

In general, nobody (other then John on a few of the points) has taken on the
contradictions I spelled out in .181. Did my warning scare everyone off? :^)
Or is the general consensus that I am so hopeless as to not be worth wasting
time on? :^0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.182 DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR

  You want to live your own life, do your own thing, live by 
  your own law, etc...

Nope, you missed my point entirely. 

.186
  I don't exactly agree. He hasn't been enlightened to the Truth yet, 
  so He is still His own God because He dosn't know any better.

And condescending, to boot. You're not listening, you're spouting platitudes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.187 COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"

  This is important.  God wanted to create beings free to respond to him in
  love.  If the created beings were not capable of rejecting God, they would
  also not be capable of freely choosing to love God.  A love that is not
  freely chosen is no love at all.

But, by the definition of God (omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving) He *KNEW*
that the being he created would do this. He *KNEW* it! This means that he
deliberately created her this way. This makes NO sense to me. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.188 LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish

Thanks, Bob. You argue my side better than I do!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.191 TALLIS::SCHULER "Greg - Acton, MA"

Yeah, what Greg said. All of these are just a *part* of the contradictions I see
that lead me to reject the God of Christianity as anything I can even start to
take seriously. The Gods of the Romans, Greeks, etc. actually hang together much
more logically (ie. they are as petty as we are) than the Christian God, in
light of observable evidence.

    Steve,
    
    	I believe I understood and agree with the contradictions spelled
    out in .181.  But because of my perspective on the Bible, they're not
    irreconcilable problems for me.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    It would take alot more than a few questions to scare me off.  You
    act as if you asked a minor question that has a quick answer.  You
    didn't.  You asked for an explanation of God, His character,
    His existence, and our existence.  Questions that have occupied the
    minds of men since the beginning of time.  And while I don't think 
    I've come close to answering this for you, I've started to answer
    your questions.  I have quite a bit more to add, but this is a 
    starting place.  
    
    RE: .178 
    
    So basically then we are stuck with the option that God ran this whole
    thing in His mind and knew the pain that it would cause not only us,
    but Himself and still chose to do it without making any adjustments.  I
    mean only DEC Engineering sends out faulty programs knowingly.  ;^) 
    (Sorry, couldn't  resist).   I mean here we have the Son, the second
    person of the Godhead, who actually created all this; who actually
    created and planted the tree  that He would be hung on.  Who actually
    created and stored in the earth  the iron ore that would be mined and
    formed into the nails that would  pierce Him.  Why?  Why in all of
    heaven and earth would God do this?  He  knew it before time, he had
    the power to do it differently, and if he  really loved us why put us
    through this?

    Okay, so you're saying that you could believe in God if that God was 
    Omniscient and Omnipotent because he would have created everything
    anyway  not caring about his creation and that would explain things. 
    (Well that certainly wouldn't explain the millions of people who claim
    to be in a loving relationship with Him)

    Or you could believe in God if He was Omnipotent and All-Loving he
    would  have created it without the foreknowledge of evil and would be
    as pained  as we are about the situation.  (Of course then why wouldn't
    he allow the evil to go on)

    Or you could believe in God that if He was Omniscient and All-Loving 
    that perhaps didn't start this all and has no power to stop it. (Then
    at a minimum why not accept his comfort)

    But how could a God that was all three (omniscient, omnipotent, and all
    loving) commit such an act?  Well, I suggest we could explore the 
    other options of a God like this:

    1) God could have created us without free choice and therefore sin 
    would not have entered the world. 2) God could have destroyed or kept
    separate Satan and all the angels  that followed Him from our creation
    and there would have been no evil  influence to tempt Eve. 3) God could
    have gone on in communion with Himself and not created us.
 
    The first choice God had is that he could have given us all no choice
    and  just simply made us to love Him PERIOD no discussion.  But who
    wants  forced love?  Just because we wouldn't have known it was forced
    doesn't  changed the fact that He would have.  We would have been
    puppets who could  do absolutely nothing but love Him.  That's not
    love.

    Second, and a definite possibility at first glance.  Why not get the 
    negative influence out of there?  Any parent trys to shelter his 
    children, why shouldn't God have.  We've all always appreciated that
    our  parents didn't allow certain influences to touch our lives. 
    Right?   That they kept us from listening to certain kinds of music,
    from watching  certain types of movies, and from hanging out with
    certain people.   We've never consider this interference.  We've only
    been totally  appreciative of their gesture to protect us. 
    Interestingly enough.   Something else came to mind as I pondered this. 
    The angels who were God's creation too created with free will didn't
    have any evil influence, but some chose what was opposite God.  God has
    judged them  and us and His judgement is in the process of being
    carried out.  So  apparently to have a choice between God and something
    else is to have  a choice between what is God who is goodness and what
    is not God which  is evil.

    Third, God could have just chucked the whole plan and said forget it,
    it's not worth it, but He didn't.  If we are to believe in Him and that 
    we are created in His image, then perhaps a clue as to why God faced
    with the world turning out as it has chose to do it anyway.  Why does
    the Bible say God created us?  It was for God's pleasure...He desired
    to have fellowship with us and He wanted us to desire to have
    fellowship with Him willfully.  I don't believe it's a coincidence that
    we all  have the basic desire to belong, to be loved.  No it's a trait
    given to  us because we were created in His image.  He created us in
    His image and  He even said that His creation was good.  There was no
    deliberate evil  created, but there was that choice.  But free choice
    is not a character  flaw.  It's a privilege granted to us by an all
    loving, omniscient,  omnipotent God.  It's a part of who He is and
    something He freely gave  to us.  He had options.  He wanted us to have
    options.  He had to put  the tree in the garden to give a choice. 
    Perhaps you can rationalize  that choice wouldn't have been important. 
    I know I'm the type that likes  to have all my options in front of me
    before I decide.  God had all His options before Him and what's more He
    knew outcome.  He knew that choice would lead to an imperfect world
    with hearts turned against Him, so  because He is omniscient,
    omnipotent, and all-loving before even laying the foundation of the
    world He planned a way back to Him.  
    
    Jill

re .196

I had written, in .187, in reply to .181:

  This is important.  God wanted to create beings free to respond to him in
  love.  If the created beings were not capable of rejecting God, they would
  also not be capable of freely choosing to love God.  A love that is not
  freely chosen is no love at all.

Steve replied, in .196

>But, by the definition of God (omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving) He *KNEW*
>that the being he created would do this. He *KNEW* it! This means that he
>deliberately created her this way.

He creates all of us with the ability to choose.
He does not make the choices.

>This makes NO sense to me. 

Meditate on it.  Think about what it means to be free to choose.  Think
about what it would be like to be unable to make any choices, to just be
a marionnette, with no control over whether you do good or do evil.

/john

.197 CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Accept no substitutes!"

Does your perspective get around the OOAL (omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving)
paradox? I'd be interested to hear how...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.198 CSC32::KINSELLA "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand."
.199 COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"

    It would take alot more than a few questions to scare me off.  You
    act as if you asked a minor question that has a quick answer. 

I knew you weren't scared off, I was just baiting you a bit :^)

But you have not provided a way around the contradiction as I see it. Start with
Eve. When God created Eve he *KNEW* she would eat the apple. To me, this means
he deliberately created her this way. As the inventor of human nature, he had
the option to tweak here and there to make this different, but he didn't. I
can't see this as free choice. As the overall architect, and one that is OOAL,
God has a responsibility to his creations. He has CHOSEN to create us such that
we hurt each other, and he knew it would happen, and not only does he not stop
it, he made it so that no other options were possible. 

If I build a bomb, and leave it in the middle of the street, and someone sets it
off, do you think the court would buy that *I* didn't choose to set it off, it
made its own choice. Of course not, by my very design, the nature of a bomb is
that it will explode. 

Now let's say I create a poisonous snake, and let it loose in a crowded room. I
don't know exactly what the snake will do, but it is a pretty sure bet that
eventually it *will* bite someone (out of protection or whatever). That is the
nature of a snake. Just because I don't know who or when it will bite, am I off
the hook for creating it and placing it in the room? I don't think so. 

God *could* have created a reality in which hurting others was not possible,
even allowing for free will and the choice to worship him or not. He CHOSE not
to. He conciously decided to create us such that we *would* hurt each other, in
massive numbers and in hideous ways. If we have free will then so does God, and
he CHOSE to create us this way, and he chooses not to interfere. 

  Meditate on it.  Think about what it means to be free to choose.  Think
  about what it would be like to be unable to make any choices, to just be
  a marionnette, with no control over whether you do good or do evil.

I have meditated on this, a lot! And I cannot get around it without abandoning
any semblance of logical thinking. It is one of the enduring mysteries to me how
you can, and one of the main reasons I participate in this conference. I know
that you folks are intelligent people, and reasonable in most other categories
(:^), I don't understand how we can misconnect on something that seems so
fundamentally obvious to me.

BTW, drop any of the O, O or A-L and I can at least get around the basic paradox.

Steve

    Omniscient -- Yes.
    
    Omnipotent -- Well, not by our standard dictionary definition.
    
    All-loving -- Yes.
    
    Richard
    

.201 CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Accept no substitutes!"

As I said before, removing any one of the three at least allows reality to make
sense to me.

    Omnipotent -- Well, not by our standard dictionary definition.

What is your definition?

Steve

    .202  Steve,
    
    	Now you're getting into the part of the puzzle I don't even pretend
    to understand.
    
    	As you know, I am confined to a wheelchair.  I've been unable to
    even stand under my own power since about the 4th grade in school.
    I believe God has the power to heal this body of mine.  Why God has
    not so far is simply beyond me.
    
    	At the same time, I believe God in Christ is with me and suffers
    with me in my struggles.
    
    	It's all very subjective and, as I say, I don't pretend to
    understand it.
    
    	I think part of the problem of omnipotence is that we tend to
    think of it in terms of sheer force.  We think if one is omnipotent
    then one will use coercive, even violent, power to reach one's ends.
    I don't see God in Christ as being this way, though there is support
    for such a perspective in the Hebrew Bible and the Revelation.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    
    You're right Steve, God created Eve with a free will to eat that apple
    and bring condemnation on herself and to share it with Adam so that he
    brought condemnation on himself and thus condemnation on all their
    offspring because of the evil inbreed.  They had been given everything
    including the choice to not choose God and what He had given them. The
    pain wasn't there lingering on the outskirts of the garden.  The pain
    came as a result of their choice and they foreknew that.  So let's look
    at this: they foreknew it, they had the power to do it differently, and
    they loved God yet they have no responsibility for their actions. Yet
    you give the same scenario about God and He is not only responsible for
    His actions but for theirs as well.   What gives?  It sounds like you
    simply don't want us to have to take responsibility for what we do and
    say. That would make us puppets.  So Steve...who is pulling your
    strings?
    
    I'm also intrigued that in our limited knowledge, you could come up
    with a better plan than God.  You are truly blessed.  Care to explain
    that plan more fully?  You're so good at scenarios perhaps you could
    play a handful of them out in the framework of your plan.  You seem so
    willing to put God's plan to the test, how about your own more perfect
    plan?
    
    > he made it so that no other options were possible.
    
    Incorrect.  He did provide another option before He even created that
    tree...a way back to Him through the cross.  He willingly took the pain
    and suffering that we chose on Himself and gave us His peace in
    exchange.  But like all options...we have to choose it.
    
    >I have meditated on this, a lot! And I cannot get around it without
    >abandoning any semblance of logical thinking.
     
    Hmmm...funny.  I have yet to see you start from all the suppositions
    of the Christian faith and fully play them out to a logical conclusion.
    I've seen you take certain portions that seem to prove your point and
    leave the other details out.  That's hardly logical.  If you want to
    understand the theistic answer to the question of the existence of evil
    in a good creation and how the problem of evil will finally be solved,
    you need to include these steps:
    
    1) God's creation is good.
    2) Human beings were created in the image of God and were given
       free will.
    3) Free choice necessitates the possibility of choosing evil.
    4) The human choice to sin has affected the entire created order.
    5) Evil cannot be fully understood without recognizing the reality
       of an evil adversary.
    6) God will totally and finally defeat evil.
    7) God's gift of free will prevents the present removal of evil.
    8) God dealt with the problem of evil by sending His Son to pay
       the penalty for sin.
    9) When evil brings suffering, God cares, promises His presence,
       and promises to bring good from evil.
    
    Maybe after your done showing us the benefits of your perfect plan,
    then you can look at God's more fully.  Maybe you'll have some
    perspective then.  Until then, I'm prepared to be dazzled by your
    brilliant logical thinking.  I'm capable of a little baiting myself. 
    ;^)
    
    Jill

re: Note 342.194 by Jill "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand." 
    
>    Ah, but noooo...that isn't the point.  There is *intelligence* behind
>    the mathematical equations the equations just didn't pop into being.

They were always there (an act of God?), somebody just had to discover them.

>    P.S.  I'd be happy to view that fractal images though especially in
>    color.  I'm at 305 N. Rockrimmon Blvd South.  Colorado Springs, CO
>    80919  MS:  CXO3, NETsupport, Pole 2/N10.  Thanks.  

I'll print some up and send them your way.
    
Peace,

Jim

Re: .204 Jill

> So Steve...who is pulling your strings?

Could it be.... SATAN?!

				-- Bob

    
    Hi Richard,
    
    I'm not following you.  Given the standard dictionary meaning of
    omnipotent:
    
            adj.
            Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force;
            all-powerful.
    
    How does your not understanding why God, who you believe has the
    power to heal you but hasn't, preclude God from being omnipotent?
    In all His ways, God is righteous.  That would include His choice
    not to heal you yet or perhaps even in this lifetime, would it not?
    
    Jill
    

re: omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving

One good start on this I've found in Rabbi Kushner's book, _Why Bad Things
Happen to Good People_.  Another is Rev. V[???]'s book _Holy Power, Human
Pain_. 

One way I look at God's omniscience is modelled on the parent-child 
relationship.  A parent KNOWS that their child will eventually walk, 
talk, and disobey them.  But they don't know exactly when they'll walk, what 
they'll say, or what they'll do.  Yet they still love them.  Of course as an
analogy, your mileage may vary. 

Peace,

Jim

    
    RE: .206
    
    How con-veeeee-nient of you to bring up the possibility.  Although,
    Steve will have to see for himself if he's a puppet.  It was after
    all his scenario about which I was commenting.
    
    Jill
    

    .207 Jill,
    
    	I think I understand where Steve is coming from, and therefore,
    I answered in a way that I think he would understand.
    
    	You see, if you follow the standard dictionary definition of
    omnipotent, it weakens the all-loving component.  I'll leave it to
    Steve to explain.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Richard,
    
    I think you can go further and say if you follow the Bible's definition
    of omni-potent it also weakens the all-lovng component.  Inerrantists
    gloss over this contradiction.  The Bible clearly states in a number of
    places that some people are given eyes to see, ears to hear and the
    wisdom to accept God's love and other people ARE GIVEN hearts that are
    hardened.  It is the omnipotent god of the Bible that can control the
    hearts and wisdom of humans.  Then the humans are given personal
    responsibility for the choices that they make and condemned if they
    make the "wrong" choice.  I see this as a clear contradiction between
    an omnipotent and all-loving God. 
    
    Another argument is that during the present time, Satan has more power
    on earth and hardens the hearts of the unbelievers.  It will only at
    the end time that "God" will have final victory over Satan and no one
    knows when that end time will be.  This sounds very suspect for an
    Omnipotent God.  Another argument.  Perhaps "God" is allowing Satan
    dominion on earth to test his true followers.  A scheme that will
    condemn millions to eternal torture as described in that wonderful book
    of revelations.  Again a huge contradiction between an omnipotent and
    an all loving God. 
    
    I stand with William Ellery Channing, one of our greatest Unitarian
    Ancesters and affirm an all  loving God who loves all people.
    
    Patricia

.203 CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Accept no substitutes!"

    	I think part of the problem of omnipotence is that we tend to
    think of it in terms of sheer force.  We think if one is omnipotent
    then one will use coercive, even violent, power to reach one's ends.

I see it as almost the opposite. If one is omnipotent, one doesn't need to be
violent, or coercive, one simply needs to change it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.204 CSC32::KINSELLA "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand."
(But does it make noise if it falls, and there is no one there to hear it?)

    You're right Steve, God created Eve with a free will to eat that apple
    and bring condemnation on herself and to share it with Adam so that he
    brought condemnation on himself and thus condemnation on all their
    offspring because of the evil inbreed. 

But He created her, every last atom, He *knew* she would eat the apple, it had
to happen because of the way he created her. That is free will? Even conceding
that, it makes no sense to me that he then damns all of humanity for eternity
because of this. *My* free will certainly never came into play in Eve's choice.
Further, why put the tree there at all? He was simply baiting (tm :^) her. The
only logical conclusion I can reach from this is that, for some reason, God
wanted humanity to fail its very first test. (How long was Eve in the garden
before she blew it?)

    It sounds like you
    simply don't want us to have to take responsibility for what we do and
    say. That would make us puppets.  So Steve...who is pulling your
    strings?

Interesting perspective. When I've listened to Christian music in the past, the
one thing that leaps out at me is the common theme that you are NOT responsible
for your actions, ie. you've put your life into the hands of God. This means
that if you make a mistake, no matter how heinious, you are forgiven. I'm not
saying this well, and you will (rightly) come back and deny this, maybe I can
say it better later... As far as strings, I'm the one who believes that there is
no master puppeteer, nobody is pulling my strings but me.

    I'm also intrigued that in our limited knowledge, you could come up
    with a better plan than God.  You are truly blessed.  Care to explain
    that plan more fully?  You're so good at scenarios perhaps you could
    play a handful of them out in the framework of your plan.  You seem so
    willing to put God's plan to the test, how about your own more perfect
    plan?

Jill, I will answer, but first let me ask you a question. Can you not conceive
of *any* improvement in the world as it exists today? Do you see this as
perfect? Really?

    Incorrect.  He did provide another option before He even created that
    tree...a way back to Him through the cross.  He willingly took the pain
    and suffering that we chose on Himself and gave us His peace in
    exchange.  But like all options...we have to choose it.

But that way would not even be necessary if he had not first arranged for the
original sin. It just keeps getting crazier. I will create a world, I will
arrange for sin, I will then suffer to make up for it. I mean, before the
creation he is sitting there, he sees the whole scenario, he knows that his
creation will be flawed, he does it anyway. My understanding is that He wanted
us to dwell forever in the garden, but He knew it would never happen, He has the
capacity to make it work, he chooses not to do this. A question, does free will
guarentee that man would fail? Does this not make us flawed? Does this not make
the creator flawed?

    Hmmm...funny.  I have yet to see you start from all the suppositions
    of the Christian faith and fully play them out to a logical conclusion.
    I've seen you take certain portions that seem to prove your point and
    leave the other details out.

Of course, that is the basis of debate. It is up to you to point out the logical
flaws in my thinking. I honestly don't see, however, where your counterpoints
will come from. Taking it one step at a time (from your note). Realize that I
can only deal with what I can see, however, observable facts.

    1) God's creation is good.
OK, we can start here. I see an awful lot of evil as a counter to this
statement, but we can use it as a working hypothesis. 

    2) Human beings were created in the image of God and were given
       free will.
    3) Free choice necessitates the possibility of choosing evil.
We've been over this one a bunch :^) If you change the word 'possibility' in 3
to 'certainty' I can agree.

    4) The human choice to sin has affected the entire created order.
Again, was this choice inevitable? I have seen many times in this conference
that we all, even the most pious among us, sin. 

    5) Evil cannot be fully understood without recognizing the reality
       of an evil adversary.
    6) God will totally and finally defeat evil.
    7) God's gift of free will prevents the present removal of evil.
The adversary being the devil? Given 6, why did he create it in the first place. 
For 7, why? If God is omnipotent then nothing prevents anything for Him.


    8) God dealt with the problem of evil by sending His Son to pay
       the penalty for sin.
    9) When evil brings suffering, God cares, promises His presence,
       and promises to bring good from evil.
Seems like a pretty convoluted work around to me, as He simply could have caused
the problem to not be. As for 9, God created everything, this includes evil, he
must want us to suffer.
 
    Maybe after your done showing us the benefits of your perfect plan,
    then you can look at God's more fully.  Maybe you'll have some
    perspective then.  Until then, I'm prepared to be dazzled by your
    brilliant logical thinking.  I'm capable of a little baiting myself. 
    ;^)

I never said that my plan was perfect, just better :^) Actually, not being
omnipotent, I don't have a plan for the whole human race, just for me. But I
could offer some suggestions...

Steve

.206 GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger"

Actually, I think, yes, it's...


Gepetto! 

And my nose is growing...

.208 TFH::KIRK "a simple song"

And if your saying that God doesn't have actual for sure foreknowledge
(omniscience), I can see a way out the paradox.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.211 POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien"

Patricia, I agree with most of what you say, but I don't understand your
conclusion, i.e.:

    I stand with William Ellery Channing, one of our greatest Unitarian
    Ancesters and affirm an all  loving God who loves all people.

Then do you give up omnipotence, or omniscience?

Steve

    Steve,
    
    All I can do is think out loud.  I have no answer.  Logic tells me I
    have to give up the omniscience.  God cannot know what we are going to
    do before we do it and still allow for us to have free choice.  If the
    outcome is known before the event, there is no free choice.
    
    Omnipotent.  God could still be omnipotent.  God chooses to give humans 
    free choice.  The role of the Gospel then is to convince humanity to
    trust in what is good and right.  Just as many would not want to see
    the U.S. to unilaterally disarm itself, most of us are afraid of
    unilateral goodness.
    
    THis leads me to think about the theory and nature of power.  Can we
    move from a power over to a power with?  HOw long will it take for
    humanity to learn to trust the power of Love and the Power of Goodness?
    
    I will keep working on the answer, but I suspect I may not be any more
    successful with the answer to this delemma than the philosophers and
    theologians who have come before me.
    
    Patricia

re: Note 342.214 by Steve "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems"

>And if your saying that God doesn't have actual for sure foreknowledge
>(omniscience), I can see a way out the paradox.

Basically yes.  My understanding of omniscience (and omnipotence) are that 
they are not absolute.  (But I think God's loving-kindness IS absolute.)

Peace,

Jim

.212 Steve,

>>    	I think part of the problem of omnipotence is that we tend to
>>    think of it in terms of sheer force.  We think if one is omnipotent
>>    then one will use coercive, even violent, power to reach one's ends.

>I see it as almost the opposite. If one is omnipotent, one doesn't need to be
>violent, or coercive, one simply needs to change it.

We're not far from agreement here.  Regardless of whether one views it as
coercive or not, the person, object or situation conforms to the will
imposed by the (omnipotent) one who changes it.

Shalom,
Richard

    Steve,
    
    You may be interested in the note 13.0 on Process Theology.  Process
    Theology specifically rejects the theory of the omnipotence of the
    Divine.
    
    Patricia

People interested in the Problem of Evil may like to read topic 180 in the
Philosophy conference (ERIS::Philosophy).  See also 177.6.

Re .216:

	"Logic tells me I have to give up the omniscience.  God cannot know 
	 what we are going to do before we do it and still allow for us to 
	 have free choice.  If the outcome is known before the event, there 
	 is no free choice."

You may be interested in note 177.2 of the Philosophy conference, where the 
issue of omniscience, foreknowledge, and freedom is briefly discussed.  
Personally, I think Boethius found the solution back in the 6th century, when 
he distinguished implication from causation.  That is: If God foreknows X will 
happen, this logically *implies* that X will happen, but God's knowledge need 
not be a *cause* of X happening.  If X has no sufficient cause, only necessary 
causes, it is still an indeterminate event, e.g. a free choice.

Re .211, God's control of human character

I get the impression that God sometimes inflicts additional decay of character 
as a punishment for, or judgement on, voluntary acts of sin.

For instance, I was once told that, if you render the Hebrew carefully in the
story of Exodus, after the first several plagues, Pharoah hardened his own
heart, but after the next few plagues, it was God who hardened Pharoah's
heart. 

Also, in one of his letters, Paul speaks to some Christians of their 
pre-Christian lives and remarks on various sins that God "gave them up to."

I think passages like these are the ones Dante had in mind when, somewhere in 
his Comedy, he has a saint remark on how God will sometimes "punish sin with 
sin."

This may still strike you as a reprehensible way for God to act, but it is at 
least different from the model of the puppeteer pulling strings or the potter 
molding passive clay.  Here, the human soul and God jointly form the human 
character.  It doesn't take much study of general human character to imagine 
that the joint action may be a wrestling match with intricate moves that are 
not always clear to the human combatant, much less to on-lookers.

Earl Wajenberg                                                

  
  Another opinion/perspective  :

  There is no such thing as "free will" for flesh humanity. 

  I create software.
  I beget children.

  The two entities both originate from me. The software is not of my nature.
  My children inherit my human nature.

  God created our flesh bodies and souls.
  His Children are "begotten" of the Father and "born" of the Spirit.
  The "Spirit-born" receive by birth-right inheritance and participate
  in the divine nature.
  
   Only God and His "Spirit-born" Children are free.

  "That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the 
   Spirit is spirit...

   The wind blows where it wishes and you here the sound of it, but cannot
   tell where it comes from and where it goes, so is everyone who is 
   born of The Spirit"  John 3:6;8 NKJV

   Hank D

.216 POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien"
.217 TFH::KIRK "a simple song"

If you give up omniscience, the question becomes how long will he tolerate our
current situation before he uses omnipotence to end it? :^) 

    Just as many would not want to see
    the U.S. to unilaterally disarm itself, most of us are afraid of
    unilateral goodness.

I am not afraid of unilateral goodness, but I am afraid of unilateral badness.
The inability of a country (or person) to defend themselves has never stopped
others from taking advantage of the situation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.219 POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien"

Thanks, Patricia, I'll check it out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.220 CUPMK::WAJENBERG


>That is: If God foreknows X will 
>happen, this logically *implies* that X will happen, but God's knowledge need 
>not be a *cause* of X happening.  If X has no sufficient cause, only necessary 
>causes, it is still an indeterminate event, e.g. a free choice.

I could buy this if God wasn't the omnipotent creator of everything.

>It doesn't take much study of general human character to imagine 
>that the joint action may be a wrestling match with intricate moves that are 
>not always clear to the human combatant, much less to on-lookers.

I know it isn't clear to me!

Steve

    Hi Steve,
    
    I haven't forgotten you yet.  I've just been very seriously trying to 
    decide what my answer should be to you.  Most of what I'm about to 
    share with you are not my own words and I have given credit where 
    credit is due.  I've chosen the work of two men of great intellect  
    to quote.  

    Your questions seem to come down to how could an OOAL God allows this
    meaningless suffering to occur.  C.S. Lewis said it this way "The 
    tortures occur.  If they are unnecessary, then there is no God or a 
    bad one.  If there is a good God, then these tortures are necessary."

    What you don't understand is that suffering has meaning.  Just as
    Christ  suffered for a purpose, we too suffer for a purpose.  Am I
    saying we  understand it all?  No I'm not.  But do I believe God
    understands it all? Yes I do.  In searching for a way to explain this
    to you I pulled this  quote for A.E. Wilder-Smith:

    "Might the key to the sore problem be found in the following
    considerations: Can we allow that to do good there are occasions when
    we must do that which looks as though it were bad?  Put another way,
    can we hurt to heal?   Obviously, we can allow that, for every good
    surgeon and dentist does so regularly and routinely.  If every time I
    flinched, gripped the dentist's chair, or drew back my head in pain at
    the relentless drill, the dentist were to stop and end the torture by
    filling up the still dirty cavity with amalgam, he would be less than a
    good dentist.  He would not be being good, kind, or loving to his
    patient if he were anything but absolutely unrelenting in his
    thoroughness in inflicting this therapeutic suffering.  We would all be
    in trouble again in no time if he did relent.  And then all the pain he
    had inflicted in earlier drillings would have been in vain.  He has to
    be apparently passive to the pain he is causing.  Does he seem devoid
    of feeling?  In reality, of course, his passiveness to suffering, his
    apparent lack of feeling and his relentlessness are merely motivated by
    common sense and consideration for his patient, even though the
    intolerable pain might persuade me otherwise.  For anyone who has
    undergone a molar root treatment, two further points will emerge to
    throw light on this problem.  The bacterial  infection not only causes
    excruciating pain, but the toxins released into the blood will poison
    the patient to such an extent that his very consciousness may become
    clouded.  He may scarcely know what he is doing because of the pain and
    the poison.  Then the dentist begins work with his awful drill.  The
    pain becomes more excruciating until the center of infection is
    reached.  Then the poison pressure is released, and immediate relief is
    felt, though it is  not yet complete.  As soon as no more poison is
    being released into the blood,  the head begins to clear and the pain
    to subside.  First, then, in order to remove the hurt of decay,
    sometimes more pain has to be inflicted - worse than that of the
    original sickness.  But the worst pain acts therapeutically on the
    first pain and purges it away.  Second, only when the basic trouble
    begins to be cured does clarity of thought return."  

    Jill

    That is all well and good.  Any reasonable person can understand
    the idea that the cure sometimes hurts more than the disease, if
    only for a short time.  Still there is such a thing as anesthesia;
    and I fail to see how the analogy works if extrapolated from
    the individual.   Who's cavity is being filled at the expense of
    tens of thousands of deaths from the cholera epidemic in Zaire?
    Is the world going to become a better place after having endured
    all that suffering?

    I don't see it.

    /Greg

    We are a weak generation of people.  Too many folks are afraid of the
    iron sharpening iron and after a few rubs determine its just too much
    and walk away from what could have been.

re: .223 CSC32::KINSELLA "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand."

Jill,

Thanks for taking the time to think this through, I appreciate that.

First: 
    I haven't forgotten you yet.
                            ^^^
How much time do I have before you do? :^0

I understand the concept of pain being necessary for healing, in mortals. My
problem is that I cannot reconcile it with OOAL God. The contradiction is:

1. Omniscient: He *KNEW* this pain would occur
2. Omnipotent: He created us as we are *anyway*
3. This does not fit my definition of all loving.

The only conclusion I can reach using logic (admittedly *my* logic, but it's all
I've got :^) is that God wanted us to suffer, which again negates the AL
characteristic. Again, if you remove 1. the logic would work better (we were/are
an experiment and he didn't know how bad we would get) although there are some
problems here. If you remove 2. he simply made a mistake (he *knew* it was a
mistake, but was powerless to stop it) it is a little better. Actually, by
removing 3. the whole concept hangs together fairly well, but then you wind up
with a God that deliberately inflicts pain. 

    Am I saying we understand it all?  No I'm not.  But do I believe God
    understands it all? Yes I do.

By saying that we do not (and cannot) understand (i.e. God works in mysterious
ways) you effectively shut down the discussion from my side, as it does not
depend on logic or observable facts and is irrefutable.

Steve

re: Note 342.226 by Steve "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" 

> Actually, by removing 3. the whole concept hangs together fairly well, but 
> then you wind up with a God that deliberately inflicts pain. 

Well, as some have pointed out, the Christian God is also a God that hates 
(certain) individuals.  Perhaps that is why there is so much pain.

(This is not my opinion, simply what I infer from others' writings.)

Peace,

Jim

    re: .227
    
    If everything in the Bible is accepted literally, some pretty awful 
    conclusions can be derived.  This is why I am so adament against a 
    literal interpretation of the Bible which is what I also suspect is
    implicit in your note.
    
                                    Patricia
    
                                     

 RE .227


 Its sin that God hates.





Jim

Re .226:
    
    I have copied this note of mine from Eris::Philosophy, where the
    problem of evil was discussed under topic 180:
    
================================================================================
Note 180.8                     The problem of Evil                       8 of 27
ATSE::WAJENBERG "Make each day a bit surreal."       81 lines  13-OCT-1988 09:49
                           -< A Multitude of Evils >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re .5
    
    [...]
    
I do not have a complete solution to the Problem of Pain.  I offer partial 
ones because the problem is complicated and messy as well as being emotionally 
charged.  The Problem of Pain and the Problem of Sin (so to call the other 
half of the Problem of Evil) have different structures.  In the Problem of 
Sin, the question is, "Who is to blame for sin and its effects, the sinner or
the sinner's Creator?"  There are only two possible answers (or four, if you 
separate blame for sin and blame for sin's effects), and introducing a third 
(or fifth) would be a somewhat extraordinary measure.

In the Problem of Pain, the question is, "What can justify God in permitting 
or causing so much pain?"  The form of the question is not multiple-choice, 
but fill-in-the-blank, and so messier.  In the human sphere, there can be many 
valid excuses for inflicting [or allowing] pain.  (Justifiable punishment, 
lack of right to interfere, etc.)  Then there is the further question of 
whether or not analogs of these valid excuses can apply to God.  This depends 
on the nature of God and on circumstance, neither of them wholly known.

Inasmuch as I have a general solution, it is to suggest that these analogs may 
jointly cover all the instances of pain in the world, even if we do not always 
see how they do so.  All that's left is to draw the analogies and suggest how
they may apply. 

    [...]
    
Re .7

You place moral agents in the same category of impossibility as four-sided 
triangles, on the grounds that "God cannot be simultaneously all-knowing and
not know what his creations are going to do. It is an absolute contradiction
which cannot be escaped, unless you are going to say he can contravene
logic...."

As I mentioned in 177.2, there are at least two ways out of the apparent
contradiction.  First, in some non-traditional theologies, God cannot know the 
future, not because He lacks omniscience, but because the future has no 
determinate character to be known.

In the traditional view, God does know the future, but by direct observation,
not by extrapolating it from the present.  This makes an important difference. 
If God knows a future event by extrapolation, that means the event is 
deterministically caused by forces now in operation.  Then, indeed, the event 
is not a free choice.  But if God could not have extrapolated the future event 
and knows of it only because He *sees* the future, just as He does the 
present, then the cause of the event lies wholly in the agent performing it.
No one and nothing made the agent do it.  It seems to me that this is a free 
action.
    
    [...]
     
Earl Wajenberg

re 342.226

Steve,

I have been meaning to respond for sometime now, here's a different
perspective. You say that God knew that Adam & Eve would sin by eating of
the forbidden fruit. Both the Hebrew & Greek words for "to sin" mean to
"to miss the mark". Hence Adam and Eve's having sinned shows that they
failed in the purpose in which Jehovah God had created them for. Why would
God give the first couple a  wonderful purpose or project knowing that they
were doomed to failure?. Please consider the following:

The Bible does show that God does have the power to look into the future and
see how things will work out for individuals, that's if he wishes to do so.
One could say it's like man having the ability or power to tune into a radio
station and listen to what is being broadcast. But did God choose to look
into the first couples future and see how it would turn out personally for
these two?. Well to begin with he gave them a good start, a paradise garden
Eden, good food and health, satisfying work in looking after the animals and
extending the boundaries of the garden. Also like a loving parent he warned
them of danger. Now think about it, would you as a loving father send your
children out on a wonderful project knowing that they were doomed to failure?.
No doubt you would likely answer no, so why should we attribute such to God?
(Genesis 1:28, 2:15-17). Personally if I had children and had the power to
look into how they would turn out, I would not exercise such power. Rather,
hopefully I would help nurture them so that they would be inclined to make
the right choices in adult life. I wouldn't blame myself if in the end they
made the wrong choices in life, for they have their own free will especially
as adults. Eventhough, Adam & Eve failed in the commision that they were given,
God's purpose remains the same in that this earth will become a paradise
filled with righteous persons from Adam & Eve's offspring (Genesis 1:28,
Isaiah 55:11).

But a question that needs to be asked is, why does God permit wickedness?.
Well one issue is that Adam & Eve called into question God's universal
sovereignty. As the creator does God have the right to set the standards,
or as in the case of the first couple has man the right to set his own
standards (Genesis 3:6). So two questions come from Adam's rebellion, who
has the right to rule? and who's rule is right?. These questions needed to
be answered, for God had been challenged in front of the rest of Creation,
and if God had given Adam, Eve and Satan the death penalty straight away we
would not have seen the results of their rebellion. God has allowed mankind
to rule or govern himself. Man has tried all sorts of governments from
dictatorships to democracies but none have solved the problems that mankind
faces in fact as King Solomon put it "that man has dominated man to his own
injury." Ecclesiastes 8:9b NWT. Take for example one problem that man faces
is famine, eventhough God's creation the earth can produce enough food for
all, man through his own selfishness and greed makes/allows millions to
starve especially at times of human conflict. God has even allowed enough
time so that man might have improved technoligies, but high technology has
not solved all of mankinds problems and in some cases has made them worse
such as the threat of nuclear war or the possiblity of nuclear terrorist
attack. As Jeremiah wrote "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man
his way does not belong. It does not belong to man even to direct his
step." Jeremiah 10:23 NWT, man needs guidance for he was not originally
made with the purpose of governing himself. Today, we see to a greater
degree the suffering and heartache that comes from man governing himself.
Soon, Jehovah God intends to step in and bring an end to this suffering and
wickedness. As Peter put it "Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as
some consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire
any to be destroyed but desires all to attain repentance." 2 Peter 3:9 NWT.
He wants persons to repent, that is turn around from their previous course
for 1 John 2:17 NWT reads "the world is passing away and so its desire, but
he that does the will of God remains forever." The desire of Adam & Eve and
the world is self rule, however life only comes from the giver of life Jehovah
God. Those obedient to the direction of Jehovah God will reap the benefits
that come from that, Isaiah 48:17,18 NWT reads "I Jehovah am your God, the
One teaching you benefit [yourself], the One causing you to tread in the way
you should walk. O if only only you would actually pay attention to my
commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your
righteousness like the waves of the sea." Though these words were expressed
to the nation of Israel they can apply to us also for Jehovah God has
turned his attention to all nations of the earth (Matt 24:14, Acts 10:34,35)

I hope this goes some way to answering your questions. Also the scripture
2 Peter 3:9 cited in the above paragraph also shows that God does not
look into how it will work for all individuals for he desires that all
attain repentance. This would be meaningless if he already knew how things
would turn out for us all as indivduals.

Phil.

    Here is another cross-posting, this time from the Philosophy topic on
    general Christian theology, 177:
    
================================================================================
Note 177.6                     Christian Theology                        6 of 42
ATSE::WAJENBERG "Make each day a bit surreal."      115 lines  10-OCT-1988 10:43
                            -< The Problem of Evil >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Problem of Evil is the most emotional problem in philosophical 
theology. The responses to it vary enormously.  I know hardy souls for whom 
the glory of just being alive makes all questions of suffering secondary; I 
know sensitive souls who see the Problem of Evil as such a monstrous one 
that it makes, for them, an iron-clad case for atheism.

Stated briefly, the Problem of Evil is: If God is all-knowing, 
all-powerful, and benevolent, why is there evil?   After all, if He is 
omniscient, He must know that evil is going on and must also know the best 
way to stop it.  If He's omnipotent, He must be able to stop it.  If He's 
benevolent, He must WANT to stop it.  But obviously He doesn't.  So how can 
anyone believe that God is all three of those things at once?

Over the weekend, Jon Callas remarked to me that the Problem of Evil can be 
solved by "backing away" from any of those three things -- omniscience, 
omnipotence, and benevolence.  The standard answer to the Problem of Evil 
is called the Free Will Defense.  It "backs away" from both omnipotence and 
benevolence.  It does not deny either of them, but it says their results 
and inherent limitations are not exactly what we intuitively expect.

The Free Will Defense says that God is not responsible for the existence of 
evil; His creatures are.  Some of these creatures, humans in particular, 
can make free choices and have used the ability to do evil, to themselves 
and their fellow creatures.

How do we define a free agent?  In my own view, if a being is a free agent, 
then its actions cannot be completely explained in terms of its internal 
and external conditions preceeding those actions.  That would mean that no 
one, not even God, could give a determinate prediction for how a free agent 
would act in a hypothetical situation.  Thus God knew from the beginning of 
time that Abraham would be willing to sacrifice Isaac to Him, but He knew 
this by observing Abraham's action.  I don't think even God knows (though 
He could make the best possible educated guess) how Abraham would react in 
a situation that never arose, e.g. if his wife Sarah had had a girl or 
twins instead of Isaac.

Why would God create free agents, if they were going to cause so much 
havoc?  Presumably, God thinks the havoc of real vice is a price worth 
paying for having real virtue.  Unless virtuous behavior is free, it does 
not spring from virtue, but is merely forced or coerced or expedient.  Two 
cogs in a machine "cooperate" not out of mutual love or a sense of duty, 
but because they can't do anything else.  If Gunther and Floyd cooperate 
only because Dad is there to insist on it, they are no more loving or 
dutiful than the two gears.

There is a question I have not heard asked in the debates over the Problem 
of Evil, though it seems to me that it lurks in the background, strangely 
ignored by both sides.  (They always seem to get side-tracked.)  The question 
is: Why should a free agent be allowed to harm others?  Why couldn't God
organize the world so that people could sin but no one would suffer for this
but themselves? 

The answer, it seems to me, is a variation on the answer to the first 
question: Just as the risk of sin is worth the value of a free individual, 
the risk of crime is worth the value of a free community.  You can only 
love your neighbor as yourself if you have neighbors; but if you have 
neighbors, you may choose to love yourself more than them.  If your love is 
to mean anything to those neighbors, your choices must have consequences 
for them.

In the limiting case, if God does not allow an agent's actions to have any 
consequences for others, there can be no community at all; the individuals 
are isolated.  The degree to which God limits the consequences our acts can 
have for each other is the degree to which He limits the freedom of our 
communities.  Obviously, He does not give us total freedom; there are 
barriers of natural law; there are, on the religious view, interferences 
from God in the form of revelations, miracles, and providence.  Just as 
obviously, He permits enough mutual effect for us to do really horrible 
things to each other -- and really splendid ones.

If God is to permit love freely given between creatures, He must also permit 
the love to be freely withheld.  And He must let the giving and withholding 
have consequneces.  How dire the consequences are is just a matter a degree,
though that degree may be a measure of the importance of that love. 

There remains another class of evil, not moral evil but natural evil, meaning 
disease, death, and natural disaster.  Why does God permit this?  I have not 
heard a complete answer to this question, though I have heard partial and 
speculative ones.

One answer reduces the problem to a special case of crime and community evil.  
There are, according to the traditions of the monotheistic religions, other 
free and intelligent moral agents besides humans who form with us a larger 
community, though we may seldom be aware of them, just as a dog or a child is 
seldom aware of the larger world of adult politics.  These are, of course, 
angels and devils.  Devils are thought to account for a certain amount of 
natural evil.  For instance, Christ spoke of a woman with a deformed leg as 
one bound by Satan.

But this explanation will not recommend itself much to people who regard all 
talk of angels and demons as superstition.  And even many believers in spirits 
have a hard time believing that all disasters are orchestrated by devils.

Another partial answer is that much "natural" disaster is our own fault.  If 
we were more perfect in wisdom and charity, we could avoid a surprising number 
of these accidents.  We would have caught on to the causes of dieases 
generations earlier, bent greater efforts to relieving famine, and so forth.

A third answer, speculative and harsh, is that God may expect us to cope with 
a certain amount of chaos, less concerned with the pain we stumble into than 
with the wisdom and compassion we show in dealing with it.  (How do you like 
that for "backing away" from benevolence, Jon?  I repeat, this is just a 
speculation of my own.)

The wise parents of my acquaintance seem to observe the following policy 
regarding their children's freedom: you give the kids advice, but you let 
them act freely with each other, giving them a chance to settle their 
differences, letting them get into trouble, but no more trouble than you 
can get them out of.  If God follows such a policy, the implications are 
both comforting and frightening.  The good news is that omnipotence and 
omniscience can rescue from a great deal of disaster.  The bad news is that 
omnipotence and omniscience can therefore afford to let a great deal of 
disaster happen.

Earl Wajenberg

re: Note 342.229 by Jim "Friend will you be ready?" 

> Its sin that God hates.

Jim, I agree.  However some have pointed out that in Malachi and (I think) 
Epheseans, the Bible says that God hated Esau.  Not what Esau *did*, but the 
*person himself*.  In Genesis, to which the two mentioned passages refer,
there is no mention of God's hate for Esau.  How Malachi or Paul reached their
conclusions, I do not know. 

Peace,

Jim

    Jim,
    
    I agree with you and that is the heart of the issue.  God hates sin. 
    god hates wickedness.  God hates evil.  Sin, wickedness, and evil ought
    to be hated.  No problem there.
    
    But does God hate Esau?  Does God hate the wicked?  Does God love some
    of his creation and Hate other of his creation?  Does all of creation
    belong to God?  Did God create some of us and the Devil create other of
    us?  Can a good loving God create a human being and then smash that
    human being like a potter smashes a rejected piece of pottery?  What
    does it mean when Paul in the Bible claims that is acceptable.  Is Paul
    right and we humans just do not understand, or did not Paul understand,
    or did Paul means something very different than what we think we are
    reading?
    
    What does God's sovereignty mean?  What is God's responsibility toward
    those whom he created?  God's covenant?
    
    Patricia

re .233

And I have explained that before.  But I'll try again.

God loves everyone.

However, he chooses to pour out special favor on certain people to accomplish
his purpose, his plan of salvation.

His behaviour toward Esau, in comparison to his behaviour toward Jacob,
looks like hate, even though it isn't.  The expression must be understood
in the cultural context in which it was spoken.

/john

    John can you help me understand the social context of the word hate as
    used by Malachi and Paul?  That is where I am having difficulty.
    
    I agree with you.  God does love everyone.
    
                                          Patricia

  Re  .236 

  > John...the word hate as used in Malachi and Paul?

  Could you also give us your feeling about Psalms 5:5-6 and 11:5-6?

  Aren't such Psalms (expressing God's hate and abhorance) called the
  "impeccatory" (sp) Psalms

  thanks 

  Hank

re: Note 342.235 by /john 

>God loves everyone.

I agree.  Yet, from Hank's note 499.81 quoting Romans:

>   "as it is written, Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated, what shall we
>    say then? is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not, for He says
>    to Moses, I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy and I will have
>    compassion on whomever I will have compassion. So then it is not of him who
>    wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"  Romans 9:13-16 NKJV

>  I've seen comentaries that say hate dosn't mean hate in this passage, but
>  "loves less" or something else. I dont see why its a problem for people
>  to see that God hates the wicked, especially the unregenerate wicked who 
>  have wilfully overthrown the love of God and His Truth.

Peace,

Jim

IMO for the Biblical authors to say that "God hates Esau" was simply a bit
a nationalistic propaganda, since Esau was supposed to be the forefather
of the Edomites while Jacob was the forefather of the Israelites.

				-- Bob

    In "Reflections on the Psalms," C. S. Lewis notes that Esau lives at
    least as prosperous a life as Jacob, nor are we shown that he is
    particularly more wicked than Jacob.  Lewis concludes that God's
    "hatred" of Esau consists solely in rejecting him for the role of
    patriarch, in favor of Jacob.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

re: .230 CUPMK::WAJENBERG

But if God could not have extrapolated the future event 
and knows of it only because He *sees* the future, just as He does the 
present, then the cause of the event lies wholly in the agent performing it.
No one and nothing made the agent do it.  It seems to me that this is a free 
action.

	If I understand what you are getting at, then God does not know what the
	result of any one action may be, but he can see the whole result in the
	future. That is, he knows what will happen but he doesn't know what will
	be the direct cause. 

	If my understanding is correct there are still a couple of problems. 
	First, go to the simplest case, Adam and Eve. With only three variables
	and a known outcome, the direct cause and effect shouldn't have been 
	too hard to figure. He also knew that from the humble start, we would 
	wind up in the mess we are currently in. If it had been me, I would 
	have restarted the world with new inputs :^) Finally, seeing the future
	would make Him omniscient, but not knowing what the causes were or how 
	to affect the known results weakens the argument for omnipotence. And
	knowing that we would suffer, and not *trying* to fix it, weakens the
	argument for all-loving.

re: .231 PIECES::curlew.reo.dec.com::yerkess

The Bible does show that God does have the power to look into the future and
see how things will work out for individuals, that's if he wishes to do so.

	Interesting twist, God is omniscient but chooses not to (ever?) 	
        excercise this ability. I'll need to think about this a bit...

Well to begin with he gave them a good start, a paradise garden
Eden, good food and health, satisfying work in looking after the animals and
extending the boundaries of the garden. Also like a loving parent he warned
them of danger.

	But it is more than this. He *created* the danger, he put it where they
	could not help but find it, he allowed Satan into this Eden to tempt
	them. Additionally he made them human, with human curiosity. (Lead me
	not into temptation...???). They were as children to him. Now, put your
	four year old into a similar situation and tell me what you think would
	happen.

I wouldn't blame myself if in the end they
made the wrong choices in life, for they have their own free will especially
as adults. Eventhough, Adam & Eve failed in the commision that they were given,
God's purpose remains the same in that this earth will become a paradise
filled with righteous persons from Adam & Eve's offspring

	Do you hold your children accountable for your faults? Then why are we
	accountable for Adam and Eve's?

Well one issue is that Adam & Eve called into question God's universal
sovereignty. As the creator does God have the right to set the standards,
or as in the case of the first couple has man the right to set his own
standards (Genesis 3:6). So two questions come from Adam's rebellion, who
has the right to rule? and who's rule is right?.

	But to continue your analogy to children, this challenge is *necessary*
	for the child to break away. It can be harder or easier, but at some
	point the 'apron-strings' must be cut for the child to function as an
	adult. When my stepdaughter went through this stage I usually let her
	have her way unless, in my judgement, her actions had a chance of 
	doing her lasting harm. I put on the show, but it wasn't particularly
	upsetting as I realized it was a normal part of growing up. 

These questions needed to
be answered, for God had been challenged in front of the rest of Creation,
and if God had given Adam, Eve and Satan the death penalty straight away we
would not have seen the results of their rebellion.

	This 'challenge' would be laughable to an omnipotent being, and far less
	dangerous to God than our own children leaving the nest can be to us.

God has allowed mankind
to rule or govern himself. Man has tried all sorts of governments from
dictatorships to democracies but none have solved the problems that mankind
faces in fact as King Solomon put it "that man has dominated man to his own
injury." Ecclesiastes 8:9b NWT.

	This strikes me as really petty. 'So you can do better, well then give
	it a try, I'm going to sulk for a couple of thousand years or so'. It
	also comes under the heading of where a loving parent would be forced 
	to put their foot down, especially when they could *know* what the 
	results would be, rather than simply guessing as we must.

As Peter put it "Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as
some consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire
any to be destroyed but desires all to attain repentance." 2 Peter 3:9 NWT.
He wants persons to repent,

	It seems slow to me. Without stopping the procreation of the species he
	will, at some point, select an arbitrary place where some people will
	not be given the chance to 'attain repentance'. With the current 
	increases in world population the longer he waits the larger the 
	population of people without the chance to repent will be.

	If he really wanted to make it work, why not set up a kingdom on some
	part of earth for the faithful, under God. Allow those who wish to live
	there. Allow those that are rebellious to live elsewhere, as they chose.
	Then there is a real choice to make, with ample evidence for all to see
	and choose from. It seems to me that this doesn't change his desire to 
	allow all to repent, and to weed out those who don't. Right now there is
	still no empirical evidence to show that the bible contains the truth,
	or that God exists beyond the stories. Wouldn't this be a fairer way
	of letting folks choose?

Steve

re: .232 CUPMK::WAJENBERG

Earl,

I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving, you had a way of putting interesting new
twists on things. I hope that your new job works out well for you.

I must admit, I missed the point of the note. You seemed to agree with me at
some points, to post partial explanations at others, and to back away from the
precepts (OOAL) at several others. I would go into more detail, but since you're
leaving it is probably a moot point.

Again, Good Luck (the atheist blessing?) to you in your new endeavors.

Steve

re .242


Steve,

I have just read your reply and you pose some interesting questions
points which I would like to address. However, it will take me a
little time to formulate a reply. 

Phil.

I haven't been able to keep up 100% with this string, but it got me 
thinking some - I got a book called "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis.
Lewis discusses the same things this thread has been discussing.  I
have read only about 1/4 of the book, but I'd recommend it highly.

C.S. Lewis was an Oxford professor.  He was an atheist for much of his life.
This book was written after he became a Christian.

-Steve

    RE: .224
    
    Greg,
    
    So what you're saying is that it isn't possible for God to deal with
    individual hearts when something is occurring to a whole group or cross
    section of society.  I would have to disagree.  I don't see that it's
    necessary to extrapolate it from the individual context.  I don't
    believe that God has to forfeit dealing with people at a microscopic
    level because He chooses to allow events on a macroscopic level. 
    Perhaps he's dealing with not only the hearts of those in Zaire but
    also hearts around the world.  This world is never going to be a better
    place, but I believe there will be hearts that will be in a better
    place because of suffering.  As for anesthesia...He did give us all we 
    needed in Christ.  It's just that some "patients" refuse to accept it.
    
    Jill

        re Note 342.230 and 342.232 by CUPMK::WAJENBERG:

        (I'm sorry to see that Earl Wajenberg has left Digital, but
        his notes provoke many thoughts!)

        As has been discussed in the abortion debate, the choice of
        the name by which you call something itself biases or colors
        the debate on the subject, e.g., "pro-life" vs.
        "anti-choice".

        I note that Earl discusses what he calls the "Problem of
        Pain" and the "Problem of Evil."

        Earl did not invent these terms, these are the more-or-less
        standard terms and problem statements of western philosophy.

        I observe that both of these problems attempt to square our
        observation of the world, and logic, with some a priori
        assumptions or beliefs about the nature of God.

        They could just as easily be termed "The Problem of God" or,
        more specifically, "The Problem of the {Judeo-Christian,
        Biblical, Western, Omniscient, Omnipotent, All Loving} God." 
        The fact that we do not call this problem by this kind of
        name reveals the bias in where we assume our misunderstanding
        lies.

        Do non-western philosophies deal with this "problem" at all,
        and if so, how?

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    Philosophical and Theological studies call it the Problem of Pain and
    the Problem of Evil because both are tangible observable realities.
    
    Every philosophy and every religion somehow has to deal with those
    realities.
    
    Paganism accounts for pain and evil as part of the natural cycles. 
    Circles are sacred in Paganism and the circle of life, death, life,
    death is a major theme.  Pain and Evil are part of that cycle.
    
    Eastern Religions,(I'm not an expert here) believe that the physical
    world is not real.  therefore Pain and Evil are part of the physical
    world which is not real.  The goal is to reach a state of Nirvana or
    unity with the Godhead which transcends all physical realities.
    
    Some atheists may hold that there is no ultimate reason for human
    existence and everything just is including pain and evil.
    
    Some secular humanists may believe that pain and evil are the results
    of the alienation between humans.  All people are responsible and
    related to all other people.  Therefore the problem of any one person
    suffering is the problem of all people suffering.  By loving and
    helping each other we would eliminate much of the pain and suffering
    and evil.
    
    Patricia

My contention is that the suffering in the world cannot be reconciled with the
Christian concept of God as I understand it, ie. Omnipotent, Omniscient and
All-loving (OOAL). 

Take Rwanda, for example. There is little doubt that there is pain and suffering
there on a massive scale. Now, I don't believe that all of those suffering are
evil and being punished, in fact it seems likely that there are many good and
devout Christians among them. So how does God view this?

First, being AL, this must hurt him. (I am not 'AL' and it hurts me). But he is
not powerless, he is omnipotent, with the blink of an eye he could fix the
problem if he wanted to, in any one of a million different ways, but he chooses
not to. To me this conjures up an image of God watching, with tears running down
his cheeks, moaning about his children but not *doing* anything. I'm sure that
most of you find this image as ludicrous as I do. So at some level God must
*want* this pain to continue; if he didn't want it to it simply wouldn't, and
probably wouldn't have happened at all. And Rwanda is just one of many millions
of examples. 

Next, being Omniscient, he *knew* this would happen even before he created man
(along with all of the other massive problems of mankind, including acts of God
such as the black death). (This assumes he uses his powers of omnipotence, some
have suggested that perhaps he doesn't). This means that from the very beginning
God must have *intended* for us (the generic us, I've had a pretty easy life to
this point) to suffer. This doesn't square with AL. Christians have come up with
many 'explanations' for this, but I have yet to hear one that even approaches
convincing, most of them involve logic contortions I am simply unable to follow. 

Finally, the followers of Christ don't seem to catch much of a break here on
earth. My Christian friends seem no more or less happy than my non-Christian
friends, and Christian nations seem to suffer just as much as non-Christian
nations. To me this is so patently obvious it boggles my mind that anyone would
think otherwise, much the same view that most of you have of me, most likely. 

Steve

 Re 342.249 Evil and God's responsibility

 There is no explanation *that we know of* which can reconcile evil in the
 world and the christian concept of "God is love". You are proper and 
 honest, as is everyone else, in bringing our Heavenly Father to task
 (if He exists) for this paradox (at very best).

 this is the view that I have :

 In order for God to "test" His children's faith to the ultimate, He must
 hide Himself in such a manner that it would be impossible to prove His
 existence by any means whatsoever, in fact it would behoove Him to make
 it seem impossible that He could exist. To do this He must have to allow
 random events of unspeakable "evil" in the world (such as the holocaust).

 Hank D

.250 DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR

No offense, Hank, but this is what I meant by logic contortions. 

If he hides himself such that he cannot be proven, and allows atrocities on an
all too regular basis, and gives as proof only the word of others, and the bible
(which is so full of contradictions to the non-believer as to be useless), and
made some of us (at least) such that we could not believe, and then sentences us
to eternal damnation if we don't, well, this does not fit my definition of all
loving! (This is my entry for the worlds longest run-on sentence :^)

It is the 'God works in mysterious ways' or 'God's will is unknowable' argument.
Basically it says to disbelieve the evidence all around you, and believe in what
we say, because this book says so. 

"Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based 
 upon both logic and faith.  We have faith that they are pink; we logically
 know that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley

    
    
    
    Steve, I'd be interesting in what logic contortions you saw in my
    notes.  I thought there were some pretty good non-circular logic
    arguments that I gave you that you very swiftly avoided.  Care to
    back up and give me some more detail?
    
    Jill
    
    P.S.  >> I haven't forgotten about you yet.
                                          ----
    
          > How long do I have?
    
    	  Until the jeopardy music stops!  ;^)

.252 CSC32::KINSELLA "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand."

Jill,

I wasn't specifically talking about your postings. I've backtracked all of our
correspondance in this thread, and believe that I've answered each of your
posts, most in fairly detailed fashion. Would you please point out the logic
arguments you gave me that I 'swiftly avoided'? 

Thanks, Steve

  Re 342.251 > No offense Hank 

  None taken    :-).

  But a logic contortion is not necessarily a logic contradiction.

  > contradictions in the bible, 

  yes, one could say that, especially if there was a pre-disposition to
  finding them. But contradictions may not necessarily be such.

  For instance : we say (and so also the Bible) that the sun rises and sets. 
  We know that is not exactly correct and that is only the appearance of 
  things. If God had put a treatise in the Bible concerning the rotation of 
  the earth and its rotation around the sun at the time in history when these 
  phrases were popular (and still are) then people would have said "this is a 
  contradiction in logic and what my eyes can plainly see". As humankind 
  progressed in the astronomical sciences we learned of the reality of our 
  solar system. Remember Galileo (excommunicated) and Giordano Bruno (killed)?
  The Bible is primarily a  spiritual book and it is/was our Heavenly 
  Father's plan that humankind as a whole progress spiritually as well as 
  individually. This takes time. It's His plan. For instance He gave the Law,
  The Torah, to those whom He chose to teach the world about Himself. It is 
  a very demanding document with 600 + rules. They were bound to it by an 
  oath with a blessing and a curse. Its primary emphasis is God's holiness 
  and the revelation of His unrelenting sense of justice (eye for eye, tooth
  for tooth, life for life). In reality the Torah teaches us the love of God
  for people. Dont kill each other, dont steal from each other, dont lie to
  and/or about each other, etc. Later came the prophets to teach us the first 
  lesson concerning the mercy of God. He forgives even wilful longstanding sin
  committed even by those who knew Him on a first name basis (if you will).
  Later came the New Covenant in which Jesus Christ taught us that the love
  of God is in reality the Love of a Father for His children.

  If we find "contradictions" in the bible, perhaps we are asking the 
  corresponding spiritual question "does the earth go around the sun or does
  the sun go around the earth, should I believe the "appearance" or the
  revelation. Perhaps one should put aside the "apparent" contradictions in 
  the bible, not the Bible itself. 
 
  > and made some of us (at least) such that we could not believe...

  Since you have said "and made some of us" rather than "and supposedly made
  some of us" then this is more in line with an agnostic point of view rather
  than atheistic. You use the word "us" and I infer that you include yourself.
  But no matter what the case : ask Him to make you believe! If you cant do 
  this then it may very well be that you dont like what you intuitively know 
  about Him. 

 > "Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based 
 >  upon both logic and faith.  We have faith that they are pink; we logically
 >  know that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley

 This is Truth (acknowledging the Pink Unicorn allegory).

 Again, the universe that we live in only allows us to see as light a 
 thin narrow band of the full spectrum.

 So with the spiritual universe. The bible is that thin band, and Jesus Christ
 is The Light of the world.

 Hank D

FWIW, Galileo was not excommunicated.  His sentence was to recant
his past errors and to live in house arrest (where he continued
with some of his most valuable work).

The matter of Galileo dealt with the relationship of scientific
discovery and church teaching, and what can be considered to be
allegorical and what must be taken to be literal.

Galileo's famous quote is, "The Bible teaches the way to go to heaven,
not the way the heavens go."

Galileo was given permission to teach the Copernican system as a
mathematical supposition, and compare it with the Ptolemaic system,
acknowledging that humankind cannot know exactly how God has made
things.

He then produced his work, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems" and received full approval from the Church for its publication,
including imprimatur (a statement that it contained nothing heretical).

However, the politics of the Reformation were in full swing at the time,
and the idea that there might be two ways to look at things was not at
all popular.  Advisors to the Pope convinced him that the book was
actually an argument for the Copernican system and that it violated
a codicil to the earlier agreement that he could only compare and
contrast the systems.  Galileo disavowed any recollection of the
codicil, and it is now believed that the codicil was forged.  This
was a factor in the recent exoneration of Galileo by the Vatican.

/john

    Steve,
    
    I once heard someone say that the the similarities between a
    fundementalist and an Atheist is that they both read the Bible
    literally.  This statement had a great impact on me because I realized
    that a great hindrance for me in appreciating the Bible was that I was
    reading it literally.
    
    When the bible said that God could not find any righteous people other
    than Noah and then wiped out every man woman and child because of it, I
    took it literally and could not understand how an all loving God would
    do that.
    
    I hated the part of the exodus story that talked about God killing all
    the first born sons of the Egyptians in retaliation for the Pharoahs
    deeds.  I am gradually freeing myself from that literalism and as I do
    I am finding much inspiration in the Bible.  I still trip up at times.
    I have not been able to appreciate the prophets and I certainly have
    not been able to appreciate Revelations, Timothy and Titus.
    
    But Paul's letters, The Gospels, the Psalms.  Beautiful stuff in there.
    As I reflect on hundreds of different interpretations of the Adam and
    Eve story, I realize what a powerful myth that is.
    
    There are some fundemental questions regarding Good and Evil, Pain and
    Joy, Suffering, the nature of God, the role God plays in our lifes that
    I don't I cannot fully understand but I can accept that there is a God,
    the God does play a major role in my life, and a major role in the
    History of the World.
    
    Jills question about Freedom is a good one.  Is human freedom something
    to be valued or would we be happy as children in the Garden of Eden
    running around naked with no cares and concerns but with no vision, no
    plans, no drive toward our own human creativity.  Do we want a life
    where God takes care of us like children in a Garden or one in which we
    can co create with God our own world and our own existence.
    
    I accept that God wants us to take our human freedom and use our human
    freedom to create a world that is just.  God does play a role but God
    also gives us maximum Freedom.  And we have screwed up pretty badly. 
    But it is up to us collectively to Love our neighbors as ourselves and
    create a world that is beautiful.
    
    I'm rambling.  Try reading the Bible acknowledging that it is not the
    direct word of God but the word of inspired humans trying to describe a
    relationship that is indescribable.
    
    Patricia
    
    

re .242

Steve,

"Problem of evil" can be perplexing, but we as individuals only see
things from ground level. To see the real issues involved we need
to look to God and see what he has to say. For this reason, we need
to look to the Bible for answers for Jehovah has chosen this as
the means to communicate to persons around the world. 


>Well to begin with he gave them a good start, a paradise garden
>Eden, good food and health, satisfying work in looking after the animals and
>extending the boundaries of the garden. Also like a loving parent he warned
>them of danger.

;	But it is more than this. He *created* the danger, he put it where they
;	could not help but find it, he allowed Satan into this Eden to tempt
;	them. Additionally he made them human, with human curiosity. (Lead me
;	not into temptation...???). They were as children to him. Now, put your
;	four year old into a similar situation and tell me what you think would
;	happen.

God created two trees in the garden of Eden the "tree of life" and the "tree
of the knowledge of good and bad" for figurative use. The tree of "the 
knowledge of good and bad"  was a symbol of God's right to set the standard
of what was "good" (approved by God) and what was "bad" (comdemned by God)
for mankind. The test set before the first couple, was their willingness to 
respect God's right to set the boundary mark in their relative freedom, only
God has absolute freedom. Once they had chosen self rule then they crossed
that boundary mark. Let's take a look at the account, now Eve was an adult
and knew what she was doing for Genesis 3:2-3 NWT reads "At this the woman
said to the serpent: 'Of the the fruit from of the trees of the garden we
may eat. But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle
of the garden, God has said, ''YOU must must not eat from it, no, YOU must
not touch it that YOU do not die.'' Satan replies in verse 4-5 "At this the
serpent said to the woman: 'YOU positively will not die. For God knows that
in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened to
be like God, KOWING good and bad." verse 6 shows were the boundary of their
relative freedom is crossed for the first human couple set their own
standard in that they now see this fruit as something good for food, by
eating the fruit they showed that they no longer accepted Jehovah God's
Sovereignty but wanted self rule. Also another underlying issue comes
to light, and that is God's honesty for Satan said "YOU positively will
not die.". Now think about this, what would be the implication if Satan
was right that God was dishonest. Would we not be suspious of God in
that we could not always trust him. If we think about politicians today,
are we not suspious to the things they say their going to do. God was
being challenged as a bad family member, through his wisdom God allowed
time to continue so that the evidence could speak for it self to the
rest of the family. Was God dishonest?, well Adam & Eve's rebellion did
lead to death on their part. Satan was the liar (John 8:44).

One should also note, that God did not create Satan. At one time this
fallen angel would have been obedient and his likely assignment as
an obedient angel was in the garden of Eden. He became Satan in that
he wanted the worship that was shown by Adam to his God for himself 
(Compare James 1:14,15). An interesting portion of scripture is
Ezekiel 28:13-19 which discusses an Edenic cherub being ruined.


;	Do you hold your children accountable for your faults? Then why are we
;	accountable for Adam and Eve's?

Genetic defects can be passed down to offspring, which in turn (where
available) takes hospital treatment to resolve the complaint. The Bible simply
puts it, "That is why, just as sin enetered into the world and death, and thus
death spread to all men because they had all sinned -." Romans 5:12 NWT.
A way out had to found for fallen mankind, God took the iniative (John 3:16).

>These questions needed to
>be answered, for God had been challenged in front of the rest of Creation,
>and if God had given Adam, Eve and Satan the death penalty straight away we
>would not have seen the results of their rebellion.

;   	This 'challenge' would be laughable to an omnipotent being, and far less
;	dangerous to God than our own children leaving the nest can be to us.

This challenge brought up another issue with God's wonderful works.
Was there anything wrong with God's creation?, God has allowed time to show
that not all of mankind choosee to do what is bad. Some have chosen to stay
faithful and these ones have been written about in the Scriptures so that
we might imitate their faith (compare Hebrews 11). In the account of Job
,chapters 1& 2, Satan claimed that man would only be faithful because God
blessed him. Job through keeping his intregity proved Satan a liar. He 
kept his integrity in the face of adversity even his wife told him to curse
God and die. Because the appointed time has not yet arrived more persons have 
the opportunity to show Satan a liar (compare Proverbs 27:11). 

Deuteronomy 32:4,5 indicates that there is nothing wrong with God's creation
and the defect was that of the first couple in that through their free will
they chose to do what was wrong.

Phil.

re 2.242
 
Steve,

>God has allowed mankind
>to rule or govern himself. Man has tried all sorts of governments from
>dictatorships to democracies but none have solved the problems that mankind
>faces in fact as King Solomon put it "that man has dominated man to his own
>injury." Ecclesiastes 8:9b NWT.

;	This strikes me as really petty. 'So you can do better, well then give
;	it a try, I'm going to sulk for a couple of thousand years or so'. It
;	also comes under the heading of where a loving parent would be forced 
;	to put their foot down, especially when they could *know* what the 
;	results would be, rather than simply guessing as we must.

God is not sulking, he is spoken of as the happy God. God allowing time is
for our benefit and he does not leave us to grope in the dark but has
communicated to all of mankind through the pages of the Bible. He tells
which way we should walk (compare Isaiah 30:21) it's upto us to choose
to heed his words. Thing is if God put his foot down 10,100 or 1000 years
ago then we as persons may not be alive today at all and therefore would not
have the choice. 

>As Peter put it "Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as
>some consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire
>any to be destroyed but desires all to attain repentance." 2 Peter 3:9 NWT.
>He wants persons to repent,

;	It seems slow to me. Without stopping the procreation of the species he
;	will, at some point, select an arbitrary place where some people will
;	not be given the chance to 'attain repentance'. With the current 
;	increases in world population the longer he waits the larger the 
;	population of people without the chance to repent will be.

The Bible answers this in that, Jesus gave signs of what would happen at the 
"conclusion of this system of things" or "close of the age" (Matthew 24:3) that 
is when wickedness would be cut off (Psalm 37:10,11) and a new age of peace 
would be introduced by the "Prince of Peace" that would be everlasting 
Isaiah 9:6-7. One of the major signs during this "close of the age", would be 
a major earthwide preaching of the "good news of the kingdom" (Matthew 24:14) 
which would have a message the same as Jesus preached, that is "Repent, YOU 
people, for the kingdom of heavens has drawn near." (Matthew 4:17). With this 
preaching work being conducted in the four corners of the earth, people will 
be given an  opportunity to hear the "good news" message and the need to repent. 
Persons will then be able to choose for themselves.


;	If he really wanted to make it work, why not set up a kingdom on some
;	part of earth for the faithful, under God. Allow those who wish to live
;	there. Allow those that are rebellious to live elsewhere, as they chose.
;	Then there is a real choice to make, with ample evidence for all to see
;	and choose from. It seems to me that this doesn't change his desire to 
;	allow all to repent, and to weed out those who don't. Right now there is
;	still no empirical evidence to show that the bible contains the truth,
;	or that God exists beyond the stories. Wouldn't this be a fairer way
;	of letting folks choose?
                               
Actually, to some extent Jehovah God has tried this. The nation of Israel
at one time was a Theocracy. Much of this is discussed in the Hebrew
scriptures. However, many of the kings were rebellious and usually the people
would follow their example. Other kings willingly accepted this Theocracy
and the nation would be blessed because of this. By studying these accounts
we can see what happened. 

What about today, well people can live under a Theocracy if they choose.
Isaiah 2:2-4 reads "And it must occur that in the final part of the days
[that] the mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established
and it will certainly be lifted above the hills; and to it all the nations 
must stream. And many peoples will certainly go and say: 'Come YOU people
Let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of Jacob; and he will
instruct us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths.' For out of Zion
law will go forth, and the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem. And he will
certainly render judgment amongst the nations and set matters straight
respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into
plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up
sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore." At somepoint,
the "mountain of the house of Jehovah" or pure worship would be held up
for all persons of the earth to see. Those who respond positively would 
welcome instruction from their God, by applying the things they learn
they would benefit from it. To such an extent that they would learn to 
live peaceably with each other, and Jesus said that this would a mark
of his disciples (John 13:34,35). 

Jehovah's Witnesses preach in the four corners of the earth, and direct
peoples attention to what the Bible (that is God) has to say. They can
then choose to study God's Word and apply his standards in their life,
or not.

Phil.

P.S. Once the issue of universal sovereignty has been resolved, for the 
evidence will seen by all of his creation, wickedness will never be permitted 
again. It will be settled for all eternity as promised in the Bible 
(Revelation 21:3,4).

A question that we all might ask ourselves, is that would we welcome
God bringing an end to wickedness?. Not one to be taken likely, when
we look at the implications. Why?, well would we might find God's 
standards to restrictive. For example, traffic fatalities often happen 
because drivers do not heed the speed limits. Are we willing to heed 
and keep to the traffic laws? In the UK many break the speed limits,
do we imitate them or heed the road signs?. What about God's moral laws?, 
they never change but modern standards have. Food for thought, 
especially if we really do want to see an end to wickedness and 
suffering.

BTW I'm on holiday next week, so I won't be able to contribute to this
string for a little while.

Phil.

P.S. incidentally my mind is fairly fresh on this topic, "why does
God permit wickedness?" because we studied this material in our
book study. The title of the book is "Happiness, how can you find it"
(I hope I've got that right) and my replies have been written with
this study material in mind.

RE:        <<< Note 342.256 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

       
   > I hated the part of the exodus story that talked about God killing all
   > the first born sons of the Egyptians in retaliation for the Pharoahs
   > deeds.  I am gradually freeing myself from that literalism and as I do
    

     He also gave instructions as to how such destruction could be avoided,
     much like is given us today..some, however, despite the Old Testament
     warnings, still choose to reject the very thing that saves them.



 Jim






    
    

re: Note 342.258 by Phil. "bring me sunshine in your smile" 

>P.S. Once the issue of universal sovereignty has been resolved, for the 
>evidence will seen by all of his creation, wickedness will never be permitted 
>again. It will be settled for all eternity as promised in the Bible 
>(Revelation 21:3,4).

Does this mean an end to free will?

Peace,

Jim

    Jim,
    
    I could not find inspiration in the Bible because I had heard loud
    clamoring  all my life causing me to believe  that all Christians viewed
    the Bible as a simplistic book of instructions.  I knew from what I had
    read that the Bible was not an unequivocal book of instructions.  Not with
    all the contradictions, the support of that which is not loving, fair, or 
    just etc.  I stopped reading the Bible and left the Christian Church. I
    considered myself an Atheist for 18 years.
    
    When I let go of that rigid interpretation of the Bible, I was able to
    find a work of beauty.
    
    Now I believe that If I am  open God inspires  me as I read
    the Bible.  As I  read I  unconsciously seek out and find what I need
    to enlighten me at that moment.  It is a wonderful, mysterious,
    miraculous process.  I believe it is available to all who are open.
    
    Just as you and I and everyone in this conference has a different idea
    of who God is and how he inspires each of us, so did the many religious 
    men and women who wrote the Bible.  We can learn from their experience
    of God, even knowing that it is only their experience of God and not a
    direct revelation of who God is.  No human knowledge of God is
    absolute.
    
    Patricia

re: Note 342.262 by Patrica "I feel therefore I am" 

I heartily agree.

Peace,

Jim

re .261
re .261

Jim,

>P.S. Once the issue of universal sovereignty has been resolved, for the 
>evidence will seen by all of his creation, wickedness will never be permitted 
>again. It will be settled for all eternity as promised in the Bible 
>(Revelation 21:3,4).

;Does this mean an end to free will?

No, for those living will have chosen to be obedient to God's will and
reap the benefit's that comes from a Theocracy. It will be their free
will to choose a Theocracy. In otherwords, they will have chosen God's
rule for they want to live under it. Seeing that death will be no more,
(Revalation 21:3,4) one can assume that such ones continue to choose God's 
rule into eternity. No doubt making such a choice will be pleasing to
their heavenly Father.

Adam, could have chosen either way. Unfortunately, we are now seeing the
effects of the choice he made.

Phil.

.254 DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR

  But a logic contortion is not necessarily a logic contradiction.

True. On the other hand, if I have to jump through multiple hoops to believe
something, when a much simpler explanation is a available that explains the
observations just as well, I'll take the simpler explanation every time, until
such time as it is demonstrably false.

  Since you have said "and made some of us" rather than "and supposedly made
  some of us" then this is more in line with an agnostic point of view rather
  than atheistic.

No, acutally I would describe my views as closer to atheistic than to agnostic.
It is simply easier to write the notes from this point of view.

I won't argue the contradictions of the bible with you, the Christians in this
file do a far better job of finding them than I ever could! :^) 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.256 POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"

The bible as a storybook I find interesting, I just don't understand how it can
be taken as literal truth, much as you said. This usually frustrates me such
that I don't usually read big chunks at once.

    There are some fundemental questions regarding Good and Evil, Pain and
    Joy, Suffering, the nature of God, the role God plays in our lifes that
    I don't I cannot fully understand but I can accept that there is a God,
    the God does play a major role in my life, and a major role in the
    History of the World.

And my assertion was that suffering and the nature of God proposed by the
Christian religions are incompatable, logically. I am pleased that the idea of
God can help people, and that they draw strength from it. I also cannot argue
that religion has played a major role in the history of the world. The down side
of religion (from my point of view) is that most major ones are very intolerant.
History has shown repeatedly that given the upper hand most religions have no
qualms about forcing their beliefs on others by force.

Steve

.257/8 RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile"

Phil,

You are still begging the basic question. Please show me where my logic chain
breaks down. (This assumes the OOAL God model).

1. God made Eve, every last atom. (Omnipotent)
2. God *knew* Eve would sin when he made her. (Omniscient)
3. God could have made her, with free will, such that she would be able to      
   resist Satan (omnipotent)
4. He *chose* not to do this.
5. God *WANTED* her to do this.

>>Genetic defects can be passed down to offspring, which in turn (where
>>available) takes hospital treatment to resolve the complaint. The Bible simply
>>puts it, "That is why, just as sin enetered into the world and death, and thus
>>death spread to all men because they had all sinned -." Romans 5:12 NWT.
>>A way out had to found for fallen mankind, God took the iniative (John 3:16).

Sin is genetic? God is all powerful, this 'genetic' sin only happens if God
*wants* it to. Rather than painting us with Eve's brush, why don't each of us
start sinless until we falter? The last sentence, while dramatic, is ludicrous.
The easier way out was simply to never allow it to happen.

>>In the account of Job ,chapters 1& 2, Satan claimed that man would only be
>>faithful because God blessed him. Job through keeping his intregity proved
>>Satan a liar.

So Satan baited God into this? This hardly seems likely. It has also not been a
total victory for God. I don't know what the score is, but it is obvious that
many have turned away from God (all of Islam?).

>>Because the appointed time has not yet arrived more persons have 
>>the opportunity to show Satan a liar (compare Proverbs 27:11). 

And more have shown that Satan was right, also.

>>Deuteronomy 32:4,5 indicates that there is nothing wrong with God's creation
>>and the defect was that of the first couple in that through their free will
>>they chose to do what was wrong.

Nothing wrong!?!?! Look around you, there is a LOT that is wrong. And back to
the first argument, Eve could not have done differently from what she did, God
made her that way.

Steve

.258

The Bible answers this in that, Jesus gave signs of what would happen at the 
"conclusion of this system of things" or "close of the age" (Matthew 24:3) that 
is when wickedness would be cut off (Psalm 37:10,11) and a new age of peace 
would be introduced by the "Prince of Peace" that would be everlasting 

	Then God *can* do this whenever he wishes? Why not now? Is He enjoying
	the suffering? 

Other kings willingly accepted this Theocracy and the nation would be blessed
because of this. By studying these accounts we can see what happened. 

	Not under kings, under God himself. Otherwise there is no difference.

P.S. Once the issue of universal sovereignty has been resolved, for the 
evidence will seen by all of his creation, wickedness will never be permitted 
again. It will be settled for all eternity as promised in the Bible 

	What frightens me is that the definition of wickedness is usually 	
	defined (in this context) as agreeing with whatever religion holds power
	at any particular time, or you die. As a JW you should be familiar with
	some of the milder forms of persecution. 

	My basic premise still stands; God made us this way on purpose, he 
	could have done otherwise, many millions of people suffer or have 
	suffered greatly, this is not the actions of an AL God.

Steve

.264

Phil,

Are you advocating turning the United States into a theocracy?

Steve

  Re .267

  Obviously your premises are well thought out.

  There is one flaw...

  > ...this is not the actions of an AL God.

  This and all the other premises that you have offered are according to 
   what you perceive an AL God to be. God Himself defines what He is :

  To Moses he said "I AM WHO I AM" this can also be translated 
  "I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE". The very name by which He revealed Himself
  contains the idea of the self-defined self-existant one.
  We see a lot of redefining of God in this conference. I suppose we have
  that right, but my view is that we make a "strange god" when we do that.
  Yes, I know, the literal biblical view of God is "strange" to many.
  "can we all get along?"  :-)

  "God is love" I John. Whatever that means it has to include the dilemma of
  the "evil" of this world. 

  In the Revelation we are told that our Heavenly Father Himself will 
  wipe away our tears.

  We may not like what we see or know about Him or that He hides Himself
  from us or that he has what we perceive as oppressive rules , but...

  "Why should the Gentiles say 'where is their God?'"
  "But our God is in the heaven and He does whatever He pleases"  Psalm 115:3

   We can't win a fight with Him.
   well, Jacob did - but I think He let him win.
  

   Hank D

re: Note 342.264 by Phil "bring me sunshine in your smile" 

>No, for those living will have chosen to be obedient to God's will and
>reap the benefit's that comes from a Theocracy. It will be their free
>will to choose a Theocracy. In otherwords, they will have chosen God's
>rule for they want to live under it. 

But still, they could be disobedient at any time, having free will and all.
It's happened before.  .-)

>Seeing that death will be no more, (Revalation 21:3,4) one can assume that 
>such ones continue to choose God's rule into eternity. 

Do angels die?  Lucifer was able to choose to disobey God.  I don't think one 
can assume such an eternal choice.

Peace,

Jim

.269 DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR

  This and all the other premises that you have offered are according to 
   what you perceive an AL God to be. God Himself defines what He is :

Correct. If my definition of AL is off (and it is the hardest of my three
attributes to define) then the entire argument is out the window. 

  To Moses he said "I AM WHO I AM" this can also be translated 
  "I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE". The very name by which He revealed Himself
  contains the idea of the self-defined self-existant one.

Popeye says much the same thing :^) Neither tells me anything about the being
behind it. 

  "God is love" I John. Whatever that means it has to include the dilemma of
  the "evil" of this world. 

Same problem as before. By my observation, my definition of love isn't even
close to whatever this definition may be, because of the evil.

  "Why should the Gentiles say 'where is their God?'"
  "But our God is in the heaven and He does whatever He pleases"  Psalm 115:3

   We can't win a fight with Him.
   well, Jacob did - but I think He let him win.

Again, this doesn't really tell me anything. Hank, how do you define loving, in
the context of God?

Steve

 Sorry about the delay in answering, I'm off on mondays.

 At a certain level of thinking, I think we are saying the same thing Steve.
 Each of us defines God according to a criteria, for most of us this is a 
 "mulligan stew" of perceptions, readings, experiences, etc, etc...
 
 The point I would like to get across is that a literal, inerrant view of
 the scripture, should not easily be discarded as a possibility as a "ground
 of being" for our view of God. There are problems. The biggest one is :
 How can it be that God is a God of love when .... (fill in the blanks)
 No matter *what view* of God we hold that is a problem, modified perhaps to
 "how can the evil of this world be?" or in the case of an atheist who is 
 sensitive and compassionate towards the suffering of his his fellow man 
 "What can I do about this evil? ; what is its source?"

 > this dosn't tell me anything Hank (in response to some of my statements)

 I know, and in my own reconciliations with what I perceive God to be (my
 heavenly Father) I experience a feeling that leaves me somewhat unsatisfied
 with the problem of "evil" its source, its manifestation. And I will be 
 in this frame of mind until He Himself answers to it.

 But as I said, this problem would be there no matter what view I would 
 adhere to. 

 > How do you define loving in the context of God

   "I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE"
 This is the futuristic sense of "I AM what I AM"
 
 Our heavenly Father does not change, but His revelation to us of who He is
 and His essential nature is progressive. The ultimate *demonstration* of the 
 revelation that  "God is love"  is yet to come (via the Annointed One).

 I can only say (by faith) that He Himself will one day put an end to evil, 
 right every wrong and wipe away our tears.

 Hank 

re: .272 DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR

So you deal with the contradiction by saying, basically, "God works in
mysterious ways"?

I believe that, boiled down, all logical arguments around Christianity come down
to the same argument. Restated, God's will is uknown and unknowable to us mere
humans, just shut up and accept it :^)

Steve

 > So you deal with the contradiction by saying, basically, "God works in
   mysterious ways"?

 > ...just shut up and accept it :^)  

 Well, since you put it that way,   YES!     :-).

 Hank

re .266

Steve,

;You are still begging the basic question. Please show me where my logic chain
;breaks down. (This assumes the OOAL God model).

;1. God made Eve, every last atom. (Omnipotent)
;2. God *knew* Eve would sin when he made her. (Omniscient)
;3. God could have made her, with free will, such that she would be able to      
;   resist Satan (omnipotent)
;4. He *chose* not to do this.
;5. God *WANTED* her to do this

We are agreed with 1, point 2 as I have discussed earlier did God choose
to look into the first couples future?. The commission he gave them would
suggest that he did not (Genesis 1:28). It is your point 3 which is the 
issue, did God give Adam & Eve the free will to resist Satan. Well the 
"second Adam" Jesus proved that a perfect human could resist Satan in all 
respects, compare Matthew 4:1-10. Adam & Eve could have chosen an obedient 
course, but instead they willfully were disobedient wishing self-rule.

Regarding inheriting sin, we are all offspring from Adam & Eve and something
perfect cannot be produced by something imperfect. For example, a baker's
tin once dented will only produce bread that shows the dent mark.

>>In the account of Job ,chapters 1& 2, Satan claimed that man would only be
>>faithful because God blessed him. Job through keeping his intregity proved
>>Satan a liar.

;So Satan baited God into this? This hardly seems likely. It has also not been a
;total victory for God. I don't know what the score is, but it is obvious that
;many have turned away from God (all of Islam?).

;And more have shown that Satan was right, also.

The score is unimportant, just one person choosing to be faithful to God under
any conditions proves Satan a liar.

>>Deuteronomy 32:4,5 indicates that there is nothing wrong with God's creation
>>and the defect was that of the first couple in that through their free will
>>they chose to do what was wrong.

;Nothing wrong!?!?! Look around you, there is a LOT that is wrong. And back to
;the first argument, Eve could not have done differently from what she did, God
;made her that way.

Ofcourse, there is alot wrong today. Has not alot to do with mankinds own
greed and quest for power. Point is, persons can choose to do things
differently and that is what God is urging (Isaiah 2:2-4). In a way, Mohandas 
K. Ghandi recognised this for he once told the British viceroy to India 
"When your country and mine shall get together on the teachings laid down 
by Christ in this Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems, 
not only of our countries but those of the whole world." Though, national 
groups have failed to heed this advice, persons can make an individual choice
to learn and apply these teachings.

Phil.

.275 RDGENG::YERKESS  Title:  People have the free will to choose good or bad

We are agreed with 1, point 2 as I have discussed earlier did God choose
to look into the first couples future?. The commission he gave them would
suggest that he did not (Genesis 1:28).

	OK, then basically you are giving up omniscience. (Omniscience not used
	is not omniscience). As I stated, I can at least see some logic here,
	i.e. God created an experiment and let it run, having no idea of the
	outcome. 

	There are still some points I find interesting here. First, God's       
        perfect creation was so flawed that the very first to be tested failed.
	(Does the Bible give any idea of how long it took, i.e. was it thousands
	of years before Eve finally gave in, or was it right away?) Secondly, at
	some point God did turn his omniscience back on, if you believe in the
	predictions (revelations?). Why did he not fix things at that point.

	The bottom line is that God *could* create us with free-will in a       
        perfect world, no? He could create a world where those who choose evil
	would pray only upon themselves, not on those that choose good. He has
	*not* done this. I can only conclude that He does not want to, and that
	at some level he therefor *wants* for us to suffer. I cannot reconcile
	the state of the world with an omnipotent being in any other way.

Well the "second Adam" Jesus proved that a perfect human could resist Satan in
all respects, compare Matthew 4:1-10.

	Then why didn't God create a perfect human? By definition you are saying
	that God created the imperfection when he created humans.

Regarding inheriting sin, we are all offspring from Adam & Eve and something
perfect cannot be produced by something imperfect. For example, a baker's
tin once dented will only produce bread that shows the dent mark.

	Even supposing inherited sin is a fact, what justice is there in        
        inherited punishment?

	Steve

    re .276
    
    Steve,
    
    	Regarding Omniscience, that God is *all knowing*. Rather than
    looking at our own understanding of how God is in this regard, we
    can also look to the Bible that tells us about and gives evidence 
    of God's powers of foreknowledge. As discussed the Bible tells
    us that God has powers of foreknowledge, in fact God sets forth
    proof of his Godship in that he can foreknow and foreordain events.
    Secondly, it has been discussed in this string that God's intelligent
    creatures are free moral agents, in that they have the privilege of
    free choice. But they are accountable for their acts (Genesis 2:16,17).
    But a third factor that is often over looked is that of God's moral
    standards and qualities. He is impartial, righteous, God of love,
    merciful, God of justice etc. With these three factors in mind, is
    he selective or discretionary when it comes to excercising his powers
    of foreknowledge and foreordaining?. Even humans with a certain degree 
    of moral standard will be discretionary when it comes taking in knowledge 
    about someone else, for example one might decline looking at anothers 
    personal diary.
    
    God knows what will happen in the future in that his purposes will be
    fulfilled as he originally intended. We as free moral agents have
    the personal choice of being part of his purposes, for he will not 
    force anyone to live in paradise garden. The Bible indicates that
    invitation goes out to all, "let anyone that wishes take life's water
    free." Revelation 22:17 NWT.
    
    BTW, this view of God being selective or discretionary with his
    excercising the powers foreknowledge is not a common one held
    by Christendom. As I understand it, Christendom believes each
    individual is predestined but this conflicts with persons being
    free moral agents and God's standards and qualities such as
    impartiality.  
    
    
    
>Well the "second Adam" Jesus proved that a perfect human could resist Satan in
>all respects, compare Matthew 4:1-10.

;	Then why didn't God create a perfect human? By definition you are saying
;	that God created the imperfection when he created humans.
    
    The point is God did create a perfect human to begin with. Adam was a
    free moral agent, he could have chosen to be obedient or disobedient.
    Jesus, proved that a perfect human could make the right choice thus
    showing there was nothing wrong with the creation of Adam & Eve. The
    error was made by Adam himself, and he was accountable for what he did.
    
>Regarding inheriting sin, we are all offspring from Adam & Eve and something
>perfect cannot be produced by something imperfect. For example, a baker's
>tin once dented will only produce bread that shows the dent mark.

;	Even supposing inherited sin is a fact, what justice is there in        
;       inherited punishment?
    
    The principle is "you reap what you sow" and what we individuals do can
    effect the lives of others especially our offspring. Take for example
    a woman who smokes while pregnant, the doctor tells her the dangers
    involved on how it might effect her unborn baby but she continues to smoke.
    Now the baby is born and the doctors concerns are realised. Who has
    caused the punishment for the new born child?. Simarily, Adam & Eve
    were cautioned but they did not heed and death and suffering was passed
    onto to all their offspring. Death is not a punishment but an enemy.
    
    I still have some of your replies to respond to, this I hope to do in due
    course.
    
    Phil.
    

.277 RDGENG::YERKESS God is selective and discretionary with foreknowledge

    The point is God did create a perfect human to begin with. Adam was a
    free moral agent, he could have chosen to be obedient or disobedient.
    Jesus, proved that a perfect human could make the right choice thus
    showing there was nothing wrong with the creation of Adam & Eve. The
    error was made by Adam himself, and he was accountable for what he did.

Phil, please explain this. I think our understanding revolves around the use of
the word perfect. To me, a perfect being (such as God) cannot err, and would not
make the fairly trivial mistake of being goaded by the devil (although there
seems to be several places in the Bible where God himself falls into this trap).
By my definition, if Adam were perfect, he would not have done what he did,
therefor he was imperfect.

    The principle is "you reap what you sow" and what we individuals do can
    effect the lives of others especially our offspring. Take for example

No, the principle that seems to be operating here is that others reap what you
sow.

    a woman who smokes while pregnant, the doctor tells her the dangers
    involved on how it might effect her unborn baby but she continues to smoke.
    Now the baby is born and the doctors concerns are realised. Who has
    caused the punishment for the new born child?. Simarily, Adam & Eve

I don't see the similarity. I agree that the mother has caused the problems for
the baby, but the mother is not omnipotent. God could have us all born with a
clean slate to stand or fall on our own, but *chooses* instead to have us start
with the sins of a thousand generations ago hanging over our heads. Sounds to me
like he *wants* us to start out dependant...

Steve

    re .268
    
;Are you advocating turning the United States into a theocracy?
    
    Steve,
    
    No I'm not advocating that the United States turns into a Theocracy.
    The choice is an individual one, and no one is forced to submit. 
    Submission should be through love of God and done willingly.
    
    God is impartial so the invitation to live under a Theocracy goes
    out to people of all nations not just one in particular. The 
    prophecy in Isaiah 2:2-4 is an interesting one to read in this
    regard, verse 3 NWT reads "And many peoples will certainly go
    and say: 'Come, you people, and let us go up to the mountain
    of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will instruct
    us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths.'" 
    
    Persons are being invited to learn God's standards through Bible
    study and thus they can then choose to apply these principles in
    their lives. From walking in his ways they will be able to see 
    the benefits that come from it.        
    
    Phil.
    

    re .278
    
    Steve,
    
    Regarding Adam being perfect or imperfect. The Scriptures indicate that
    if Adam had stayed obedient then he would still be alive today. This
    shows there was nothing wrong with God's original creation, Adam was
    a perfect human. But like you I'm astounded that Adam chose the course 
    that he did. As I have already said, Jesus showed that Adam could have 
    made the right choice. Free will is why Adam was allowed to choose the
    course that he did. God is love, so as I have said in my previous 
    reply obedience is not done under compulsion but willingly out love
    for God.
    
    Satan at one time was also an obedient angel and yet he rebelled. But
    many angels in heaven have stayed loyal to their God. Showing that
    not all of Jehovah's perfect creatures choose to sin.
    
;By my definition, if Adam were perfect, he would not have done what he did,
;therefor he was imperfect.
    
    Having willingly chosen to sin Adam was now imperfect, the Hebrew word
    (chatta'th) means "miss" in the sense of missing or not reaching a
    goal, way, mark or right point. In your reply, you were right to reason 
    that God cannot err so that Adam should not either. For man was made
    in God's image and as we know from the Bible, God has high moral
    standards and qualities. Therefore when adam sinned he tarnished that
    reflection of God's glory and thus became imperfect. 
    
>    a woman who smokes while pregnant, the doctor tells her the dangers
>    involved on how it might effect her unborn baby but she continues to smoke.
>    Now the baby is born and the doctors concerns are realised. Who has
>    caused the punishment for the new born child?. Simarily, Adam & Eve

;I don't see the similarity. I agree that the mother has caused the problems for
;the baby, but the mother is not omnipotent. God could have us all born with a
;clean slate to stand or fall on our own, but *chooses* instead to have us start
;with the sins of a thousand generations ago hanging over our heads. Sounds to me
;like he *wants* us to start out dependant...
    
    I chose this illustration carefully, for God could be likened to the
    doctor. According to the Bible the reason why we exist is that we are 
    all part of Adam & Eve's offspring. Once the child is born with it's
    defects the doctor my be able to operate and after a painful operation
    the child can get back to full health. The Great Physician today is God
    who is offering a way back to perfection, that is the hope of ever
    lasting life, to those who respond positively to the good news his Son
    preached. However, this gift was given at great cost (John 3:16). With
    this in mind, ultimately God does not want sin hanging over our heads.
    But has taken the initiative to rectify Adam's sin in accord with his
    own righteous standards and sense of justice. Please feel free if
    you would like me to expand on the last sentence.
    
    Phil.
    
    
    

RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile"

.279 Individual choice

    No I'm not advocating that the United States turns into a Theocracy.
    The choice is an individual one, and no one is forced to submit. 
    Submission should be through love of God and done willingly.

And that is fine with me. My fear is of certain sects of Christians that would
make their interpretation of God's law in the Bible the overall law of the land,
moreso than it already is.
================================================================================
.280 Adam having sinned no longer reflected God's glory


    Regarding Adam being perfect or imperfect. The Scriptures indicate that
    if Adam had stayed obedient then he would still be alive today. This
    shows there was nothing wrong with God's original creation, Adam was
    a perfect human.

But now we're back to square one. Free will or not, if Adam had been perfectly
created, he would not have sinned (by definition). Since he did sin, he was not
perfectly made. Your proof is equivelant to saying that the car was perfect, and
if the brakes hadn't failed it would still be here, by definition the car was
imperfect. 

    Satan at one time was also an obedient angel and yet he rebelled. But

Would God accept Satan back into heaven if he repented? Has he already done so
and we don't know it? Why didn't he banish Satan far enough away that he
wouldn't be able to temp mankind? What purpose of Gods does it serve to have him
here tormenting us?

    standards and qualities. Therefore when adam sinned he tarnished that
    reflection of God's glory and thus became imperfect. 

To me, again, he was imperfect before he sinned or he would not have been able
to sin. Can God commit a sin?


    the child can get back to full health. The Great Physician today is God
    who is offering a way back to perfection, that is the hope of ever
    lasting life, to those who respond positively to the good news his Son
    preached. However, this gift was given at great cost (John 3:16). With

This makes no sense to me at all. First, God could have prevented the sin, but
chose not to. Second, God could fix the problem for those that choose not to sin
(ie. remove original sin) but chooses not to. He chose to send Jesus to the
cross, but there must have been uncountable other less bloodly ways to
accomplish the same thing. (I've never understood the logic behing Jesus dying
for us on the cross, it is the same wierdness that I don't understand around our
carrying Eve's sin. The whole concept is so convoluted that I cannot make any
sense out of it). To me, still, without trying to be dense, and without
hardening my heart (to what would I harden it?) this still makes no sense
whatsoever to me.

Steve

    re.281
    
>.280 Adam having sinned no longer reflected God's glory


>    Regarding Adam being perfect or imperfect. The Scriptures indicate that
>    if Adam had stayed obedient then he would still be alive today. This
>    shows there was nothing wrong with God's original creation, Adam was
>    a perfect human.

;But now we're back to square one. Free will or not, if Adam had been perfectly
;created, he would not have sinned (by definition). Since he did sin, he was not
;perfectly made. Your proof is equivelant to saying that the car was perfect, and
;if the brakes hadn't failed it would still be here, by definition the car was
;imperfect.

Steve,
    
The point is we can't look at this without looking at all factors. Free will
is an important factor, if Adam was programmed to be obedient at all times
then he would not have the wonderful gift of free will. Why do I say a
wonderful gift, well how much do we warm to persons who choose to good rather
than doing it under compulsion or begrudgingly. Proverbs 27:11 NWT reads
"Be wise, my son, and make my heart rejoice, that I may make a reply to him
that is taunting me." which shows that choosing to do God's will warm's
God's figurative heart, could the same be said if we did so begrudingly?.
Knowing that God who has absolute authority and who keeps to his standards
of justice and his qualties of love,mercy and loyality warms me to him and
he is someone I can trust and be drawn to. 

Anyway, I'm not sure how we can take this discussion of whether Adam was
originally perfect or imperfect any further. The Scriptures do indicate
that he was indeed perfect, compare Genesis 1:26. 

>    Satan at one time was also an obedient angel and yet he rebelled. But

;Would God accept Satan back into heaven if he repented? Has he already done so
;and we don't know it? Why didn't he banish Satan far enough away that he
;wouldn't be able to temp mankind? What purpose of Gods does it serve to have him
;here tormenting us?

No there is no way back for Satan, the first prophecy we see in the Bible
at Genesis 3:15 shows that Jehovah's Anointed One will bruise him in the
head. That is he will deliver him a fatal blow.

Satan, called into question God's creation. As explained earlier Satan
charged that man only worshipped God because of the blessing that he
bestowed upon him. Persons such as Job have proved Satan a liar, today
persons who come to know the True God can also resist Satan's temptations.
1 Corinthians 10:13 NWT reads "No temptation has taken YOU except what
is common to men. But God is faithful, and he will not let YOU be tempted
beyond what is what you can bear, but along with the temptation he will
also make a way out in order for YOU to be able to endure it." With Satan
around persons have the opportunity to prove what sort of people they are.
It's easy to say yes I'm loyal to God, when living a paradise, but the
proof is when things are not going so well. 

By staying faithful now, under the worst conditions, one is showing that
such loyality will endure forever.  

>    standards and qualities. Therefore when adam sinned he tarnished that
>    reflection of God's glory and thus became imperfect. 

;To me, again, he was imperfect before he sinned or he would not have been able
;to sin. Can God commit a sin?

God has absolute freedom to do has he pleases. But he chooses to do things
in the framework of his standards and qualites.


>    the child can get back to full health. The Great Physician today is God
>    who is offering a way back to perfection, that is the hope of ever
>    lasting life, to those who respond positively to the good news his Son
>    preached. However, this gift was given at great cost (John 3:16). With

;This makes no sense to me at all. First, God could have prevented the sin, but
;chose not to. Second, God could fix the problem for those that choose not to sin
;(ie. remove original sin) but chooses not to. He chose to send Jesus to the
;cross, but there must have been uncountable other less bloodly ways to
;accomplish the same thing. (I've never understood the logic behing Jesus dying
;for us on the cross, it is the same wierdness that I don't understand around our
;carrying Eve's sin. The whole concept is so convoluted that I cannot make any
;sense out of it). To me, still, without trying to be dense, and without
;hardening my heart (to what would I harden it?) this still makes no sense
;whatsoever to me.

If God prevented the sin, then Adam would not have free will at all in fact
people might argue that God was domineering.

Persons today, do not recognise that they accountable for their actions.Many
do as they please, not taking into account the golden rule. Take for example
smoking, an English performer died last week from lung cancer and he believed
that he contracted the disease through passive smoking. It is likely he 
contracted the disease from those who smoked around him, and yet a smoker
might say it's his personal right to smoke. All are accountable to God for
their actions, for what would people be like if when they did gross wrongs
their God would just wave a magic wand as it were and everything was made
alright again. Today we are seeing the evidence of mankind choosing self
rule, surely this should be telling us something that is we cant just
do as we please and that Our Creator knows the best way in which one 
should walk without bringing suffering to those around us.

Why did Jehovah choose to send his Son?, well God could have got rid of Adam
and Eve straight away and restarted with another couple. But if that was
they case none of us would have existed because we are all offspring from
the first couple. To give us perfect life and to fulfill God's sense of
justice, someone had to buy back what Adam had lost. It cost a perfect life 
for a perfect life, but no human could pay it for they are imperfect. Hence,
the scriptures talk of Jesus' sacrifice as a ransom sacrifice, Matthew 20:28
NWT reads "Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to
give his soul a ransom in exchange for many."

Phil.
    

.282 RDGENG::YERKESS   Jesus gave his life a ransom so that we might live

The point is we can't look at this without looking at all factors. Free will
is an important factor, if Adam was programmed to be obedient at all times
then he would not have the wonderful gift of free will.
[snip]
Anyway, I'm not sure how we can take this discussion of whether Adam was
originally perfect or imperfect any further. The Scriptures do indicate
that he was indeed perfect, compare Genesis 1:26. 

	He wouldn't have had to make him obedient, only to give him the strength
	to resist temptation, something he obviously did not posess. It still 
	seems to me that logically, Adam was not perfect, or he would have
	been able to resist. It seems pretty poor that the failure occurred to
	the very first person created. Perhaps if millions behaved perfectly
	and one failed it would be easier to understand, but the failure rate
	of God's creation at the outset was 100% (2 for 2, not including his 
	failure with the fallen angels).

No there is no way back for Satan, the first prophecy we see in the Bible
at Genesis 3:15 shows that Jehovah's Anointed One will bruise him in the
head. That is he will deliver him a fatal blow.

	So God isn't *completely* forgiving.

Persons such as Job have proved Satan a liar, today
persons who come to know the True God can also resist Satan's temptations.

	But literally millions of others have shown that Satan is at least
partially correct.

If God prevented the sin, then Adam would not have free will at all in fact
people might argue that God was domineering.

	I would argue that God is domineering anyway! You either do things His
	way or you fry in hell for eternity. This seems pretty domineering to
	me.

Persons today, do not recognise that they accountable for their actions.Many
do as they please, not taking into account the golden rule.

	Some do, some don't, just as I suspect it has always been.

All are accountable to God for their actions, for what would people be like if
when they did gross wrongs their God would just wave a magic wand as it were and
everything was made alright again.

	What would it be like if God punished those committing wrongs on the 
	spot? Swiftly, and with justice. What would it be like if he prevented
	the slaughter of innocents by the millions. What if he stopped tornados
	from collapsing the wall of a church (for crying out loud) on the 
	daughter of the pastor while she watched in horror. Seems to me it would
	be a far better world to live in. We would still have free will, those
	who were disobedient would be punished, and the rest would be able to
	rejoice and praise God far more than they can today.

Today we are seeing the evidence of mankind choosing self
rule, surely this should be telling us something that is we cant just
do as we please and that Our Creator knows the best way in which one 
should walk without bringing suffering to those around us.

	Tell the person that watched her daughter die that choosing God was the
	best path. If she hadn't chosen that path chances are they wouldn't have
	been in the church. Religious or not, good and bad things seem to happen
	to both in equal portions.

To give us perfect life and to fulfill God's sense of justice, someone had to
buy back what Adam had lost.

	Now this is something that hints at making sense. I can begin to at
	least see some logic if you admit that God's sense of justice isn't 
	ours, and in most cases seems to be much harsher than ours (ie. abandon
	the all-loving component).

Steve

re: Note 342.282 by Phil "bring me sunshine in your smile" 

>No there is no way back for Satan, the first prophecy we see in the Bible
>at Genesis 3:15 shows that Jehovah's Anointed One will bruise him in the
>head. That is he will deliver him a fatal blow.

I'm not sure how you get to this.  I've been bruised in my head several times, 
it's not fatal.  (Although there are probably people out there who will say 
"ah, so THAT explains it!" .-)

Is there something I'm missing?

Peace,

Jim

    re .284
    
    Jim,
    
    As with all Scripture, it needs to be read and understood in context
    with other scriptures. For example, Revelation 20:2,10 shows this
    blow will be fatal. First Satan will be abyssed for a Thousand 
    years, that is he will no longer have influence on mankind during
    this time. Second, after a short while after the Thousand years
    he will be destroyed thus it will prove to be a fatal blow (compare
    also Romans 16:20).
    
    I agree with you that not all bruises to the head prove fatal (though
    many do, such as in automobile accidents) but this one on Satan will.
    
    Phil.

.285 RDGENG::YERKESS The book of Revelation shows this will be fatal

Two questions.

1. Why doesn't God kill Satan now (or 4000 years ago).
2. Where will Satan's soul go when he dies?

Steve

re Note 342.285 by RDGENG::YERKESS:

>     As with all Scripture, it needs to be read and understood in context
>     with other scriptures. 

        Pardon me, but using any normal definition of the word
        "context", a verse of Revelation 20 just isn't the "context"
        of a verse in Genesis.

        Bob

    RE .287
    
    Bob,
    
    Your right, I was wrong to use the word context. What I mean't by 
    my incorrect use of the word was that other scriptures help us to 
    understand how this prophecy will be fulfilled.   
    
    Phil.

re Note 342.283 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF -< Too too convoluted >-
    
    ;The point is we can't look at this without looking at all factors. Free will
;is an important factor, if Adam was programmed to be obedient at all times
;then he would not have the wonderful gift of free will.
;[snip]
;Anyway, I'm not sure how we can take this discussion of whether Adam was
;originally perfect or imperfect any further. The Scriptures do indicate
;that he was indeed perfect, compare Genesis 1:26. 

>	He wouldn't have had to make him obedient, only to give him the strength
>	to resist temptation, something he obviously did not posess. It still 
>	seems to me that logically, Adam was not perfect, or he would have
>	been able to resist. It seems pretty poor that the failure occurred to
>	the very first person created. Perhaps if millions behaved perfectly
>	and one failed it would be easier to understand, but the failure rate
>	of God's creation at the outset was 100% (2 for 2, not including his 
>	failure with the fallen angels).

    Steve,
    
 Jesus, a perfect human like Adam, resisted temptations from Satan the
    Devil. This showed that a perfect human could indeed resist Satan's
    temptations. You mention fallen angels, but many angels have stayed 
    loyal and obedient. But as I have stated before, it's not about
    stats for just one staying loyal shows perfect humans can make the
    right choice. (Btw JW's do not believe Jesus was Almighty God. Jesus 
    using the title "Son of man" alluded to his nature being solely human 
    whilst on the earth. That is he was equal in nature as Adam was
    originally)

;No there is no way back for Satan, the first prophecy we see in the Bible
;at Genesis 3:15 shows that Jehovah's Anointed One will bruise him in the
;head. That is he will deliver him a fatal blow.

>	So God isn't *completely* forgiving.

    Please explain *completely* forgiving, Jesus called Satan the original
    manslayer (John 8:44). Being perfect he knew exactly what he was doing, 
    in fact as you say God's perfect cretures should have stayed obedient.
    Why should God forgive someone who chooses to be so malicous?, even
    when originally he knew too well God's upright standards. It's not
    like ourselves, imperfect, who have to learn to do good.

    Today we see alot of misguided kindness, such as criminals who are
    reprieved early only for them soon after their release to commit a 
    crime such as rape. Should we not let God be the judge of all creation.

;Persons such as Job have proved Satan a liar, today
;persons who come to know the True God can also resist Satan's temptations.

>	But literally millions of others have shown that Satan is at least
>partially correct.

    The charge of Satan was that *no one*, including someone as upright as
    Job would keep their integrity under certain bad conditions (Job 2:3-5). 
    As I said earlier, just one who chooses to keep integrity to God proves 
    Satan a liar (Job 27:5).

    Just because millions take the easy way, does that mean all follow
    their example. It takes great courage and strength to do what is
    right when wickedness is all around. God can give that needed 
    strength, to those that turn to him, to endure such tests. But the 
    majority do not even recognise True God or turn away from him just like 
    the first human couple did. It's their free choice, the fault is not with 
    God.

;If God prevented the sin, then Adam would not have free will at all in fact
;people might argue that God was domineering.

>	I would argue that God is domineering anyway! You either do things His
>	way or you fry in hell for eternity. This seems pretty domineering to
>	me.

    Does God fry people in hell for eternity?, well the Scriptures tell
    us such a thought as never entered into his mind (Jeremiah 7:31).
    Also part of my arguement is that God keeps in the framework of his
    own Laws and standards. In Exodus 21:24 we learn that proper 
    retribution should be "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth", with this mind
    if a fiery hell did exist that those going there would have had to
    have caused eternal torment to others. Now man certainly has caused 
    suffering to others but not to the degree of eternal torment as pictured
    by a fiery hell. Hell is the common graveyard of mankind, were both
    the righteous and unrighteous go upon death. It is a place of inactivity 
    (opposite to life eg animation) for the Bible tells us that those who are 
    dead are conscious of nothing at all (Ecclesiastes 9:5). In the Lazurus 
    account  Jesus likened death as someone asleep (John 11). To me it's a 
    comfort that a persons suffering ends at death. Another thing to note is 
    that scriptures indicate that man was not created with an immortal soul,
    Ezekiel 18:4,20 clearly states "The soul that is sinning - it itself 
    will die." 

    btw, there is an old English word "helling" which refered to burying
    patatoes under soil in a cellar so as they would keep fresh. If you
    mentioned the word today, no doubt people would get the wrong idea
    of roasting the patatoes.

    Many who argue that there is a fiery hell point to Revelation 20:10
    and the "lake of fire", but in context (right use of the word this
    time Bob - thanks for pointing it out), they fail to see that it is
    symbolic for verse 14b NWT "This means the second death, the lake
    of fire." Those that die, have the hope of a resurrection (Acts 24:15)
    not so those who face the second death. So in answer to question 2
    in reply .286 Satan will be destroyed for ever, for the lake of fire
    will never release it's captives (Also compare Ezekiel 18:4,20 as
    mentioned earlier). Also thrown into the lake of fire is death (which 
    Satan introduced to mankind), so death will be done away with forever. 
    As Revelation 21:3,4 NWT "With that I heard a loud voice from the thrown 
    say: 'Look! The tent of God is with mankind and he will reside with them, 
    and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he 
    will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, 
    neither will mourning nor outcry be anymore. The former things have passed 
    away." Hence, seeing that God promises to bring an end to death, the 
    throwing of death into the lake of fire symbolises that death will ceast 
    to exist. Also, Revelation 21:3,4 shows that God has a timetable for 
    bringing an end to suffering that we see today, would it not be wise to 
    inquire about God's purposes so as to see how we as individuals might be 
    part of those purposes.


    Phil. 



    

.289 RDGENG::YERKESS Jesus proved Satan a liar

Phil,

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

    Jesus, a perfect human like Adam, resisted temptations from Satan the
    Devil. This showed that a perfect human could indeed resist Satan's
    temptations.

- A perfect human resists sin.
- God made Adam
- Adam did not resist sin.
- Adam was not perfect.
- God did not create a perfect human.

To me they flow one to another, I can't see the break.

    Please explain *completely* forgiving, Jesus called Satan the original
    manslayer (John 8:44). Being perfect he knew exactly what he was doing, 
    in fact as you say God's perfect cretures should have stayed obedient.

So Satan was also created imperfectly. If Satan knew what he was doing, then so
did Adam, yet my understanding is that he was terrified once he had done the
deed. (BTW, why did God himself tempt them by placing the tree where they could
get at it? Was it a test?).

    The charge of Satan was that *no one*, including someone as upright as

O.K., given that challenge Satan was incorrect. (Liar implies that he knew he
was wrong but said it anyway. My impression is that he (Satan) believed what he
said, or at least wasn't sure).

    It is a place of inactivity 
    (opposite to life eg animation) for the Bible tells us that those who are 
    dead are conscious of nothing at all (Ecclesiastes 9:5).

Funny, that's my view of death also :^) If I understand you, then for me,
according to your beliefs, death *will* be exactly as I say it will be. So we've
found something to agree on!

Steve

re .290

Steve,

Your right, I don't understand your line of reasoning that Adam must
have been imperfect. For example, is a thief born a thief? most of us 
have the strength to curtail the temptations to steal and yet some
choose to steal. As you say, we'll have to disagree on this one.

It's good we have some common ground, that is the view of what happens
upon death. From this you should be able to understand why Jehovah's
Witnesses view the resurrection hope as something wonderful. Though,
those who have died, have ceased to exist, many are still in God's
memory and that he has the power to resurrect such a person (Acts 24:15
, Job 14:13).This he intends to do when Jesus Christ and his corulers 
begin ruling over the earth (John 5:28,29 & Revelation 5:9,10).

Anyway I'd like to answer some more of your previous replies for there 
are some good points in them. 

Phil.

re 342.283  Part 2

;All are accountable to God for their actions, for what would people be like if
;when they did gross wrongs their God would just wave a magic wand as it were and
;everything was made alright again.

>	What would it be like if God punished those committing wrongs on the 
>	spot? Swiftly, and with justice. What would it be like if he prevented
>	the slaughter of innocents by the millions. What if he stopped tornados
>	from collapsing the wall of a church (for crying out loud) on the 
>	daughter of the pastor while she watched in horror. Seems to me it would
>	be a far better world to live in. We would still have free will, those
>	who were disobedient would be punished, and the rest would be able to
>	rejoice and praise God far more than they can today.

Steve,

There is an interesting Scripture in the book of Isaiah 65:20 NWT which reads
"'No more will there come to be a suckling a few days old from that place,
neither an old man that does not fulfill his days, for one will die as a
mere boy, although a hundred years of age; and as for the sinner, although
a hundred years of age he will have evil called upon him." In context of
surrounding Scripture this is talking about the time during Christ's 
Millenial rule. It indicates that justice will dealt swiftly, and line with 
your thoughts a miracle Jesus performed in calming a storm shows that he has 
and will use this power to control the elements( Luke 8:24). So your thoughts 
are in line with what the Bible promises that will come from the Messianic 
rule here on earth. But why not now?, well it is right that the Sovereign 
ruler should set the appointed time. Also we need to bear in mind the 
following principle found in Amos 3:7 NWT, "For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah 
will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his 
servants the prophets." What your suggesting effects the whole of mankind 
throughout the earth, hence one of the striking end of the times prophecies 
is that of the preaching work being carried out throughout the earth, declaring 
the good news of God's forthcoming kingdom (Matthew 24:14). Not all, would
like the type of world your suggesting but prefer this system as it were,
but God makes them aware of his intentions so that they have the opportunity
to change their mind.

;Today we are seeing the evidence of mankind choosing self
;rule, surely this should be telling us something that is we cant just
;do as we please and that Our Creator knows the best way in which one 
;should walk without bringing suffering to those around us.

>	Tell the person that watched her daughter die that choosing God was the
>	best path. If she hadn't chosen that path chances are they wouldn't have
>	been in the church. Religious or not, good and bad things seem to happen
>	to both in equal portions.

God is not partial but gives good to both good and bad, because of our
Creator this earth can sustain all. The reason why bad things happen to 
both good and bad is due to the course Adam & Eve took. We are seeing
evidence of their disastrous course. But God is loyal and will not
forsake his loyal ones and as I've said the resurrection hope is a
wonderful one. We have discussed the condition of the dead, so when
resurrected to that person will be as they have never been away. To all
the death of a loved one brings immense grief, even Jesus gave
way to tears just before resurrecting his friend Lazurus (John 11).
So the resurrection hope can only cushion the blow from a loved one
dying, that is one might see them again in the future.    

;To give us perfect life and to fulfill God's sense of justice, someone had to
;buy back what Adam had lost.

>	Now this is something that hints at making sense. I can begin to at
>	least see some logic if you admit that God's sense of justice isn't 
>	ours, and in most cases seems to be much harsher than ours (ie. abandon
>	the all-loving component).

Steve, the question is on who is the Jehovah's law harsher?, those that
are lawless or those that innocent victims?. As our Creator, he has only
our benefit in mind though we might think otherwise. We have laws of
nature, or creation, like gravity that helps keep our feet firmly on
the ground. We need many moral laws because we are imperfect, Adam 
only needed one because he was perfect (yes I know you disagree on this,
but it shows the differnce in laws God placed on Adam and then on to
his offspring).

Phil. 

    re 342.290 (TINCUP::BITTROLFF)/Steve

    I haven't been following this topic thread closely, but I think I see
    the problem ...

>I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
>
>    Jesus, a perfect human like Adam, resisted temptations from Satan the
>    Devil. This showed that a perfect human could indeed resist Satan's
>    temptations.
>
>- A perfect human resists sin.
>- God made Adam
>- Adam did not resist sin.
>- Adam was not perfect.
>- God did not create a perfect human.
>
>To me they flow one to another, I can't see the break.

    	Your first premise is that "A perfect human resists sin".  This
    isn't necessarily so, but to appreciate why involves having a different
    perspective on what it means to be perfect, particularly in the Bible.

    	I don't have references handy, but I've read that the idea of
    perfection, coming from Hebrew thought, conveys the idea of "perfect
    for the task at hand," or "perfect for a given purpose".  An
    illustration would be to consider the 'perfect hammer' -- well made,
    good grip, good weight and balance, perfect for banging nails and other
    things.  However, a perfect hammer might well be an imperfect crow-bar,
    not being suitable for prying just any old thing loose (except nails)
    -- meaning that it wasn't made for that purpose.  A perfect hammer, if
    used beyond its limits, might break.

    	Adam was created with a moral sense, the ability to discern right
    and wrong, and with the ability to freely choose to do either right or
    wrong.  That ability to choose was part of his perfect makeup.  To
    accomplish the task assigned to him -- to "fill the earth and subdue
    it" -- he was perfectly equipped (though he was, at that point,
    inexperienced).

    	You evidently feel that since he was able to make the wrong choice,
    he was not perfect; but that's an arbitrary human (though
    understandable) standard of perfection.  In the Bible, perfection
    doesn't mean indestructability, or the inability to fail, but rather,
    completeness, or being perfected suited for some purpose.  (A perfect
    pot or vase isn't imperfect because it will break if we drop it, is
    it?)  It suited God's purpose for man to have free will and the ability
    to make choices that were either right or wrong.  As Jesus showed, when
    human, and under far greater strain, perfect humans CAN remain obedient
    to God's will.

    	I think your first premise would be more correct if it read:

    		A perfect person is able to resist sin.

    There's no evidence that Adam wasn't able to stop himself from
    disobeying.  Therefore, his act wasn't due to the compulsion of
    imperfection, as though he couldn't control his feelings and thoughts;
    but rather it was due to a willful decision.   That's why Adam's sin is
    ranked as greater than the sin of all his children, who never had the
    circumstance of perfection as a factor in their lives.
    
>So Satan was also created imperfectly. If Satan knew what he was doing, then so
>did Adam, yet my understanding is that he was terrified once he had done the
>deed. (BTW, why did God himself tempt them by placing the tree where they could
>get at it? Was it a test?).
    
    	Adam's fear was a natural consequence of his having been caught in
    disobedience -- his conscience, now corrupted by disobedience, beat him
    as the reality of the consequences of his actions set in.
    
    	The 'tree' wasn't merely a sadistic test, to make Adam fall. 
    Rather, it served to teach Adam a fundamental truth about his status as
    a created being -- namely that Adam had a moral dependency on Jehovah
    as his creator, and that Adam was not a completely independant moral
    creation.  Instead, his continued existence required him to obey
    Jehovah (when Jehovah told him something ... and you'd have to admit
    that Genesis spells out very few rules for man, at that).  
    
    	The tree was meant to teach Adam respect for Jehovah's higher
    authority (as well as things like respect for what belongs to someone
    else); and as the potential parent of the whole human race, Adam would
    then have been able to teach all of his children a proper respect for
    authority in general, as well as a proper respect for their status as
    created beings.  Really, this is somewhat akin to the truth that small
    children, with no experience in life, MUST obey their parents for their
    own safety and well being.  A child who obeys his parents will (if all
    goes well) grow up with a proper sense of right and wrong, and an
    understanding of what it means, in turn, to be a parent with authority
    (having once been under authority).
    
>O.K., given that challenge Satan was incorrect. (Liar implies that he knew he
>was wrong but said it anyway. My impression is that he (Satan) believed what he
>said, or at least wasn't sure).
    
    	Is this what they call 'sympathy for the devil'?
    
    	There isn't any testimony in the Bible from Satan himself in which
    he admits that he lied.  Instead, we have Jesus' words that Satan was
    the "father of the lie" -- Jesus having been the instrument of Satan's
    creation (as a perfect spirit creature), and having been a witness in
    heaven to what Satan knew and did.
    
    
    								-mark.

938.206 FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!"

Mike, 

I've moved my reply here, as the topic we were in was no longer appropriate to
our discussion.

    Steve, take the rounds of TFSO as an example.  I prayed for God's Will
    to be done in terms of employment.  If I was to be TFSO'd, then that
    meant God had something better/different in mind.

I've always felt that I've had a 'guardian angel' as far as employment goes
(read: been real lucky). The moves that I've made have generally turned out for
the better, whether I took them or they were 'forced' upon me, but I've never
seen anything I can attribute to a higher power in them. Mostly it was being
ready for an opportunity when it came up, and making the best of it.

    For example, back in July my youngest son had a
    nasty fall on a Casco Bay ferry.  By the damage and blood, I *knew* he
    had broken his nose.  My wife, kids, parents, and myself immediately
    gathered around him and prayed for him.  It was quite a sight to the
    passengers and ferry employees ;-).  Anyway, praise God because he was
    healed.  Everyone there has no doubt that a miracle was performed on
    that day.

Several questions here.

1. Why did God allow him to break his nose, and how was that good. I've never   
   been able to understand the sentiment like "Our house burned down and we've
   lost everything but praise God that some of the children survived".
2. Was someone doing first aid, or comforting your son, while you were praying?
3. Noses are broken and healed all the time, for Christians, Muslims, atheists,
   you name it. Where was the miracle?

I'm not trying to be cynical, but it is simply outside of my understanding as to
how you can attribute the everyday occurences of living to a higher power.

    As for the second question, I would hope I would never do this.  You can 
    be deceived this way.  If you operate this way, you have more reason to 
    make use of 1 John 4.  I'd be cautious of people that run around
    looking for signs.

It seems to me that although you may not be *looking* for signs, you see them in
nearly everything that happens to you.

Steve

.292 RDGENG::YERKESS God is not partial but gives good to both good and bad
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Why?

Not all, would like the type of world your suggesting but prefer this system as
it were, but God makes them aware of his intentions so that they have the
opportunity to change their mind.

	I'm not sure I would like this system, but it makes more sense than His 
	current system. As for the second section, God hasn't even made me aware
        of his existence, much less his intentions. 

The reason why bad things happen to both good and bad is due to the course Adam
& Eve took. We are seeing evidence of their disastrous course.

	It still makes no sense to me to punish the billions of people born 	
	since Adam and Eve for their transgressions. A question: if Adam and Eve
	had been good, but somewhere down the road someone else sinned, would
	all of mankind suffer for this or only the decsendants of the sinner?

Steve, the question is on who is the Jehovah's law harsher?, those that
are lawless or those that innocent victims?. As our Creator, he has only
our benefit in mind though we might think otherwise. We have laws of

	As nearly as I can determine His laws are equally harsh on both. I would
	like to hear any reasonable benefit to things such as the holocaust, 
	Bosnia, Rwanda...

Steve

re .295

.292 RDGENG::YERKESS God is not partial but gives good to both good and bad
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Why?

Steve,

Sorry for the long delay.

Why ? because he is impartial, we are all sinners. His love is shown to all
giving them life and through his reasonableness the opportunity to seek
repentance (John 3:16). Repent means to "turn around", that is turn around 
and endeavour to do God's will.

;Not all, would like the type of world your suggesting but prefer this system as
;it were, but God makes them aware of his intentions so that they have the
;opportunity to change their mind.

>	I'm not sure I would like this system, but it makes more sense than His 
>	current system. As for the second section, God hasn't even made me aware
>       of his existence, much less his intentions.

You say "His current system", but it's interesting to note what the Bible
says about who ruling this current system. 2 Corinthians 4:4 NWT reads
"among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the
unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the 
Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through." This "god of
this system of things" is no other than the one who led the original
rebellion in the garden of Eden, Satan the Devil (Compare John 14:30, 
Ephesians 2:2 & 1 John 5:19). For this reason, this current system will
be done away with and replaced permanently by God's new system (Compare 
Daniel 2:44). Remember, that we discussed that God is permitting man to 
rule himself so as allow evidence to be gathered. We can now see the fruit
of that self rule (rebellion), even with advanced technical knowledge man
does not know how to direct his own steps (Jeremiah 10:23).

Romans 1:20 tells us that God's qualities are percieved by the things
created. For example, a piece of art might tells us something about the
artist who made it. Hebrews 3:4 NWT simply reasons "Ofcourse, every
house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is
God." If you came across a house in the desert, you would naturally think
that someone built it. Far more complex and organised than any house is
the earth and the things in it. Also one could reason that intelligence is 
behind our scientific advances, and yet many discoveries are made by looking 
closely at nature. By closely examing nature, we can see an intelligent 
designer behind it. We can also see a loving Creator in that he has given 
a great  variety of things to enjoy with our different senses.

;The reason why bad things happen to both good and bad is due to the course Adam
;& Eve took. We are seeing evidence of their disastrous course.

>	It still makes no sense to me to punish the billions of people born 	
>	since Adam and Eve for their transgressions. A question: if Adam and Eve
>	had been good, but somewhere down the road someone else sinned, would
>	all of mankind suffer for this or only the decsendants of the sinner?

If Adam and Eve had been obedient then they would still be alive today and
no doubt that would have completed their task of extending the boundaries
of the garden of Eden. Obviously, if someone else had sinned then their 
descendents would have been effected and a way back would be needed for them
also. Personally, I dont see it as a punishment but I'm gratefull that God
allowed things to continue so that I could be born and so enjoy life even
with the problems and stresses that we face. 

;Steve, the question is on who is the Jehovah's law harsher?, those that
;are lawless or those that innocent victims?. As our Creator, he has only
;our benefit in mind though we might think otherwise. We have laws of

>	As nearly as I can determine His laws are equally harsh on both. I would
>	like to hear any reasonable benefit to things such as the holocaust, 
>	Bosnia, Rwanda...

Such attrocities were caused by man, Jesus' command for his followers is
to love one another (John 13:34,35). I have brothers in Germany, Bosnia & 
Rwanda that did not compromise their integrity in face of such adversity. In 
that they would rather lay down their own lives than take the life of a fellow
human (love of neighbour). Also who knows, the perceived enemy could be their 
brother. As such they have shown themselves worthy of being part of God's new 
system, for "He is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth." 
Psalms 46:9a NWT, and those living in it will need to live in harmony with it. 
As the Apostle Peter wrote "But there are new heavens and new earth that we 
are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell. 
Hence beloved ones, since YOU are awaiting these things, do YOUR utmost to be 
found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 2 Peter 3:13-14 NWT
This new earth, is a new human society different to the one we see today
that looks to self-rule. But will be ruled by these "new heavens" or heavenly
government a Theocracy.

No one benefits from these attrocities, but one might find it unbelievable that
man could cause such attrocities?. The evidence is, that in the so called 
civilised world, man has caused and allowed such to happen and this evidence
is their for all to see. In the end, who could question God's right to bring 
an end to mankinds self rule? (Daniel 2:44). Also as I have already mentioned
God has set a time to resurrect both the righteous and unrighteous into his
new system. Those who are resurrected will be able to enjoy God's new system
and no doubt will soon forget the suffering that they have endured in this 
system.

Phil.

re: .296  Title:  Looking forward to God's new system

Your explanations seem contradictory to me. First you proclaim that the devil is
in charge of the system today:

>This "god of
>this system of things" is no other than the one who led the original
>rebellion in the garden of Eden, Satan the Devil (Compare John 14:30, 
>Ephesians 2:2 & 1 John 5:19).

Then, in the next paragraph, you say that: "Romans 1:20 tells us that God's
qualities are percieved by the things created.". Next you say that God created
everything: ""Ofcourse, every house is constructed by someone, but he that
constructed all things is God."". To me, this says that God created Satan, and
is thus responsible for his rule. Combining that with Romans 1:20 says, well,
you get the picture. 

>By closely examing nature, we can see an intelligent 
>designer behind it. We can also see a loving Creator in that he has given 
>a great  variety of things to enjoy with our different senses.

I have closely examined nature, and see that if there is a designer behind it he
is pretty clearly incompetent (numerous examples of poor design by any standard
available upon request).

You then speak of all the atrocities of the world being caused by men. Again,
this is circular to me, for if God created man (every last atom of every last
man) and he shall be known by his works...

Steve

>To me, this says that God created Satan, and is thus responsible for his
>rule.

Yes.  God created Satan.

Satan then rebelled against God, tempting humans to do likewise.

It's that "free will" thing you have so much trouble with.

You'll never understand anything until you understand that free will is
necessary in order for there to be love.

Let me repeat:  Love cannot exist without free will.

/john

    John,
    
    I agree with most of what you wrote.
    
    
    God did give free will to humankind.
    
    Humankind then can choose to do good or to choose evil.  To choose to
    live in God or in Satan(metaphorically speaking).
    
    Where traditional Christian Theology really gets into difficulty is in
    the believe that God can both give humans free will and still know the
    outcome of events.  by God giving humans free will, the outcome is
    indeterminate.  What humans freely choose influence the outcome.  God
    does not know ahead of time what humans will choose.  If God did then
    humans would not have free will.
    
                                     Patricia

    Perhaps then, God's active role in History is to lead all men back to
    God.  Not be force or cohersion, but through free will?  By teaching
    human kind the power of love and the need to accept Love into one's
    life.
    
    
    
                                Patricia

	I agree with John's view on love. Love can't be forced, it has to be a
free will thing.

	Patricia brings up some very good points about free will. The only
thing I can imagine is that if we have free will and God know's the outcome, it
is because He knows the outcome for every choice we could possibly make? Does
this make sense? In other words, we could chose to kill, or not. He knows what
the outcome for both situations will be, but we choose which one to do.


Glen

    Glen,
    
    Sounds like infinite regress to me!
    
    
    I'm no scientist so I don't know what that means but your explanation
    says that God can hold in his knowledge the infinite number of possible
    results of each of our actions.  The possible results have no meaning. 
    Only the actual result.
    
    Patricia

	Patricia, you got it right. Like I said, it would really be the only
way *I* can think of Him knowing the outcome of our actions and our having free
will.

Why do you limit God?

He has given us free will.  He knows what we will do with it.  He knows that
some will love him, and others will reject him.  He gave us that freedom to
choose; his knowledge of what choice we make does not mean that he made the
choice (it is a free choice, after all).

There is nothing we can do that will alter his plan for salvation.  He desires
that everyone be saved (by faith in Christ lived out by loving God and
neighbor), but he will not force us to make that choice.  We are free to
go to heaven, and we are free to go to hell.  We choose.

/john

    If the outcome is known before the choice is made, then there is no
    free choice.
    
    If some say that God gives us the choice of heaven and hell, but knows
    ahead of time who will choose heaven and who will choose hell, then
    there is no free choice.
    
    It is simpled!

    If God is all powerful and he ultimately wants all of us to choose
    heaven rather than hell, then he must succeed.  If God is all powerful
    redemtive love, then Love will conquer all things including the
    nerdiness of us human beings.
    
    Everyone will ultimately choose heaven.
    
    Now perhaps that is how God can know the outcome.  eventually everyone
    will be pursuade by God's unconditional Love.
    
    Patricia

As I've stated before, my premise is that the following statements about God are
widely accepted, but contradictory.

1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omniscient
3. God is all-loving

My reasoning has been explained previously and re-iterated to a certain degree
by others in the last few notes. I still haven't seen an explanation that
explains the apparent contradiction. (Free-will is tied up in the paradox).

It seems to me that an all-powerful God could arrange for us to have free-will
and still all choose him, if he wanted, or for love to be meaningful without
free-will, if he wanted. Or does He have limits?

Steve

>    If the outcome is known before the choice is made, then there is no
>    free choice.

This simply isn't true.

Knowing the outcome doesn't mean controlling the outcome.

What if by some supernatural means, a history book written in 2050 came
into your possession.  You would know the outcome, but you would not
take away anyone's choice by knowing the outcome.

/john

>It seems to me that an all-powerful God could arrange for us to have free-will
>and still all choose him, if he wanted, or for love to be meaningful without
>free-will, if he wanted. Or does He have limits?

But then it wouldn't be love freely given, and God has chosen that love freely
given is the kind of love that is meaningful to him.

There is no paradox.  God is all knowing.  He knows who will accept or
reject him.  God is all powerful.  He could change people's will based
on this knowledge, but he does not choose to do so.  God is all-loving.
He loves so much that he allows his created beings to accept or reject
his love, as they choose for themselves.

/john

re .297

Steve,

We have been down this before, God created an angel. This angel 
in turn chose to become Satan. As stated before a person is not
born a thief, but may become one later in life. It all depends
on the choices that person makes.

;I have closely examined nature, and see that if there is a designer behind it he
;is pretty clearly incompetent (numerous examples of poor design by any standard
;available upon request).

Have you noticed that each day the sun rises, as it were so that
life can exist. Also the water system, that perpetually gives life 
to the ground and those that live on it. If you think that man can 
do better, then why doesn't he?.

;You then speak of all the atrocities of the world being caused by men. Again,
;this is circular to me, for if God created man (every last atom of every last
;man) and he shall be known by his works...

Was the person who invented the axe, personally responsible for
someone who chose to use it to maim? ofcourse not. So why is
God responsible because humans have used their free will to
injure others?. At sometime or other, we as humans have to 
realise that we are accountable ourselves for the wonderful gift 
of free will that God has given us. We can't continue to imitate Adam,
and blame God for our willful neglect of love of God and neighbour.
In Genesis 3:12b NWT when confronted with what he had done, Adam
replied, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me [fruit]
from the tree and so I ate.", what a feeble excuse Adam knew it
was wrong to eat of this tree and rather than accept blame he
attempted to put the blame on God. How would you feel, if you had
given an axe to your neighbour so that he could use it for chopping
trees. But instead of using it, to chop trees he chose to bury
it in someones head. And at the murder trial, you were the one
found guilty of this murder because you gave him the axe in the 
first place. Would you think that this was just?, if not why not why
ascribe such to God. He has given us life, a free will, a wonderful
planet and surroundings to enjoy. Why should we blame him, if we
decide to ruin what is around us?.

God does hold us accountable, for Revelation 11:18b NWT tells us
he will "bring to ruin those ruining the earth."


Phil.

.307

;It seems to me that an all-powerful God could arrange for us to have free-will
;and still all choose him, if he wanted, or for love to be meaningful without
;free-will, if he wanted. Or does He have limits?

Steve,

Jehovah God has absolute freedom, however he chooses to deal
with us in the framework of his own standards and qualities.

He is Almighty in power but he chooses to temper this with love, justice and 
far-sighted wisdom. Hence, he is not a tyrant that he forces us to choose him.

How can love be fully meaningful without free will?, love is meaningful
because of free will. This is what draws Christians to their God that he
took the iniative in showing love to them first. It is what draws us to 
others, would we feel the same about someone who instinctively showed love
to us as with someone who chose to?. 

Phil.

  

Re: .308 John

>>    If the outcome is known before the choice is made, then there is no
>>    free choice.
>
>This simply isn't true.
>
>Knowing the outcome doesn't mean controlling the outcome.
>
>What if by some supernatural means, a history book written in 2050 came
>into your possession.  You would know the outcome, but you would not
>take away anyone's choice by knowing the outcome.

Let's say that I have the ability to predict the future.  I look two
minutes into the future and see that you will choose the number 2.  I tell
you that I predict that you will choose the number 2, and then I ask you
to choose a number between 1 and 10.  What number do you choose?

If you decide to choose 2 there is no problem - my prediction was true and
you chose the number that you wanted.  But what if you are determined to
prove me wrong, and choose 3?  Then my prediction was wrong, which
contradicts the assumption that I have the ability to predict the future.
What if you are determined to prove me wrong, and choose 2?  This confirms
my prophetic ability but shows that you didn't have free choice, since you
wanted to prove me wrong but weren't able to do it.

				-- Bob

| <<< Note 342.308 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| >    If the outcome is known before the choice is made, then there is no
| >    free choice.

| This simply isn't true. Knowing the outcome doesn't mean controlling the 
| outcome.

| What if by some supernatural means, a history book written in 2050 came into 
| your possession. You would know the outcome, but you would not take away 
| anyone's choice by knowing the outcome.

	John, while what you wrote above makes perfect sense, what it shows is
God right now knows who will be saved, and who will not. Nothing has a chance
of changing. The choice of being saved or not will come to person A. That
person is about to choose, and God knows it already. God knows the person will
not choose the oppisite of what He knows, so from that perspective it is very
clear as to why Patricia thinks that free will does not exist. 

	The weird thing in all this is the Bible says those who believe in Him
will gain entrance into Heaven. We have people all over the place trying to
save people. God already knows who is saved, who is not. There are people out
there right now that God knows will burn in Hell. There is NO chance for these
people at all! Kind of cruel of God to do this, don't you think? No matter what
happens, these people that are predestined to not be saved will burn. 

	I think in order for there to be free will, and for the statement of,
"Anyone who believes in Me..." to be true, then everyone, regardless of who
they are, what they have done, must be able to have a chance of being saved. I
mean, otherwise, those who are on their deathbed who cry out, "Save me Jesus!"
have God on the other end of it all saying, "I knew you'd say that... ho hum.."
And also, doesn't that also kill the thing where Jesus will know who's heart
cries out to Him in truth? Maybe this world is just a cruel game. If we have
free will, then any number of outcomes could happen, and that is decided upon
what choice we make. Otherwise, it's really cruel what's going on. We can't all
possibly be God's children, as He already knows who is and who is not....


Glen

re .312

Part of God giving us free will means that he doesn't step in and use
his knowledge of the choices in order to influence them.

Free will wouldn't be completely free if God used his foreknowledge of
a choice to try to change the choice.

/john

>I think in order for there to be free will, and for the statement of,
>"Anyone who believes in Me..." to be true, then everyone, regardless of who
>they are, what they have done, must be able to have a chance of being saved.

Everyone does.  And everyone must and will make the choice.

/john

| <<< Note 342.314 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| Part of God giving us free will means that he doesn't step in and use
| his knowledge of the choices in order to influence them.

| Free will wouldn't be completely free if God used his foreknowledge of
| a choice to try to change the choice.

	John, why are we here then? He already knows who will be saved right
now! Just get it over with and stop playing this cruel game. OR, is it really a
choice that everyone has the chance of making? Remember, according to what you
believe, group A will choose being saved and God knows that. Group B has no
chance of ever choosing to be saved, and God knows that.

>John, why are we here then?

Some of us have made the choice.  Others are getting ready to make the choice.

>He already knows who will be saved right now! Just get it over with and
>stop playing this cruel game.

"Getting it over with" would prevent some people from making their choice.

/john

re: .313 - Glen

>there right now that God knows will burn in Hell. There is NO chance for these
>people at all! Kind of cruel of God to do this, don't you think?

This line of reasoning assumes that we people don't deserve Hell, and those
who get it got a bad deal.

The Bible says we all deserve Hell.  The fact that we can choose to be
forgiven and not got to Hell is a wonderful gift.  It's pretty wonderful
and loving that God doesn't just flush us all now.

-Steve

| <<< Note 342.318 by CFSCTC::HUSTON "Steve Huston" >>>


| This line of reasoning assumes that we people don't deserve Hell, and those
| who get it got a bad deal.

| The Bible says we all deserve Hell.  The fact that we can choose to be
| forgiven and not got to Hell is a wonderful gift.  It's pretty wonderful
| and loving that God doesn't just flush us all now.

	What good is it Steve for those who God already knows will not be
saved? There is no possible way they will be saved. It does not make sense.

>	What good is it Steve for those who God already knows will not be
>saved? There is no possible way they will be saved. It does not make sense.

I am not competent to judge what makes sense in something this big.

But the good in it is that people have more opportunity to choose.  As John
said, God's knowing how one will choose does not force one to choose.
If I am standing on top of a tall building on a street corner, and see
two cars speeding along, one on the street one one side and one on the
next side, I know they're going to collide, but I'm not forcing them to.

-Steve

Re: .320 Steve

>If I am standing on top of a tall building on a street corner, and see
>two cars speeding along, one on the street one one side and one on the
>next side, I know they're going to collide, but I'm not forcing them to.

But if you know they are going to collide and have a way to prevent the
collision (maybe because you are in radio contact with one or both
drivers), yet you fail to do so, aren't you acting irresponsibly?

				-- Bob

re .321

Ah, but God is _not_ acting irresponsibly.  In fact, he is in radio contact
with all of us.  C.S. Lewis uses _exactly_ that expression for what the
Church is -- a group of people in enemy territory in radio contact with
"our friends" in heaven.

Through the Church, which has the mission to proclaim the Gospel throughout
the world, God is constantly reaching out to everyone, calling them to make
the right choice.

But not forcing them.

/john

	True, He is not forcing them because He already knows the outcome. He
already knows free will is not playing in all this.

Re: .322 John

If you're right, then unfortunately God has chosen a very unreliable way
of reaching out to people.

				-- Bob

    "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise as some men count
    slackness.  But his longsuffering to usward not willing that any should
    perish but that all should come to repentance".  1st Peter 3.
    
    I believe God has complete knowledge of who will accept and who will
    reject.  However, this does not negate free will or free volition on
    our part.  God did not create us in rebellion.  This was something we
    chose for ourselves.
    
    -Jack

	Re: .318 Steve

	> The Bible says we all deserve Hell.

	So I have this design for a car-making machine.  The design is
	faulty because it is programmed to produce any old thing.
	But I build a hundred anyway, just in case one or other of them
	happens to make a car. Actually, I know already that only the
	numbers 7 and 83 will do that, and that all hundred should be
	thrown on the scrap-heap as worthless.
	I also know that the number 2 will produce a bicycle even though 
	I specifically wrote on the design document that I do not want
	bicycles. Of course, I did not modify the programme to exclude
	bicycles.
	It doesn't matter anyway. As soon as the first bicycle appears,
	I can dump the car-making machines in the sea and start with a new,
	unaltered, batch. A couple of thousand this time.
	That won't prevent bicycles being produced, I know. But, later, I
	can make a car-making-machine-look-alike and publicly pass it
	through the crusher.
	The car-making machines will carry on as before -- producing any
	old thing (even the occasinal car) -- but the important thing is
	that I will have made my point.

	Which was: They all deserve to be thrown on the scrap heap!

	Greetings, Derek.
          

    It just blow me away to know that some people think from the day we
    are born, God knows whether we will be saved or not, and yet we are
    still personally responsible for whether we end up in Heaven or Hell.
    
    It is precisely man made doctrine like this that turn millions away
    from Christianity.
    
                                 Patricia
    
    
    

>    It just blow me away to know that some people think from the day we
>    are born, God knows whether we will be saved or not,

"... All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of
them came to be."  Psalm 139:16

>    and yet we are
>    still personally responsible for whether we end up in Heaven or Hell.

These 2 parallel truths (God's knowledge and sovereignty, and man's
responsibility) run side-by-side through the Bible.  I don't understand
how they work together all the time.  But I don't need to.  And it would be
very arrogant of me to think I could figure God out.  He has told me what
I need to know, and then some.

>    It is precisely man made doctrine like this that turn millions away
>    from Christianity.

It isn't man-made.  But then we get off on the "what is the Bible" string
again.  Let's not.

The millions turning away from Christianity are turning themselves away.
"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness
instead of light because their deeds were evil.  Everyone who does evil
hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his
deeds will be exposed."  John 3:19-20

-Steve

General for the last few, the thing about free will and foreknowledge is OK IF 
God wasn't the one who created us. If God made me (which you have assured me is 
true), and knew when he made me I wouldn't (couldn't) believe, how is this free
will?

Specific replies to .309, 310, 311 and 328 follow.

re: .309 COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"

There is no paradox.  God is all knowing.  He knows who will accept or
reject him.  God is all powerful.  He could change people's will based
on this knowledge, but he does not choose to do so.  God is all-loving.
He loves so much that he allows his created beings to accept or reject
his love, as they choose for themselves.

	John, you choose not to see the paradox, but it IS there. Assume that 
	you are O-O-AL and creating the human race. You KNOW that you have 
	created Eve such that she must fall, you KNOW that there is no choice
	in the matter, i.e. she *WILL* screw up. You created her from nothing,
	therefor you *HAVE* built her to fail. You could have created her
	differently (free will and all) such that she wouldn't fail, but you 
	didn't. You therefor *WANTED* her to fail. There is no way out of this
	paradox without giving up O, O, or AL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .310 Title:  The attrocities are works of men, not God.

We have been down this before, God created an angel. This angel 
in turn chose to become Satan.

	Same as above. Let me put it in a slightly different form.
	1. God KNEW before he was created that Satan would fall (Omniscient)
	2. God COULD HAVE created Satan such that he would not (even keeping his
           free will intact) (Omnipotent) 
	3. God CHOSE to create Satan anyway, unleashing hell on earth. (Loving)
	Drop any one of the three characteristics of God and this works,        
        otherwise it doesn't. Please feel free to demonstrate which of the      
        previous statements is false, or where the logic chain is missing a
	link.

Have you noticed that each day the sun rises, as it were so that
life can exist. Also the water system, that perpetually gives life 
to the ground and those that live on it. If you think that man can 
do better, then why doesn't he?.

	Who said man could do better? The sun does not rise, we orbit it. 
	According to the laws of physics, there is little else that we could
	do. What about the water system? Have you noticed the hundreds of 
	ways in which living organisms are imperfect? The blind spot in our
	eyes is a famous example, but what about birth, or genetic defects? 
	Would your design (if you were omnipotent) include birth defects?
	Or cancer? In many cases, man has improved on nature. Do you, by any
	chance, wear glasses or contacts? Wouldn't need to if our eyes were
	decently designed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.328 Title:  Some teachings are very hard to swallow

The millions turning away from Christianity are turning themselves away.
"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness
instead of light because their deeds were evil.  Everyone who does evil
hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his
deeds will be exposed."  John 3:19-20

	Bullsh*t. I have examined this from every angle. When I was younger
	I opened myself up to God (nothing happened). There is no way that I
	can see any of this as anything other than a myth. I did not turn 
	myself away from anything, and find it rather arrogant of you to 
	assert that I did, especially implying at the same time that I must
	be evil. If you are correct and there is a God, why has he made it
	such that I cannot see him?

Steve

>	John, you choose not to see the paradox, but it IS there. Assume that 
>	you are O-O-AL and creating the human race. You KNOW that you have 
>	created Eve such that she must fall, you KNOW that there is no choice
>	in the matter, i.e. she *WILL* screw up. You created her from nothing,
>	therefor you *HAVE* built her to fail.

But that's precisely the point.

God didn't build her _to_fail_.

God built her to be able to freely choose whether to fail or not.

God knew what her choice would be, but that's because he knows the future,
not because he built one particular choice into her.

God built her capable of making either choice; she made the choice of her
own free will.

BTW, being able to freely choose is one of the ways we are made in God's
image.

/john

>     -< This is SO obvious to me that I cannot understand why you don't  >-

That's exactly how I feel sometimes...


>.328 Title:  Some teachings are very hard to swallow
> ...
>	Bullsh*t. I have examined this from every angle. When I was younger

Like I said, it's a tough nut to swallow.

>	If you are correct and there is a God, why has he made it
>	such that I cannot see him?

I can't explain this.  Like I said, there are two parallel sets of
truth running through the Bible - God's OOAL, and man's responsibility
to choose.  I sometimes can't see how they fit.  But they're both there.
I can pray for God to show you more, but I don't have a better explanation
for your questions right now.

-Steve

re Note 342.331 by CFSCTC::HUSTON:

> >.328 Title:  Some teachings are very hard to swallow
> > ...
> >	Bullsh*t. I have examined this from every angle. When I was younger
> 
> Like I said, it's a tough nut to swallow.

        So are you saying that he needs to accept it even if it
        doesn't make sense (to him)?

        If so, how does he distinguish this particular thing that
        doesn't make sense from all the other philosophies and
        religions in the world which also don't make sense (or,
        what's worse :-}, the ones that make sense)?

        Bob

>        So are you saying that he needs to accept it even if it
>        doesn't make sense (to him)?
>
>        If so, how does he distinguish this particular thing that
>        doesn't make sense from all the other philosophies

I'm saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God (that's another string).
It says things like I quoted.  Many don't make sense to some.  The Bible
says they won't make sense unless the Holy Spirit opens them up.  The Bible
says also that it's their responsibility to choose.

Like I said, I can't always make complete sense of these two things together.
But that's what's written.  I don't need to be able to join up everything
I don't _presently_ understand to acknowledge it's correct, and to have
God use it to change me.

Oftentimes, I see the big problem as people think that we humans are in the
driver's seat, the most important thing in the universe, and if we can't
figure it out it ain't so.  People like to change the rules to match the
game they want to play.  Rather than admit that God is bigger and knows
infinitely more than we do, then let Him change us.  To demand that all
of God be revealed, make perfect sense all the time is arrogant.  No, it's
idolatrous.

Enough grumping... I'm hungry ;-)

-Steve

re .329

	Steve,

>We have been down this before, God created an angel. This angel 
>in turn chose to become Satan.

;Same as above. Let me put it in a slightly different form.
;1. God KNEW before he was created that Satan would fall (Omniscient)

This is circumstantial, on man's part. If we look at the Bible
there is nothing to indicate that God knew (prior to his creation) that 
this angel would rebel. In fact after the sixth day, God said that it
was good. As I see it, the problem lies with man's philosophy in that
it gives this attribute Omniscient to God that he is all-knowing all
the time. But we should look to God, for he has communicated to us
through the Scriptures who he is and what are his qualities. Jehovah
certainly has the power to prohecy, but does he use this power for
each individual?. Steve let me ask this, if you had the power to learn
how it would end up for your loved ones, would you neccessarily use
that power? Or would you just let your loved ones get on with their
lives and show what type of persons they are?. He is reasonable and
trusting, in that he allows persons to make their own choice (own 
responsibility) in such matters. 

>2. God COULD HAVE created Satan such that he would not (even keeping his
>free will intact) (Omnipotent) 

But he didn't create Satan he created an angel, there are the angels that 
have kept loyal. So too with Jesus, who's human existence showed that Adam 
also had the ability to stay loyal. This shows that the heavenly creatures 
and humans certainly do have real free will. That their arm is not twisted 
behind their back, as it were, into accepting Theocracy. It goes to show 
some have chosen Theocracy above self rule. How else would one find a loving 
father?, would such a father use force to make sure his progeny stay loyal?. 

The Bible tells us God is the Almighty, or all powerful. But it also
tells us God is love. Therefore, he tempers this quality of being
Almighty with love.

Free will, meant that Satan had the choice to stay loyal or rebel. If God
created him without that choice then one would argue that Satan didn't 
really have free will at all. But Satan certainly had the ability to
make the right choice.

>3. God CHOSE to create Satan anyway, unleashing hell on earth. (Loving)
>Drop any one of the three characteristics of God and this works,        
>otherwise it doesn't. Please feel free to demonstrate which of the      
>previous statements is false, or where the logic chain is missing a
>link.

God created, unleashing a paradise garden here on earth (Loving).
Satan and the first human couple chose to rebel (free will).
The point that God gave the first human couple such a wonderful
project as mentioned in Genesis 1:28 shows that he had done
so with all the best intentions (also compare Genesis 6:6).
The missing link, as I see it Steve, is that God tempers his
quality of power with other qualitites such as wisdom, justice and
especially love.


Steve, I know you find it difficult to accept that a loving God would
allow what we see today. But he promises to bring an end to all this
suffering. Those that have life will have chosen a Theocracy for
themselves, rather than forced into it. Not only that they will 
enjoy life on a paradise earth, for they will live to do God's will 
and not their own as we see today (Revelation 21:3,4; Proverbs 2:21,22).

Steve, as you stated earlier, it also looks like were going round in 
circles. So my last remark that I want to make is, free will is exactly 
what it means and is wonderful gift we have been given by our God. We
can use it positively and be part of God's will and purposes as active
participants. How much better this is than being mere puppets, with
God pulling the strings as it were. Also those who dont want to be part,
(but have been given the opportunity) will have their wishes granted.
As 1 John 2:17 NWT reads "Furthermore, the world is passing away and so
is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever." The
world that includes this system of suffering is passing away, also it's
desire such as self rule, selfishness and greed. Those who like this
world will pass away also for they show they are not interested in
God's will. But those doing the will of God remain forever, for God 
is molding such ones in ways of righteousness. 

Phil.

BTW Steve do you have a Bible? if not I'll need to cite these
scriptures. 

re Note 342.333 by CFSCTC::HUSTON:

> Rather than admit that God is bigger and knows
> infinitely more than we do, then let Him change us.  To demand that all
> of God be revealed, make perfect sense all the time is arrogant.  No, it's
> idolatrous.
  
        It may be "idolatrous" for a seeker of truth to subject
        offered doctrine to the test of common (and less common)
        sense, but consider the alternative, i.e., accepting whatever
        comes along uncritically.

        Bob

>        It may be "idolatrous" for a seeker of truth to subject
>        offered doctrine to the test of common (and less common)
>        sense, but consider the alternative, i.e., accepting whatever
>        comes along uncritically.

Yup, I hear you.  Blind acceptance is a Bad Thing.

But then we're back to asking what is the standard against which we measure
newly-heard ideas, doctrines, etc.  I'm arguing that the only standard is
the Bible.  To measure the Bible against one's ideas, and judging the Bible
to be incorrect, is what I refer to as idolatrous - a worshipping of self
as the ultimate authority.

But, as with this discussion with Patricia a few notes back, now we're
back to "what is the Bible?"  Always comes back to that it seems...

-Steve

| <<< Note 342.333 by CFSCTC::HUSTON "Steve Huston" >>>


| I'm saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God (that's another string).
| It says things like I quoted.  Many don't make sense to some.  The Bible
| says they won't make sense unless the Holy Spirit opens them up.  The Bible
| says also that it's their responsibility to choose.

	Are you then saying you understand the Bible 100% with no problems in
any one area?

| <<< Note 342.336 by CFSCTC::HUSTON "Steve Huston" >>>



| But then we're back to asking what is the standard against which we measure
| newly-heard ideas, doctrines, etc.  I'm arguing that the only standard is
| the Bible.  To measure the Bible against one's ideas, and judging the Bible
| to be incorrect, is what I refer to as idolatrous - a worshipping of self
| as the ultimate authority.

	Steve, if a Christian talks about their beliefs to you, does this ever 
come across your thoughts:


	Your belief is different than mine in that area.


	If so, do you think that all of these people are not Christians because
their beliefs are different than yours?


Glen

re: .337

>	Are you then saying you understand the Bible 100% with no problems in
>any one area?

No.

re: .338

>	Steve, if a Christian talks about their beliefs to you, does this ever 
>come across your thoughts:
>
>	Your belief is different than mine in that area.

Yes.

>	If so, do you think that all of these people are not Christians because
>their beliefs are different than yours?

No.

	Steve, if you don't feel you understand the Bible 100%, then you must
feel you don't have, or don't always have the Holy Spirit. Because you did say:



| Many don't make sense to some.  The Bible says they won't make sense unless 
| the Holy Spirit opens them up.  The Bible says also that it's their 
| responsibility to choose.

	Steve, if you can acknowledge that others have different beliefs than
you, and they are still Christians, then how can you say:

| I'm arguing that the only standard is the Bible. To measure the Bible against 
| one's ideas, and judging the Bible to be incorrect, is what I refer to as 
| idolatrous - a worshipping of self as the ultimate authority.


	You see, it could very well be part of one's beliefs that the Bible has
nothing to do with their faith in Him, only He does. It may be one of God's
many tools that He uses, but the tool will strengthen the faith. But I believe
in Him. That is where my faith and beliefs are. If He decides to use a tool,
which could be the Bible, a priest, a street sign, so be it. While the tool may
not be perfect, the message that God conveys from it is. The tool was a means
He got to the person asking the question. He used something to provide the
answer. He should get all the credit, not the tool. He is where our faith
should be, not the tool. If we put our faith in the tool, regardless of what
tool it happens to be, then we start to lose Him in the process.


Glen

RE: .330 COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"

But that's precisely the point.

God didn't build her _to_fail_.

God built her to be able to freely choose whether to fail or not.

	My point is that God is OMNIPOTENT, and God made her from nothing. He
	has apparently made angels that did not stray, he COULD have made Eve
	the same way, such that she would not stray. He CHOSE not to. Why?

God knew what her choice would be, but that's because he knows the future,
not because he built one particular choice into her.

	This only works of you concede that God is not omnipotent, or that he 
	for some reason wanted her to fail (nothing happens to God, or anyone
	that God created, that he does not want to happen, by definition). To 
	me you are still sidestepping the issue. You do NOT have free will if
	you are created from scratch by an omnipotent being that knows what you
	will do based on how he built you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: .331 Title:  I can't explain it all - I can pray

>.328 Title:  Some teachings are very hard to swallow
> ...
>	Bullsh*t. I have examined this from every angle. When I was younger

Like I said, it's a tough nut to swallow.

	Major cop out. You are implying that I am lying here, i.e. that I know
	how to find God but have deliberately rejected him. We cannot have a
	discussion if you do not accept that I am being honest. If you just
	meant tough luck, you cannot understand but you are going to hell 
	anyway, than at least I know what you mean...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: Various Steve Huston replies...

As Bob said, you are asking me to choose your particular brand of religion 
(which makes no sense to me) over all of the other brands of religion that 
claim that they are the one true faith (and also make no sense to me). This
makes no sense to me :^)

I hope you enjoyed your dinner!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .334 Title:  free will means individual choice, not what someone has chosen 
for us (including our God).

;1. God KNEW before he was created that Satan would fall (Omniscient)

This is circumstantial, on man's part. If we look at the Bible
there is nothing to indicate that God knew (prior to his creation) that 
this angel would rebel.

	This is OK. If God didn't know, he is not omniscient (at least in this
	case) and the contradiction disappears.

Steve let me ask this, if you had the power to learn
how it would end up for your loved ones, would you neccessarily use
that power? Or would you just let your loved ones get on with their
lives and show what type of persons they are?. He is reasonable and
trusting, in that he allows persons to make their own choice (own 
responsibility) in such matters. 

	I wouldn't create my loved ones such that they fail so drastically.

God created, unleashing a paradise garden here on earth (Loving).
Satan and the first human couple chose to rebel (free will).

	And God chose to punish all of humanity from that time forward rather
	than punishing Eve for her transgression. This does not fit my 
	definition of all (or even some) loving.

BTW Steve do you have a Bible? if not I'll need to cite these
Scriptures. 

	I'm looking for an inexpensive one. Do I want a King James version?

>	Steve, if you can acknowledge that others have different beliefs than
>you, and they are still Christians, then how can you say:

There are non-essentials we can disagree on.  However, if someone came up
to me and said "I'm a Christian.  Jesus is a myth - nice story, but it's
all a hoax."  I'd try to talk that person out of the false belief that he's
a Christian.

>He is where our faith should be, not the tool.

Oh Glen, believe you me, when I die and have to face God, I'm not going
to plead the Bible as my object of faith.  But I'm going to be very
thankful it told me where to put my faith, and that it was very insistent
on that point - even when it hurt.

-Steve

>	Major cop out. You are implying that I am lying here, i.e. that I know
>	how to find God but have deliberately rejected him. We cannot have a
>	discussion if you do not accept that I am being honest.

I know you are being honest.

>	If you just
>	meant tough luck, you cannot understand but you are going to hell 
>	anyway, than at least I know what you mean...

I'm thinking...  

>As Bob said, you are asking me to choose your particular brand of religion 
>(which makes no sense to me) over all of the other brands of religion that 
>claim that they are the one true faith (and also make no sense to me). This
>makes no sense to me :^)

Why are you looking for a religion?  If this is recorded somewhere, please
point me there.

>	I'm looking for an inexpensive one. Do I want a King James version?

Only if you like fumbling with old English ;-)  I recommend New International
Version.  If you have trouble finding an inexpensive one, let me know.


-Steve

.344 Title:  Need more time to consider this

I know you are being honest.

	Thank you.

Why are you looking for a religion?  If this is recorded somewhere, please
point me there.

	Actually, I'm not. What I am searching for is understanding.

Only if you like fumbling with old English ;-)  I recommend New International
Version.

	Thanks, this is what I'll do.

Steve

Re Steve Bittrolf:

>he COULD have made Eve ... such that she would not stray. He CHOSE not to.
>Why?

Same answer as before:

	Love without freedom to choose to love is no love at all.
	It is only servitude.

>You do NOT have free will if you are created from scratch by an omnipotent
>being that knows what you will do based on how he built you.

He knows what you will do because he knows the future.  What you do is not
based on how he built you -- what you do is a free choice.  God does not
build one person to choose him and another to deny him.  God builds every
person capable of choosing him, but allows them to make their own choice.

/john

re Note 342.343 by CFSCTC::HUSTON:

> There are non-essentials we can disagree on.  However, if someone came up
> to me and said "I'm a Christian.  Jesus is a myth - nice story, but it's
> all a hoax."  I'd try to talk that person out of the false belief that he's
> a Christian.
  
        Just a hypothetical, Steve:  what if another person came up
        to you and said:  "I'm a Christian.  Jesus is a myth, a story
        inspired by God to teach us the true relationship between
        humanity and God.  It teaches me the right way to approach
        God;  it teaches me that only God, and not anything of my own
        doing, can save me from separation from God.  I do not,
        however, believe that the Bible teaches history."

        What would your response be to that?

        Bob

re .342


Steve,

>This is OK. If God didn't know, he is not omniscient (at least in this
>case) and the contradiction disappears.

I will concede that on your understanding and others God is not 
omniscient. But he certainly has the ability to tune into the future 
be it on a collective or individual basis. To me having this ability 
means that God is all knowing, just as to a lesser degree man is 
knowledgeable. In that man, does not instantly have knowledge but has 
the ability to tap into repositories of knowledge such as books etc. 
However, unlike God man cannot foretell the future.

Similarly, God is omnipotent all powerful. This doesn't mean that he
wields all power at all times, rather has the ability to harness
any power he wishes.

An interesting Bible verse on this thread is Psalm 11:4 NWT "Jehovah
is in his holy temple. Jehovah - in the heavens is his throne. His
own eyes behold, his own beaming eyes examinine the sons of men."
These eyes are figurative, but it shows that God has the ability
and uses this to read the figurative hearts of men. Rather, than 
already knowing it's content.

>I wouldn't create my loved ones such that they fail so drastically.

If they have free will and reject their creator, should their creator
force himself on them?.

>And God chose to punish all of humanity from that time forward rather
>than punishing Eve for her transgression. This does not fit my 
>definition of all (or even some) loving.

The first human couple were punished for pulling the plug as it
were on their life source, for they died later as God had said they 
would. I wouldn't call this punishment from God but a consequence for 
their actions. But if they had been given the death penalty right away 
as was God's right, then we ourselves would not exist. This would have 
been the easy option for God, for it would saved him alot of heartache. 
Even so through the ransom sacrifice of his son we now have the hope 
of everlasting life as Adam and Eve originally had.

Rather than punishing us he communicated to us through the Bible about
the original rebellion and how he has made a provision for salvation.
It makes us aware of the reasons for the suffering we see today and why
God permits it. That he soon intends to rid the world of wickedness,
the main cause of suffering.	

;I'm looking for an inexpensive one. Do I want a King James version?

It has already been mentioned that the KJV is written in old English
so it can be difficult to understand. Even so, I own two copies of
the KJV Bible one being a reference Bible. You can pick up inexpensive
Bibles from secondhand book shops, for example a KJV cost me 1 pound 
sterling which is the equivalent of 1.5 US dollars (I think).

There are more modern versions, the  NIV has been mentioned. You might
ask a Jehovah's Witness to obtain you a Bible next time they call
(they have access to a few different translations). I have found the 
New World Translation most helpful, for it is in modern English and 
helped me to understand the message being conveyed. However, you will 
find that many knock this and other translations of the Bible. My advice 
to begin with is that you choose for yourself which translation you find 
easier to read. From my own study, all translations convey the substance 
of God's message to humankind.

Phil. 

re: .346 COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"

So God knew when he created the angel that became Satan that he (Satan) would
fall. He knew that Satan would end up in Eden (why was he allowed in there?)
tempting Eve. He knew even as he created Eve that her 'free' will would lead her
to stray. He had an infinite amount of time to contemplate this. He knew that
He would blame all of humanity to come (those he had not yet created) for her
mistake, and that untold suffering through untold centuries would result, and he 
DID IT ANYWAY. He could (being omnipotent) have done this differently if he had
chosen to, but he did not. To me this means that he wanted it to happen (by
definition, nothing happens that God does not want to happen, no?). 

In an attempt to reconcile my perceived contradiction with your view of God,
here is a single question for you:

Does God have the ability to create beings with free will that are perfect, i.e.
never make the wrong choice? 

Steve

>        Just a hypothetical, Steve:  what if another person came up
>        to you and said:  "I'm a Christian.  Jesus is a myth, a story
>        inspired by God to teach us the true relationship between
>        humanity and God.  It teaches me the right way to approach
>        God;  it teaches me that only God, and not anything of my own
>        doing, can save me from separation from God.  I do not,
>        however, believe that the Bible teaches history."

I would ask where the person's salvation comes from - on what basis do
you think God forgives you from sin.  And go over some places from the
Bible like "I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No man comes to the
father but by me."  "There is no other name under heaven [Jesus] by which
man must be saved."  and see the person's view of that.

Anyone who believes Jesus is a myth is not saved.

-Steve

>Does God have the ability to create beings with free will that are perfect,
>i.e. never make the wrong choice? 

If he creates a person _unable_ to make the wrong choice, then that person
does not have free will.

If he creates a person able to make the wrong choice, but by a special
extraordinary outpouring of his grace helps that person to freely choose
to always make the right choice, possibly because he has some special
mission affecting all of humanity he wants that person to carry out,
that is another matter -- the person still makes the right choice freely.

God offers his grace to all people who seek it in sufficient quantity so
that they will be able to make the right choice if they so choose.

God _can_ do anything.  God _does_ that which he wills.

/john

re: .351

>If he creates a person _unable_ to make the wrong choice, then that person
>does not have free will.

I did not say unable. Jesus was able to make wrong choices, but did not, yet he
was human. There are others who have not turned from the path. They were all
made by God. There have been millions of them throughout history. Why were they
not selected for Eden, then? God deliberately chose to create someone that he
knew would fail. He did not have to, he could have done otherwise, but he chose
not to. Why?

>If he creates a person able to make the wrong choice, but by a special
>extraordinary outpouring of his grace helps that person to freely choose
>to always make the right choice, possibly because he has some special
>mission affecting all of humanity he wants that person to carry out,
>that is another matter -- the person still makes the right choice freely.

Why did he not help Eve? Even the simple matter of keeping Satan out of the
garden would probably have done the trick. Did he want her to fail?

>God _can_ do anything.  God _does_ that which he wills.

And everything as it is today must be as he wills, by definition. He wants us to
suffer, or we wouldn't. When dealing with an omnipotent creator, it is as simple
as that.

Steve

>Why did he not help Eve? Even the simple matter of keeping Satan out of the
>garden would probably have done the trick. Did he want her to fail?

If it hadn't been Adam and Eve who were the first to try to be gods, it would
have been someone else a generation or a few generations later.

/john

>If it hadn't been Adam and Eve who were the first to try to be gods, it would
>have been someone else a generation or a few generations later.

So God created a flawed product. He is capable of creating an unflawed product,
and did many times, but chooses not to in all cases. This appears to me to
violate the all-loving component of the triad we have been discussing since the 
imperfect people have created so much pain, even for the believers.

Steve

>So God created a flawed product.

Assumption of facts not in evidence.

Note 342.345

>Only if you like fumbling with old English ;-)  I recommend New International
>Version.

>	Thanks, this is what I'll do.

Steve Bittrolff,

	I know it is a bit cumbersome, but I would recommend opening several
translations at the same time.  As far as I know, the NIV is alright.  But
you gain greater depth of understanding in seeing a variety of translators
at work.  Even the unacceptable (to some) RSV can be quite worthwhile.

Shalom,
Richard

    Welcome back, Richard!
    
    Isn't there a book out which places two or three versions of the Bible
    side by side in columns?

| <<< Note 342.343 by CFSCTC::HUSTON "Steve Huston" >>>


| There are non-essentials we can disagree on.  

	I've always loved this answer. Because it comes down to there are no
absolutes, due to our humaness. God is absolute, but we can never be, thus the
many different disagreements. For some, it would be ok to have a drink with
dinner. For others, this becomes an essential, where this person should not
drink. In other words, non & essentials are all relative. It depends on who you
talk to.

| Oh Glen, believe you me, when I die and have to face God, I'm not going to 
| plead the Bible as my object of faith. But I'm going to be very thankful it 
| told me where to put my faith, and that it was very insistent on that point 
| even when it hurt.

	Steve, how can you write what you did above and expect us to really
take it seriously? You say the above can happen, and is, yet you do not believe
that if someone who does not hold the Bible as the Word of God can have the
same thing happen. I guess this is one of those relative things again.


Glen

    re: .356 Richard
    
    Hello again Richard.  I hope you're well.
    
    Greetings, Derek.

re: .355 COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"

>>So God created a flawed product.
>
>Assumption of facts not in evidence.

John, there is no assumption here, only observation. The behaviour that I see
and hear about from my fellow human beings does not lead me to believe that they
were created by a benevolant omnipotent being.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.356 Title:  Do it "the hard way"

Richard,

Good to 'hear' from you again.

What is the difference between translations? I've always thought that something
as important as the inerrant word of God should not be subject to translation
errors, but that does not seem to be the case :^) (If I were going to leave a
book as the only proof of my existence for two millenia, and I were omnipotent,
I would take steps to make sure that it was unambiguous).

I really don't want to do a major study on it, but if I am to continue noting
here it is obvious that I need a reference source.

Steve

Note 342.357

>    Isn't there a book out which places two or three versions of the Bible
>    side by side in columns?

Yes, there are Bibles in parallel format.  The one I have of the New Testament
includes the Amplified, the KJV, the RSV, and the Living Bible (which isn't a
translation at all, but a paraphrase).

Shalom,
Richard

Note 342.360  Steve Bittrolff,

>What is the difference between translations? I've always thought that something
>as important as the inerrant word of God should not be subject to translation
>errors, but that does not seem to be the case :^) (If I were going to leave a
>book as the only proof of my existence for two millenia, and I were omnipotent,
>I would take steps to make sure that it was unambiguous).

Communication is fraught with difficulties even under the best of
circumstances, would you not agree?

All human beings filter their communications, both sending and receiving,
through their own experiences, paradigms and perceptions.  Even how you
translate the English you read here is shaded by these influences.  The
degree of alignment with the original intent can vary both widely and
subtley.

Actually, if you saw a word for word translation of even the Greek, you would
see how the same verse might be translated in more than one way.  The Hebrew
is even more difficult.

Shalom,
Richard

    Steve and Debby,
    
    	Thanks for welcoming me warmly.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

He's baaaaaack ;-)

re: .344

>>	If you just
>>	meant tough luck, you cannot understand but you are going to hell 
>>	anyway, than at least I know what you mean...
>
>I'm thinking...  

I have thought, and gone over a bunch of stuff that Jesus said.  I don't
have it nailed down.  But I see Jesus saying these things:

- Without faith in Jesus, you are guilty of sin, and punishable by death.
  Part of the difficulty with this these days is that many people don't
  have the idea that they are guilty, so Jesus is just academic.

- Jesus claims to be God, and the only way to approach God.  He said that
  people have to accept this "like little children" - it just is.  Another
  part of difficulty with our society is that people want to take a look
  at everything to see if it makes sense.  Jesus said, whether it makes
  sense to you completely or not, that's the way it is.

I'll try to write some more next week... I started this a half  hour ago
and have been interrupted continually since :-(  but I've been trying to
get this in, so I'll settle for getting this much, and come back later.

-Steve

re: .364 CFSCTC::HUSTON "Steve Huston"
 Title:  Ok, I've thought for a while

So you are moving towards the 'tough luck, you're going to hell' decision :^)

- Without faith in Jesus, you are guilty of sin, and punishable by death.
  Part of the difficulty with this these days is that many people don't
  have the idea that they are guilty, so Jesus is just academic.

What sin am I guilty of? The belief of one (being sinful) requires the belief of
the other (God).

- Jesus claims to be God, and the only way to approach God.  He said that
  people have to accept this "like little children" - it just is.  Another
  part of difficulty with our society is that people want to take a look
  at everything to see if it makes sense.  Jesus said, whether it makes
  sense to you completely or not, that's the way it is.

This is a problem? In order for us to survive, things *HAVE* to make sense to
some extent. You are telling me here that this may not make sense but I should
believe it anyway? What else should I then believe, despite its apparent lack of
sense?

Why does God make it so hard to see him. I can think of hundreds of ways that he
could show himself without interfering in lives. (Churches are always in
sunshine, cloud formations showing his face, periodic visits, etc.). Why does he
want to make it so duecedly difficult for rational people like myself :^) to see
him? 

This brings me to a question I have about faith, namely, what is it? The
dictionary defines it as belief that does not rest on material evidence (among
other definitions). Do you see faith as belief without evidence, and how can you
justify that?

Steve

Does anyone believe that they are damned? I don't see that it is likely.

First, the largest category of the 'damned' would probably be the unbelievers.
But since they *are* unbelievers they don't believe that they are damned. (A
subcategory is believers in a different religion. They believe that they are
OK but all believers in other religions are damned).

Then you have the true believers. They may have done horrible things but believe
that if they truly repent, they will no longer be damned. (Is there a limit to
the number of times one can *truly* repent, but repeat the same offense?) I 
would suspect that very few people that do believe don't repent.

Who does this leave to go to hell? A few folks that did something bad, but did
not repent in time, I guess. (I realize that for religious folks it also leaves
us heathen to populate the nether regions :^)

Just ramblin'

Steve

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto
the Father, but by me.

    

    Yes, it says that.
    

    Haven't heard any other interpretation on this.

    See topic 300, "The Way, the Truth, and the Life."
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

FWIW...

I saw a book in a local bookstore last night - I think it was called
"The Physics of Immortality".  Written by a physics PhD who was once an
atheist.  He claims to have proven, with current physics and mathematical
knowledge and methods, that God does exist, and that humans will one day
be resurrected.

No claims from me as to its content, etc. - I'm just throwing out
a potential data point or info source.

-Steve

It was not resurrection in the sense that most Christians think of it.
His contention was that consciousness would eventually become so great
as to become omniscient, thereby becoming God, in a sense.  He also
contended that consciousness would survive the end of the physical 
universe, thereby 'resurrecting' us, so to speak.

He is still an atheist, BTW.

/Mike

1060.76 RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile"

>>We have been here before, right?.

Yes, we have. And to me, your arguments still fail to make sense in the context
of an all-knowing, all-powerful being. Let me try a different tack. Let me tell
you how I would handle it, if I were omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving. Then
you tell me how God's actual solution is better, or what is wrong with mine.
Saying that God works in mysterious ways is a cop out, it is the same as saying
that this doesn't have to make sense, just believe it, dammit.

And I won't cop out by wondering why God built such a flawed system in the first
place.

>>But say you are a loving father 
>>of a family and a son in your family contests that you are indeed
>>loving but rather a despot. Because of his malicious words others
>>distrust you also and join in the rebellion. Would you stamp out 
>>the rebellion right away or let things run there course allowing 
>>the evidence to speak for itself for the remainder of the family?. 

I would move the son, and any others that wanted to go, to another location
(planet, island, whatever) to try on their own. I would let them back whenever
they realized my way was better. I would set it up so that each side could see
the other, and allow visiting. I would allow no violence in my realm. And I
would not hide from my children. In this way the evidence would still speak for
itself, without harming innocents.

>>Self-rule was introduced by man and not God. Adam rebelled
>>against Theocracy, though a foolish course God has allowed
>>enough time to pass to show that it is beyond man to direct
>>his own steps as indicated in the Jeremiah 10:23 scripture.
>>Take for example, a democracy which one dictionary defines
>>as "A form of government in which the sumpreme power is 
>>vested by the people." The evidence to date is that such
>>a government has not been able to resolve the problems
>>of racism. Man does not know how to direct his own steps.

I disagree with your premise, but my solution covers this. And I didn't punish
innocents for thousands of years in the process. This also allows for free will.

>>God in his wisdom has allowed monarchies, republics, democracies
>>and all sorts of governments to rule. All have failed to give 
>>lasting peace and security to all of it's subjects. He has even 
>>allowed man to develop technogically, with what result?.

God's government has also failed. It could not even satisfy the first (and only)
two people ever to try it!

Steve

re .373

Steve,

;Saying that God works in mysterious ways is a cop out,

Just to clarify, I find this saying a cop out also.

>>But say you are a loving father 
>>of a family and a son in your family contests that you are indeed
>>loving but rather a despot. Because of his malicious words others
>>distrust you also and join in the rebellion. Would you stamp out 
>>the rebellion right away or let things run there course allowing 
>>the evidence to speak for itself for the remainder of the family?. 

Now lets look at your solution and compare it to what
God did as recorded in the Bible.

;I would move the son, and any others that wanted to go, to another location
;(planet, island, whatever) to try on their own. I would set it up so that 
;each side could could see the other, and allow visiting.

First course God took was to banish Adam & Eve from the garden of Eden
Genesis 3:23,24. There was no entry to the garden of Eden. However, angels
have visited mankind (Genesis 18). Some angels even foresook their proper
dwelling place (heaven) to cohabit with the daughters of men in the other
location (compare Jude 6, Genesis 6:1,2). Mankind as I mentioned in my last
reply, were left to govern themselves.

Some of those who were banished turned their attention to God so as to seek
him. God's angels (angel means messenger) would communicate with such ones.

So from both sides of the divide some chose rebellion and others obedience,
for example Abraham's faith (Hebrews 11). Ones such as Abraham longed to be
reconciled with God.

;I would allow no violence in my realm.

Well righteous warfare that took place in the heavenly realm when Satan 
and his angels were ousted out. Now there is peace there. (Rev 12)

But would you ensure that there was no violence in the other location, I mean
you said you would let them "try on their own". Or would allow a certain
amount of tolerance. You know the story of Noah and the flood, well Jehovah
brought this about because "Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the
earth was filled with violence." Genesis 6:11 RSV.

;And I would not hide from my children.

Well he hasn't. Through angels he has communicated with mankind. Also through
his word the Bible he has made known his will and purposes. You know doubt
would like to see God physically. Trouble is he has made known that he is
not physical but "a spirit" (John 4:24) and as he told Moses "You are not
able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live." Exodus 33:20
So as physical creatures it is not possible for us to see God. Even so he has
communicated with mankind. The main way he did this was sending his Son
to the earth. Jesus was God's main spokesperson. Others have been ambassadors
for God.

;In this way the evidence would still speak for itself, without harming
;innocents.

How can you let someone "try on their own" and at the sametime interfere
in keeping peace all the time. Would those who rebelled argue that you 
didn't give them a fair crack of the whip further arguing that eventually
they would get it right?. Surely the more civilised man became the more
peaceful he would be without help from God?. How would one know the answer
to such questions?.

At the end of the day, there is a resurrection hope, were those that have
died in this system may have an opportunity to come to know God and live
life under the right conditions. Jehovah ensures that there will be
peace in the new system no longer will ones be allowed to make others
suffer (Psalms 37:9-11). 

;And I didn't punish innocents for thousands of years in the process. 
;This also allows for free will.

In your solution many would be born in the other location. Such ones
would be born with a spirit of rebellion inherited from their parents.
Some would come to realise this and see the need for repentance, or to
turn around. That is to make the free choice to be subjects to God. However,
a provision would be required to help such ones break free from the
effects of sin. Otherwise such ones would die from the effects of the 
disease passed onto them by their ancestors. Now God could help such ones 
but it would involve a painful operation, for both parties especially on 
the part of God who gave his son a ransom in exchange for many. (compare 
John 3:16, Matthew 20:28)

However, the majority in the other location want nothing to do with God.
What should he do? fulfill their wishes or force his rule on them.

If he forces peace, then the evidence will not fully show the results of
self rule. If one hadn't have seen with ones own eyes, who would believe
even God that man was capable of the attrocities that we have seen this
Century (supposedly civilised man as well). 

We now have a touchstone of what happens with self-rule, something persons
born in the future can't argue with. One could not argue that man's self
rule has not been fully tried.

;God's government has also failed. It could not even satisfy the first (and
;only) two people ever to try it!

You can please some, some of the time. But you can't please all, all of
the time. 

God's government didn't fail Adam and Eve, they rejected it using their 
own free will. Steve, please point out in what way did God's government 
fail it's subjects in this case. Many in the heavenly realm have been
happy with a Theocracy long before Adam & Eve were created and continue
to be satisfied.

One thing is that those who have faith, look forward to God's kingdom
ruling over the earth rather than self-rule that was chosen by their
ancestors (Daniel 2:44). They will be satisfied (Matthew 5:5), as under 
God's kingdom the earth will be returned to a paradise (Proverbs 2:21,22, 
Rev 21:3,4). God will return those who want to be subjects back to the 
garden. But they must accept his provision for life (Rev 20:17)

Phil. 

.374 RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile"
 Title:  If a father gives a wonderful gift that is rejected has he failed that
person?

First course God took was to banish Adam & Eve from the garden of Eden
Genesis 3:23,24. There was no entry to the garden of Eden. However, angels
have visited mankind (Genesis 18). Some angels even foresook their proper
dwelling place (heaven) to cohabit with the daughters of men in the other
location (compare Jude 6, Genesis 6:1,2). Mankind as I mentioned in my last
reply, were left to govern themselves.

	This is the same that I suggested, only God chose to punish all that 
	came after. I would have left paradise open to those that chose to 
	use it. I'm not sure how the angels are relevant.

Some of those who were banished turned their attention to God so as to seek
him. God's angels (angel means messenger) would communicate with such ones.

So from both sides of the divide some chose rebellion and others obedience,
for example Abraham's faith (Hebrews 11). Ones such as Abraham longed to be
reconciled with God.

	But he still made them suffer, and did not allow them back into the 
	garden. I would allow them back. I'm not into blind obedience, but for
	those that truly desired it, they would be reconciled.

Well righteous warfare that took place in the heavenly realm when Satan 
and his angels were ousted out. Now there is peace there. (Rev 12)

	And, unlike God, I would share that peace. (As an aside, why was there
	warfare, i.e. why didn't God just move the evil angels to hell).

But would you ensure that there was no violence in the other location, I mean
you said you would let them "try on their own". Or would allow a certain
amount of tolerance. You know the story of Noah and the flood, well Jehovah
brought this about because "Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the
earth was filled with violence." Genesis 6:11 RSV.

	No, I said there would be no violence in my realm. In the realm where 
	I presided. The others would be free to do as they wished, and return
	when they were ready. BTW, after the flood we have again become corrupt.
	You can look at the flood as the first Armegeddon, which failed 
	completely. What makes you think this will be better? God has had two
	chances and failed both times. 

Well he hasn't. 

	In millions of cases, yes, he has. In my example, there would be no 
	doubt that I existed, I would be available to all that wished to talk
	to me, in person.

Through angels he has communicated with mankind. 

	I've never seen an angel. I read about some girls once that saw 	
	brownies, and had pictures to prove it. Millions believed them too, 	
	until they admitted it was a hoax.

Also through his word the Bible he has made known his will and purposes. 
	
	The Bible is a book, like the Q'uran, like the book of Greek myths I
	studied in school. I feel nothing when I see or touch one, and it has
	no special properties to set it apart from any other book.

You know doubt would like to see God physically. Trouble is he has made known
that he is not physical but "a spirit" (John 4:24) and as he told Moses "You are
not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live." Exodus 33:20
So as physical creatures it is not possible for us to see God.

	He is omnipotent. He CHOOSES to not allow us to see his face. Why? At 
	any rate, I would be willing to communicate with a burning bush, or
	whatever. I have never seen or felt this spirit. I would also accept
	unambiguous signs from heaven. For example, he could bless each copy
	of the bible such that it was indestructable, he could protect his 
	churches from disasters, he could, well, you get the idea.

Even so he has communicated with mankind. The main way he did this was sending
his Son to the earth. Jesus was God's main spokesperson. Others have been
ambassadors for God.

	If you believe the book. 

	Sorry, but my way still seems much more reasonable and loving to me than
	what God has chosen. All you've done is quote Bible passages, you 
	haven't shown me why God's way was, in the context of all-loving,       
        better.

Steve

re .375

Steve,

Please help me see from your view point, you have stated:

;But he still made them suffer, and did not allow them back into the 
;garden. I would allow them back. I'm not into blind obedience, but for
;those that truly desired it, they would be reconciled.

and...

;No, I said there would be no violence in my realm. In the realm where 
;I presided. The others would be free to do as they wished, and return
;when they were ready.

Now if you allowed persons in the other realm to do as they wished
and they chose violence, would you be guilty for allowing this to happen?.
If not, then why attribute such to God?. I am trying to grasp why the
guilt should lie with a higher authority, of a crime perpetrated by another
person who does not recognise that higher authority. I don't understand 
your line of reasoning.

God has made a provision to allow persons back. He is also not into blind
obedience either, persons must take in knowledge of God (John 17:3) and
excercise faith in his son (John 3:16). By putting on a new personality
as it were, persons show that they are desirous of reconilliation. The
Messiah was sent by God as a mediator to reconcile the two agrieved parties.
Ofcourse, there is a need to recognise repentance before reconcilliation 
can begin to take place.  

God would determine when would be the appropriate time to return to the 
garden. This he will do by means of a resurrection. Many Christians have kept 
their integrity towards God even in the face of death, this is evidence of 
their desire to be reconcilled. It shows that such ones want to live peacefully
in God's new world.  

>Well righteous warfare that took place in the heavenly realm when Satan 
>and his angels were ousted out. Now there is peace there. (Rev 12)

;And, unlike God, I would share that peace. (As an aside, why was there
;warfare, i.e. why didn't God just move the evil angels to hell).

Soon God will share that peace by removing the wicked at Armageddon (Psalms 
37:9-11).  Revelation shows that at this time Satan and the fallen angels 
will be abyssed (Revelation 20:1-3). This symbolises that during Christ's
reign, Satan and his angels will be inactive unable to influence mankind.
At the end of the thousand years when man has been brought to perfection
under Christs rule, Satan will be released again. Persons will be tested,
some will desire to follow Satan all over again and others will stay obedient
to God. The outcome is that Satan and those that rebell with him will be
destroyed in the symbolic "lake of fire" (Revelation 20:7-10). Those that
desire to live in the garden, will enjoy everlasting life there for death,
suffering or mourning will be no more (Revelation 21:3,4).

Btw there is much confusion about hell, because of the bible translators
translating Gehenna, Hades and Sheol as the same English word hell.
Hades (Greek) Sheol (Hebrew) is the common graveyard of mankind. Gehenna
refers to those that will be destroyed without the hope of a resurrection.
God has set a time for when the fallen angels will be destroyed the in
the symbolic "lake of fire" (Revelation 20:10,14,15)

Phil.

re .375

Steve,


;BTW, after the flood we have again become corrupt.
;You can look at the flood as the first Armegeddon, which failed 
;completely. What makes you think this will be better? God has had two
;chances and failed both times. 

Good question, first of all the flood did wipe out the wicked at that time.
But, still to come was the Messiah and the establishing of God's kingdom.
Armageddon will be better, because God's kingdom will begin to rule over 
the earth. This will be a heavenly kingdom of kings and priests. These ones 
will be out of reach of the physical world, in the sense of not being open 
to bribes or corruption. Hence the adminstration will never become corrupt. 
Under this adminstration man will be lead back to perfection.

Armageddon is a literal place, which I think refers to a mount where decisive
battles where fought. Once opposition has been destroyed, God's kingdom
will begin ruling not allowing for a return to previous system of self rule
(compare Daniel 2:44).

;Well he hasn't. 

>	In millions of cases, yes, he has. In my example, there would be no 
>	doubt that I existed, I would be available to all that wished to talk
>	to me, in person.

In your example, you would leave them to their own devices. They don't want
to know you, many even doubt you exist after a while eventhough the realm
they live in bears witness to a designer and the sort of qualities you
have.  
 
God has allowed the wonderful privilege of prayer, which helps persons 
communicate their inner feelings to their Creator. 

;Also through his word the Bible he has made known his will and purposes. 
	
>	The Bible is a book, like the Q'uran, like the book of Greek myths I
>	studied in school. I feel nothing when I see or touch one, and it has
>	no special properties to set it apart from any other book.

Steve have you studied the Bible?, I have not studied the Q'uran or any books
on Greek mythology so can't comment on them. There are special properties that
do set the Bible apart from other books, it's freely available earth wide and 
has been translated into many languages. It is a book of prophecy telling
of future events, one can look at some of the prophecies that have already been 
fulfilled. It is a guide to how humans can get the best out of their lives,
none of the guidance leads to ones detriment. It can really change peoples
lives, previously violent people can become model citizens. 

After studying the Bible then one can decide for oneself.

;	He is omnipotent. He CHOOSES to not allow us to see his face. Why?
 
He created us physical we can enjoy a physical world. Jehovah loves life,
and put man in the garden with the purpose of looking after this planet.
Jehovah is glorious, eg man can't approach him as a physical person and yet
live just as man can't travel to the sun.

God is setting up a heavenly kingdom, so some will see his face once they
receive their heavenly resurrection. Having been given spiritual bodies.

> have never seen or felt this spirit. I would also accept
> unambiguous signs from heaven. For example, he could bless each copy
> of the bible such that it was indestructable, he could protect his 
> churches from disasters, he could, well, you get the idea.

Trouble is people twist things. Making each copy of the Bible indestructible,
would lead to people revering the book rather than the Creator. Israel thought 
they had a covenant with death, that is they could do whatever gross wrongdoing 
they wanted and God would protect them.

One of the best signs would be how it molds peoples lives. Take for example, 
Jesus' comments in John 13:35 RSV "By this all will know that you are my 
disciples, if you have love for one another." Only God could bring about 
peace between peoples of 232+ lands around the earth. This modern day miracle 
is true of Jehovah's Witnesses, who endeavour to apply Bible principles.
Prayer and the Bible is something we can all use daily and at anytime 
and is a very effective form of communication for those that use it.

A look at the history of the Bible, one would question how it survived down
to this day. 

>Sorry, but my way still seems much more reasonable and loving to me than
>what God has chosen. All you've done is quote Bible passages, you 
>haven't shown me why God's way was, in the context of all-loving,       
>better.

No doubt your way will seem better. I have to my best ability quoted some
Bible passages that may help you see God's viewpoint via this medium. But 
really the best way for you to find out abouts God's way is to study the
Bible with someone, one on one. There are many study aids geared to answering
the questions you have. All it will cost you is your time and energy in 
looking into it. 

Phil.

.376 RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile"
 Title:  Part 1 of 2

Please help me see from your view point, you have stated:

	Glad to :^) (I am in this conference trying to understand your          
        viewpoint, it is refreshing to have someone look at mine...)

Now if you allowed persons in the other realm to do as they wished
and they chose violence, would you be guilty for allowing this to happen?.

	Of course I would. I am omnipotent, I must take the responsibility for 
	it all. The difference is that those that moved to the other realm would
	know exactly what they were getting into, and would have no chance to
	victimize those that did not choose. I have allowed free will, but have
	offered a safe haven for those that wished it.

If not, then why attribute such to God?. I am trying to grasp why the
guilt should lie with a higher authority, of a crime perpetrated by another
person who does not recognise that higher authority. I don't understand 
your line of reasoning.

	The guilt that I attribute to God is that of letting innocents suffer,
	and suffer terribly, in his 'great experiment'. You say that he is 
	teaching us a lesson. How many generations must learn this lesson? Once
	it has gone past even one generation it seems pretty useless. Why is it
	not better my way, in that I do not allow innocents to suffer for the
	sin of others.

God has made a provision to allow persons back. He is also not into blind
obedience either, persons must take in knowledge of God (John 17:3) and
excercise faith in his son (John 3:16). By putting on a new personality
as it were, persons show that they are desirous of reconilliation. The

	My solution does not rely on blind faith, in an idea that millions 
	literally can NOT grasp. In my scenario everyone was born into paradise
	they then chose to cross over into 'self rule'. They know what they have
	left and they know exactly how to get back to it. If they are unclear
	they need only ask for me and I will talk to them, personally, one on 	
	one and in person. Is this not better than a rather vague hope based on
	a 2000 year old book?

God would determine when would be the appropriate time to return to the 
garden. This he will do by means of a resurrection. Many Christians have kept 

	Why? Why not allow everyone the chance, right here, right now? Why offer
	only an unprovable promise of something in the far distant future?

Soon God will share that peace by removing the wicked at Armageddon (Psalms 

	Soon, soon, soon. Why not now? 

37:9-11).  Revelation shows that at this time Satan and the fallen angels 
will be abyssed (Revelation 20:1-3). This symbolises that during Christ's
reign, Satan and his angels will be inactive unable to influence mankind.

	Phil, you keep moving away from my suggestions, and falling back on
	scripture. My original question was not what does God plan on doing,
	it's why is what he is doing better than what I proposed. I can argue
	the what I see as gaping holes in your logic, but we've been there, done
	that. This is an attempt to come at it from a different angle. Your 
	arguments from here continue to talk about what God is going to do, I'll
	give you God's plan, what I want to know is why what I propose is not 	
	better than God's plan.

Steve

.377 RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile"
 Title:  Part 2 of 2    Proverbs 3:5,6

Good question, first of all the flood did wipe out the wicked at that time.
But, still to come was the Messiah and the establishing of God's kingdom.

	What logical sense does it make to wipe out everyone, knowing that it
	would not improve anything. Once he went to those lengths why not simply
	install his kingdom? Why do it all over, *again*??? Please explain to 
	me how this makes *any* sense at all, and how is it better than my way?

Armageddon is a literal place, which I think refers to a mount where decisive
battles where fought. Once opposition has been destroyed, God's kingdom
will begin ruling not allowing for a return to previous system of self rule
(compare Daniel 2:44).

	What fight? Why doesn't he simply uncreate the enemy? How is this better
	than my plan?

In your example, you would leave them to their own devices. They don't want
to know you, many even doubt you exist after a while eventhough the realm
they live in bears witness to a designer and the sort of qualities you
have.  

	No, you've completely missed the point. They would know me. They may not
	want to follow me, that is OK. There could be NO doubt that I existed,
	as all they would need to do is call my name, and I would appear, in 
	person, to talk with them. The realm in which they begin their lives is 
	my realm, and I would leave no doubt of it. Remember, one of the big
	differences between my plan and God's is that I am a tangible presence,
	not a figure shrouded in mists and mysteries, but someone available 
	instantly for any of my 'children' that desired me.

God has allowed the wonderful privilege of prayer, which helps persons 
communicate their inner feelings to their Creator. 

	Wouldn't it be even better if that communication were two way?

Steve have you studied the Bible?, I have not studied the Q'uran or any books

	I have not studied the Bible in the way that I believe you mean. I have
	read from it. I have seen that it is much like the book of Greek myths
	I have read. I have had religious training. I have seen nothing special
	about it. Again, would it not be better for God to personally visit 
	anyone that requests it, that way a book that has literally thousands
	of different interpretations would not be the final arbitrar (and 
	source of conflict), you could go straight to the source. Why is this 
	not better?

He created us physical we can enjoy a physical world. Jehovah loves life,
and put man in the garden with the purpose of looking after this planet.
Jehovah is glorious, eg man can't approach him as a physical person and yet
live just as man can't travel to the sun.

	He is omnipotent, he can do anything. He chooses to hide from us...

Trouble is people twist things. Making each copy of the Bible indestructible,
would lead to people revering the book rather than the Creator. Israel thought 
they had a covenant with death, that is they could do whatever gross wrongdoing 
they wanted and God would protect them.

	Again, if he would simply talk with us...
	At any rate, that is only one example. Sign his name in the sunset,
	keep churches that don't twist things in perpetual spring, the 
	possibilities are endless.

A look at the history of the Bible, one would question how it survived down
to this day. 

	It is far from the only book that has come down through the ages...

No doubt your way will seem better. I have to my best ability quoted some
Bible passages that may help you see God's viewpoint via this medium. But 
really the best way for you to find out abouts God's way is to study the
Bible with someone, one on one. There are many study aids geared to answering
the questions you have. All it will cost you is your time and energy in 
looking into it. 

	Phil, you have still not presented even one example of how God's way
	is better than mine, you are just quoting scripture. I am looking for 
	a logical discussion, you are offering dogma. My original challenge
	was that I would propose a scheme, and you would show me how my scheme
	was flawed, or how God's was better, using logic and the definition of 
	God as omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving. You may use the Bible as
	a reference to back up your viewpoint as you wish, but not as a
	definitive reply, i.e. God says so. 

Steve

re .378

Steve,

;My solution does not rely on blind faith, in an idea that millions
;literally can NOT grasp. In my scenario everyone was born into paradise
;they then chose to cross over into 'self rule'. They know what they have
;left and they know exactly how to get back to it. If they are unclear
;they need only ask for me and I will talk to them, personally, one on
;one and in person. Is this not better than a rather vague hope based on
;a 2000 year old book?

In your scenario, ones parents choose 'self-rule' then into which realm
will one be born?. I can't see how all will be born into paradise if
ones parents chose self-rule.

;The guilt that I attribute to God is that of letting innocents suffer,
;and suffer terribly, in his 'great experiment'. You say that he is 
;teaching us a lesson. How many generations must learn this lesson? Once
;it has gone past even one generation it seems pretty useless. Why is it
;not better my way, in that I do not allow innocents to suffer for the
;sin of others.

What experiment?. No I didn't say he was teaching us a lesson, we are 
learning the hard way because of our previous parents foolish choice.
The choice of ones forefathers does effect our lives, for example
mine were previously German but because one of them decided to emigrate
then I was brought in Britain. It wasn't my choice to make.


;Phil, you keep moving away from my suggestions, and falling back on
;scripture. My original question was not what does God plan on doing,
;it's why is what he is doing better than what I proposed. I can argue
;the what I see as gaping holes in your logic, but we've been there, done
;that. This is an attempt to come at it from a different angle. Your 
;arguments from here continue to talk about what God is going to do, I'll
;give you God's plan, what I want to know is why what I propose is not 	
;better than God's plan.

OK, I'll express my opinion on your plan compared to God's will and purpose.
From your plan you make things far to easy, one would not have to use
any iniative. You would spoil your creation, one could do as one pleases.
Persons wouldn't respect you for it rather many would take advantage of you.
How would persons develop character in your plan? rather than helping them
stand up you would do the standing for them. What about trust, don't you trust 
that people can make the right choice and seek your guidance?. 

In my own experience, I have grown in appreciation for God for he has given
me purpose, that I can (though in comparison it is very small) participate in
God's purpose. This gives me self-esteem and worth, it also draws me to him 
that he is willing to trust his subjects and delegate.

For much of my life I was unaware about God and his purposes, not that he
was no where to be found but because my pursuits in life were self-centred on
getting the most out of it. After a while I realised that the pleasures
I wwas pursuing were only giving me brief happiness but the effects of such
a course were detrimental to my physical & mental health. 

I studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses and after while things started
to click into place. It was like finding hidden treasure. I began to realise
that God was helping me to stand upright in a darkened world. He trusted me
to make that choice eventhough I would slip up from time to time. It was
warming to know that he would use someone as insignificant as myself to make
known the truth about God and his will pursposes to those that would be 
interested. Seeing persons totally turn their lives around from a selfish
course to one of serving others is a wonderful heartwarming experience.

;God would determine when would be the appropriate time to return to the 
;garden. This he will do by means of a resurrection. Many Christians have kept 

>	Why? Why not allow everyone the chance, right here, right now? Why offer
>	only an unprovable promise of something in the far distant future?

This is a time of forbearance on the part of God, he is separating persons
to live in his new system. The wicked who want to continue this system will
be destoyed. Before doing God makes known his purpose so that persons can
make choice.

Jesus gave signs that one could look for that would show that one is living
in the time period just before the end. Could we be living in that time
period now?.

;Soon God will share that peace by removing the wicked at Armageddon (Psalms 

>	Soon, soon, soon. Why not now?

If God removed the wicked 7 years ago, then someone like myself would have
gone with them. However his forbearance won't be indefinite.


Phil.

re .379

Steve,


;Good question, first of all the flood did wipe out the wicked at that time.
;But, still to come was the Messiah and the establishing of God's kingdom.

>	What logical sense does it make to wipe out everyone, knowing that it
>	would not improve anything. Once he went to those lengths why not simply
>	install his kingdom? Why do it all over, *again*??? Please explain to 
>	me how this makes *any* sense at all, and how is it better than my way?


One he didn't wipe out everyone, just a violent world. He couldn't install that
kingdom them, because the Messiah had not yet come who would buy from mankind
persons to serve as kings and priests in that kingdom. In otherwords the
participants in this adminstration had yet to be gathered. This kingdom would
be the solution to mankinds ills. God would use his creation to resolve it's
problems and reconcile fallen mankind to him.

Though violence did come back after the flood, it has only been recent history
that the world has become a trully violent one.

Many would choose to side with God through this Messiah and could be declared
righteous through faith in him. He was helping persons to stand upright and
still fulfill his sense of justice. In your plan how would you fulfill your
sense of justice?.

>	What fight? Why doesn't he simply uncreate the enemy? How is this better
>	than my plan?

Destruction or uncreate, what's the difference?. Sorry but I feel the urge to
quote some scripture...

"Just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more; and you will
certainly give attention to his place and he will not be. But the meek will
possess the earth, and they will indeed find their delight in the abundance
of peace." Psalms 37:10-11 NWT

So it is God's purpose to be totally rid of wickedness and disobedience, for
he will destroy the wicked.

>	No, you've completely missed the point. They would know me. They may not
>	want to follow me, that is OK. There could be NO doubt that I existed,
>	as all they would need to do is call my name, and I would appear, in 
>	person, to talk with them. The realm in which they begin their lives is 
>	my realm, and I would leave no doubt of it. Remember, one of the big
>	differences between my plan and God's is that I am a tangible presence,
>	not a figure shrouded in mists and mysteries, but someone available 
>	instantly for any of my 'children' that desired me.

Ones mother who lives in the other realm, gives birth in your realm? 

;God has allowed the wonderful privilege of prayer, which helps persons
;communicate their inner feelings to their Creator. 

>	Wouldn't it be even better if that communication were two way?

It is two way, God communicates through his word, guiding spirit and other
channels.

;Steve have you studied the Bible?, I have not studied the Q'uran or any books

>	I have not studied the Bible in the way that I believe you mean. I have
>	read from it. I have seen that it is much like the book of Greek myths
>	I have read. I have had religious training. I have seen nothing special
>	about it. Again, would it not be better for God to personally visit 
>	anyone that requests it, that way a book that has literally thousands
>	of different interpretations would not be the final arbitrar (and 
>	source of conflict), you could go straight to the source. Why is this 
>	not better?

One can ask for guidance, I see nothing wrong in communicating in written
word. Using books in school is a good form of education though I admit one
needs a teacher. You may feel yours is the best way, but the fact maybe
as an all-powerful God one might be able see God in the flesh and still
live. What if ones appearance is brighter than any star.


>	Phil, you have still not presented even one example of how God's way
>	is better than mine, you are just quoting scripture. I am looking for 
>	a logical discussion, you are offering dogma. My original challenge
>	was that I would propose a scheme, and you would show me how my scheme
>	was flawed, or how God's was better, using logic and the definition of 
>	God as omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving. You may use the Bible as
>	a reference to back up your viewpoint as you wish, but not as a
>	definitive reply, i.e. God says so.

I hope my last reply helps show why I don't feel your way is best. But 
I don't understand why you question my use of quoting scripture. For it 
is easy to give solutions to problems, but often one doesn't have the full 
facts as to what is the cause of the problem. Based on this ones solution 
may not be a better one or a lasting one.

Perhaps, I'm not the one who can offer you a logical discussion.

Phil.