Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    As I see it one flaw is that God puts people on earth for a reason.
    And killing people early frustrates that plan. That makes it a "should
    not do" sort of thing even if nothing else did. Also you're never going
    to get everyone to agree with this plan so it's doomed to failure.
    You're more likely to convince everyone to believe in Jesus as Savior,
    which gets them to heaven, then to get them to let you kill their
    children. So your efforts are better spent trying to tell everyone
    about Jesus. It's a lot more caring way to get people to be able to
    spend eternity in heaven.

    While it's impossible, from a practical standpoint, to get to heaven
    based on "being good" it's pretty easy by way of faith in Jesus.

    		Alfred

Re: .0

I love it!  It's the same kind of logic which led to the Inquisition:
better that the unbelievers be tortured on earth than they should burn for
eternity in hell.

Of course I don't think that children under 7 should be killed.  The
absurdity of the proposal points out how inhumane a god would be who sentenced
the majority of mankind to eternal hellfire.

				-- Bob

    In case no one caught the significance of the title of this note, it is
    a reference to the famous (or infamous) satirical essay by Jonathon
    Swift, "A Modest Proposal", in which the author facetiously suggested
    doing something similarly unpalatable--in that case involving specifically
    Irish babies, as I recall.

    -- Mike

	Swift's "modest proposal" was that the over population problem in
	Ireland and the meat shortage elsewhere could be solved by using
	Irish babies for food.

			Alfred

Steve,

	Amusing question, in a grotesque sort of way.

	I can only respond for myself.  And I don't pretend to be a
logician or an apologist.

	My personal take is that life itself is holy and that the Realm
of the Most Holy is not confined to the afterlife.  As I've said before,
I'd probably be a Christian even if salvation wasn't part of the package.

Richard

The Bible is rather silent on what happens to children before
the age of accountability.  Different theories have been
proposed and are held by various church bodies, but none
have much Biblical evidence.

Indeed, this is what you can get if instead of obedience and
submission, you prefer to play god.  The call to obedience is
one that is shunned.

Collis

But I still don't see where the logic falls down, ie.

If a child dies before the age of accountability, do they go to heaven?
If heaven is eternal happiness, why wouldn't this be a good thing?

I understand the arguments around messing with god's plan, etc., but the question
still remains, isn't this the only SURE way to make sure that a child gets into
heaven?

BTW, I assume that everyone realizes that this is a theological argument only. I
have no desire to end up as I understand the other modest proposal did, ie. taken
much more seriously than he was meant to. My info here is sketchy, however, I was
not familiar with the reference until the author of the note explained it to me.

Steve

    "Hellfire and brimstone" is a sarcastic reference to the teaching of
    Jesus that there will be an accounting before God for how each of us
    has conducted our lives.

    Does Steve's friend deny that each of us will be judged before the
    throne of God?

    The state of those who die before their moral conscience has developed
    is not revealed in Scripture in a way that all Christians can agree
    upon.

    The numbers of those who will be in Heaven and those who will be in
    Hell is not revealed in Scripture in a way that all Christians can
    agree upon.

    But knowledge of this isn't necessary to understand what those of us
    with a moral conscience must do in order to live in Heaven in eternity.

    We are commanded to love God and love each other.  Yet, all have sinned
    before God and must seek God's grace, forgiveness, and mercy.
                                          

    Hi Steve!
    
    :-)
    
    From one who doesn't believe in hell or heaven as a physical place, but
    rather as a state of mind, any answer I give would be irrelevant.  To me, 
    heaven and hell are what we make of our existence, whether in this life 
    or another one so the question is moot.  Acknowledge the God-given power 
    you have within you to create and take responsibility for your creation.
    
    Most traditionalists would not call this a "Christian" perspective but, 
    to me, this is the greatest teaching that the one called the "Christ" 
    gave to us.  It's not something I'm an expert at but then, practice
    makes perfect, right?   ;-)
    
    Nanci               

Hi Nanci,

Actually my views on this are fairly close to what you state. My true views on 
religion in general would not make me very popular in this conference :^) but in 
keeping an open mind I frequently view the conference in read-only mode. 

As I understand -.2, (Patrick Sweeney) he is saying that it is unknown how the
children would make out when 'judged before the throne'.

Again, I can't speak for my friend here (if he has an opinion I will post if for
him if he wishes), but speaking for myself this is the best argument I have heard yet against 
the proposal, ie. we don't have a clue what would happen to the kids.

Steve

    Steve,

    I feel really sad for your friend, but I can also empathize with him.

    The tragic thing is that the religious belief system of his childhood
    forced him into such sick logic.  Please tell him that there is help
    for him -- that he really can heal from a fundamentalist upbringing.

    I think that any set of beliefs are truly tested when they are forced
    to a boundary -- or extreme -- condition.  I believe that the base note
    represents such an extreme.

    Obviously, killing children is unthinkable.  But if you are of the
    "hellfire n' brimstone" persuasion, the logic "works."  Ask anyone who
    is immersed in this belief to look at the average first grade class in
    a public school.  Ask them to tell you how many of those children they
    think will be saved. 

    They'll waffle around by saying "Well, we don't know -- it's in God's
    hands" etc, but judging by their emphasis on evangelization, it's clear
    they don't think most the kids stand a snowball's chance.

    By your friend's logic, you could ensure that ALL of the children would
    be saved for all of eternity by just killing them before they are
    accountable.
    
    This is one of those places where the fundamentalist belief system just
    totally falls apart.  You can't have it both ways.  God cannot be a
    loving Father AND a hangin' judge.  And don't tell me about justice. 
    God invented it.  He knew the results before he designed the system.

    | Collis, 
    |
    | RE:  The Bible is rather silent on what happens to children before the
    | >>age of accountability.  Different theories have been proposed and are
    | >>held by various church bodies, but none have much Biblical evidence.
    |
    | Patrick,
    |
    | RE:     The state of those who die before their moral conscience has
    | >>developed is not revealed in Scripture in a way that all Christians can
    | >>agree upon.

    So, if the Bible doesn't explicitly state the fate of children who die
    before they are properly "saved" are you even implying that it is even
    _possible_ that God will send babies and toddlers to fry in hell?

    If not, then please do tell, how do you get around the original sin
    clause?  I'm really  curious as to what you are thinking about this.

    Love in Christ,
    Ruth



                                          

    With so much sarcasm and hatred in your reply it is really hard to know
    where to begin.
    
    One's faith is not a mere "religious belief system" and "sick logic".
    I perceive denigration in those words.  Was that your intent?
    
    The experience of a "fundamentalist upbringing" is not
    a form of child abuse from which one much be healed.
    
    We are all saved.  That goes for the children killed before birth, at
    birth, and after birth.  The human being who possesses the faculty of
    reason has the ability to reject �]the gift of salvation earned by the
    atoning death of Jesus on the Cross.
                                       ��
    The "logic" as you characterize it is a hateful caricature of the
    Christian message of salvation.  You speak of the "hellfire n'
    brimstone persuasion".  Do you deny that each person will be made to
    account for the way he or she has conducted his or her life? (Mt 25:31)
    
    God is a loving father and a merciful judge.  We are loivng and
    merciful in the imitation of Him.
    
    I imply nothing regarding what the Bible implies.  It inconsistent with
    my humand understanding of the will of God that the experience in
    eternal life of babies is the same as that of the unrepentant
    sinners.
    
    The important questions have answers im Christianity (Who am I? What am
    II? For what purposed was I created?), there are so many others that
    will ��have to wait until I am in the pres�]ence of God to be answered.
    Part of faith is patience.

Re: .12

But Patrick, again NOTHING in your reply here destroys the logic of the initial
post. In fact, by stating that everyone is born saved and remains so until they
'reject the gift of salvation' simply reinforces the argument. And it is 
inconsistent with what you wrote in an earlier (.8) reply.

So once again I am left with the question, where is the flaw in the (admittedly
twisted) logic of the original note?

And, just because you asked twice, I do "deny that each person will be made to
account for the way he or she has conducted his or her life? (Mt 25:31)". (Am I 
kicked out of the conference yet? :^) (I did, however, enjoy the movie 'Defending
your Life")

BTW, I kinda liked the funky characters that came across on your post, looks like
you found a dirty line.

Steve

    Patrick,

    RE:  .12

    I see that this topic is distressing you.  May the peace that passes
    all understanding be with you as you read this reply.  I assure you
    that I intend you nothing less than the Love of God.

    In your answer you stated that "We are all saved."  Could you explain
    what you mean by that?

    Peace in Christ,

    Ruth

    I don't think I would agree that each person being "made to account for
    the way he or she has conducted his or her life" is the same as, or
    automatically implies, eternal hellfire and torture.

    I often hear that hell is really nothing but separation from God, that
    it is this suffering that constitutes the suffering in hell, and that
    it is therefore solely the fault of the damned that they suffer because
    they separate themselves from God.  But, of course, while this notion
    may seem to make the idea of hell more palatable and it may get God off
    the hook from the charge of being a barbarian, that doesn't jibe with
    the idea that hell involves nothing more than people being held
    accountable for the conduct of their lives on earth.  Nor is it
    consistent with the various justifications for hell that we hear among
    those who say that Jesus's death paid the price for our sins that a
    just God would have to punish us for by eternal torture otherwise.  Nor
    is it consistent with the idea of a final judgment day.  All of these
    Christian concepts have to do with God imposing the punishment on
    people out of an alleged commitment to justice; the result is that
    people are forcibly sent to hell by God, which does not make it a
    choice on the part of the damned at all.

    The reality is that the notion of eternal torture in hell has always
    been bound up with the notion of God's allegedly just punishment for
    our sins, and the claim that hell is nothing more than just the
    person's choice to separate themselves from God is not at all what
    this doctrine has been about.  It is about forcible punishment by a
    sovereign authority.  While it is true that one can say that a punished
    person has a choice in that they could have avoided doing whatever it
    was that they got punished for, the point still remains that punishment
    itself is, by definition, something imposed by an authority against
    someone.  To say that a convict could have avoided the punishment, by
    not having committed the crime, may be true, but irrelevant--the reason
    they have bars and locks in prison is that the prisoners don't choose
    to be there.  I might add that many Christians actually go so far as to
    claim that those who never heard of Christ and thus never even had a
    chance to be "saved", are also doomed to hell.

    If there really were an eternal punishment in hell, the responsibility
    for it would rest squarely on the shoulders of God; for it would be God
    who was imposing the punishment.  If you want, say that the punishment
    is just (I would not agree, of course), but let's at least get it
    straight who is doing what to whom.  Of course, the responsibility for
    the belief in hell rests squarely on the shoulders of its adherents, no
    matter how much they may wish to avoid responsibility for their
    theological beliefs.  The modest proposal put forth in this topic
    illustrates one of the fundamental problems with the doctrine of hell. 
    It was perhaps this doctrine, as much as anything, that led me to
    become an atheist when I was 16.  At the time, I had swallowed whole
    the idea that the only alternative to the fundamentalist theology of my
    religion was atheism--so I went to the other extreme.  Fortunately, I
    matured and later realized that this was not necessarily so.

    -- Mike

    re: .13 "logic"
    
    I have no interest in "destroying logic".  My interest is in
    proclaiming the good news of the gospel.  If we're examining
    inconsistencies, how can one describe themselves as a follower of Jesus
    and deny all the references in Scripture to sin and judgment for sin,
    for example the parable of the sheep and goats of Mt. 25:31.
    
    re: .14
    
    I don't have to explain it, Paul explains it, for context one has to
    read all of Romans 5, but this is the key part: "consequently, just as
    the result of one tresspass was condemantion for all men, so also the
    result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life
    for all men.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man the
    many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one made the
    many will be made righteous." [NIV]
    
    re: .15
    
    Pious speculation regarding the details of hell have filled libraries.
    It isn't the description of hell that is inherently wrong, it is the
    lack of emphasis of God's grace, forgiveness, and mercy that leads to
    despair and rejection of the truth.
    
    

    But Patrick,  I asked what _you_ mean by it.  You said:

    " We are all saved.  That goes for the children killed before birth, at
    birth, and after birth.  The human being who possesses the faculty of
    reason has the ability to reject ]the gift of salvation earned by the
    atoning death of Jesus on the Cross.  "

    So are you saying that people are by default saved?  And that they only
    become not saved if they explicitly reject "the gift of salvation?"

    Peace,

    Ruth

  But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness
  more clearly, what shall we say?  That God is unjust in
  bringing his wrath on us?  (I am using a human argument.)
  Certainly not!  If that were so, how could God judge the
  world?  Someone might argue, "if my falsehood [sin] enhances
  God's truthfulness [more people saved] and so increases his
  glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner [why should I
  not do what will produce the wanted ends - ends justifies
  the means, doesn't it?]?"  Why not say - as we are being
  slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we
  say - "Let us do evil [kill children before the age of
  accountability] that good may result [that they may be saved -
  we hope]"?  THEIR CONDEMNATION IS DESERVED.

	Roman 3:5-8 with commentary

So, the argument is that the ends justifies the means.  We should
sin in order that people get saved - perhaps.

I hope this entry puts the issue more into perspective for you 
after considering God's (Paul's) opinion of this suggestion.

Collis

    The books of Leviticus and Joshua report that God the the people of
    Israel slaughtered the men, women, and children of Jericho and Ai, and
    not even for reasons as altruistic and sending the victims to heaven.
    
    Murdering children, as we can see, thus has an honored place in Jewish
    and Christian theology.
    
    -- Mike

re Note 660.19 by DEMING::VALENZA:

>     Murdering children, as we can see, thus has an honored place in Jewish
>     and Christian theology.
  
        Remember, Mike, that it's not "murder" if directed by God.

        (It does look very much like "ethnic cleansing", however.)

        Bob

    Good point, Bob.  Let me rephrase it:
    
    "Killing children, as we can see, thus has an honored place in Jewish
    and Christian theology."
    
    And I agree with your analogy with "ethnic cleansing".
    
    -- Mike

    I'm not a Bible expert...but...the idea that God allows "ethnic
    cleansing" doesn't make any sense.
    
    Marc H.

    The Book of Joshua perhaps?
    
    I used to give Hebrew School teachers real headaches as they tried to
    gloss over what can only be described as the genocide describe in the
    Bible regarding the conquest of Canaan...usually we were told "they
    sacrificed their children" so it was okay....
    
    Daniel

    "As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpets, they raised a
    great shout, and the wall fell down flat; so the people charged
    straight ahead into the city [of Jericho] and captured it.  Then they
    devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, BOTH
    MEN AND WOMEN, YOUNG AND OLD, OXEN, SHEEP, AND DONKEYS."  [Emphasis
    mine] (Joshua 7:20-21)

    "Then the LORD said to Joshua, 'Do not fear or be dismayed; take all
    the fighting men with you, and go up now to Ai.  See, I have handed
    over to you the king of Ai with his people, his city, and his land. 
    You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king;
    only its spoil and its livestock you may take as booty for yourselves. 
    Set an ambush against the city, behind it.'" (Joshua 8:1-2)

    "Then the LORD said to Joshua, 'Stretch out the sword that is in your
    hand toward Ai; for I will give it into your hand.'"  (Joshua 8:18)

    "When Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had taken the city and
    that the smoke of the city was rising, then they turned back and struck
    down the men of Ai.  And the others came out from the city against
    them; so they were surrounded by Israelites, some on one side, and some
    on the other; and Israel struck them down until no one was left who
    survived or escaped.  But the king of Ai was taken alive and brought to
    Joshua.

    "When Israel had finished slaughtering all the inhabitants of Ai in the
    open wilderness where they pursued them, and when all of them to the
    very last had fallen by the edge of the sword, all Israel returned to
    Ai, and attacked it with the edge of the sword.  The total of those who
    fell that day, both men and women, was twelve thousand--all the people
    of Ai.  For Joshua did not draw back his hand, with which he stretched
    out the sword, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of
    Ai.  Only the livestock and the spoil of that city Israel took as their
    booty, according to the word of the LORD that he had issued to Joshua. 
    So Joshua burned Ai, and made it forever a heap of ruins, as it is to
    this day.  And he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening; and at
    sunset Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree,
    threw it down at the entrance of the gate of the city, and raised over
    it a great heap of stones, which stands there to this day."  (Joshua
    8:21-29)

    >usually we were told "they sacrificed their children" 
    
    That has to be one of the most amazing justifications I can imagine. 
    After all, the genocide against Canaan is described as having included
    the killing of the *children* who lived in Jericho and Ai.  So in
    response to the moral revulsion they and God felt about a people who
    sacrificed their children, they killed the children themselves.  Yeah,
    makes sense to me.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    Yeah, I know...I taught Hebrew School briefly Sophomore year in college
    but quit when they wouldn't let me find a text a little more truthful
    that the propagandistic rubbish I had to feed the kids...feh!
    
    Daniel

    So......what do folks think about this passage?
    
    Marc H.

    Marc,
    
    	I can't prove it, but I suspect that not all that is attributed to
    God in the Bible is credited to the actual source.
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    	RE: .24
    
    	It was passages like that one which led me to believe that there
    	was a hidden (occult) meaning to the stories in the Bible, and to
    	start me on the way to find that all of those stories are just
    	allegories/analogies meant to convey spiritual truths and teachings
    	which were not meant to be taken literraly.
    
    	I couldn't believe that a God who could release earthquakes,
    	tornadoes, floods, etc. would take sides with one group of His
    	children against another, and allow them to take vengeance and
    	slaughter the other side, assuming that one side was wicked and
    	the other one was not.   Since when does God need help to level
    	a city ?.
    
    	Indeed, Man continues to make God in his own image. 
    
			Juan
    

    
    What's Ai?
    
    Dorian

    Ai is what a New Yorker says to a person who annoys them.
    
    "Ai!  Yoo tawkin to me?  I said, ai, yoo tawkin to ME?"
    
    -- Mike

re Note 660.28 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     	I can't prove it, but I suspect that not all that is attributed to
>     God in the Bible is credited to the actual source.
  
        A variant possibility is that the Bible is accurately
        recounting the Israelite's misunderstanding of God.

        Perhaps we are meant to be revolted at these stories.

        Perhaps we are meant to come to the conclusion that the Good
        creator God did not and would never order or condone such
        atrocities.

        Perhaps one of the lessons to be learned from this is if we
        ever THINK that God would want such a thing done, then we are
        wrong.

        Perhaps God weeps when we conclude and teach that God would
        have done such things.  Perhaps one of the reasons God sent
        Jesus was to teach us what God was really like and to correct
        our total failure to understand these passages.

        Bob

	Perhaps it was Joshua's killings that allow us to understand why
	it was required Jesus that be killed.

	Perhaps it was Joshua's causing the King of Ai to hang on a tree until
	sundown that allow us to understand why it was required that Jesus be.



Joe

    Passages like those in Joshua are for me one of the most convincing
    arguements that the Bible is not the errant word of God.  The
    Goddess/God I worship would not Kill, Murder, or Ethnically Cleanse.
    
    Patricia

    re:              <<< Note 660.34 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

    >Passages like those in Joshua are for me one of the most convincing
    >arguements that the Bible is not the errant word of God.  The
    >Goddess/God I worship would not Kill, Murder, or Ethnically Cleanse.
    >
    >Patricia
    
    Patricia,
    	What offends the Goddess/God that you worship?  Is there anything
    that she/he hates? Is there anything that she/he feels is despicable?
    The idea of a deity that doesn't discriminate on some basis is a very
    strange idea to me.  I don't mean to hit you with questions to make
    you feel uncomfortable, but I really am interested.
    
    The questions came to my mind after posting an earlier reply via the
    usenet gateway (that hasn't arrived yet. 8-) ), in which I postulated
    that maybe God has a different set of values than we do, and that maybe
    he values some things more than he values our lives.  I think I've come
    to the conclusion that he certainly values the kind of person I am more
    than he values my physical wholeness.  My perspective on the Bible, is
    that God loved the world enough to send his son but at the same time he
    hates sin, with a passion.  ...and that led to my questions for you
    above.  Your Goddess/God is obviously very different than the one
    portrayed in the OT.
    
    Thanks,
    Paul                
    

    I'm interested in how others in this file think about this passage.
    I find it very troubling.......
    
    Marc H.

    When I really read it, for the first true time, it horrified me.
    
    In Hebrew School early grades we were taught to look at Joshua as a
    "national hero."  Same for King David.  It doesn't matter whethr or not
    you believe the Biblical accounts -- these are figures of mythological
    status representing the earliest ties to the land of Israel.
    
    And they, according to the Bible, commited genocides. With the full
    acceptance and blessing of Yahweh -- complete and total and utterly
    impossible to reconcile, genocide.
    
    And we were taught as kids to regard these figures as heros without
    even *considering* the atrocities attributed to them in the Bible.  I
    don't think it is really so far a stretch to compare it to German
    children 3000 years from now being taught to look up to Hitler.
    
    All in all, it makes me very glad that Judaism evolved into a mostly
    non-prosyltizing, non-land based religion.  Even the land ties we have
    today are invoking too much blood hatred.  Our collective mythology is
    far too bloody.  I can hardly hold it up as a matter of pride for our
    people.
    
    Daniel

It sounds pretty consistent with recent books I've read about the overthrow
of the ancient religion of the Goddess; it's also pretty consistent with
many a story in the Boston Globe that thuds onto my front porch every
morning ... 

If I'm not mistaken, there are other passages in the Bible urging violence 
in the name of religion?

See, e.g., Riane Eisler's book The Chalice and the Blade, for some 
historical perspective on, as well as some ideas on how to change, all that,

Dorian
    

 
 I'll confess that I don't spend nearly enough time in the Old Testament as
 I should, and I intend to read Joshua this week.  That said, what is the 
 context of what is taking place in these passages?  Does it have anything to
 do with unrepentant sin of the people involved?  Out and out refusal to obey
 God?





 Jim

    The war to conquer Caanan -- jihad

    
    Paul,
    
    That's a good question.  What offends Goddess/God?
    
    Hatred, intolerance, bigotry, outrages committed in the name of
    religion, Genocide, too many people sitting smug while children starve
    throughout the world.  injustices.  oppression. complacency

    Collis,
    
    I'm confused -- you say "God says no" to using people to carry out his
    will -- what do you call the events described in Joshua?
    
    Daniel

It is indeed a terrible thing for God Himself to be against
you.

I take this as an important lesson for all of us.  God is
very gracious to us and often defers our punishment until
after death (and, for those of us who have accepted Jesus'
punishment in our place, there is NO condemnation and NO
punishment required!)  It is a terrible thing to be so
apostate that God determines to bring his wrath on people
while they are still alive.

Is it wrong for God to kill those who are lost and are leading
others away from God?  Some here say yes.  The prophets say
no.  God not only says no, but he backs up his no with action.

Is it wrong for God to use ordinary people to carry out His
judgment?  Some here say no.  The prophets say yes.  God not
only says yes, but he backs up his no with action.

Will God do essentially this when Jesus returns?  Some here say
no.  The prophets say yes.  We don't have history to guide us on
the outcome (since it is in the future), but we do have knowledge
of all the other fulfilled prophecies in the Bible to guide us
in our confidence of this prophecy being true.

Collis

My mistake.  I have corrected and reposted the note.

Collis

    
    I have only the read the base note in this topic so forgive me if I'm
    on the subject ;).
    
    My daughter died three months ago in an accident in my home.  Of
    course, I have had any number of questions of God concerning her
    whereabouts, wondering about accountability and such. There are several
    scriptures in the Bible concerning the status of children in God's
    kingdom.  But there is no direct proof of an age of accountability only
    what is implied by several Scriptures.
    
    My thoughts run in the same vein of .0.  If such a thing as an age of
    accountability were directly stated in scripture there would certainly
    be killing of children prior to that age to ensure their presence in
    heaven.  Even I might be tempted.  Aside from the wisdom God has shown
    in not providing such a milestone, God simply does not work in such a
    manner; faith is what pleases God and is the way He has chosen to
    operate in the world, not life by numbers.
    
    jeff

In article <660.41-930504-103606@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (honor the web) writes:

Patricia,

|>    Paul,
|>    
|>    That's a good question.  What offends Goddess/God?
|>    
|>    Hatred, intolerance, bigotry, outrages committed in the name of
|>    religion, Genocide, too many people sitting smug while children starve
|>    throughout the world.  injustices.  oppression. complacency
|>

Thanks.  I would agree that you've listed hateful things.
Does Goddess/God do anything about the things she/he hates?  It seems
to me, from my perspective, that God visits judgement on people that do
things he hates when they reject his appeal for a better way.
How does your Goddess/God deal with the
things she/he hates, especially if those carrying out the hateful
actions refuse to change?  Does she/he forgive all in the end?

Thanks,
Paul




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



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

In article <660.45-930504-131620@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (God's Love's Still Changing Hearts) writes:

Jeff,
	Thanks for sharing your loss.  Your faith is an encouragement to me as
there is something special about people who have been through the wringer and
have kept their eyes on the Lord.  As a father I've often thought
about losing one or both of my kids.  At the moment I try to trust in God's
character rather than my circumstances and I hope that I would be able
to do so in extreme circumstances.  God loves my kids more than I ever
will and ultimately I have to leave them in his hands, since in reality
that is where they already are.

Paul

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



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

I agree some things offend God.  Some things offend me.

The question I ask is what God's response?  What is my response?

Genocide?  Lashing out in hate?  Turning the other cheek, 70 times 7 times 
if necessary?  Going out, listening to people's stories, and sharing the 
Good News? 

We are made in God's image yet we are not God.  So we say that God is 
infinitely more loving that we are.  On the other hand, do we say that God is 
infinitely more spiteful, hateful, and violent that we are?  That sounds to me 
like making God into our own image.

Rather, I'd say, that our love is miniscule compared to God's love, and our 
hate is a falling into sin, a tarnishing of the image we are made in.
If we are commanded by God to turn the other cheek 70 times 7 times, how much 
more merciful is God?  Justice yes, but always tempered with mercy.  How 
merciful is genocide?

Peace,

Jim

p.s.

Jeff, Peace be with you, thank you for sharing your story.

You are in my prayers.

Jim

RE:  .48

How long do you desire God to wait.  1 year?  10 years?  100 years?
500 years?  foever?  We know that God waited over 600 years while
the Canaanites became more and more corrupt.  The Canaanite culture
has been described as the most corrupt of any culture, before or
since.  Should God endure this disobedience forever? 

Should we, as a society, endure this disobedience forever?  Should we
ignore the killing, raping, robbing (while the innocent are hurt) - or 
should we exact the appropriate penalties for the crimes?  You would
desire one standard for us and another for God?  I think not.  As long
as the Canaanites were around, they were going to poison the innocent.
Joshua and company did not obey God and did not wipe out the Canaanites.
The result?  They were poisoned.  Was God unjust in trying to prevent
this by executing (appropriate) judgment after 600+ years?  I don't
believe so.

Perhaps you think that the judgment is inappropriate.  That, I believe,
is the real issue.  We just have too little appreciation of how horrible
our sin is - because God is so merciful and gracious.  We don't truly
believe that God *CAN NOT STAND SIN*.  We want everyone to be acceptable
to God regardless of our rejection of Him.  And we wail at God when His
nature insists on justice as well as love.  We *refuse* to take responsibility
for our choices and our actions and blame the judge.  That's human nature.
And it doesn't wash.

Collis

Re:  .48

"offend".  Such a little word.  I think it misses the point.
Sin doesn't simply "offend" God.  It is TOTALLY, COMPLETELY
ABSOLUTELY, REPREHENSIBLE.  Not offend.  Not, "it offends me
when you cut in front of me".  But rather, "it is TERRIBLE
that you KILLED my ONLY CHILD (which, of course, is exactly
what we did when Jesus died on a cross).  Jesus did not die
because someone was offended.  Jesus died because SIN is
TOTALLY REPREHENSIBLE to God - and God *loves* us.

Collis

    re: the "evil " of Caananite culture...
    
    There's always that old adage of the winners writing the history books.
    
    There's also, as far as I've seen, precious little archeological
    evidence to support the notion that child sacrifice (one of the sins
    heaped upon the now-extinct Caananite culture) was common in the
    that region.
    
    Genocide is genocide.  If they really were such awful sinners, Yahweh
    has the option to exact pretty stiff penalties after death -- why
    exterminate an entire race, man, woman, children, infants and herd
    animals?
    
    Daniel

    To claim that genocide or torture are expressions of justice is to use
    a different concept of "justice" than I would.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .53

It is indeed true that you refuse to accept that death is an
appropriate penalty for sin.  Until you do, we will always
disagree.

 I used to talk to my oldest son about why Mom and Dad had rules he was expected
 to follow, and as he got older explain to him that these obeying these rules
 would also prepare him to deal with rules in school, or while driving or just 
 living in society.  And of course I always explained to him the consequences of
 breaking the rules and for the most part, when the rules of the house were 
 broken, the consequences were delivered.  Unfortunately he could never quite
 see the connection between actions and consequences and.  When it came time
 to get a job, I explained the responsibilities a job entailed and how to exist
 with a boss and what the consequences would be for not following the rules.
 Then it came time to drive and I'd explain about stop signs, speed limit signs,
 etc, and the consequences for not obeying them.

 So where are we now?  I have a 22 year old son, who can't hold a job, has lost
 his drivers' license for a year all because he knew the rules, and their 
 consequences, and chose not to follow them.  And who is he angry with?  
 Himself?  Of course not.  He's angry at the people who make the rules and 
 dish out the consequences.  


 To me its similar with God.  We have His love as His children, but we also
 have His rules and the consequences for not obeying.  And I see discussion here
 not centering on our own sinfulness and disobedience, but on the One who makes
 the rules.  Those accusing God of genocide fail to mention that there were
 rules and consequences.  They were clearly spelled out to everyone.  And now
 we are angry at God for keeping His word?  Had He not kept His word, how can
 we possibly believe or accept His promises of love and eternal life.  To me,
 it would not work.




 Jim

I have no references for my claim.  I simply pass it along
to you as what I was taught by those who supposedly should
know.  I don't even remember who taught this.  I do, remember,
however, that this conclusion was arrived at primarily from 
archeological evidence.

Collis

    It can be argued that German society of the 1930's and 1940's was
    pretty darned evil.  The actions of the Nazi's who controlled Germany
    can be rather easily described as sinful.  the rest of Germany did not
    stop them in time to prevent the evil from happening...
    
    The Allies were pretty devasting in the defeat of Germany but they did
    not commit genocide -- should they have?
    
    Daniel

    I keep hearing that  people shouldn't blame God for the consequences of
    sin.  This is completely missing the point.  The issue here is the
    barbarity of a cruel and unusual punishment.  There is a big difference
    between being losing one's license and being tortured.  While we might
    say that someone who loses their license for violating traffic laws has
    no right to complain, I would say that they would have *every* right to
    complain if the government started torturing people for violating stop
    signs.  Let's get things straight here.  Some punishments are cruel and
    are incompatible with love.  Love and justice are not different
    realms--they are intertwined, intimately.  You can punish someone in a
    loving way; and you can punish someone in a cruel way.  Cruel
    punishments, torture, or child abuse are incompatible with love, no
    matter *what* the misdeed.  It is love that defines they way we view
    punishment, and to suggest that "justice" somehow demands a certain
    response in which love doesn't enter into the equation is to define a
    concept of justice in which there are no limits and there is no
    morality.  Moral objections to cruel and unusual punishments in our
    society exist because we have a conscience and because we recognize
    that just because someone has done something wrong that doesn't mean
    that anything goes in response to them.

    -- Mike

 Would you agree that one of the lessons in life is that there are consequences
 for our actions, some catostrophic?


 And, how much more love can God show than to give His life as punishment for
 OUR sin?





 Jim

> Would you agree that one of the lessons in life is that there are consequences
> for our actions, some catostrophic?
    
    Sounds like the law of karma to me.  :-)
    
    Of course there are consequences for our actions.  Another lesson in
    life is that our actions are not immune from moral considerations. 
    This includes what we put under the heading of "justice".  God, who is
    unsurpassable in goodness, cannot do that which is immoral--and since
    hell is fundamentally immoral, God does not condemn people to hell.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .50
    
    Thats the first time I heard a logical explanation for the killing
    of the children. Not sure I'm totally in agreement, but, your
    explanation is something to think about, none the less.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .57
    
    What about Dresden? The firestorm was mainly revenge by the allies.
    More people died than by the atomic bombs. Terrible, terrible
    time for Germany.
    
    Marc H.

re: Note 660.50 by Collis "Roll away with a half sashay" 

>How long do you desire God to wait.  1 year?  10 years?  100 years?
>500 years?  foever?  We know that God waited over 600 years while
>the Canaanites became more and more corrupt.  The Canaanite culture
>has been described as the most corrupt of any culture, before or
>since.  Should God endure this disobedience forever? 

First tell me, what is time to our Eternal God?  .-)

Certainly we should not ignore the killing, raping and robbing, but my 
question was what is our response to be?  No, I do not have the answer 
to this question.

Certainly one possibility is to commit genocide on the entire human race--
we could wipe out sin entirely!-- however as that is the high point of the
Divine's creation, that seems like quite an act of effrontery. 

Do I desire one standard for us and another for God?  Certainly not, I only 
hope that we can elevate ourselves to God's standard rather than drag God down 
to ours.

I agree that the question of appropriate judgement is at issue (actually I'd 
prefer "appropriate action".)  Yes we have too little appreciation of the 
horror of our sin, I think that we have even less appreciation for God's love 
and mercy, especially when we start meeting out our image of God's justice.
Collis, we have agreed several times before that justice and mercy go 
together.  So do freedom and responsibility.  So I really don't see us as 
arguing opposite viewpoints, we're probably closer than either of us think.

Peace,

Jim

p.s.  I took a shower this morning...  .-)

>Certainly we should not ignore the killing, raping and robbing, but my 
>question was what is our response to be?  No, I do not have the answer 
>to this question.

  Which is one of the things that pointed me back to Jesus Christ.  I firmly
 believe that the problems man (kind) is facing are rapidly escaping our human
 ability to solve them.

 And I don't recall anywhere God saying His purpose was to destroy humanity or
 commit genocide on the entire human race "For God did not send the Son into 
 the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him"
 (John 3:17)



Jim

    .54  Physical death is not an appropriate penalty for sin.  Spiritual
    death is the result of sin.  Until you accept this, we will always
    disagree, Collis.  (My guess is that neither of us have a deep, abiding
    desire to agree with each other)
    
    Richard
    
    PS In spite of your perceptions, I do have a deep, abiding desire
    for truth.
    

  >In spite of your perceptions, I do have a deep, abiding desire
  >for truth.
   
That's good to know.  I hope that it becomes more and more
evident.

Collis 

Re:  .65

Why is physical death not an appropriate penalty for sin?
How did you come to this conclusion?  What prevails upon you
to claim that this truth?

Collis

    .67  It's my understand of the Bible, especially the teachings of
    the Incarnate One.  It's also my understanding acquired through
    direct communion; the still, small voice Ruth spoke about in another
    string.
    
    Richard

re:  Note 660.64 by Jim "Revive us again" 

> Which is one of the things that pointed me back to Jesus Christ.  

I am gladdened to read this.  It is also a turning point for me.

> And I don't recall anywhere God saying His purpose was to destroy humanity or
> commit genocide on the entire human race "For God did not send the Son into 
> the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him"
> (John 3:17)

Well, I think God did come pretty close flooding the earth and all.  .-) 
In fact God promised to Noah never to attempt to wipe out humanity *in that
particular way* ever again.  If left there I would not sleep comfortably, and 
would have a fear based relationship with God.  Fortunately I don't think
extermination is God's purpose either.  My suggestion of such was an instance
of hyperbole.  I absolutely do not advocate human extinction as a productive
means of dealing with sin. 

Peace,

Jim

    Acknowledge: the Hebrew Bible advocates lots of death for sin.  Rather
    bloody minded, in fact.
    
    Query:  Didn't Jesus say "let he who is without sin cast the first
    stone"? (or a close facimile of that)  Doesn't the example of Jesus in
    the Christian Gospels indicate that physical death is NOT an apt
    punishment for a sinner?
    
    Daniel

    My understanding is that sin is its own reward.

    When someone sins it distances him/her from God.

    In an healthy family the worst thing a child can 
    feel is separated from his/her parents.

    Separating from God is entering into "hell".  And
    the burning experienced "there" is what can bring
    you back to God.

    Tom

    Tom, that is my understanding also.
    
    -- Mike

    .70
    
    When Jesus said "Let the dead bury the dead," I'm almost certain he
    wasn't speaking of the physically deceased.
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .70

Daniel, 

   >Query:  Didn't Jesus say "let he who is without sin cast the first
   >stone"? (or a close facimile of that)  Doesn't the example of Jesus in
   >the Christian Gospels indicate that physical death is NOT an apt
   >punishment for a sinner?

I believe it to show:

 - the leaders lacked grace and mercy, a quality that Jesus manifested
   time and time again when He was here (although His denunciations of
   those who led others astray certainly showed His willingness to
   judge them at some point)
 - Jesus was avoiding a trap
 - judgment is not for individuals but for God and for his apppointed
   authorities.

The sacrifices in the Old Testament and the Old Testament priciple of
"without the remission of blood, there is no payment for sin" indicate
very directly that this is not the case.

Jesus experienced a *physical* (as well as a spiritual, in my opinion)
death.  *This* was the sacrifice that pays for our sins.  Does this
make sense?

Collis

Re:  .73

I totally agree.

Collis

Re:  .68

Since you get your understandings partially from the Bible,
perhaps you'd be willing to share which parts of the Bible
support the understanding.

Even more, perhaps you'd be willing to share the other parts
of the Bible which *don't* support your understanding and
explain why they are wrong/incorrectly interpreted, etc.

Or, perhaps you'd just like to believe what you believe and
not get into a discussion of why this particular belief is
true (if it is indeed true).

Collis

.76

Collis,

	We've known each other long enough to know that no matter how
convincing the evidence we individually might supply, neither one of us
is prepared to make a shift in perspective.

	My support from the Bible will be explained away, discounted, refuted,
or dismissed in some other fashion.  Some might get really nasty and accuse
me of twisting Scripture.

	And since I do not accept the Bible as wholly inerrant, our premises
will not match.  In other words, I anticipate that your invitation would
result in an exercise in futility.

	Thanks, but no thanks.

Pax,
Richard

Indeed, I expect you are right about your Biblical support
being refuted (or whatever).   I also agree with you that
it can be tiresome to enter something and continually be
disagreed with.

It's easier to perservere, however, when the truth is an
ally.  :-)

Collis

    >It's easier to perservere, however, when the truth is an
    >ally.  :-)
    
    Please, feel free to proceed with addressing the questions you posed
    without me, Collis.
    
    Richard
    
    PS  Truth is neither a stranger to me, nor my enemy.
    

re .70

	Daniel,

	Death is not a punishment for sin, Romans 6:23 NWT reads "For the 
	wages Sin pays is death" not that God causes death because
	people sin. Just as discease is not a punishment for a lack of 
	hygene. 

	Satan the Devil is identified as being the original manslayer
	of Adam and Eve (John 8:44). Otherwise Adam & Eve had the 
	opportunity of living forever on a paradise earth and in
	fact would still be round today if they had been obedient to 
	their God (Genesis 1:28, 2:17). An illustration might be that
	of a electrical fan, as long as the fan is plugged in it 
	continues to spin round but as soon as the plug is taken out
	of the electrical socket then it begins to slow down until
	it stops. God is the "source of life" (Psalms 36:9), Adam 
	willfully pulled the plug on that source when he disobeyed God,
	which in turn garanteed his eventual death. 

	Phil. 

Re:  660.79

Thy word is truth.

Collis

.45 Jeff,

	Indeed, the loss of a child, I've been told by those who've
experienced it, is the most painful of losses.  I extend to you and
your family my most heartfelt sympathies.

Peace,
Richard

re: .59

Actually, .59 is only an example of something that I see all of the time 
throughout this and other conferences, and still don't understand. And I quote

" And, how much more love can God show than to give His life as punishment for
 OUR sin?"

What is the big deal here? Throughout history there must be millions of instances
of people doing the same thing, ie. dying for someone else or for a cause they
believe in, many of them in a manner that is messier or more painful than the 
cross. (ie. deliberate torture, the inquisition, etc.) I mean, it's noble and all
that Jesus was far from the only person to do this.

Also, regarding the original (I've been gone for a week), I still see nothing 
that contradicts the original questions and several that, while arguing against,
still back up the basic validity of the original post.

Steve

Steve,

	The argument in .0 is flawless if all its premises are left
unquestioned and unchallenged.

Richard

>" And, how much more love can God show than to give His life as punishment for
> OUR sin?"
>
>What is the big deal here? Throughout history there must be millions of
>instances of people doing the same thing, ie. dying for someone else or
>for a cause they believe in, many of them in a manner that is messier or
>more painful than the cross. (ie. deliberate torture, the inquisition, etc.)
>I mean, it's noble and all that Jesus was far from the only person to do this.

The difference is that Jesus is God, not just another person.  Christianity
teaches that we all die with Christ and also rise with him to new life by
being members of His Body, the Church.

/john

    RE: .84 Richard

>	The argument in .0 is flawless if all its premises are left
>unquestioned and unchallenged.

    Yes.  But at 11 or 12 that may be all you (or anyone) has to 
    work with.

    But, do you remember in math class that, once you get the "answer"
    you should look at the problem to see if the answer is within
    the bounds reason?

    Wasting all the children doesn't sound reasonable (unless you're
    Herod, of course) so I could only surmise that there's something
    wrong with either the way the equation is set up or the numbers
    (the "facts") that were plugged into it.

    In other words, time to "recompute" or ask some questions.

    Tom

Re: .83 Steve

>Also, regarding the original (I've been gone for a week), I still see nothing 
>that contradicts the original questions and several that, while arguing against,
>still back up the basic validity of the original post.

Well, all heckling aside, I thought Collis Jackson had a pretty good
answer in .18: the end does not justify the means, so even if killing all
the young children would produce the beneficial result that they would go
to heaven, you still shouldn't do it because murder is wrong.

				-- Bob

 RE .83

 I look at it like this..the judge sentenced me to death for my crime.  Then
 said "But I will pay the penalty for you".  Not sure, but I suspect the annals
 of history won't show us too many (if any) instances of that happening..



 That's about the best I can explain it.




 Jim

It appears to me, that without blind faith, none of the main arguments of 
Christianity will ever make sense, and that with faith, they don't have to.

Steve

re Note 660.89 by FILGER::BITTROLFF:

> It appears to me, that without blind faith, none of the main arguments of 
> Christianity will ever make sense, and that with faith, they don't have to.

        Steve,

        If Christianity were only, or primarily, a collection of
        doctrine I would agree with you.

        But realize that the doctrine is not an end in itself but a
        way to lead you to the true objective, a reliance on the
        living God.

        The doctrine itself has no power to hold you, it is not a
        magnificent piece of infallible reasoning that will satisfy
        you if you simply apply your intellect to it.

        If you can rely on the living God -- THAT has the power to
        hold and satisfy you.

        Bob

I think it's important to remember that when Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of
Heaven, he didn't necessarily indicate that mortal death is required in
order to experience it.

Yet, unspoken notions about death and Heaven are central to the argument
in .0.

Richard

re: .90
Bob,
I may have misunderstood, but it feels like you just restated my point, ie. the
doctrine does not stand alone (ie. make sense), but if you have faith (the living
god), it doesn't need to?

re: .91
Richard,
Given a different version of heaven and hell the base note would, indeed, cease
to make sense. However it would then be out of line with my (admittedly limited)
understanding of the basic tenants of Christianity. Would you elaborate?

Steve .92,

	I'm not ignoring your questions.  It's just that I have more
questions than answers myself.

	And as far as the basic tenets of Christianity go, I'm afraid the
little understanding I do have may be a bit out of synch with "unbroken
tradition."

:-)

Richard

In article <660.89-930511-120429@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] writes:

Steve,

|>It appears to me, that without blind faith, none of the main arguments of 
|>Christianity will ever make sense, and that with faith, they don't have to.

	Every belief requires blind faith at some level.  It seems to me
that it is helpful if people 1) understand their assumptions (ie what they
are taking on faith), since every one has assumptions and takes things
on faith.  Once the assumptions are identified, the things that are built
on the assumptions can be examined more closely.

	One of the reasons I enjoy this conference is that so many different
assumptions are evident here.  It makes it a challenge to have a meaningful
dialog but it also has the side benefit of forcing one to examine their
own assumptions.

	I think we could substitute any belief system for 'Christianity' above,
including atheism, and the statement would be true on the face of it.  Being
a Christian, however, I'd prefer to refer to the verses that talk about the
Holy Spirit testifying to our spirits about our adoption as sons and daughters.

	I also think the amount of "blindness" varies greatly from person
to person.  Some people refuse to question anything, others question
everything, and most are somewhere in between.

|>Steve
|>

Paul

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



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

re: .94
Paul,

Blind faith was probably a poor choice of words. I do base what I believe in on
empirical evidence, however. For instance, I can't see air, but I can feel it.
I can't see atoms, but I have seen enough experiments, read enough correllating
fact, etc. to establish in my mind that they are there. Typically when addressing
things that are not 'seeable', I determine my belief based on how well the 
theory hangs together (ie. does it contradict itself) and how well it can be
documented, as well as do experiments tend to support it. But in some cases
you might say it does come down to some level of 'faith', but that faith is
always on some level provable.

Am I correct in all of my beliefs? I seriously doubt it. That is why I try 
to keep an open mind. When new evidence shows up, I can then re-evaluate.

To me, the arguments around the existence of God fall apart with very little
prodding, ie. the are incredibly contradictory. Additionally, there is no
empirical evidence I have seen to prove it. Which is where the statement you
replied to came from.

Steve

>To me, the arguments around the existence of God fall apart with very little
>prodding, ie. the are incredibly contradictory. Additionally, there is no

    The experience of God has been likened to several blind men
    describing an elephant.  One "sees" the tail, another the 
    trunk, another the side, another an ear, etc.  All of the
    experiences are different and seemingly contradictory.  This
    failure to perceive doesn't preclude the elephant's existance.

    I have experienced God in a mystical experience.  I can't 
    prove it unless you simply want to accept my word for it.  But
    in many ways that would be silly because that would prejudice
    your experience if/when the time came.  You might, however,
    simply acknowledge that I had an experience and that if you
    had one it would probably be different... but it wouldn't be
    the one true way....  :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

    Tom

re: .96

Tom,

I certainly acknowledge that you had some sort of mystical experience that led
you to God. I'm even happy for you, if your faith is something you get comfort
and support from. I believe that even if I had the mystical experience you did
I would still be skeptical. I'm not sure that there is anything that could
totally convince me there truly is a god more or less as described by the 
various theologies, although I have stated that I would join the first religion
whose deity can keep my driveway clear of snow in the winter :^)

As to the elephant argument, there may be some argument around the shape and
properties of the object, but not that there is some sort of object present.
In the case of religion, I don't even sense an object to debate.

Steve

    RE: .97 Steve

>totally convince me there truly is a god more or less as described by the 
>various theologies,

    How about a god that isn't more or less described by the various
    theologies?  :-)

    What kind of god do you want?  What kind of god would you accept?  
    One that doesn't force you to sacrifice?  How about one that
    won't judge you more than you already judge yourself?

    The god that keeps your driveway clean in the winter hangs out
    in New Mexico, maybe even Panama.  Go forth and ye shall see
    countless driveways free of snow.  ;^)

    Tom

    Steve,

    The whole idea of empirical evidence is nice, but it too falls apart on
    further examination.

    You obtain empirical evidence from your physical sensing mechanisms
    (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling)  or from extensions of
    these mechanisms (microscopes, telescopes, etc).  

    Who is to say that your perceptions are accurate or even remotely
    complete?

    For example, We send a probe out to explore the universe and set it up
    so that it only senses light in the visible "red" bandwidth.  Then when
    it sends back messages to us that say "The Universe is Red!" are we
    surprised?  When it crashes into a big blue asteroid, it doesn't even
    know what hits it!

    A few of us have crashed into that asteroid, so we have reached beyond
    the sensory world to attempt to "see" -- to understand something beyond
    the limitations of our bodies.  

    If God descended from heaven on a cloud and said "Hi Steve, I am the
    Lord Thy God.  And because thou hast asked, I giveth thee a clear
    driveway" you would probably say "Is this a trick...(Will you still
    keep my drive clear even if I think it's a trick?)"  The possibility
    would exist that some more scientifically advanced being had set it up.

    No, empirical evidence cannot -by its very nature- prove the existence
    of God.

    This is why the great teachers say the journey is within.
    
    
    Ruth
    

Note 660.97

> I'm even happy for you, if your faith is something you get comfort
> and support from.

Steve,

	Forgive me for derailing a string which you initated and which you
have asserted you did not author (and which I can confirm because the true
author has confided in me).  But there's something about the above comment
that bothers me.

	My faith has seldom, if ever, been a source of comfort for me.
Rather, it is the quality of discomfort kicking me out of my complicity
and complacency which I have truly come to appreciate about my faith.

	When I speak of peace I speak of an afflicting peace, rather than
passive tranquility.

Peace,
Richard

    To me, the existence of God makes rational sense out of my
    understanding of the universe; it is a kind of meta-theory about the
    nature of existence.  I don't believe that the existence of God can be
    "proved" empirically.  Back in my atheist days, that was enough reason
    for me not to believe in God.  But I later came to the conclusion that
    empiricism is not the end-all and be-all of understanding.

    Perhaps I am wrong, and perhaps God doesn't exist.  If so, fine.  All I
    can say is that my belief in God makes sense out of and gives an
    underlying order to my understanding of the world; and if the tool that
    I use to pursue this goal (belief in God) turns out to be incorrect,
    then so be it, but it is the best that I have to go on for now.

    I am not interested in converting anyone to my own belief in God.  I
    can understand why someone might doubt the existence of God--it is
    hardly a foolish belief.  But I believe that my own faith makes more
    sense than no faith at all, and for that reason I adhere to it.

    -- Mike

>	My faith has seldom, if ever, been a source of comfort for me.
>Rather, it is the quality of discomfort kicking me out of my complicity
>and complacency which I have truly come to appreciate about my faith.



 Hmmm...When I accepted Christ I received the gift of the Holy Spirit, the
 comforter as Jesus called Him, that indwells me and, yes kicks me out of
 complacency, but also comforts me in times of duress.




 Jim

Re last couple of replies

I doubt that either of you would hold onto your faith if it didn't provide the
comfort of answering some rather vexing questions - like who/what is divinity, 
and what are we doing here?

/Mike

Well, let's see if I can address the previous batch of notes.

(BTW, I don't expect to have my mind changed, nor to change anyone else's. I
 am, however, enjoying the debate and gaining a better understanding of your
 reasons.)

.99
Tom,

What kind of god do I want? A customized god? I like the concept! :^)

A god that I would follow wouldn't have to be a god in the classical sense,
(ie. omniscient, omnipotent, ambidextrous and omniverous) it would just be
a being that had a philosophy that made sense to me. Acutally, a kind of a 
leader. A few 'supernatural' powers would be handy, but not necessary. The
judgements and sacrifices don't really figure in. In other words, it could 
be a mere human.

As to living in New Mexico and Panama, I would then insist that my driveway
get snowed on!

.100
Ruth,

I know our senses aren't complete. But in your post you say that empirical 
evidence cannot prove the existence of god. Then where did the scanty evidence
used come from? And, if I am a creation of god, then why the heck didn't he
provide me with whatever sense I need in order to detect him? Why make it so
tough? (We can continue this line face to face later) :^)

.101
Richard,

I don't even know how to address the discomfort your faith causes you, so I 
won't! :^)

.102
Mike,

I think that we are on essentially the same wavelength. My only regret here is
that if the traditional Christians are correct, I will fry in hell (I've been
condemned to hell in three different religions, really), and if I am right
nobody will ever know it! I won't even get a chance to gloat. It's the only 
thing that's ever made me seriously consider changing my mind :^)


Again, I thank you all for the replies, and hope that we are both learning
something.

Steve

re: .95

Steve,
	Thanks for spelling stuff out a litle more.  I guess I tend to feel
that believing that there is no greater spiritual being takes more faith
than believing in one, although I'm sure you've heard all the arguments
before (and I'm not even sure I can do justice to them).

	From where I stand a consistent, completely atheistic position ends
up being totally materialistic/deterministic which seems to me to lead to
despair. Besides, it is much, much harder to prove that something doesn't
exist than to leave the question open as to whether is exists or not. 8-)
It is like trying to prove that no life exists anywhere else in the
universe.

	I am very interested in understanding more about your views and
would be interested in finding out where my understanding is wrong...but
I suppose that belongs in the Atheism/Atheists note. 8-)

Paul

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



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Re: .106 Paul

>	From where I stand a consistent, completely atheistic position ends
>up being totally materialistic/deterministic which seems to me to lead to
>despair.

That sounds like wishful thinking: God exists because the alternative is
despair.  Besides, I don't see why anyone should despair just because God
doesn't exist.  Yes, life is short, but we can at least enjoy life while
we're alive.

> Besides, it is much, much harder to prove that something doesn't
>exist than to leave the question open as to whether is exists or not. 8-)
>It is like trying to prove that no life exists anywhere else in the
>universe.

Personally I consider myself an agnostic rather than an atheist, because
while I don't think that the existence of God can be proven I don't think
it can be disproved either.  My understanding of the atheistic position is
pretty similar, though: the existence of God can't be proven, and the
burden of proof is on those who claim that God exists.

				-- Bob

    Hi Steve,

    >>Then where did the scanty evidence used come from? 

    No idea what you mean by this.  To which "scanty evidence" are you
    referring?

    >>And, if I am a creation of god, then why the heck didn't he provide
    me with whatever sense I need in order to detect him? 
    
    I don't think it's a matter of detection.  I think that God is beyond
    all perception.  Perception is by it's very nature:
    	
    	1.  Limited
    	2.  Representative of the past only

    I think that by only using perception we can never understand God.  The
    only way to God is through another part of us -- a part we cannot
    accurately describe in terms of perception-based words.  It lies in the
    consciousness of becoming one with God.  This is knowing.  

    Jesus said "The Kingdom of Heaven is within."  

    I think all the equipment for knowing God exists within us and unfolds
    as we are ready to use it.  

    The experience is unity.  But each person's experience is then
    translated back through their own belief systems and biases -- so we
    get all these different descriptions of the same thing.  

    Then, followers, who do not want to directly experience God, propagate
    the description even further from the original version.  

    >>Why make it so tough?  

    That's a good question.  Why do we make it so tough?  I don't know. 
    Perhaps we are enjoying this thing called the human experience.  Maybe
    we're playing a game of cosmic hide n' seek, we're "It," and everyone
    else is lurking in the shadows.  Jesus also said (Ruth's paraphrase)
    "You've got to become like a child to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." ;^)

    Ruth

My family often accuses me of acting like a child :^)

Steve

>    I think that by only using perception we can never understand God.  The
>    only way to God is through another part of us -- a part we cannot
 
     Which of course contradicts what God Himself has said (John 14:6).





 Jim

I think what Ruth is talking about is something deeper:

  Ephesians 3:17  That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye,
  being rooted and grounded in �love,�
  3:18  May be able to comprehend with all saints what [is] the
  breadth, and length, and �depth,� and height;
  3:19  And to know the �love� of Christ, which passeth knowledge, *****
  that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Richard