Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-k Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:Pucc-K:agz From: agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Saint DuBois, Sinner Kulawiec Message-ID: <449@pucc-k> Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 03:12:57 EDT Article-I.D.: pucc-k.449 Posted: Tue Oct 16 03:12:57 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Oct-84 06:30:45 EDT References: <1356@pucc-h> Organization: Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University Lines: 149 >> Jeff > Rich >> Actually, the universal recognition of the Lordship of Christ will come as >> a result of unquestionable objective evidence of it. > > It would be rather difficult to convince me (via objective evidence) > that some entity was actually a "god"; I don't think that either one of you are thinking real hard, especially Jeff. How could you deny opbjective evidence is my first question here. It seems to me that any solid evidence would make sure that you believe in a God. But what makes you think that this "objective evidence" is going to show up? Doesn't it seem more logical that a God, if existant would be much better off if he kept his existance a mystery? This way he has to rely on his "subjects" having faith alone in him, and not hard evidence to point out to others and say "You can't refute that!" I think the whole idea behind this thing called "religion" is to get people to have faith in what they can't see. >> Belief in self-awareness on the part of a mere collection of molecules seems >> to me to be a greater leap of faith than belief that there is a spirit using >> that collection of molecules as a temporary home, and that the spirit is >> self-aware. What do you consider yourself? I have no question that your body is made of molecules, despite what Max has said to you. I don't think that it is that impossible for molecules to collect and form in such a manner that they create life, given the time involved. A few million years is a LONG time. Take a look at what ahs happened in your lifetime, and try to think about that much happening several hundred thousand times over. > I have made no "leap of faith"; I have merely looked at the available, > verifiable, demonstrable-on-demand evidence, and have drawn a conclusion. > I won't claim that the evidence is complete; The evidence is far from complete, but at least it gives you the option of believing one thing instead of another. Now before you religious, gooney-ga-ga fanatics cut into this, this option allows things to be understood without believing in something other than what is humanly accessible, and the people who don't believe in a God can use this as their explanation. > And now, Mat: (read: >> == Mat) >> How would you feel if you were God, and you call two people to judgement: One >> has spent his life making people happier, raising a family and teaching his >> children well, going out of his way to help others. The second came in >> sniveling with complaints about the way you run things. Are these two mutually exclusive? You can't take care of your family and friends without agreeing with a possible God? Why is it that these religious freaks try to convince you that everyone who doesn't believe in God is some terrible raping, pillaging, massacring evil sinner? This complaint gets used SO much and has almost no truth to it! Why don't you try a more realistic approach to these things and still see if you have a leg to stand on! > I really don't know either of those two people...but let me answer > you, just for the sake of argument. If I were god, and therefore above the > the pettiness which you seem to be implying he/she/it would indulge in given > this black-and-white case,I would send both on to eternal happiness. Why not? > Then again, the vengeful christian god, which so many folks find to their > liking, would probably zap the #2 person straight off to the pits. How can anyone view things in black and white cases? There is no such thing as all right and all wrong! Who can you honestly look at and say they are bad or they are good? Who's definition do you use? And the first person that says "God's" gets belted! If you were going to say this, tell me where you got the criteria, I'd be interested in seeing the "right" one, since there are so many versions that exist. How can anybody out there judge each like this? "You're wrong, you're going to hell!", and " I'm right, I'm not." Tell me exactly where you get this information! >> Why? Perhaps some of us CARE about you. We are told to love one another as >> we love ourselves. There's not much reason beyond that. > > So? Why don't you "love" me by letting me enjoy my free will--including > my free will to be self-destructive (in your opinion) if I so choose? Or do > you feel that someone with such inclinations is an errant child, who needs > to be corrected at every turn? Thank you, Rich! To Mat, Why don't you explain to us how you "love yourself"? I'd be interested in knowing. Do you consider this to mean that you don't do harmful things to yourself? Terrific! Don't, but please don't tell us that you actually love us and want to make sure that we don't burn in eternal hell by trying to correct us. Just think what would happen if you did this: everyone would believe in your God and you would be depressed because you wouldn't have anyone left to judge! So there, how much fun would you have then? Being more serious again, if he doesn't agree with you, let him do what he wants. Don't say that he has to agree with you because you're "right". >> How about worrying about your fellow man? Or is that not worth your effort? >> ... And if some of them >> have grown bitter in frustration, well, why not pray for them? Even if YOU >> don't believe that it will make one bit of difference. If you're worried about your fellow man, tell him that there is a problem, but don't make him see it your way. It seems to me that you're trying to help your fellow man by praying instead of confronting an issue face to face. I don't want to condemn your religion, and if you believe prayer helps, go for it. And why stop there? There is so much you can do. But don't say that because someone doesn't pray for his fellow man that he is callous or unfeeling for them. Maybe he would like to help in his own way. It seems to me that positive up-front action will have effects that you can feel much better about than you praying that someone else helps a person ... > I do worry about my fellow man; and I have spent a good deal of time > doing concrete about it, like working for the March of Dimes, and in the > past, for Unicef; certainly a much more productive use of time than "praying" > for help. Sorry for rehashing ... > I don't recall condemning anyone in my article; and I certainly > have every sympathy for those folks who attempt to "live good and caring > lives"...the problem is that a good many of those who profess to be members > of that group of people...aren't...and they spend a good deal of their > time condemning those who are. There is only one criteria these people need to call you an evil, unloving, bad-guy person. That is whether you believe in *their* God. If you don't than they don't give a pile of beans about what else you say. You are in their black book, and because you are, they can call you any name they want. They don't need anybody else to help them, they are perfect. Yet they feel it is their job to help you "live good and caring lives." Why can't people accept other people for what they are? Is it really that tough? It seems that all most of the people on this newsgroup can do is condemn people because these people don't believe the same things they do. Sorry about the sloppy wording, but I think I made the point. This is kind of hard to say, I guess, because I end up condemning htese people who condemn other people. How about I say that I won't interfere with their lives if they don't interfere with mine. Or, if you want me to get immature about it --- "You hit me first!! You started it!" Have I made myself claer? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-k!agz Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University --- "I'm OK, You're a CS Major" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "There's only you and me, and we just disagree."