Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Response to Ken Nichols' article on Tim Maroney (part 2)
Message-ID: <191@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Oct-84 10:54:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.191
Posted: Thu Oct 18 10:54:48 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Oct-84 09:49:36 EDT
References: <239@qantel.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 50
Keyword: presupposition by definition

Ken makes other assumptions about god, humanity, and the universe:

> God is good.  God is just.  Man is sinfull.  God is holy.  Man deserves
> death and punishment forever.  God must give that punishment no matter how
> good He is.  See the balance? He has done alot to keep you out of Hell. 

I guess that sums up Ken's view:  define a god the way you like it, define
"man" (lowly humanity) in relation to god BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY *YOU* FEEL
HUMANITY IS, AND BECAUSE YOU FEEL THAT SINCE HUMANITY IS SO HORRIBLE, THERE
*MUST* (!!!!!) BE SOMETHING ULTIMATELY GOOD TO BALANCE. This is the crux of ALL
religious belief:  not necessarily the horrific self-mutilatory stance of Ken
Nichols here, but the act of expecting/wanting for the universe to be a
certain way, and then showing evidence (which you don't need to look at
objectively---it's obvious) to "support" this.  

> The people Tim is refering to are people who cannot face the reality of a holy
> God who must judge sin.  Justice must be meted out to those who insist on 
> going there own way.

Another assumption.  "Justice MUST be meted out..."  "a holy god who MUST judge
sin"  Where did these ideas come from?  Do they have a basis in reality, or
are they just what Ken (and others) would like to believe the universe to be
like?  I have heard this line of thinking before in this newsgroup:  David
Norris asked "If there is no god, what does that do to the concept of
punishment/desert/justice?".  (Implying that since these wouldn't exist in the
absence of a deity, there therefore must be a god.)  Jeff Sargent, in numerous
articles, has asked why anyone would want to continue living if all there was
was "this physical world".  It might be nice to think that the universe is
organized (and run) around justice and reward/punishment (afterlife?) and
absolute definitions of good and evil.  But is this the way things are, or
IS IT JUST THE WAY YOU MIGHT LIKE THE UNIVERSE TO BE???  I would really like an
answer to this question, as no one has ever come forth with one any time I
have asked it.

>> but you can't hold some starving infant in Namibia
>>responsible for the actions of two long-dead people, any more than you can
>>hold me responsible for the acts of Jack the Ripper.  There just isn't
>>sufficient connection to establish guilt.  [TIM]

> No, I can't.  But God can and does, whether you choose to admit it or not!!!

Yes *you* can.  You *have* done so by defining a god who does, a god which is
little more than your own projection of what you feel a god *should* be.

> GOD CANNOT SIN,  IT IS CONTRARY TO HIS NATURE, WHICH IS PERFECTION!!!!

Define it that way, and thus it's so.
-- 
Occam's Razor:  I liked it so much, I bought the company!
						Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr