Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:rsk
From: rsk@pucc-h (Rich Kulawiec (Vombatus Hirsutus))
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Saint DuBois, Sinner Kulawiec
Message-ID: <1356@pucc-h>
Date: Mon, 15-Oct-84 19:22:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.1356
Posted: Mon Oct 15 19:22:27 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Oct-84 06:28:51 EDT
Organization: Purdue, THE Indiana University
Lines: 102


	Off to answer more comments from hou4b!mat, and pucc-h!aeq...

	First off, to Jeff (aeq)...

> 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'd be more inclined to think in terms
of advanced technology.  ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic"...Clarke's Third Law)

	But let's suppose for the sake of argument that some being manages
to convince me that it's the big cheese...I still say, so what?  Why should I
bother to pay any attention to it?  So it created the universe...big deal.
If I were the big poobah, I could do some pretty trick stuff, too.

> 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.

	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; (It never is, in the same sense
that just because one drops 999 ping-pong balls, and 999 of them hit the
ground, there is no proof that #1000 won't go sideways...but if you're betting,
that's the way to go.) but I'm not prone to "leaps of faith" based on
questionable evidence.

	And now, Mat:

> Isn't the whole point YOUR choice to accept or reject God?  How can you say
> ``I am not going to obey the laws of the creator of everything'' (who surely
> knows a little more than you do ...) and then condemn that same creator for
> rejecting YOU?

	I've not condemned said creator-of-all; I've just pointed out that
I'm not happy with the way he/she/it runs things around here, and as a result,
I'm not inclined to worship/respect such a being...if there is one.
	
> 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.  He has superb
> intelligence, and he has had every material need (need, not want) provided out
> of the love of others.  And all he can do is lambaste you for a couple of the
> things you asked him to do.  How would you be inclined to treat the second?
> I hope God is more merciful than I ... more for my sake, I'm afraid, than for
> yours.  I know that I am unworthy ... and that there is something to be worthy
> of.

	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.

>> If I wreck my health or kill myself at an early age, what possible concern
>> is that of yours?  If I drink, or smoke, or get high, or have sex
>> (yes, please), or anything else that falls into your category of "self-
>> destructive", why should YOU worry about it?

> 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?

> How about worrying about your fellow man?  Or is that not worth your effort?
> Look, I wouldn't take this position so strongly if you did not condemn the
> people who are trying to live good and caring lives.  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.

	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.  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.

	And here, I recall the words of escaped slave Frederick Douglas:

	"I prayed for twenty years for release; but I received
	no answer until I prayed with my legs."
-- 
---Rsk

UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs  } !pur-ee!rsk
      { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk

"It'll definitely improve our reputation as a party school."

	--anonymous Purdue student, on TV-18 (local) news, Saturday, 10/6/84
	  after a Friday night of spontaneous rioting.