Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcnc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!bch
From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: What God Wants
Message-ID: <2402@mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 22:32:39 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.2402
Posted: Thu Dec  6 22:32:39 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Dec-84 06:34:31 EST
References: <1376@pucc-h> <1731@nsc.UUCP> <>  <2330@mcnc.UUCP>  <2376@mcnc.UUCP> 
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 58
Summary: 

In article  dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes:
>>  
>> A Deity that truly loved all
>> people in their diversity (and who truly wanted love in return) would
>> understand that different people have different expectations of their
>> faiths, and would provide accordingly.  No way is better or worse than
>> any other, and all measure the differences among us.  Ultimately, they
>> bring us all to the same place.
>> 
> the above paragraph boils down to this:  any God that
> "really" loved us would let us do what we want.  God should
> follow the rules *we* make up for *Him*.
>> 
>> Golly Gee, Paul, I thought we were talking about forms of worship, not
>> day-to-day moral behavior.  Do you mean that if I adopt a different religion
>> than yours, with attendant behavioral proscriptions and prescriptions,
>> that I am asking G-d to follow the rules I make up?  
>
>The paragraph before mine clearly states that God is "supposed" to
>fit what *we* want.  Even if you are talking about worship, this
>amounts to God following our rules.  And then He's not God.
>

I don't know how you got that out of the first paragraph.  I didn't say 
G-d would "let" or G-d would "follow."  I said "provide," I guess implicitly
for our needs of faith (though perhaps that's not clear.)  To my mind, no
one gift from G-d is no better or worse than any other, and that includes
faith.

>But I certainly get tired of reading articles consisting of
>"let's have religious discussion, but let's not telling anyone we
>think they're wrong."  If you don't consider your beliefs worth
>transmitting, they're not worth holding personally.  Obviously you
>consider my views wrong, since you feel the need to correct me.
>I am not going to complain "don't tell *me* I'm wrong!"  Why should
>I?  But then you shouldn't go around telling people like me that
>they're wrong...
 
It isn't your views, its your lack of respect.  Everyone who reads this
group has a viewpoint (most of them different from all I can gather.)
Everyone who reads this has a faith, of some sort, which is held as dearly
and as close to their hearts as you hold yours.  Don't doubt it.  You,
and many of the fundamentalist Christians on the net remind me of the 
proverbial American tourist in a foreign country who thinks if he shouts
loud enough the natives will understand him.  They won't.

Please note I never said you were wrong.  I said *I* didn't like the
lack of reverence you show for other's beliefs by stating flatly that
they are "wrong."  ('Wrong' and what I don't like really are different
things.)  It makes me angry, and after a while I stop reading your 
articles.  That certainly doesn't suit your purpose or the purpose of
this group.  


-- 

						Byron C. Howes
				      ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch