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