Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: QUESTIONS FROM A FRIEND Message-ID: <4914@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Mar-85 15:45:49 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4914 Posted: Mon Mar 4 15:45:49 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Mar-85 03:05:09 EST References: <221@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 64 >[From Chris Larson:] >God supposedly sent his only son, Jesus, to die for man's sins. Why? Because a payment is required for sin. Only one who is sinless could atone for the sins of mankind. Jesus was, and he offered his life freely. >If god is omnipotent, he could have just forgiven us. Why "kill" his >son? But Jesus really didn't die. He went to heaven, which is better >than being on earth. Then what was God so upset about? "Just forgiving" isn't always just. Why don't we "just forgive" people (even those who neither desire it or are sorry for their offence)? You certainly don't have to be omnipotent to forgive. It's one thing for one sinner to forgive another (which of us hasn't sinned ourselves?). But God cannot tolerate evil without it being atoned for. Jesus in human form suffered all the temptations, trials, sorrows and pain of death. It helps to rember this when I'm tempted to think, "But God doesn't know what I go though. I'm only human. How can he make demands on me?" I don't understand your last question. God wasn't upset to send his Son. He did it out of love. >It seems God was making a sacrifice. To whom? Himself? Huh? Is there >a more powerful being? If so, God can't be omnipotent. No, not *to* whom ... *for* whom. That is us; any who will accept it. >If God is omniscient, he knows what I'm thinking and what I will do. >Therefore, I don't have freedom of choice. If at some point in my life >I will have to choose between a or b, God knows I will pick "a". Therefore >I can't pick b. But yet he gets upset at people's choices, even though >he knows they had no alternative. Precognition does not imply predetermination. Knowing something in advance does not automatically mean wanting it to happen. >Some christians believe people make a choice whether or not to believe in >God. Bull. I could no more decide to believe in God or Christ than you >could decide not too. (Try it. Just not believe in God for a minute or so >and then switch back. Maybe then you'll be a born again christian). People decide for reasons other than just deciding. What reason would you give for me to try it? I wouldn't ask you to try it without reason. We're not talking about make-believe here (i.e. trying to believe when you really don't). >What really pisses me off is when some christians (read Jerry Falwell and >the like) say that christians are happier and more content than people of >other religions. How can they know? They must ask people who have been >both. Either they ask people who were x and switched to christianity, or >visa versa. I think we can deduce which method was used. What ninnies! >Do they seriously think they are getting an unbiased opinion? Good point here. I don't believe Christians are always happier than others either. But then, I think there are things more important than happiness. Not that I am unhappy, I'm not. I am content. But, if what the world calls happiness is your highest aim, you'd best pursue things other than Christianity. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd