Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Jan 2000 02:27:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1593 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Jan 2000 21:09:41 GMT, John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net>
wrote:
BTW, Neal, your line lengths could use some work. 72-75 is a good
value.
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 19:21:12 GMT, John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net>
> > wrote:
> > That's not very useful either.
>
> Sorry if some things aren't easily understood-- that's just the way it is, baby.
Oh, I don't really care about how easy it is. I have my own morality,
and it mostly coincides with the laws of the country, and it
(naturally) coincides with my view of Good. It may not coincide with
_your_ definition of good, though.
And because, like I said, there's no useful definition, it's useless
to argue about it.
> > If God is good, why has he never deigned to touch the world?
>
> Hasn't He? You make quite a lot of assumptions, such as that God would choose to
> intervene supernaturally, fantastically, etc. This for me is one of the most compelling
> reasons I am a follower of Jesus: God came, but not like *anyone* thought He would--
> Powerful King, Omnipotent Ruler, etc. He came as a child, to a poor family in a backwater
> part of earth.
Hardly a backwater at the time. It was an outpost of Rome, yes, but
the region was a great center of older learning, at the time. Not
quite Alexandria (though rather close to it, relatively speaking).
The problem is, we _know_ the Bible is inaccurate (simple logic
dictates it - even forgetting about the OT, the various apostles write
quite differing accounts of Jesus' life. Even discounting Paul, there
are discrepancies in fairly major details). If the Bible is not
accurate in detail, it is obviously not the word of god.
So why should we believe anything else it says? For all we know, "Life
of Brian" or was a more accurate depiction of jesus' life than the
Bible itself.
And there's some major points too: Jesus ostensibly came to take the
sins of the world upon himself if they believed in him. But what
about, for example, all those people who lived post-Y1, but
pre-Columbus in the obvious continent?
> And He didn't come to rule, but to serve. He was about love and
> compassion, not power and control. In short, He came and most didn't even see Him because
> their preconceived notions of what God *should* be like didn't allow them. That to me
> sounds like something a God would do, not something a human would do, or even think of.
Call me a cynic, but people claiming to be _the_ Messiah and preaching
love and understanding are hardly a singular event. Why do they do it?
They want to change the world, or they just want personal recognition,
or even just material wealth. Most of them have to be lying.
My major assumption is that I assume that god would intervene in a way
that is fairly undeniable, but more importantly, not disprovable. Like
the Stone Tablets. Or the mormons' Golden Book. etc.
I find the mormons' golden book story fairly unlikely. (I mean, come
on - you dig into the earth just outside New York, find the Word of
God inscribed in gold, then you copy it onto paper and destroy the
original?)
The Moses story as well (after all, he spent enough time up on thjat
mountain to chisel the things in himself.. if he wanted to, for
example, get a new grip on his people).
As far as Jesus (who may or may not be the jewish Christ ;-) ) goes..
Virgin birth? Raise people from the dead? Multiply bread and fish by
supernatural means? Not bloody likely.
I'll grant that Jesus quite probably existed as a person. I'll even
grant that he was a very special person, reaching new spiritual
heights. But the literal son-of-god? I don't think so.
If anything, I suppose I'm more like a buddhist - I believe there may
be a higher power (though he has never conclusively shown herself,
nobody has, or can, disprove him). I don't think he is necessarily
omnipotent, or perfect. I suppose that makes my stance "God is people
too!".
> > But since there is no divine guidance, only the • ...no _clear_ divine...
> > blind-leading-the-blind kind, what exactly are we supposed to do?
>
> As far as you know. Denying that God is present in your every thought is based on no
> proof (although claiming it is isn't, either) It's a classic issue of faith. If the idea
> of believing something that isn't provable is so unpalatable, I would why. Is it because
> you might be wrong, and look like a fool? There are worse things than appearing to look
> like a fool-- one that comes immediately to mind is living out an entire life without
> having a clue of meaningfulness or purpose.
I personally would rather derive my purpose from helping my fellow man
than from a higher being who may or may not exist and who has never
given a clear sign either way how he would want me to live out my
life.
I do so in small ways (I like to think providing a Dutch factor for
Larry is helping my fellow man, as is providing promo .nl only or
out-of-production lego sets at little to no profit[1]), I occasionally
do so in big ways.
Jasper
[1] incidentally, I've got three MIB 2140's lying around. Anyone
interested? I've also seen a sealed Control Center II on the shelves
locally, fairly shelf-worn otherwise mint-in-box.
|
|
Message has 7 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
