Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 07:51:14 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.netANTISPAM
|
Viewed:
|
1730 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> 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.
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but any history account from those times isn't error free.
Historians back then were not objective reporters like the press is today................Okay,
I'm back, I just laughed myself silly;-)
> 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.
The Bible is not a proof text. It is not even a comprehensive piece of work, but an arbitrary
collection of vastly different types of writings. It tells a story. And although the books
in it were inspired by Jehovah (He said "Jehovah!";), they are still written by men and women
with very limited points of view.
> 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?
If you note in the Gospels, Jesus forgave sins while He was still alive. "Taking the sins of
the world" sounds like Theology to me. Symbolism is a powerful tool (ie Jesus =Lamb of God-
think Passover), but I doubt such saving action *required* death. Besides, don't be so
temporal. We are talking about a God who is out of time.
> > 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.
Yes, look at their fruit: look at their lives, their words, their actions, their motives. Now
examine Jesus'. Seems to me the worst you could say is that He had a Messiah Complex. That
works, cuz that is part of what He is.
> 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.
That thinking is *totally* flawed. If the intervention were undeniable, then faith would not
be required. And even if God appeared to me right now, I'm sure that through time the
experience would fade and doubt would creep in. "Blessed are those who don't see and
believe". Besides, intervention occurs every day to believers through faith.
> 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.
As far as you know, one way or the other.
> 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.
Son of God is a title, just like Son of Man, Christ, Messiah, Lord, Redeemer, Lamb of God,
Prince of Peace, etc, etc. All are specific titles with specific meanings and connotations.
All try to explain who Jesus was, and yet they all cannot fully describe the person of Jesus.
He was a man, and yet He was a Being beyond description as well.
> 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!".
Anthropomorphisizing God. Bad start.
> > > 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.
lol Look at Jesus' teaching. The second commandment He gave us was to Love our neighbor as
ourselves. How is what you said different than what Jesus taught? The difference is that you
have no *reason* behind your desire to help your fellow man. Christians love their neighbors
because God first loved them, and it is in response to that love that inspires action.
Actually, God loves everyone and loves them unconditionally-- pedophiles and popes alike. The
beauty is that one can do nothing to earn God's love. One can, however, accept it and live
meaningfully or reject it and live life without a clue.
-John
> 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 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
|
|
|
|
