Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!lab
From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Sundry Replies and a Survey
Message-ID: <847@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Feb-84 04:04:01 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.847
Posted: Fri Feb 17 04:04:01 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Feb-84 03:17:44 EST
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA
Lines: 114

[Subject: Sundry replies and a survey]
[Responses to selected items from what has arrived at qubix recently.]

Ah, I wondered how long it would take for my critiques to result in
napalm. Rather than quoting everybody, I'll address an answer to the
questions as Rich Rosen perhaps said them best:

> 1. The god described in the bible is a pig (or some such epithet).
>
> 2. If the bible is true, and this god does indeed exist as described,
>	he is much more worthy of repugnance than worship. [FOLLOWED BY
>	SUBSTANTIATION]
>
> ...could you please show me where the illogic is?

(1) is value judgment. On what (or whose) system is it based?
(2) fails to include man as he is described in the bible. Tim's
"substantiation" rejects the Biblical description of man. If you only
accept part of the Bible, you could make a case for almost anything, but
Tim's premise was that the Bible is true.  Start with man not the
innocent and deserving-of-compasison that Tim portrays, but one
deserving judgment, and the picture changes. =><=

RR [later article]: "(Larry knows this to be true; god has told him.)

It wasn't a special revelation - just Scripture.

RR: "...a god that is above the law because he is the law. Such thinking
really smacks of fascism."

1. Fascism implies a despot. The Greek word which transliterates to
"despot" is used several times in the New Testament. So you're not far off.
2. God is not *above* the law; He is at the perfection of the law.
Re-consider my statements above, and please respond to the survey below.

RR: "Don't worship anything."

Impossible. Worshipping does not have to be boot-licking. There are a
lot of implicit ways to worship something or someone. I've been as
guilty as the next person (so both of us deserve hell). It's not
something I desire to do, but probably something I will do (and have to
confess to God) while I'm stuck inside this protoplasm.

Bruce Israel: "I don't understand why I'm a sinner because of what Adam
did." "If 'Man is a sinner by nature' then how does he 'thus also
becomes a sinner by choice'? ... Can Man choose not to be a sinner? If
so, how is he then a sinner by nature?"

The questions go together. In his original state, Adam was able not
to sin. When he chose to be his own boss in one area, that blew it -
Adam *changed*, both in body and soul/spirit. We have inherited both
problems: our natural desire is to go our own way (nature), and we go
ahead and do it (choice).

BI, paraphrase: "Are God being perfect and God being changless causally
connected?"

"Perfect" covers many attributes - defining it would make this article
much longer than desirable. Changelessness could be considered a part of
perfection, but more than that, it means that a perfect God will always
be perfect.

Byron Howes: "...it seems the process of selecting a religion ...
necessarily involves some evaluation of that religion..."

True if religion were only a one-way street. Christianity is not man
trying to find God; it is God reaching out to undeserving man.

The question of omnipotence/just-about-anything was raised again. Who
among us finite ones could really comprehend being omnipotent, or
infinte in some other aspect?

I think Dave Norris may have used a poor choice of words in
	"You don't have to give ANYTHING up to become a Christian; God
	wants you the way you are."
					and thus took a ton of heat.
1. Many think they have to "clean up" their lives before God will accept
them. Nope. God takes you the way you are, BUT HE DOESN'T LEAVE YOU THAT
WAY. Change begins the moment you become a Christian. And it is not you
trying to change yourself into your ideal; it is God working in you to
change you into what He knows is best.
2. In a sense, you don't have to give anything up to become a Christian,
because the full price was paid on the cross. In another sense, you have
to give up everything, because God asks for one thing: YOU. No longer
are you #1. God is in charge; he calls the shots. Once the major item is
taken care of, then He starts to work on the rest. God works in the
positive aspect: things are not "given up"; they are left behind as you
go on to something better. Our problem is that we want to take them
along. I don't give up marriage or computers or sports, but let Him have
the final say on it, then abide by it. "He is no fool who gives up what
he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."

Thomas Ruschak: "...if Hitler had ... the power of life and death..."

Man has power to give or withhold death, but not to give life.

TR: "I don't care how powerful [God] is, [M]IGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT!"

I agree. To that end, I would like a take a survey of our readers:

	What is the axiomatic basis for a right?

This is a genuine survey. I want to get some idea of what you people
think is the basis for rights. I warn you that I may inquire further of
you if I think your answer (e.g., "I have rights as a thinking human
being") isn't axiomatic enough, until either you go in a circle, or
until you say it is an absolute basis. I am, of course, obligated to
post the results (names will not be associated with answers unless
specifically authorized by the responder), but deeper inquiries may
delay the posting. My own idea will have my name attached to it.
-- 
				The Ice Floe of the Q-Bick
				{ucbvax,ihnp4}!{decwrl,amd70}!qubix!lab
				decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA