Re: Any comments? (Answers to Pete)



"LX-i" <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:52038$443325d5$45491d7a$8233@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pete Dashwood wrote:
Thanks for the response, Daniel. I accept it in the spirit in which you
intended it.

Excellent... :)

<snippage pf previous points and responses>
Rather, He wanted beings who would *choose* to worship Him for Who He
is, and trust Him for their needs.

Well, OK. But then shouldn't he accept their decision not to do what He
wanted, without punishing them or requiring a blood sacrifice because
they didn't meet his expectations? (And let's not forget that He knew
what the outcome would be before he ever put the tree in the Garden...)
Banishment from the garden, no more gravy train, and eventually the death
of Jesus... Doesn't that seem like petulance because they didn't toe the
line? I would expect an omnipotent being to say: "OK. You made a bad
choice. You and I part company from here. You get on without me and I'll
do a different project somewhere else." I still don't see why the blood
sacrifice was required.

But that's just it - parting company with God leaves one wide open to
Satan, with nothing holding him back.

Ah, here we diverge again.See, I don't believe in God, so I can't possibly
believe in Satan. My position on this is that the Universe has events.
(*** happens :-)) They are neither good nor bad; they just ARE. From our
point of view as humans we decide that something helps us or it doesn't, so
we have developed concepts of good and evil. As these concepts were invented
by us (the Universe goes about its business quite happily as it has done for
the last 16 billion years or so, and as it would do, whether we were here to
observe it or not, completely oblivious to our moral or ethical dilemmas),
then the ultimate personification of them into God and Satan has no more
relevance to everyday life than turning widdershins before going to bed
would.

As you may have gathered by now, there isn't much to be afraid of in my
philosophy (neither God nor Devil... :-)). So, if I behave myself (and by
and large, I do...) it is not through fear, but rather because it makes
sense to do so.

The sacrifice (annual in the Hebrew tradition, once-for-all with Jesus) was
meant to be a picture of someone or something else taking the punishment
for the wrongs one had done. In fact, this separation seems to be the
greatest punishment of all - Jesus' most impassioned cry from the cross was
"My God, My God, why hast thou forsake me?"


I wondered about that. When I first read it, I thought he might have been
expecting God to take him off the cross as a demonstration of His power. (If
he was human, this would be a reasonable hope; it was almost as if he was
hoping that something would happen to stop the torment. But it didn't. On
the other hand, if he was, in fact, God, then how could he forsake
Himself...?) I understand what you are saying here... that the separation
from God was the worst agony of all and a necessary part of the punishment.
It simply makes me wonder again about this God who would do that to anyone
(let alone Himself or His Son), because humans made a 'wrong' choice, aeons
before. I'm afraid it doesn't encourage me to join the followers of such a
Being...
(I'm sure that Jesus spoke the King's English - didn't everyone in Bible
times? ;> )

I really like the KJV. I like it even better in German. There is a power
about the German version that makes God more terrifying and real. (Though
still not enpugh to persuade me, I hasten to add... :-))

And why is an omniscient, omnipotent being so insecure that He requires
worship anyway? What does the worship prove? That you terrified people
into doing whatever you want? I really have some major problems with all
of this...

I don't think it's insecurity at all - it's just that, because He is Who
He is, He demands it.

That is my point, Daniel. Demanding it is not the action of one who
understands real power. You don't demand respect, you earn it.


Not to compare CEOs to God, but if one walks into a meeting room, don't
the other folks in the room stand *because* he deserves it?

They certainly do in the Forces. It may not necessarily be because that
particular individual deserves it, but rather, in the same way you salute
the uniform as a matter of respect for what it represents, you would stand
for a senior officer as a mark of respect for the office he holds and
because it is a custom or tradition.

And would this CEO be showing insecurity if they corrected someone who did
not do this?


Definitely, in my opinion. In the military, it simply wouldn't happen (if it
did, it could be considered a mark of disrespect and the perpetrator would
deserve whatever they got. In normal life, it's a bit different. If the guy
has the right stuff he'll be afforded respect automatically. From time to
time I have meetings with the CEO of the place where I work. I like him and
respect him (as does everybody in the organization), but I wouldn't stand up
when he entered the room and he wouldn't expect it. (Oddly enough, I
probably would if he was a woman... :-)). Neither would I treat him
differently than anyone else. BECAUSE I respect and like him, I converse
with him exactly as I would anyone else.

I believe your analogy in this case, is not a good one.


2. And who was this terrible sacrifice made to?
Well.... God.
The same God who gave his son (who was actually himself) to the mob?
Er...Yes.

Isn't that a bit like deciding to cut your foot off with a blunt knife
because the cat did something to offend you?
I dunno, ask a Christian.
Jesus was sent because it is only He who could maintain a sinless life.

I have trouble with that too... Are we saying He never slept with Mary
(Magdalene), or lied to his parents when he was a kid, or played hookey
from school or stole the neighbours apples? If that is is all so and He
truly was 'sinless', then how can the argument that he became a person
hold water? On the one hand we are told that all have sinned and it is
part of the Human condition, on the other we are asked to accept that
someone who wasn't Human became so without sinning. It is far too
convoluted for a a simple brain like mine....

(Keep in mind, these are all answers from the Bible - I know that using a
document to validate itself is frowned upon in some circles, but when it
comes to Christianity - well, it's pretty much what we've got.)


I appreciate the upfront disclaimer... :-) I'm happy to have this case made
with Biblical quotations if that is what it takes...

According to the Bible, sin passed beginning with Adam, through the male,
to all humankind. So, yes, we all were born with a nature that has, as a
part of it, a propensity to sin. (And, to expand on that - this is why
some things that people say just "come naturally" may not be viewed as
"right" according to the Bible's teachings.)


I understand what you (or The Bible) is saying here. But I simply can't
accept it. How can I personally be held accountable for what an acestor did
at the dawn of Time? How is that fair? I'm not even responsible for what my
Father or Grandfather did (a perceptive observer might note that I wasn't
born at the time...) before I came along, and even afterwards. How do I know
what I would have done if I were faced with the same choice as Adam?
Besides, it implies that new born babies are sinful and you'd have a very
hard time making that case.

Back to Jesus - He was conceived by the Holy Spirit inside a virgin - so,
although He was human in form, He did *not* have the sin nature that all
other men (as in "mankind") are born with. So, yes - He didn't sleep with
Mary Magdalene, or lie to his parents, or play hooky from school, or steal
apples.

You must understand how hard it is for me to accept the Virgin Birth
argument (given that science requires a cloned offspring from a woman to be
female), but, going along with it for the moment, even if he didn't have the
propensity to sin that the rest of us have, that would not preclude him from
taking the opportunity. If MM offered herself on plate as it were and he
wasn't gay, wouldn't he be simply following human nature like he was
supposed to? My point here is not whether he did or didn't (the Bible
certainly doesn't report the details of his life) but the fact that there is
no evidence to conclude that he didn't. And how would it make any difference
to the ultimate sacrifice whether he was sinless or not? My point is that
the whole sacrifice was pointless and perverse and God should not have
required it. I really can't warm to this Lord God of Israel... He behaves
very badly, for someone who should be setting an example.


(Having raised two babies to full elementary-school-hood, and with a
13-month-old, I often wonder what it was Baby Jesus did as He grew up. I'd
love to compare His behavior as a child to my children - to see what was
developmental, and what is actually the result of sin. To find that
interesting, though, I guess you have to believe that sin exists.)
I don't, as explained above. (I certainly believe that bad behaviour
exists... :-)) I think it is interesting that you can view it the way you do
and I commend your fairness here. I would be very interested to see which
events and behaviours were ascribed to 'growing up' and which to 'sin'...
:-)

For 33 1/3 years, He did it. His death was an acceptable sacrifice.

But WHY was ANY sacrifice required? Because Adam and Eve disobeyed God?

Yes.

Well, wouldn't you think that a Supreme Being might have gotten over it? He
knew they were going to disobey Him but he let it happen then held it over
them for thousands of years until His Son could atone for it. It is so
illogical and unjust that it is really hard to believe a God could do this.

Wasn't getting evicted form paradise enough punishment for that?

Right - they did, and they made the wrong one

Besides they were supposed to have a choice. It isn't a choice if the
only real option is to do as you are told. If God didn't want robots then
the choice they made should have been equally as acceptable as the one He
required/ preferred.

This bit really does escape me.

Make one choice, stay protected under God's care. Make another, and
you're on your own. Both Adam and Eve thought they could do better on
their own, and mankind has been working harder ever since.

Yes, and THAT would have been fair. But this whole atonement and blood
sacrifice thing just doesn't stack up.


[some snipped]

To be fair, Daniel, I have given this whole subject a great deal of
thought. (And study.) Over 20 years. And not just Christianity...All of
it. Certainly, I have invested enough thought into the subject to know
the parts that confuse me and don't seem to add up. I also realise that
my views on it are purely subjective and I would never seek to persuade
anyone else to my point of view. One thing I am very certain about is
that as long as there are religions in the world, all of us will need
toleranmce and respect for each other's viewpoints.

I definitely agree on your last statement above. Let me ask you this -
how is evangelical Christianity treated in New Zealand?

People are free to practise their religion. We have a diverse society and
there is a Kiwi attitude that says people should be given a "fair go". If
you start sacrificing goats on your front lawn in the name of your religion,
you can expect complaints from your neighbours. If you don't desist, there
will be a visit form the cops and you will probably be charged with cruelty
to animals, running an unlicensed abbatoir, failure to comply with Public
Health and Safety regulations or some other Civil statute that protects your
neighbours from having to put up with it. You can scream "Freedom of
Religion" all you like, the State has precedence.



Are cities allowed to put up Christmas trees without the threat of
lawsuit?

As far as I know. They have one in Tauranga.


Are Bible clubs allowed in public high schools, and afforded the same
privileges as the chess club or the debate club?

Yes. At least at the schools I attended. (None of which were 'religious'
schools.)


Are people who object to lewd behavior labeled as "prudes" and
"Bible-thumpers"?

If they ARE prudes and Bible thumpers :-) We are, on the whole, a very
tolerant lot. Every kind of weird way out faih, religion, organisation, or
cult, flourishes here and gets a 'fair go' unless they overstep the bounds
as in the scenario above.

(If ritual goat sacrifice WAS actually part of your religion, it would
certainly be possible to have certain premises (well out of sight of the
public) licensed for that purpose and registered as a church, provided you
could persuade the appropriate authorities that hygiene and health were up
to the required standard and that the despatch of the animals was painless
and humane. I don't know if it would be approved, but you would get a fair
go... :-))


I suspect that some other countries may actually have greater freedom of
religion that the good ol' US of A does these days...


Maybe other countries don't work so hard at it...

(I heard about an Easter Bunny decoration that had to be taken down so it
wouldn't offend non-Christians. Maybe Chuck, with his extensive
Scriptural knowledge, could help us - just what book, chapter, and verse
deals with the Easter Bunny? :> )


I think this is just silly. I know people here who are deeply offended by
Hallowe'en. (I dressed up as the Devil for the last one, and they were just
mortified and couldn't even look at the photos...) Despite the fact that
there area fair proportion of people who probably agree with them, noone has
made a move to ban Hallowe'en. Like I said, it is a diverse society...



He is infinitely kind and forgiving, but also infinitely just. Justice
requires punishment for wrongdoing.

[snipped parting of company]
I contend that a history of punishing people has failed to change their
behaviour. It's time we tried an alternative approach,. The aim should be
to treat commission of crime as indicating aberration on the part of the
perpetrator. The object should be to rehabilitate them back into society.
Only when that fails should they be removed.

That sounds great - now define rehabilitation. Is taking them off the
streets for a time rehabilitation?

No, rehabilitation is getting them to realise that if they are to live in a
society, they have to respect their fellow citizens and treat them right.
Rehabilitation means they lose the urge to be anti-social.

And how does this square with recidivism, especially high among sex
offenders? "Three strikes and you're out" seem too much leniency for
rapists and molesters (as well as murderers and near-murderers).

Yes, agreed. Recidivism is irrefutablke proof that rehabilitation (at least
on this occasion) has failed. At this point we are probably better off
without them...How you actually remove them from society and for how long is
something to be considered. But removal should not be considered punishment;
rather, dealing with bad behaviour. The goal of imprisonment should be to
rehabilitate, and reparation by the perpetrator should be an essential part
of the consequences for bad actions.

Punishment and 'an eye for an eye' is simply a very flawed, primitive,
concept that leads inevitably to a blind and toothless society.

True - but isn't it the role of government to protect its citizens, even
if it's from other of its citizens?

Citizens have a right to live in safety and the weak must be protected.
Anti-socials could lose their citizenship and be sent to Australia. (The
Brits had it right...) (Sorry, I had to throw that in for a laugh...)
Seriously, I think criminals should lose their rights as citizens and maybe
even some of their Human rights for the termof their incarceration, with
these things being earned back as part of the rehabilitation process.


I'm not saying that if you shoot someone, your dominant hand should be cut
off. And, the justice that lead to this point in the discussion, God's
justice, is quite plain. "I know you can't do this by yourself - that's
why I've provided a safety net for you. However, I'm not going to make
you use it - you've got to accept it for yourself." It's not eye-for-eye,
it's all-or-nothing. (That may not seem much better to you, but there is a
subtle difference.)


Well, getting back to what you refer to as God's justice, I see it as
seriously flawed. You have a choice, but it really isn't a choice, you have
a safety net but if you elect not to use it you will be severely punished,
in fact, anything other than complete obediance and unquestioning commitment
to the Master's will results in some prety awful consequences.

I know noone said God has ot be democratic, but He really shouldn't abuse
supreme power like that either...

If people thought right in the first place, they wouldn't commit crime.
We should therefore encourage them to think right. (No, I am not
advocating 1984's Thought Police... :-) Thinking should never be a crime
and all of us should be free to think and express our thoughts without
fear. It is when thought becomes anti-social action that suppression is
required. That suppression can be humane and civilized or it can be
ruthless and cruel. A decent society would favour the former.

Not that you need it to support your view (nor are you required to defend
it to me)... But, in your opinion, how would a "human and civilized"
society deal with the crimes I mentioned above?

Believe it or not, but in a 'humane and civilized' society, these crimes
simply would not occur. Yes, we have got a way to go but it is important to
have aspirations if you intend to grow. When I was a quite young child we
never had murders and rapes in our society on a daily basis and as a matter
of course. There would be maybe 3 or 4 murders a year (usually as the result
of passion) and rape was unheard of. Kids could go to school by hemselves
using public transport without fear. Parents didn't need to worry about
their kids, policemen and adults were your friend, and we left our houses
unlocked. Somehwere along the way, we lost it, and it will probably never
come back. I blame Television and the USA... :-)

OK, I dodged your question... here's what I think:

Anyone who commits sexual crimes against children and women... or murders
innocent people by acts of terrorism: Cut their arms and legs off and leave
them on street corners for people to kick as they walk past... No? OK
then... removal permanently from civilized society by means of a painless
and humane injection.(Checks and balances in place to ensure there is no
doubt of guilt whatsoever. If there is doubt, then they get a long prison
sentence that can be shortened depending on their progress towards
rehabilitation.) In all cases, including execution, full reparation to be
made to the victims (if alive) or their families. Executed criminals have
all of their worldly wealth distributed back to the victim's family.

Mercy means that He accepts someone else's payment for our wrongdoings,
so we don't have to suffer punishment ourselves. All we have to do is
claim that payment.

As discussed, I see no place for punishment in an enlightened society.


Nope. I can't do that. I don't want anybody (not even God made flesh)
paying for the wrongs I have done. I'll do that myself, thank you. I
consider recognising the need for that and working it out, as part of my
personal growth.

And, as it deals with other men, this is as it should be, IMO. According
to the Bible, though, this doesn't square things up with God. (If, though,
as you believe, He doesn't exist - then, you're good to go.) If I turn out
to be wrong, I'll make my case and He can punish me if He likes. I can see
me being taken down from the Heavenly Judgement Seat shouting: "Adam was
right!" "Long live Humanity!" "God is unfair!"


The above is not intended to be offensive to devout Christians and I
apologise unreservedly if you find it so. I'm trying to honestly convey
some of the confusion that Christianity gives rise to in me, at least.
I wasn't - and my answers aren't an attempt to "change you" or "make you
see the light" or anything like that. Just trying to help dispel your
confusion. :)
I know that and thank you. It is rare to have a civilized discussion
where people feel strongly, differ, but are prepared to examine issues in
a spirit of goodwill. Your answers have given me some insight into how
you view these same issues, but, as you might expect, I am not persuaded.

And these replies were in the same vein. (This is kinda fun...)

:-)

Gotta go now... there are some guys in hoods setting fire to a cross on
my front lawn... must be Christians, I guess... It's a very violent
religion....:-)
You think that's bad, just wait until Allah's followers come to your
town!

Well, they'll be as welcome as anybody else who behaves properly... :-)
We still practise the right to freedom of religion and speech here. Of
course, if you start blowing things up, then you may find those rights
curtailed... Freedom is a privilege (not, as popularly supposed, a
right...); those who don't deserve it, should lose it.

True. But, let me assure you, my friend - when it comes to their
religion, you're just as much an infidel as I am! :(

Probably. But I'm less of a threat... I don't have a faith to die for... :-)

Pete.



.