NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24566

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 8.2 KB

Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24566 talk.religion.misc:24772
Path: sparky!uunet!news.tek.com!tekig7!tekig6!alanf
From: [e-mail] (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 10:10:21 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.atheism
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 176

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> [Jeff West quote deleted]
>
>It grieves me to hear this kind of discussion.  God gets accused of
>things that are really not his to begin with.  Both Christians and
>non-Christians alike attribute the pain and suffering in the world
>to God.   This is not true.
>
>   I'll state my point first then back it up.  The point is this.
>Ultimately, we as humans have chosen death over life.  We had preferred
>cancer and old age a long time ago.   The four year old girl gets what
>she has inherited from the beginnings of humanity.  Death.  Suffering.
>It is sad.  Truly a pity.

Ah, community responsibility.

>But guess what?  God didn't create it that way.
>He originally created us to live forever.

Live where?

>God doesn't dole out cancer
>to 4-year olds.  Such is a sad and major consequence of what we as
>humans chose for ourselves a long long time ago.

Don't include me; I certainly did not choose it.

>   Do you remember that in the Bible, we humans chose to gain access
>to the knowledge of good and evil at the price of our lives.   Despite God's
>ample and clear warning. we chose to eat from that infamous fruit.

NOT "we"!  Adam and Eve.

>It reaped death for Adam and Eve then.  It reaps death for us now.  We,
>through some sort of spiritual genetics, inherited death from the
>originators.

God created the "spiritual genetics", did he not?  Is he not,
then, responsible for the effects of his creation?

>Due to Adam and Eve, humanity had changed ever after.
>We now die.  80 year olds die. 4 year olds die.  There are old age, cancer,
>sickness, war, starvation.  All this stuff happens now.

But God told Adam, "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
(Gen. 2:17, NIV)  He did not say, "for when you eat of it I will
change you genetically so that you become inherently sinful, and
then you will die.  And then because `the wages of sin is death'
(Rom. 6:23) all your offspring will die, too.  Furthermore, the only
way your offspring can get out of this mess I'm setting up is for me
to send my Son `to give his life as a ransom for many.' (Matt. 20:28)
Then they will be forever in my debt.  I will have demonstrated my
justice (Rom. 3:25-26) and lavished grace upon them (Eph. 1:7-8), all
to the praise of my glory (Eph. 1:14)."  Amen!

>But remember,
>this is not the way God created it to begin with.   God's will then is
>still his will now.  For all to come to Him and have everlasting life.

In the same way he originally intended?  Where would they all live?

> [Quotes from Genesis deleted]
>
>You may also note that the "serpent" had a major role in enticing
>Eve to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  You may
>attribute some of the responsibility of man's fall to the serpent,
>but God still held Adam and Eve accountable for the choice they made.

No problem -- they blew it, they died.

>The consequence of eating that fruit reaped death for humanity thereafter,
>and yet Adam and Eve knew that consequence behorehand.

How do you know they knew?  Do you really think God informed Adam of
all the consequences of "spiritual genetics" ?  Isn't it much more
likely that Adam took God at his word, "in the DAY that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17, KJV)?

>2.  Another example from Job.  This example shows that Satan
>    can and does instigate and cause suffering and death.  Without
>    God's intervention, there is no cork on Satan's evil.
>
>Job, as you may recall, was a properous man.  He was "blameless,
>upright, feared God, shunned evil.  He had 7 sons, 3 daughters,
>7000 sheep, 3000 camels . . . ."  And the hands of Satan, all
>material possessions and the lives of Job's family, perished.
>
>Recall the dialog from Job 1:9-12:
>
>    "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied.  "Have
>     you [Lord] not put a hedge around him and his household and
>     everything he has?  You have blessed the work of his
>     hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread
>     throughout the land.  But stretch out your hand
>     and strike everything he has, and he will surely
>     curse you to your face."
>
>     The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he
>     has is in your hands, but the man himself do not
>     lay a finger."
>
>     Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.
>
>Now read the next few paragraphs.  The Sabeans attacked
>and carried off Job's oxen and donkeys.  They put the servants
>to the sword.  The sheep were burnt up.  The Chaldeans swept
>down and carried off his camels.  They killed more servants.
>Then, a mighty wind swept in and blew down Job's house on top
>of his entire family.  They all died.  Satan then afflicted
>Job with sores . . . .
>
>     Who would you say caused all this?  God?  NOT!  God merely
>allowed Job to be given "into Satan's hands."  Being in Satan's
>hands is not a great place to be.  Job suffered in them.  Satan
>caused the deaths of the servants, the death of his family, and
>Job's sores.  These were the results of Satan's will, not
>God's will.

Suppose you tell me that my daughter loves me only because of
the food and money I bring home.  I claim she loves me for my
character.  You say: "Let me kill all her pets, take away all
her possessions, and infect her with a loathsome, painful
disease.  Then lets see if she still loves you."  I say, "Go
ahead; just don't kill her."

What would I have shown my character to be?

>     For some semantic hair splitters out there, some will
>note that during all this havoc, one may think along the lines
>of how Job and Job's friends think, that is, that God is the one
>who is afflicting Job.  But from verse 1:12, the reader knows it is
>Satan.  It is again confirmed in verse 2:7.  Job and Job's buddies
>are basically in the dark.  They do not know what is going on behind
>the curtains like the reader does. The reader is given the
>perspective from the heavenly throne room.  Job and his friends
>have but a limited view.

All this business about humanity having to suffer because one
man and one woman failed a test, having been egged on by a
challenger to God, is clearly unjust.  The doctrine of the ransom
sacrifice boils down to either "two wrongs make a right" or "bad
things must come in pairs."  That sort of justice God is free to
apply, but why would anyone want to be part of it?  If the story
of Job is true, then

   as flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; they kill us for
   their sport. (Shakespeare: _King Lear_ IV .i.]

Alternatively, the injustice is so clear that it is extremely good
evidence that there is no such thing as a "God of the Bible" who
is the epitome of love, justice and mercy.  The idea that mankind
inherited sin from Adam is inconsistent with the admirable
principle stated in Ezekiel 18:20:

   The person who sins, he alone shall die.  A child shall not
   share the burden of a parent's guilt, nor shall a parent share
   the burden of a child's guilt; the righteousness of the
   righteous shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness
   of the wicked shall be accounted to him alone. (Tanakh)

Moses and Aaron showed they recognized this principle when God said
he was about to kill the entire nation of Israel, in Numbers 16:22:

   O God, Source of the breath of all flesh!  When one man sins,
   will You be wrathful with the whole community? (Tanakh)

Did God really mean to kill all the Israelites, or was he just
toying with Moses and Aaron, to see what they would say?

Do you see any inconsistency in the Bible's position on these
issues?

Alan Feuerbacher
[e-mail]