And now, in the center ring, Jeff Sargent
will attempt to not ramble forever in
response to Bob Crowley, seeing as
how Bob, Jeff, and the moderator are
probably the only 3 people in the world
reading all this. Curious that the
original poster has not responded
to any of the followups to his posting.
I'll start with more on Ayn Rand and related topics
that I didn't think of earlier. Bob didn't like Rand's
emphasis on the self; but if one doesn't take care
of the self, one can't do much for others. Ayn
Rand and Erich Fromm use the word "selfishness"
somewhat differently, Fromm in more nearly its
conventional sense; Fromm wrote in _Man For
Himself_ that "Selfishness and self-love, far from
being identical, are really opposites." Fromm
points out that one *cannot* love others unless
one has a healthy love for oneself. I would point
out also that if one is piloting a pressurized
aircraft at high altitude and it suddenly loses
cabin pressure, one *must* take care of oneself
first, get oneself on oxygen, before one can do
anything to help the passengers; similarly if an
adult passenger is traveling with a small child in
that situation, parental instinct must be resisted --
the adult must get on oxygen first in order to be
conscious long enough to get the child on oxygen.
Similarly, in life in general, one has to take care
of oneself before one can love others.
In one flashback in _Atlas Shrugged_, one
character (Francisco d'Anconia) warns his
girlfriend in every sense (Dagny Taggart) that
he will be doing some things she will neither
like nor understand, and that she will not want
to see him in the future. He tells her (this is
from memory), "I will have a reason for what
I will do. But I can't tell you the reason and
you will be right to damn me." He also says
(and this seems to me the most im****tant):
"I am not committing the contemptible act
of asking you to take me on faith. You will
have to use your own judgment."
Francisco treated Dagny better than God
treats us. He doesn't give us the right to
damn him, and He does commit the
contemptible act of asking us to take Him
on faith and not use our judgment!
On Apr 7, 7:38 pm, Bob Crowley <bobcrow...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[snip]
> The Church will undergo
> testing, and Pope John Paul II commented that one of the unalterable
> facts of Christian doctrine is that the church must undergo a final,
> horrific test. But it will survive.
The question is, is that a Good Thing?
I have to agree that your experience with your
father suggests predestination, much like that
horrid passage in Romans 9 where God is said
to have made Pharaoh resist him. Not a pretty
picture, not a decent God.
Re Judas, about whom it was said he'd be
better off if he hadn't been born, I've often
thought that's true of every one of us.
[snip]
> I've often read actors state they like
> playing bad guys. One reason is that they seem "more interesting".
> The other is that we humans find it easier to indentify with evil than
> good.
This is probably also why C.S. Lewis, in the final
volume of his space trilogy (_That Hideous Strength_),
fell into the trap of making his villains more
interesting than his good guys (except Merlin
and *maybe* Ransom). Not more likable or
admirable, but more interesting.
[snip]
> Part of HIs omnipotence is that He can choose to be hurt, just as He
> has chosen to abdicate somewhat in order to allow us free will. He
> could, to quote CS Lewis, carry out the whole human plan in the blink
> of an eyelid, but he lets us do slowly and blunderingly what He could
> do perfectly and in an instant.
Well, that sounds bizarre, insane, and idiotic. If that's
a defense of God, I'd hate to see an attack.
[fair-sized snip]
> I'm Catholic, and I believe in PUrgatory. If someone's in Purgatory
> they'll get into heaven eventually ("There you will stay " I tell you,
> "until you have paid every last penny of your fine" - "He who did not
> know what was requiredk, and did not do it, will be punished with a
> light whipping".) Heaven is literal perfection. This means that
> nothing that is imperfect will get in. On the other hand I believe
> God has made provision for refinement, even after death, for many.
> But it's a lot easier to start now.
One would be a lot less uptight if one followed the
philosophy expressed by the title character in
_Zorba the Greek_, by Nikos Kazantzakis. Zorba
remarks that his picture of the way God treats
someone after death is like this (again, this is from
memory; it's been years since I read it): The dead
person, completely ****d (without even a body),
approaches God fearfully. God puts on a mean,
tough face, though actually snickering up his sleeve.
Then, after psyching the person out enough, God
pulls out a big sponge, wipes the person clean, and
with a big, jolly laugh, welcomes him into heaven.
[snip]
> > To my mind, *God* did all he could to
> > discourage my faith. Maybe my faith
> > was of a childish variety, but when God
> > for years doesn't answer prayers, it's
> > clear that He doesn't care.
> I can understand your feelings. But remember Christ's words "If
> anyone causes one of these little ones who believes in me to lose
> faith, it would be better if he were etc."
So God should jump in the sea with a
millstone around His neck.
> > But from my point of view, God flunked.
>
> I don't know if He has. I think that when God does break through on
> you, you might have a very deep faith, having been through so much
> frustation. Moses probably thought God had flunked. The people were
> still in slavery, and he himself, having murdered an Egyptian slave
> driver in an effort to help his own people, found himself all washed
> up on the backside of the desert watching a bunch of sheep for forty
> years. But one day there was this burning bush ...
>
> God works in strange ways. I get this sense He's got a particular
> role for you, but I don't know what it is.
You may be right. 25 years ago a friend of mine called
me a prophet, after hearing the one and only sermon
I've ever preached. Like a fool, I lived that out on my job.
I don't know if that's still my calling or if, like Daniel
(12:9 and 13), I'm let off the hook. (It's interesting to note
how two Old Testament heroes, Joseph and Daniel, both
were successful in *this* world as capable government
officials.)
[snip]
> > So if everybody, including "God's people",
> > gets the shaft, one might well apply Occam's
> > Razor and eliminate the idea of God as an
> > unnecessary hypothesis. That might actually
> > be less unhappy for us than the idea of a God
> > Who watches us suffer and just blithely lets it
> > happen without lifting a (metaphorical) finger,
> > quite contrary to many Old Testament (not only
> > Proverbs, but Psalms and various prophets)
> > depictions of Him.
>
> Whether we like it or not, suffering is part of Christian faith. "Let
> him pick up his cross and follow me".
Then it sounds as if we can toss all those
Old Testament verses into the ashcan.
> That's why there's so much emphasis on the next world, or "not of this
> world". God doesn't want His people to feel at home in this world.
But the result of His actions, at least in my case
and apparently in yours, is that we don't feel at
home with Him, and thus won't feel at home in
the next world. We're screwed no matter what.
> One of the things I've found most frustrating in my life has been what
> might be called lack of career development or intellectual
> development. I used to do pretty well at school, and other people
> think I've flunked.
I know that feeling exactly. I'm fond of joking that
"I used to be intelligent". Most Americans graduate
from high school around age 18; I was not quite 16.
Most who go on to college receive their Bachelor's
degrees in their early 20's; I was 19.5 and still got it
_summa *** laude_. But I haven't done anything
special since.
> I think God's responsible to some extent. My old
> pastor commented "All He's done is humiliate you! What have you done
> to deserve all this?"
Again, we both think the same about our
respective lives in this regard.
> My CAtholic psychiatrist said "You've been
> nobbled. He wants you to write. otherwise you'd be doing all these
> other things". (I've been resisting the writing, incidentally).
I don't know what "nobbled" means, but I note
that at least when I'm around, you do a fair
amount of writing. Perhaps I'm the same;
one cousin of mine called me a writer --
with some accuracy; the last two people
of my mother's generation (my mother and
her sister) died 23 days apart (my mother
dying second); I wrote long, heart-wrenching
emails to my cousins on that side, that
seeming the easiest and most natural way
to cope with my grief; the sister's son (my
cousin) did not, apparently finding other
coping mechanisms.
But anyway, apparently I am to you like
iron sharpening iron (Proverbs 27:17).
[small snip]
> But during the exchange the night he [Bob's father] died, at one stage
he
> said "it's (career development) not even im****tant!" (Another one of
> those things he could see 'from there', I suppose). When I challenged
> that statement, and said "Then what is", his reply was "How you treat
> other people".
>
> I may as well ask you here, "How well do you treat other people?"
Well, I'd treat them a lot better if I were treated
better by God. "We love, because He first loved
us" (I John 4:19); if He hasn't loved me, there's
not a lot I can do. If I had a decent income, I
think I would donate some to outfits such as
food banks.
A bit over a week ago I attended the service
at which an old friend of mine, once my
youth pastor, retired as senior pastor of
a Baptist church. I told him that I didn't
understand how a grown-up could believe
anything as simplistic as his version of
Christianity; but I also told him that
despite our disagreement, I still consider
him a friend (and he said likewise).
[snip]
> He had a plan to bring people to "GLORY", which means not just a
> place, but a state. However to reach that state, they have to want to
> be involved.... [snip]
> If Christianity is correct, God is trying to make little suns, small
> replicas of Himself. What is that going to take? How do you change a
> flimsy creature of mortal flesh and blood, possibly riding a horse, or
> trudging wearily on the sand, into something that is eternal and
> ****nes like a star?
I always have to ask: From God's point of view,
what's the percentage? How is this a gain for
HIm? How is it possible to conceive of *anything*
being a gain for a perfect God who needs nothing?
And again, this is a godawful inefficient and
cruel way for God to accomplish His goal.
If He wanted "little suns, small replicas of
Himself", He could have made them straight
out rather than futzing around with (and
torturing) mortal flesh and blood.
And from our point of view, what's the
percentage? If we'd never existed, we'd
never know or care that we hadn't. And
to become a replica of a God who cannot
but arouse ambivalent feelings at best
is not all a good thing. I cannot help
but feel that Malachi was too hard on
God's critics (Malachi 3:13-15, NIV):
"You have said harsh things against me,"
says the Lord.
"Yet you ask, 'What have we said against you?'
"You have said, 'It is futile to serve God. What
did we gain by carrying out his requirements
and going about like mourners before the Lord
Almighty? But now we call the arrogant blessed.
Certainly the evildoers prosper, and even those
who challenge God escape.' "
[end quote]
You have to admit that those critics
had a point; they described the way
things work exactly.
You can collect all your responses to me,
edit them appropriately, and publish them
in a nice book called _Replies to a Skeptic_
or something like that. See what a favor
I'm doing you? [1/2 :-) ]
-- Jeffrey J. Sargent
|
