Deliberate obfuscation by Jesus?

Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
Thu, 18 Dec 1997 06:34:41 -0600 (00882470081, 19971218063441.51563@inetnebr.com) 

Graham,

So close and yet so far!

I think you should give Scientology more consideration.  I know that
you may have a natural resistance to its tenets, but this is because
of your body thetans, which prevent you from understanding and
accepting the truth.  Once you undergo thorough auditing, and those
body thetans are removed, you'll understand and accept the truth that
scientology teaches.

Seriously, I imagine that you dismiss my above claim about scientology
because these stories about "body thetans" are just absurd---or, at the
very least, without scientific basis.  However, so is your claim of
a universal "ontological defect."  For god to create something
defective seems a contradiction of omnipotence; for god to punish for
an unavoidable sin seems a contradiction of omnibenevolence.  If we're
all doomed to be sinful, if our sins are determined by some physical or
supernatural attribute of humanity just as volcanoes' eruptions are
strongly determined by physics, then our sins are not moral acts just
as volcanoes' eruptions are not moral acts.

As for omnipotence, I'm not arguing that an omnipotent being can't
create something flawed; god could still organize molecules into the
symbols "1+1=5", for instance.  However, an omnipotent being would not
create a flawed thing without knowing it.  In the case of man and the
god of the bible, we are told that god labeled all of his creations
"good" in Genesis 1:31.

Lest you insist that it was not god who created imperfect man, but
because of man's choice to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, I will ask you whether _any_ perfect thing might later
become imperfect.  If so, then your god may have "gone bad" too, like
milk left sitting out on the table all day.  If not, then you've taken
the reasonable position that "staying perfect" is in fact a perfection
and that every non-flawed being must have it.

Nice try, though.  As you can see, the problems with your explanation
that come to mind before 6:30AM are few in number.

Jeff
-- 
\/ jepler@inetnebr.com http://www.auburn.net/~errancy/ (0|1(01*0)*1)+

Management:	How many feet do mice have?
Reply:		Mice have four feet.
M:	Elaborate!
R:	Mice have five appendages, and four of them are feet.
M:	No discussion of fifth appendage!
R:	Mice have five appendages; four of them are feet; one is a tail.
M:	What?  Feet with no legs?
R:	Mice have four legs, four feet, and one tail per unit-mouse.
M:	Confusing -- is that a total of 9 appendages?
R:	Mice have four leg-foot assemblies and one tail assembly per body.
M:	Does not fully discuss the issue!
R:	Each mouse comes equipped with four legs and a tail.  Each leg
	is equipped with a foot at the end opposite the body; the tail
	is not equipped with a foot.
M:	Descriptive?  Yes.  Forceful NO!
R:	Allotment of appendages for mice will be:  Four foot-leg assemblies,
	one tail.  Deviation from this policy is not permitted as it would
	constitute misapportionment of scarce appendage assets.
M:	Too authoritarian; stifles creativity!
R:	Mice have four feet; each foot is attached to a small leg joined
	integrally with the overall mouse structural sub-system.  Also
	attached to the mouse sub-system is a thin tail, non-functional and
	ornamental in nature.
M:	Too verbose/scientific.  Answer the question!
R:	Mice have four feet.