A final rant.

Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
Sun, 6 Dec 1998 09:52:57 -0600 (00912981177, 19981206095257.C4873@craie.inetnebr.com) 


> >Dave Gaban

> > If he does, he's an assh@le!

> > If there is a Hell and Lucifer is real, sounds like there will be many,

> > many more of us than those in heaven. 

> 

On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 10:46:06AM -0000, Matthew Bell wrote:

> If you were not so Biblically illeterate and ignorant, you would know

> that this is exactly what Jesus taught.


It's funny to see Matt have a typo here just after he got done criticizing
someone else for a typo.

But what I wonder is why God did so poorly!  I mean, even granting that
there is some logical contradiction to God creating a universe full of
people who would all serve him and end up with space in heaven, why did he
do so poorly that at least 51%, if not the vast majority of all people,
will end up in hell?

It is hard to imagine that there was nothing that God could do to make sure
at least 51% of people (say) would act in such a way that they would end up
in heaven.  I don't know exactly what he could have done---maybe 
made the so-called "god module" which is responsible for religious
experiences only work for Christian religious experiences, so that there
was no such thing as a Muslim or Buddhist religious experience.  Of
course, to an omnipotent and omnicient God creating a new race, there would
in fact be many things I could change to increase the chance of any given
member of that race coming to believe in Me.  This is just one example.
Even if 100% would somehow be impossible (Free will being a point I have
tried to address at least twice but to which I've never seen a substantial
response from Mr. Bell) there doesn't seem to be any reason why God could
not have created man so that any arbitrary fraction from 0 to 100%
exclusive would act in the correct way to attain salvation.

So if there is no reason why God could not, there must be a reason why he
does not.  While it's a bit difficult to delve into just what reason God
had, it's hard to imagine one that we would accept as being morally good or
justified.  Just try for yourself:
	Dr. X creates a new species of creature through genetic
	engineering.  The members of this species, if they remain in their
	proper environment, will live virtually endless lives of pleasure.
	However, if they are exposed to too bright a light, they will
	die in horrible pain.

	He places in their genetic code a gene whose dominant expression is
	that after the childbearing age of the creature is finished that it
	will go towards bright lights, and whose recessive expression is to
	stay away from bright lights throughout its entire life.  Thus, in
	the population, it is expected that 75% of creatures will (after
	the end of their reproductive cycle) go towards the light and
	perish in agony.  As this gene only takes effect after their
	reproductive cycle is over, there will be no evolutionary pressure
	to eliminate the gene.

	Now, to top it all off, Dr. X creates a habitat for them with a
	practically limitless expanse of land suited to these creatures,
	but with lights bright enough to be deadly in the north.

	Now, Dr. X sits back and watches the results of his experiment...

Okay, now it's time for the audience at home to participate.  You have to
give a convincing case that there is nothing morally reproachable about
what Dr. X has done, or show why my analogy to God's alleged creation of
man fails.  If you can't, then the only reasonable thing to do is to admit
that if God made humans and the rules, that he's morally reproachable.


> Dave Gaban

> > What the Hell would I have to lose?

> 

> Matthew Bell

> By the time is will already be lost.


Can anyone explain to me what Matt meant here?

Jeff
-- 
\/ http://www.slashdot.org/                      Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
I never cheated an honest man, only rascals.  They wanted something for
nothing.  I gave them nothing for something.
		-- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil