Pim:
> It is not that people are not different but that these differences should
> not be reasons for these people to be treated differently by them or
> society. So when I stated that they believed in equality they believed
> that people should be treated equally.
Gene:
Since people are in fact different, as we both see, how do you get to the
idea that these differences aren't a sufficient reason to treat people
differently? It seems perfectly rational to me to treat different people
differently. And I do. In addition, because of my Christian faith and
the unobservable (by everyone but me and maybe those closest to me) grace
that God has given me, I also believe that everyone should be loved and I
have been empowered to do so. (My thought is, if somebody loves me as much
as God has shown that He does, I can surely go out of myself enough to
love all the other losers on this pile of rock we call Earth. It isn't a
quid pro quo, it's my response to what has been given me.)
> Perhaps it is mere self preservation to strive for equality for all?
Gene:
That may be true. Perhaps it is only ultimate self-preservation that made
your grandparents risk enslavement by the Nazis to save five Jews. I
don't think that is so, though, I don't see how it can be. I think they
were acting their conscience, a link we all have to the heart of God.
Pim:
> Since there are others who do not require a bible to be self sacrificing
> my suggestion is that perhaps religion is not a necessary requirement for
> such acts ? Perhaps religion states what is observed in nature, that
> selfless acts might be benificial if not for oneself then for society in
> which one's off spring has to fend for itself.
Well this isn't very nice for the non-religious folks. You implied before
that the sacrifice of non-religious was greater than that of Christians
because they didn't feel they had anything to "gain" by the sacrifice.
Now you seem to be saying that the non-religious are making some kind of
calculation about how their sacrifice is going to benefit their offspring.
I think there are too many variables involved to ever be certain about
this kind of thing, so it doesn't convince me as a motive.
Back to the philosophy of Marxism.
> Gene: Yes, but I want to know how Marxism reached (the conlusion
> that people should be treated equally) in the *teeth* of
> all evidence against it. Observation will tell you that people aren't
> equal.
Pim:
> Exactly that is why Marxism believes that all should be treated equally.
> There are people who are less able to fend for themselves but who can
> contribute in other ways to society.
Gene: And there are people who are less able to fend for themselves and
can't do a durn thing to contribute to society. Neither of these facts
tells me how Marxism, or any other materialist philosophy arrived at the
belief that we ought to treat people equally well.
> Pim:
> > So being with your God would be important to you. What if you believed
> > that you needed some effort to be allowed this privilege ?
>
> Gene: Traditional Christian theology has *always* maintained (and
> officially
> condemned Pelagiansim) that you *cannot* do anything to merit this
> "priviledge" and it is solely a function of God's grace.
>
> So even being a christian is not a necessity ?
Good question! God gives grace to Christians and non-Christians alike.
The grace of God will lead one to Christianity, though. Not inexorably,
however, for some reason (and I don't know why) He limits Himself.
> Gene: It also maintains that the nature of God's grace will *incline* you
> to do good things. All a person can do is accept or reject or say "wait a
> minute, I need to think some more"
Pim:
> So no matter what God will accept you the way you are ? So is there hell ?
> Or is this just to scare the people into behaving well ?
Unregenerate creature that I am, I have never found Hell as a reason to
come to Christianity, though I do believe it exists (for other reasons).
To answer the question of acceptance:
Christians believe that in the episode called the Fall, Man came to be
estranged from God; Man basically declared war on the Author of the
Universe. Now there was no way for imperfect and sinful man to redeem
himself by his own effort. Therefore God, desiring the reparation of the
breach, sent his Son to become man to effect the healing of the rift.
This perfect sacrifice, which was prefigured in the sacred books of the
Jews (the Old Testament), allowed men who accept that sacrifice to enter
back into a perfect relationship with Him. The nature of God and the
nature of sin are such that God *cannot* accept men who cleave to sin.
So he can't "accept you as you are" if you, by your own will,
identify yourself with sin. And there is no way that the sin could be
pulled loose from man's grasping little will without the sacrifice of
Christ and man's acceptance of that sacrifice. That's it in a nutshell
and I'm leaving *plenty* out for the sake of simplicity.
I'm not askin' ya to believe it, I'm just tellin' ya how we see it.
And if you ask the common question: "Well, can non-Christians get to
Heaven?" I believe yes, but in doing so they accept the sacrifice of
Christ.
Hope I see you all there one day,
Gene
-- ____________________________________________________________Gene D. Godbold, Ph.D. Lab: 804 924-5167Research Associate Desk: 804 243-2764Div. Infectious Disease/Dept. Medicine Home: 804 973-6913and Dept. Microbiology Fax: 804 924-7500MR4 Bldg, Room 2115 email: anselm@virginia.edu300 Park Place Charlottesville, VA 22908 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""