Posted by Al; on March 21, 1999 at 09:17:05 {MWbp7CDcBo4Qg}:
In Reply to: Realization posted by Rick on March 20, 1999 at 22:33:05:
Rick- (and everyone else)
Yes, I suppose the concept is comparable to "who will be resurected." I thought it was silly of the Society to discuss it, since they wouldn't be making the decision. I remember someone telling me that they almost left the truth over the idea that Solomon would be resurrected. I just drew a blank when I heard that. I just thought, "why don't you just wait and see who he does resurrect and then decide then if you have complaints?" It seemed so academic, and there really wasn't a shred of data in the Bible or elsewhere.
I see though, that a few people don't really get your point here. One comes on and says something about who isn't using God's name right being killed. Another says all the rich aren't bad. Another talks about all the good people and the efforts of Democracy. Another one points out that belief in armagedon is a fantasy. I don't think they get it. I'll see if a numbered summary helps.
To Everyone:
1.Rick is not debating whether armagedon or the idea of an interventional God is real here. That is another subject. Anything you say about any religious beliefs of anyone can include the term "fantasy."
2.Many have debated against the idea of armagedon, not focusing on whether it was fantasy, but whether is would be just or kind IF it did happen. Rick, therefore, is redefining the idea of armagedon, pointing out that the WTS does not decide what God does. He is focusing only on the constant references to "99.9%" of the people being killed. As for "50%", I don't think Rick's statement indicates that it would be a majority, or even very many.
3. There is nothing in Rick's statement that indicates that people who do bad things or have done them would not be shown mercy, like the instance of a man with a hard life raping someone. Again, the idea is that a very perceptive God would make the decision, not anyone else. Also, he did not say that "rich people" would be killed as a class, or that anyone would have to use God's name a certain way, or any way, in order to not be killed. Whether that is an accurate interpretation of The Bible is another subject. Maybe calling on the name is a metaphor.
4. I would ask any of you if you think that there are people that, shall we say, we, as a human society cannot work with? Ever heard of Ted Bundy? Kenneth McDuff? Or the character Hanibal Lector? Have you ever talked to law enforcement people about the numbers of these people that exist in the estimation of law enforcement agencies? Yes, things were worse in the 14th century, and yes, I myself think that all we can do is our best with Democracy to deal with them. But that is not what Rick was debating, nor does his image of a revised WTS interfere with or discourage such efforts in any way. His point is that there is such a thing as apparently unredeemable, for all practical purposes, evil people. He is not alone in this concept, nor is the WTS, for that matter. M. Scott Peck, the Pyschiatrist who wrote "People of the Lie" concurs with this, for example. Furthermore, Rick is not going to hunt down and kill these people himself. He is saying:
A.)God sees that there is such a thing as unredeemable evil people, but the possibility of people permanently choosing to be this way was necessary for the existence of human free will. We don't know or understand God's time constraints on this but they are real limitations for some reason.
B.)God can identify these people and tell the difference between them and someone led into crime or error by life's circumstances.
C.)God, knowing A and B, will mirculously intervene, ruling out any human activity in this area and therefore human error, in the execution of such people.
A comment on capital punishment. I have not heard of a causal relationship shown between U.S. crime rates and capital punishment. I'm not saying there isn't one, I've just never seen it. It may be in the future that, as science fiction writers have projected, that human pyschology will be understood such that a criminal mind can be "cured." It may require genetic alteration, but maybe we will be able to do that. On the other hand we may find some quantum-Heisenburg problem with even trying. If this is the case, then, in steps the concept, "man cannot do without God."
Capital punishment is sort of a way of coping for now. It's like a rabid pit bull is charging at your two year old girl and you have a pistol in your hand. What shall we do? Kenneth McDuff was
convicted, without any particular denial of it, of strangling a 16 year old girl with a broomstick. He wound up being released on parole and killed a few more girls. I would have my post deleted if I were to specify what a serial killer
does to someones teenage daughter before he kills her, how long it takes, and how she feels about her life and her future. Yes, most of the world was run by people like this in the 14th century. But some of it is run by them now. They
don't care who dies of starvation and disease. They don't care about future generations. They might get their hands on, and deem it appropriate to use, nuclear weapons, designer viruses, concentrated herbacides which can kill all the
plankton in all the world's oceans. Now they have to content themselves with gouging out the eyes of 11 year old boys in front of their mothers.
Look up Bob Dylan's "Masters of War" song for a summary of the role of "the powers that be"
in all this.
Rick believes that the chaos factor is too much for the human race to handle. He might be right. There may be worlds out there in which the language using species exterminated itself. We might become extinct also. There is no guarantee that we won't. We can only do our best to survive as a species. The WTS as it is now is not helping much to address the real problems of mankind. You can't get rid of them anymore that you can any other cult or counter-productive religion. Even the well established, mainstream Catholic church continues to add to human misery by proscribing birth control in third world nations. Why must we bat down every effort to reform a religion and entertain our own fantasy that it will be eliminated? It's not going to happen. I related recently the Gallup poll of 1996 that revealed that 96 to 70% of people in the United States beleived in God, heaven, and even angels. Religion has developed in most all peoples of the earth and may well be an adaptive trait "hardwired" into the genetic code of most of the species. 10,000 years of adaptive human culture is not going to be wiped out by teaching them the words to John Lennon's "Imagine", and the principles invoved. We can do our utmost to improve the world, but we will be co-existing with one kind of religion or another. If someone wants to be part of an organized religion, why not let them improve it? If someone says that there is a movement to persuade the Vatican to encourage birth control, shall we just tell them they are stupid and that the Catholic Church should be eliminated? Tell all those Latin-Americans to just forget all this mumbo-jumbo about God. We have our heads stuck in the sociological sand. We are the ones who are not facing reality if we do not see the value of religious reform. "Imagine" if the Vatican convinced all of Latin America that they needed to limit family size if they wanted to be good Christians. What if Hinduism made similar progress? Etc.
I believe in Winston Churchill et al's statement: "All it takes for evil to win is for the good people to do nothing", or something like that. Even if good people are in the majority, someone once said "merely one sinner can destroy much good." Archimedes lever may give this "one sinner" the "ability to destroy a planet." All of us should develop our best potential so we will be in the best position to help, whether we be ateist or religious. Some people's potential involves religious reform. The reformation created the orginal demand for the printing press,for examples. Before that the scriptoriums could easily keep up with the demand for books.
Al