lower_tadfield: A question (or twelve) of faith.

Laura (

laureate05) wrote in

lower_tadfield,
@ 2005-09-14 21:42:00

Current mood:

contemplative

A question (or twelve) of faith.
Quite some time ago, I was talking to an old acquaintance. I don't say friend only because we talk about twice a year. At the time, he was weighing his options regarding which Southern Baptist seminary to enter. He's a very interesting guy, a bio major whose goal was to become a preacher, a conservative Christian whose shockingly open-minded (or at least tolerant) about other people's faith.

Anyway, we were talking, and the conversation inevitably came around to my current status vis-a-vis the Lord, etc. Don't be alarmed; this is an integral part of our relationship--respectful discussion of faith. At the time, I had just finished Good Omens and was enthused to tell him about this quirky, brilliant book that really pushed me back toward belief in God and faith in general. He, naturally, was skeptical, but supportive in a vague Billy Graham/Joel Osteen sort of way. I'd like to believe we both left the conversation a little more comforted about each other's immortal souls.

To me, there is a lot of faith-affirming themes in this book. The emphasis on ineffability, Adam's preference of non-interference, the complex game of poker really being an even more complex game of solitaire. It answered a lot of my concerns about God: why we have free will, why God allows bad things to happen, how people can be so bad and so good at the same time. I think the irreverence for religion in a clearly satirical book allowed for more important concepts revering God to come forward. It was subtle, and it was one of my favorite thing about the book.

What I wanted to ask is what you all think about this? Did this book push you toward or away from faith, God, religion? Was is just a funny look as silly beliefs? Did it affect the way you see the universe at all? Is there anything I'm missing or anything you'd like to mention?

(Post a new comment)

	diagram12345 2005-09-15 02:23 am UTC (link)
	As a strict atheist, I just saw it as a nice satirical work on organized religion. And a chance to do more slashing. shrugs Besides, if I decieded to take Good Omens seriously (which would be rather sad) I could point out loads and loads of blasphemy. Even so, I'm glad Good Omens makes you feel better about the afterlife that you believe in. :) (Reply to this)(Thread)

laureate05
2005-09-15 02:32 am UTC (link)

I think that's a fair assesment of the book. In fact, that's kind of what I expected to hear from at least a few people.

I'm not saying I took it seriously, and the blasphemy is part of the appeal. I just thought it was more thought-provoking than "haha, look at the silly religious folk!" As an atheist, did you see that too? I know the slash potential is very distracting, but you know....

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	arielchan 2005-09-15 02:25 am UTC (link)
	Good Omens is a funny book. As to how it affected my faith? Neil Gaiman has since become my God. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	laureate05 2005-09-15 02:33 am UTC (link)
	Word and partial word. You have to give some love to Terry Pratchett too. ;) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	arielchan 2005-09-15 02:35 am UTC (link)
	Much as I love GO, I was not impressed by the other Pratchett I read afterwards. But Neil has yet to write something I don't like. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	laureate05 2005-09-15 02:37 am UTC (link)
	Fair enough, but he did pull his weight on this one, so he merits veneration at least. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	arielchan 2005-09-15 02:37 am UTC (link)
	Oh, and if you wanted to know the honest affect on my faith? Zero. I remain a firm agnostic, but I permit others what they like as long as they don't try to jam it down MY throat. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

laureate05
2005-09-15 02:43 am UTC (link)

Did it give you any food for thought though? Even if you ultimately decide your beliefs haven't changed, did it make you question?

I'd hate to think that this book hasn't provoked its fans to think about religion in both humorous and serious ways. Not saying that it should be read as cramming anything down anyone's throat, except maybe "hey, think about it."

To be honest, I'm a bit of an agnostic too, but I'm more than willing to consider ideas from either side of the fence. Currently, I lean more towards belief in God than belief there is no god. Part of that comes from thinking about the view of God I see presented in Good Omens.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	redbird 2005-09-15 02:38 am UTC (link)
	I like it in part because it treats the Christian mythos as something that we can play with, like the Greek or Norse or any other. My impression from his other writing is that Pratchett is not so much an atheist as an anti-theist: one who feels that if there are gods anything like what we have been told about, they have a lot to answer for. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	laureate05 2005-09-15 02:49 am UTC (link)
	I like that too. I think Christian mythology is more than ripe for playing with. And I see what you mean about the approach that higher powers having a lot to answer for, but I also think that this book at least suggests that there could be answers. In other words, it's not a firm indictment. More of an investigation with...questionable answers? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lady_of_water 2005-09-15 11:39 am UTC (link)
	It shall be played, don't you worry... evil demonic grin and points to her own thread-starting post (Reply to this)(Parent)

Ah, the BIG questions

vulgarweed
2005-09-15 02:48 am UTC (link)

I'd say its effect on my relationship with religion and faith is not a direct one, since I'm Pagan. (First read it when it was first published around about the time I was first initiated, in fact).

But because Christianity is all around me, and I did explore Christianity as a possibility when I was a kid (atheist family but my parents were willing to drop me off at the church door and pick me up when it was over), I suppose I do feel a need to reckon with it, make sense of it, find back doors through which to see it as something other than a hostile force. I'm fascinated by a long list of heresies, syncretisms, and alternative interpretations. I read all sorts of stuff along those lines. And I'm an absolute sucker for satire, particularly a satire that comes across ultimately as more affectionate than mean-spirited.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Ah, the BIG questions

laureate05
2005-09-15 02:56 am UTC (link)

comes across ultimately as more affectionate than mean-spirited
Exactly. It's poking fun, not tearing apart.

The biggest message I took away was that look, you can't blame it all on the higher power. People need to take responsibility. And don't go saying the higher power should stop bad things from happening either because that's not fair to anyone. There's a plan, you are part of it, you won't understand it for a looong time.

Is there an analogous theory/view in your faith?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Ah, the BIG questions

vulgarweed
2005-09-15 03:23 am UTC (link)

Well, you ask five Pagans a question, you'll get 10 different answers, but I think it's fair to say that there is a huge emphasis on personal responsibility and what that means. "An' it harm none, do as ye will," is much, much more complicated than it first appears. I don't believe in eternal reward or eternal damnation. What I do believe in is interconnection, that every action of every creature has a ripple effect.

Even the "ineffability" defense can be a cop-out. No, you won't understand everything, ever, but it's important to try.

I'm not a monotheist--any faith claiming to be the only true one and any god claiming to be the only real one deserves a good satirical raspberry, IMO.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Ah, the BIG questions

laureate05
2005-09-15 03:37 am UTC (link)

I'm going to leave your last comment alone because it could open up something unpleasant, and I don't think you meant to. As long as you're just as willing to laugh at your faith as others', we're cool.

But we agree that there are universal ideas highlighted in Good Omens, regarding human accountability. Adam says something about people needing to sort it out in this world. Does that about sum it up?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Ah, the BIG questions

vulgarweed
2005-09-15 03:46 am UTC (link)

Oh, sorry. Yes, Pagans as a whole tend to include a LOT of irreverence along with our reverence. We seem more as two sides of the same coin, and without one you've only got, well, half a coin, and those are useless. Truth remains, though, yes, I believe in God: all of them! (I only actually directly worship a few, but that doesn't mean I think people who worship different ones are wrong!)

Can't begin to speak for Pagans as a group, but I believe Earth is our real home and we're here because it's where we belong. I'm not waiting to be sent somewhere else nicer or dreading being sent somewhere else worse. This is our real home, and the beings we share it with are our real family, and we ought to treat them that way. So yes, I think that does definitely relate to what Adam says. My favorite thing about him is the understanding that Power--power over others in any sense, earthly or spiritual--is usually more trouble than it's worth: if you're doing it right, cleaning up your own room, metaphorically speaking, ought to keep you busy enough you don't need to go messing with anyone else's.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Ah, the BIG questions diagram12345 2005-09-16 12:19 am UTC (link)
	As my uncle would say, "I'll support any religion that doesn't think that it's the only right one." 'Cause, you know, that's just annoying. XD (Reply to this)(Parent)

lady_oneiros
2005-09-15 02:59 am UTC (link)

I think Good Omens is a lot like Dogma. When Dogma came out, a lot of people left the theater during the middle of it because it was too blasphemous. However, when you really look at it, Dogma is a very religious movie...it supports God and Christianity. Good Omens just puts it in a funny light....you have to be able to laugh at yourself. I'm Lutheran, and I believe in God and the Devil and demons and angels....but I also believe that it can be pretty darn funny. After all, "Christ didn't come to Earth to give us the willies!!"

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	laureate05 2005-09-15 03:16 am UTC (link)
	does the dance of agreement I really see "Dogma" and Good Omens as supporting God and Christianity too, in a modern, funny way. Sure, there's blasphemy, but that doesn't make them expressions of atheism. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	daegaer 2005-09-15 11:10 am UTC (link)
	What bits do you consider blasphemous? (Reply to this)(Parent)

gothicdraco
2005-09-15 03:03 am UTC (link)

I'm sort of an atheist, pagan, agnostic ... thing.
My religious beliefs are complex at best :)

I love learning about religions, of all kinds so i'm really open about religion, but i dislike organised religion.
And i'm a scientist... see? complex! LOL!

Good Omens has really fueled my love for learning about religion, i love the thought that there are angels and devils out there laughing at us all cause we still haven't gotten it quite right yet.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

mangy_mongrel
2005-09-15 06:25 am UTC (link)

OMG *iconlove*!

YES. I agree. Same here, if you scratch out the pagan bit.

I dunno. I just thought that Good Omens was just another book. Nothing very life-changing, though it was amusing. Of course, there were some Biblical references that I didn't get until they were pointed out to me, and which I didn't even know were Biblical references until they were pointed out to me, so...

(Reply to this)(Parent)

napthia9
2005-09-15 03:06 am UTC (link)

I'm not religious, and the book didn't change anything about that, but I do think that several of the things you mentioned- the emphasis on ineffability and human behavior rather than grand miraculous gestures- probably make up a little of my personal feelings about life in general.

It's interesting, because I've noticed Prachett tends to focus on how heroes are human, or at least how human gestures can become heroic; wheras Gaiman gravitates a little more towards big dramatic deeds which end in tragedy. Godd Omens kind of blended them together- in the end, it's simple things like Newt's uselessness with technology, and compassionate deeds like Crowley and Aziraphale's decision to stand with the Earth; that defeat the grandiose plans of the spiritual worlds.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

vulgarweed
2005-09-15 04:02 am UTC (link)

Godd Omens kind of blended them together- in the end, it's simple things like Newt's uselessness with technology, and compassionate deeds like Crowley and Aziraphale's decision to stand with the Earth; that defeat the grandiose plans of the spiritual worlds.

Yes, I agree with this totally: it's a very humanistic book in that way. And Adam makes that same decision -- someone once in a discussion I read back in the archives of this community long ago (was it

daegaer? I think it might've been) put forth the very interesting theory that Adam is not the Antichrist at all...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	daegaer 2005-09-15 07:23 am UTC (link)
	Yes, that was me. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	vulgarweed 2005-09-15 07:27 am UTC (link)
	That was an amazing possibility that made me think about the book in a whole new way, even better than before. Just wanted you to know that. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	saturnalia 2005-09-15 10:14 am UTC (link)
	You wouldn't have a link to this discussion, would you? I took a quick look at the community memories, and couldn't see anything likely-looking. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	daegaer 2005-09-15 11:09 am UTC (link)
	Thanks :-) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	napthia9 2005-09-16 02:32 am UTC (link)
	Yeah. What was that line Crowley had, about the final battle being heaven and hell against humanity? That line and Adam's decision really highlight the fact that the thought processes of heaven and hell are practically identical... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	circeniko 2005-09-15 03:28 am UTC (link)
	Good Omens didn't affect my faith; it's too gently satirical to be taken seriously in any religious way. (Reply to this)

	ida_pea 2005-09-15 03:30 am UTC (link)
	I've never been a Christian (and ergo never read the parts of the Bible that figured in), so to be honest a lot of stuff was lost on me the first time I read it. I'm sure the impact would have been different if I had been raised in a different environment. (Reply to this)

	htebazytook 2005-09-15 03:53 am UTC (link)
	Quite honestly, I became actually INTERESTED in religion after reading GO, rather than merely critical of it. Mostly I wanted to understand more fully the allusions and jokes and things. But this evolved, rather, into just a general curiosity about Christianity. It's terribly ironic, which pleases me because, well, GO. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	laureate05 2005-09-15 04:04 am UTC (link)
	Ah, ineffability. ;) That's actually really cool. It's great to see reading beget more reading. (Reply to this)(Parent)

aliciajd
2005-09-15 05:01 am UTC (link)

I think that Good Omens, like many good books, serves to make you think. Many of my fundamentalist friends and relatives, would be horrified at it. But for me, it fits into my view of God and religion. I cannot look at the universe and fail to believe that there is a God. It is just too much for me to believe, that something did not cause this to happen as it has. But I believe that any God that could create all of this, has to be ineffably intelligent, and most of all would have a galaxy sized sense of humor. I don't believe that he/she would worry a bit over whether a not a person was dunked or sprinkled or for that matter, even baptized. I think his angels would be a lot like the gentle Aziraphale, and I think he would have a place in his heart even for Crowley. Beyond that, I have no opinion.

(Reply to this)

mangy_mongrel
2005-09-15 06:35 am UTC (link)

I dunno. I still stick to my view that there is no God per se, just what we believe in, i.e. I believe that belief makes gods and also, that we all have the potential to become gods. Blasphemous? I don't know, because I'm not part of any religion (unless you count agonisticism as a religion) anyway.

You just gotta have faith that everything will turn out alright, and so far it has for me, although I would say that I'm one of the luckier ones. I mean, what's the point of 'God only helps those who help themselves?' etc? [abrupt /rant]

I guess it just shows that like every other religion that has been made fun of and perhaps belittled (like the Greek myths etc), since it is human, it is fallible. And that it is acceptable.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	diagram12345 2005-09-16 12:22 am UTC (link)
	"I still stick to my view that there is no God per se, just what we believe in, i.e. I believe that belief makes gods and also, that we all have the potential to become gods." That's very Pratchett of you. I like it. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

kindkit
2005-09-15 06:46 am UTC (link)

It seems to me that Good Omens is quite anti-religious, and also (to randomly invent a term) anti-supernatural. After all, this is a book that features an angel and a demon who decide to protect human beings from interference by the forces of both heaven and hell. There's a strong commitment throughout the book that human beings should be allowed to manage their own destinies (even when we do it rather badly). That's why Newt and Anateham get rid of the second volume of Agnes Nutter's prophecies--so they can be free of "fate" and providence and all that.

And there's also a consistent refusal, in the book, to say that God is good, that heaven is a good place we should want to go to, or that the ineffable divine plan is in any way conducive to human happiness. (Although Gaiman and Pratchett do make interesting use of the idea of the fortunate fall. Their version, via Milton's Paradise Lost, seems to suggest that human rebellion against God is itself ultimately part of a providential plan that allows human beings to recreate goodness within themselves. At least, that's what *I* make out of the tentative possibility, raised at the end of the book, that A. and C.'s blockage of the apocalypse may itself have been ineffably foreseen.)

My sense is that Crowley pretty much sums up the book's message about religion when he says that heaven and hell, good and evil, are just the names of sides.

And that heaven must be very dull indeed.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	kindkit 2005-09-15 06:47 am UTC (link)
	Pardon my typo above . . . that should say "Newt and Anathema." (Reply to this)(Parent)

lady_of_water
2005-09-15 11:43 am UTC (link)

Muah. I agree with some of the things said above... Gneil and Pterry are gods, Aziraphale and Crowley are preists of the faith (And it's sooooo hot, thinking of them in priest robes and snogging... Damn, I *have* to write that fic...)

Other than that, I'm a Wiccan. So I got a good malicious snigger in here and there, laughed at what the really conservative, uptight Christians would think, and proceeded to love it to death. Wiccan or no, demon-on-angel (or, y'know... Vice versa) action is adorkable/SO right/contenting of my belief in duality of deity/just plain hot.

Now to go off and post the fic I wrote yesterday.

(Reply to this)

amberdiceless
2005-09-15 12:16 pm UTC (link)

I'm a very lapsed Catholic and an Agnostic. I'm not sure that GO has changed my faith (or lack thereof) one way or the other, but it does reinforce an uneasy feeling I've had for some time now that we humans are stuck in a Universe not of our own making, and whoever's in charge has their own agendas which may or may not coincide with our best interests. Crowley's "all of Us versus all of Them" observation near the end rings uncomfortably true to me.

OTOH, I'd like to believe that the Ineffable Plan really does have it all covered and we ultimately don't need to worry about it. Be a lot easier if it were even a little bit more Effable, though. :)

(Reply to this)

maerlann
2005-09-15 06:28 pm UTC (link)

I'm a pretty firm athiest. Good omens sort of made me both be more interested in religion, and then not at the same time.

After I finished Good Omens, I thought maybe I'd better read the bible, because I didn't get some of the stuff and it was something I'd been meaning to read for a while anyway. So I started with the book of revelations, which seemed like an obvious choice.
Um, yeah, maybe it wasn't the best choice though. I read it and was horrified at what it was talking about, which sort of put me off christianity one hell of a lot. I do understand the jokes and stuff a lot better now though.

(Reply to this)

earl_great
2005-09-15 10:00 pm UTC (link)

Wow...I'm glad to hear somebody ask that question. I am a firm Christian, and I do feel that it made a lot of interesting points; i don't think you can really write a satire if you don't attribute some worth to whatever youre satirizing. And GO said a lot of things that made me nod my head and say, you know, i think that too.
That being said, there were a few things that i will never be able to agree with in my true faith: a)the idea that good and evil are really nothing more than two oposite sides, and neither is better or worse and b) the concept of a fallen angel who didn't deserve it. Because that just breaks my heart.

(Reply to this)

ayleedragon
2005-09-15 11:04 pm UTC (link)

.....I suppose you could say that Good Omens *is* my religion.

To steal a phrase, I want to believe. I need to think there's some sort of afterlife; otherwise my mind strays into bad places I don't like to go that always leave me terrified and in tears. I've always been like that. And I never really convinced myself that there was one. This sucks, big time. I don't like this. But I never found something I really could believe in. Nothing makes sense to me. It's like there's a fog running all the way through me, and it's cutting me off from the rest of the world.

Now, I try not to let this bother me. I find it very easy to distract myself with books, comics, movies, music--I'm lucky in that, at least. And one of the best distractions I have is Good Omens.

For me, it summarizes the best possible scenario: there is a God, there is an afterlife, there are supernatural forces and they like us. It shows the kind of religion that allows for people like Aziraphale and Crowley. It's kind. It's charming. It's happy.

If I could really believe in anything, I'd believe in that.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

diagram12345
2005-09-16 12:28 am UTC (link)

That sounds a bit like Newt. You know how he tried to believe in lots of things, but failed? The need to believe in something also sounds like when Newt said that he didn't have the self assuredness to be an atheist.

And what you said in your fourth paragraph, that is a nice way to look at it, and it would be great if it were really like that. And then you read the Old Testement. 0_0

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	quantum_witch 2005-09-15 11:55 pm UTC (link)
	I had some comments... but it all got rather long and involved, so I posted it to my own LJ here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/quantum_witch/11423.html?nc=1 (Reply to this)

rockollyrock
2005-09-15 11:57 pm UTC (link)

I can't say I'd give the power to change faith to any book. What I would offer is that you've got to have it in you to be moved. Some people came away with nothing more than a story, and that's just fine. I think what really matters is he ability to apply it to your own reflections.

While I cannot say my foundations were shaken after reading this book, I can say that I came away with more than just a good story. The ideas in this book made me THINK, which is what good literature is meant to do. In this case, I thought about what I believe about the nature of God and humanity.

Some ideas were new to me (such as the hand in hand agreement between good and evil), and were moving enough that a few small aspects of my faith DID morph slightly. *points to the passage with the last remarks Crowley and Aziraphale had for each other before the battle*

I attribute this soley to the fact that I hadn't thought of it before - and whether or not it affects you is simply a question of personal preference. If I like an idea, I keep it, make it mine. If I don't, it slips on by.

So I suppose that I perhaps was affected in a similar way to your experience?

(Reply to this)

lovessacrifice
2005-09-16 03:13 am UTC (link)

Bit late on this. I'm Presbyterian, the liberal kind, and the child of a minister and both grandfathers are ministers. I'm also rather open about religious belief and all. I do a lot of thinking about it.
But when I set down to read Good Omens, I just thought of it as entertainment and a good laugh. It didn't affect me anyway except maybe solidifying my place in hell by promoting blasphemous thought if the Catholics are right (but that'd be the last thing I'd worry about if that were true).
So, I recognized that aspect of the book, but when it comes to my beliefs I focus mostly on religious texts, the background of it, and my ideas concerning it. Others ideas may cause me to look at things in a different light, but seldom does it seriously affect me.

I do like the message of the book though, in that it pokes fun at the people who take it too seriously and "born again" and seems to say "lighten up, people! Do you really think this all is going to happen or that people can even be strictly good."

(Reply to this)

kittykmae
2005-09-16 06:31 am UTC (link)

(I know I’m a bit late, too...)

I am fairly firmly an atheist. (My religious beliefs are a bit too complex to be summed up in a word, but whose aren't?) In any case, I’m definitely not Christian, and definitely not a believer in the standard omnipotent, conscious father-thing.

But I like mythology, and I believe in the gods (even the Christian one) and angels and the Forces of Good and Evil, in the same way I believe in the Enterprise and Hogwarts and that things turn out okay in the end. It’s not the same kind of belief I have in gravity, but it’s there and it’s valid, too, as long as it stays away from the “real world”--as long as it doesn’t change what I do in a world that works by gravity. Fiction (including mythology) belongs to a different world than science and math and ethics. (They do interact, though...)

Good Omens presents Christianity in a way I can accept, keeping it firmly fantasy/faith. Other authors have done the same--heck, I’ve got a story based on Christian mythology up on the Pit of Voles myself. (I had a winter-holiday writing assignment, and I don’t like Santa.) I’m reading Paradise Lost at the moment, and while I’m less sympathetic towards Milton’s God than Milton’s Satan*, it’s acceptable, except for the bits where I’m reminded the author doesn’t think it’s fiction (and the annotators, and the blurb-writers, and the...).

And these are very good things, because I live in the Bible Belt and I need the reminder sometimes that Christianity isn’t all bad and crazy and hateful.

Parables are a way of teaching, though. Even Scientology has the odd “oh, I see now!” moment. (Stopped clocks...) So, yes, some of the things said in Good Omens (and other pieces set in Christianity) are right, in a way that leaves their assigned fantasy/faith slot. And Good Omens, etc., can definitely make Christianity more fun to play in--makes the logical framework sturdy enough to hold my weight--but in the end Christianity’s still not rational-truth.

So, I guess it doesn’t really change my religious beliefs in the end, no. But it does provoke thought about Stuff-with-a-capital-S.

Does this answer your question?

*Yes, I’m probably of the Devil’s party, but at least I *know* it.

(Reply to this)

stearmandriver
2006-03-29 10:55 am UTC (link)

Just came upon this discussion after re-reading the book. I guess I'm a little late, but here's my thoughts:

I took the humor to be in the same vein as that of Mark Twain, or Douglas Adams. That is, not only is it funny, but it has a greater purpose: to explore concepts which can't be gotten at any other way without sounding, well, preachy.

Seems to me that much of core christian philosophy has some logical "unsoundness" to it. This is mentioned most directly at Crowley and Aziriphale's last meeting at the duck pond, but I think it's summed up most eloquently in Adam's statement on the brink of Armageddon: "I don't see what's so triffic about creating people as people, AND THEN GETTING UPSET WHEN THEY ACT LIKE PEOPLE."

That right there shines a spotlight through all the glaring holes in the "free will" theory. I mean, if we're created by an all-knowing, all-powerful being, then there really is no free will. Yes, he can let us arrive at a decision "ourselves", but all the while knowing what that will be, right? Otherwise, he's not "all-knowing". So... we have a god who creates certain people knowing they'll do wrong, and then punishes them for doing wrong? And what's with punishing people for eternity for screwing up one measley human lifetime (an insignificant amount of time in the greater scheme?).

I don't have any firm ideas on religion, but I have to think that, whatever the ultimate creative force behind the universe is, he has to be wiser than that. And I think that Pratchett / Gaiman wrote a wonderfully subtle piece about one angel and one demon reaching that conclusion for themselves, even though they aren't supposed to be capable of it. Not only that, but it's funny as Hell!!

Joe

(Reply to this)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…