Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxle!pyuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: M-U-C-H S-H-O-R-T-E-R response to David Norris
Message-ID: <402@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Jan-84 13:49:54 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.402
Posted: Thu Jan  5 13:49:54 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Jan-84 01:21:12 EST
References: <727@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway
Lines: 139

After the debate between the Satan-like Tim Maroney and the Christ-like David
Norris, all I have to say to David is:

1. What Tim says (and where I strongly concur) is that if the god in the bible
exists as described, he would not deem him worthy of worship.  The only
reason this reasoning seems circular to you is based on your blind acceptance
of the bible as fact:  the notion that there could be a god who does not
fit the biblical template is alien (perhaps obscene) to you.

2. Your argument seems based on the concept that if the biblical god exists
(creator of the universe and all that goes with it) then he has the RIGHT to
1) impose standards on his creations, 2) expect those creations to live up
to the standards or, in failing to do so, to thusly "choose" the path that
leads to eternal hell (your exact phrase was "volunteer[ing] for hell").  Quite
frankly, this is a matter only of faith; if you choose to accept such a notion
about god, you are just as likely to be susceptible to accepting the same
notion about human "authorities", and are thus doomed to live out your days as
a puppet to whomever chooses to manipulate you, be it your "god" or your
fearless leader.

3. By your arguments god has the right to slaughter entire peoples if it would
interfere with making his prophecies a reality.  (This is a direct consequence
of your comment on god's destruction of the Midianites.)  He has the right to
harm those who would not adhere to his laws.  Granted, there are many
societaly benevolent laws in the bible (as well as some obscurely bizarre ones
but who am I to question---I'm a thinking human being, that's what I am!).
But, as I said in an earlier article, if people only adhere to such benevolent
laws because they fear god's wrath or because they cower in fear of church and
bible, then humans are failing to use their brains for any useful purpose.
If none of us is truly "blameless", then god would be within his rights
(according to you) to destroy us all.  Is he somehow merciful for not doing so?

4. The premise of the bible (beyond being a "factual accounting of history"),
according to David Norris, is to show the evil side of humanity, and to
convince us to shed our evil and revel in good (the absolute good as defined
by god in the bible).  Granted, we are intelligent beings that still have
the chemicals of animals in our bodies controlling (to a degree) our actions,
and to fulfill our full potential we should use our intelligence to overcome
our "animal urges" (possibly rechanneling them is a better concept).  But
whether or not there is a god, if the only way we accomplish this is by doing
it because god says so, then we are truly failing in this task.  A truly
benevolent (in the long term) creator would probably agree.  (Please don't
pounce on my use of "probably", because there are plenty of vacuous examples
of your use of the word.)

5. You say:

	Until I learn how to "make a fish from scratch", I will assume God
	knows what He is doing.

Of course that's a pretty bold set of assumptions.  It assumes first that
god exists.  It also assumes that because god made fish, he knows what he's
doing.  Who's to say?  It also assumes that because god is the creator of
fish, he is a loving benefactor with our best interest at heart.  That's
probably the biggest assumption of all, and assuming there's a god at all
is a pretty big one by itself.

6. Tim concentrates on a "humanistic viewpoint and ignore[s] eternal
consequences" according to your article.  And rightfully so.  The only proof of
"eternal" anything is your faith, which is no proof at all.  By the way, you
totally ignore Tim's point about god's creation of things detrimental to life
(like diseases and bacteria, etc.)  Well, I shouldn't say "ignore".  You do put
forth the argument that without evil there'd be no good, that there must
be pain in order for there to be pleasure, etc.  This is a rather tired
argument regarding god's existence and why he didn't create a perfect world.
To me, it seems like this is more evidence against the notion of an act of
deleiberate benevolent creation, rather than for it.  This in and of itself
does not preclude the existence of something along the lines of a "god".

7. I tend to agree with David that Tim is somewhat misinterpreting the sense in
which the "No other gods before me" commandment was offered.  But I agree
that a truly benevolent deity would not "demand" worship.  (I know, I know,
he gives you a choice; I'm sure David would see an equal degree of choice in
a Soviet or Salvadoran election.)

8. I think David is misinterpreting Tim on the point of evidence.  Tim says
"if the bible is true, then the god it presents is hideous and not worthy
of worship, but i don't believe the bible to be true, so i don't believe
that such a god exists".  This is not circular, but rather quite logical.

9. As far as faith goes, the difference between faith in what we have learned
in school (???) and faith in god is that the former is borne out by evidence,
and the latter is not.  As far as god dying to keep us out of hell, well,
that's very interesting.  He makes a hell to send non-believers to, then
he sends his son (I guess he couldn't make it himself) to perform miracles
and save his intended victims.  Hmmmm.  Rather than sending a divine
emissary in the form of a "son", what would impress me would be for god
him/itself to spend one week on earth as an actual human being, not a
divinely conceived entity.  Of course, god doesn't exist to impress me...
And of course, the proof of god's sending a son to earth at all is tenuous
unless faith is your strong (weak?) suit.

10. You explain the Tower of Babel story explicitly.  What precisely is wrong
with people assuring that they would "be powerful without God's help"???  Then
there's this business about the sin of pride (your words).  I tend to
agree that often humanity gets too big for its own britches (take a look
at Tim's Thelemist doctrine, or Tom Craver's objectivist writings),  but
who the hell is god to tell us "hey, that's not right, I don't want you to
do that, so *YOU* go speak Aramaic..."??

11. If questioning your god is considered "worshipping an evil god", then there
are words to describe your philosophy---fascist, autocratic,...  If you
say you cannot judge god, then it is you who have set up a strawman.

12. Your attitude toward Adam and the original sin show your true colors.  I am
no better than Adam, you say, I am weak, and I show the sin of pride by
thinking I could have done better.  Why do you degrade yourself into thinking
you couldn't done better.  This self-deprecating notion is repugnant to me.
Pride is hardly a sin if it doesn't reach the proportions of Wagnerian
romanticist egotism.

Summing up (I hope):  David says that we should look at the good things that
god has done (according to the bible) and ignore (because with our limited
view we couldn't understand it) the rest.  Hitler is responsible for the
creation of the Volkswagen.  Should I see beyond the murder of millions
that I couldn't possibly understand and look towards his view of a new
world in his image???  If the analogy is too harsh, it is because you
simply cannot see your god in that light.  David complains about Tim's
sarcasm.  Frankly, I can't see how one wouldn't become sarcastic in
arguing with religionism.  And finally, David proudly exclaims that Tim
"will be forced to see the truth" someday.  I think the word "forced" sums
up David's ideas of what god is all about.

Tim and I are in violent disagreement about a number of things, but he
makes many valid points when analyzing Judaeo-Christian religious thought.
My own view is that the bible is an interpretation and explanation of the
world developed by early civilized humans, and that the god therein does
not exist, at least not in that form.  The vision of a god in the bible
reflects not the nature of an existing god, but the desire of people to
make themselves feel important by saying "Our lives have purpose, because
there is a god up there in all the vastness of the universe, and he is
watching over us and has designated us as rulers of this plant, as long as..."
Of course, this does not preclude the existence of an entity who is not
really the universal god, but rather the power hungry monster that Tim
depicts.  I sometimes wonder if this is true...  Is Christ the Antichrist???
Is God Satan?  Is it all just propaganda?  Do you wonder about such things
as well, or do you also buy whatever you're told to buy on television...
-- 
					Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr