Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mit-eddie!barry
From: barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Re: contruction/destruction
Message-ID: <3705@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 09:38:44 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.3705
Posted: Wed Feb 27 09:38:44 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 08:09:55 EST
References: <1247@shark.UUCP> <253@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <732@bunker.UUCP> <285@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <734@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 14

What a silly argument!

I think everybody agrees that
	1.  Sometimes destruction is bad
	2.  Sometimes destruction is good
But the argument comes at the assumption
	3.  Sometimes the god of the OT destroyed out of vindictiveness
	    or rage, or downright nastyness.

So why don't you argue about that, instead of bringing up examples of good
and bad destruction.

p.s.  Seems to me the god of the OT was sometimes a real mean being.  S
      Sure hope he/she/it has mellowed with age.