Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!david From: david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: reply to Lord Frith Message-ID: <251@cvl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 01:40:20 EST Article-I.D.: cvl.251 Posted: Thu Apr 4 01:40:20 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 06:59:41 EST Distribution: net Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park Lines: 289 Reply to a reply ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Did Lord Frith make the world? Message-ID: <818@trwatf.UUCP> > [David Harwood] > So "Frith made the world". Then it must be you who spreads the clouds > with the fingers of his hands like lightning, and commands them to hit > the mark? Do I detect a note of self-righteous Christianoid sarcasm here? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Just a little sarcasm, because of exasperation. After all, this is your own postscript; besides it it you who accuses God. I am paraphrasing an obscure verse in Job, which you could not be expected to understand unless you knew certainly there is God. The point of verse is that God is not very comprehensible by human beings; in any case, he is not accountable to them. (This is not the meaning of the verse, which is obscure, as I said.) If I were very self-righteous, I wouldn't bother to try to answer you. You already know that these are just my personal opinions; I am trying to answer some difficult questions, and I may be wrong. And of course you may simply be amusing yourself, anyway. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > But you stubbornly miss the mark: forget your self-justifying > complaints Would you care to provide quotations from any of my previous articles that prove my "complaints" to be self-justifying? I'm waiting for you to address these issues, David, and you're just spouting party-line. If you're going to make claims against me, or for your position, then substantiate them! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm sorry, but I don't save anyone's articles, even my own. In any case, when I say 'self-justifying', I am not speaking of you personally, but of the kind of complaint which you make against God. Firstly, you believe that creation by God should be comprehensible and accountable to you, when there are very probably things which you do not understand about yourself, not to mention your wife or friends. Secondly, you persistently ignore the fact that, whether or not there is God, almost all present human suffering is due to our human failure. Finally, my impression is that you are oblivious to your own responsib- ility: skepticism is very often simply complacency. (I will be glad to be proven wrong -- for example, I am not very well-off, probably by comparison with you, but I will give an another 500 dollars for African relief if you will give 200 dollars, and notify me privately or over the Net. Actually, I will do this anyway, but that's not my point. I simply want you to give what you can afford. We all should. And I will be very glad to hear that you've already done so.) I have given some reason why there is suffering in creation, and why God does not stop it where we do not. The first is that we are to be created in the image of God; that is, we are created as perfectable, moral beings. The second is that we are to be relatively autonomous, adopting the will of God freely (according to own own nature.) If you are sincere, you should acknowledge these points, even if they are not completely convincing to you. I am not trying to put you down; I am giving you reasons against skepticism. These are reasons; of course, I may be wrong. Frankly, they are a lot like the 'Star Trek' code, that primitive civilizations should be left pretty much alone (autonomous), presuming their perfectability. (As a pure fantasy, would you say that a very advanced civilization was either non-existent or unmerciful, if it was instead patiently waiting for us to come along? Of course, I am not saying here that God is anything but the Creator, but simply that if there are other worlds, far more advanced than ours, even in knowledge of God, they might very well act even as He does, patiently, leaving us to our natural dignity. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [David Harwood] > the fact remains that even if there is not God, still > almost all the suffering in the world is due to the moral failure > of mankind; Without God there is no morality, other than that which man decides to create. Without God, there wouldn't even be a universe. Just how can you prove the above hypothesis? Do you seriously believe you can demonstrate this to be a "fact." You'll have to show that morality has some sort of causal relationship to natural disasters.... God what an Elizabethan notion! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are playing with words. I am using them in an ordinary accepted sense, accepted even by most agnostics: suffering is not evil in itself, but it is evil to intentionally cause or fail to stop suffering. Also, I'm afraid you are somewhat confused; I am saying something very obvious, which does not involve Elizabeth: the suffering caused by even 'purely' natural disasters, a very small fraction (<1%) of all deaths worldwide, is largely avoidable by evacuation and reliable construction (say 99%). Of course, we do not yet know how to avoid or correct all events, say some genetic defects (like mine); also, there will always be some very unpredictable events, no matter how advanced our technology, eg unexpected lightning, or the grace of God. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Christ said that there will be poor always. There will be crime and suffering and immorality to the end of earth. And now you come along and proclaim such things as solvable without any real notion of what the goal should be or how to get there. Utopianistic claptrap. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hope that you do not mean to justify suffering by its existence -- this was not Jesus' point at all. He was saying that the woman who made her gift to him was not to be criticized because her intention was good, even if she did not help the poor by this act. Jesus was not saying that we should neglect the poor, but that there would always be someone in need. This is obvious if we stop thinking in terms of simply material needs. The idea of the kingdom of God is somewhat Utopian: it is the rule of righteousness, in which we seek to end suffering, whether because of neglect, deception, prejudice, violence, cruelty, injustice, even disease. You know of course that the great Christian Thomas More wrote Utopia. Of course, you should know that our technology is now beyond the imagination of anyone living one century ago, yet already most suffering has been greatly ameliorated. Who can forsee what we are capable of in another century, if we survive that long. And the apostle Paul said that the last enemy would be overcome, even Death (probably meaning human destructiveness). He is quoting one of my favorite passages in Isaiah 25, where it describes the great banquet of final victory: On that mountain, the shroud which covers the earth, the veil over all the nations, shall be removed; and even Death shall be destroyed forever. It is as if mankind were now veiled by a burial shroud, so to speak. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Your notions of responsibility are purely imaginary -- since > they will not help anyone -- who cares if you don't believe there is > God, except that if you do not, will you also do nothing to help > others. And exactly WHAT are these "notions of responsibility?" Why don't you just trot them out and tell us all about my personal beliefs, if you're such an expert? Since only GOD knows our true hearts, who are YOU to make claims about what *I* believe in? Are you now proping yourself up as God? I doubt it, so don't act that way! Like most Christianoids you are so ready to judge others... but as you so blindly judge, so shall you be judged. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nowhere did I say that you do not help others. When I say 'imaginary', I do not mean that you personally are not moral. As you say, I am not your judge. You know yourself. What I mean is that your accusation against God, that He is unmerciful, largely denies our human responsibility for almost all suffering in the the present world (and most people who have lived are living now). And someone who believes this, whether or not he believes there is God, is not going act as if he were as responsible as someone who disagrees. On the other hand, many who do believe in God agree that we are in fact very responsible. I am only speaking about what notions you have introduced in the course of discussion, of which this is your primary presupposition. I am not talking about your other beliefs, about which I know nothing. I admit that I was wrong to make a personal reference which was slighting, and I'm sorry. Still my point is still valid: beliefs have consequences; and someone who denies responsibility is very likely less responsible in his actions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Don't you realize, as I've said before, world-maker, that by far the > largest charitable force in the world, in the history of the world even, > is those who do believe that God wants them to be charitable to others, > even to strangers, and enemies. More sarcasm? Was it not you who only a little while ago said that we are all makers of our own worlds? Why do you now deny me that which you did not give me? What is this smug tone of voice? Hardly the sort of attitude that Jesus would have recommended. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, a little sarcasm. But as I said before, this "world-maker" postscript is your own. I'm not doing anything but reflecting your self-opinion, am I? Actually, I had noticed your postscript before but said nothing; I assumed it was simply a play on your name, which might be Lord. (but who knows? if there is God-is-with-us emmanuel wagstuff, maybe there is no lord frith) But when you were so accusatory of God, I then supposed that you were a bit mocking. If this is so, then whose sarcasm is it? You misconstrue what I said 'a little while ago'. You may be right that my attitude is wrong though. It is hard to keep interest in what is obviously an 'academic' discussion to you. However, I'm not sure that I feel smug, exactly, at least not morally smug -- maybe a little intellectually condescending I suppose (not a very good quality). I've enjoyed the discussion; I hope that it has caused you to reconsider some things. I wouldn't want to offend anyone, so that they would turn away. You should believe there is a God; those who deny this simply do not know. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > [David Harwood] > You may say that religious people also believe that God wills that they > should conduct holy wars. But this argument is specious, since wars, > although they are rationalized by false religion, exist because mankind > has a cultural inheritance of violence and prejudice everywhere, > regardless of religion; even atheists are as warmongering as others > (Afghanistan). Why are you lecturing us on topics that have nothing to do with the conversation? Because you're projecting what you WISH I believed, onto me! Consider the above. You're lecturing us on the basis of what you IMAGINE I would say... not upon what I have said. STOP! Read your netiquete! THINK about what you're doing. I am not this imaginary stereotypical secular humanist that you can flagellate in your mind. Is it perhaps that you don't care what my beliefs are? Perhaps you have already decided what I believe, which in turn gives you a grand opportunity to ask "Don't you realise that..." and then flail away at your favorite whipping boy. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Take it easy. Actually, I was aware that you had not expressed this view, and as you suggest I was speaking past you to others who have been barking up the wrong tree. You've separated this comment from the complimentary one just above, which is, in fact, relevant to our discussion. It observes that God does cooperate to end suffering in the world. On the other hand, I wanted to deny that 'religion', as such, is the cause of suffering, for the sake of completion. You are right that I was speaking past you. But it was a pretty short 'lecture', hardly long enough to 'flail' anyone. As for your beliefs, it is my impression that you are not very committed to any, but like to pursue arguments for amusement. If this is so, then you can't blame me for realizing this, while speaking to others. If you were sincere, then if you were also a Christian, then you would not accuse God and deny our responsibility, else if you were not a Christian, then your citation of Christ is not religiously sincere anyway. Therefore, I suppose that you are not sincere, but rather amused. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ......... > All of these realized very late something about civilization which > you still don't perceive... no matter what they formerly believed about the > existence of God, they came to understand that Jesus was right about our > moral hypocrisy, and about the way we should live. Once again... you are in no position to tell me what I do, and do not, perceive. Like many Christianoids you perceive yourself as having all the faculties of God, including the ability to read minds. If you're going to accuse me... at least show up with some evidence to back up your claims. God does not support an irresponsible tongue. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Who is reading your mind? No one who accuses God, as you have publicly, is so far, a Christian. Furthermore, it is hard to believe that someone who would accuse God while ignoring our responsiblity, is not hypocritical, if he is sincere. But as I said, you may merely find this amusing. This is a good question: would it make any difference to you whether or not what I say is true? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Are you ready to return to the topic of conversation? Have you finished lecturing now? Can you, for one moment, see that you're just mumbling away in your own little world and not holding a conversation? Hellllloooooo out there.... you ARE there aren't you? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maybe you would like to talk about something else now, but if you just want to argue, don't be surprised if I don't quite cooperate; surely, you understand that my purposes aren't yours necessarily, besides which, your arguments are not always very interesting. And, after all, I'm not stupid -- I may take the opportunity to talk about what I want to, instead. Yes, here I am, mumbling. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And PLEASE do NOT include entire articles at the top of your replies! -- ~~~~~~~~~~ I have mixed feelings about this. When I do this, it is so that the context is sure to be observed, also so that there is the effect of deliberate reply rather than mere fencing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And he made the stars, too, and the world is one of the stars" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A new 'concluding unscientific postscript'?