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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!pez
From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Coming to know God
Message-ID: <316@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 08:37:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.316
Posted: Wed Aug 28 08:37:55 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 08:32:26 EDT
References: <8508172148.AA02946@sdcc6.ARPA> <308@pyuxn.UUCP> <2195@sdcc6.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Piscataway, N.J.
Lines: 136
Xref: watmath net.origins:2238 net.religion:7491 net.religion.christian:1171


	Rick Frey writes in his recent article that he has some problems
with some of my points. That is to be expected, since acquiring and
understanding the truth about God is a painful and slow process. Most
people (myself included) do not accept the truth about God so easily.
We fear this truth so much, that we avoid and deny it at all costs.
Rick feels that my proofs are insubstantial. He says I am just making
assertions about my belief without backing them up. I would like to
follow through on this and answer his comments.

	He claims in his article that my proof that God was created as a
part of the universe (and was not the creator of that universe) is
wrong. He says it's just my opinion. Well, Rick, if asking who created
God is a ``difficult question,'' may I ask what is ``difficult'' about it?
Aren't you building difficulty into the question by making the assumption
that God ``exists eternally''? (In whose timeline?) Isn't the only
difficulty in the question your assumption about the nature of God,
that He is the ultimate creator?

	When you discuss my ``Christ as Antichrist'' concept, you make
a variety of excuses for God. You say ``that wasn't His son, that was
Him.'' To be sure, he is a part of Him in the sense that any son is a
part of his father. But still it is clear that God sent His son to do the
dirty work, to suffer the pain in His stead. Yes, Rick, though you don't
want to face this, God ``copped out.'' I don't consider it copping out,
though, since the whole premise behind sending Jesus was a lie in the
first place, designed to deceive and enslave and encourage evil. Why
bother to build systems of excuses for God?

	I take it you are not aware of a fundamental tenet of Christian
theology when you ask where it says anything about ``Satan having control
of the earth.'' (This was mentioned in Tullis' article from last week.)
This is one of prime examples of bad excuses for God that Christian
theologians and clergymen have used for some time when asked ``Why are
there so many horrible things in this world if there is a good loving God?''
Since people have learned to want to believe that there is a good loving God,
they will accept almost anything that perpetuates that belief. Certainly,
the explanation that says that God is Himself the very devil that He lays
blame on for evil things is the simpler and far more satisfying explanation.
It provides for God to have His praises sung by whorshipful lackeys unimpeded
while still having the opportunity to engage in evil for His perverse pleasure.

	Christ IS the Antichrist. He is a lie perpetuated by an evil
Damager-God. Look at which religious force has been in total power over
most of the Western world for most of the last two thousand years. Look
at the amount of torture, death, and all-round evil done in its name.
Do you honestly have any doubts that Christ is the Antichrist, and that
Christianity, along with all whorship of God, is aiding and abetting the
deeds of a pig monster who laughs at us and humiliates us for fun?

	Rick also claimed that my discounting of his examples of ``God's''
miracles was unfounded. The first example he gave was Sarah's childbirth.
Think about it, Rick. Who would have been standing there in her way
preventing her from having a child in the first place? Through that
force of entropy? Women give birth to children late in life all the time,
and that is part of the natural course of nature. How old was Sarah when
she had this child? Where did that information come from? How do you know
that she was in fact ``too old?'' The same thing is true for the experiences
of the Isrealites in battle. Generals throughout history have made their
battle stories seem larger than life. Certainly it's in God's interest for
Him to pass down the story that it was His action that saved the people, not
their own fortitude. Who wrote down and passed down what the Jews believed
about God bringing them victory? Or did he simply deceive them the way He
is still deceiving you today? The Old Testament is just as full of God's
lies as the New.

	You also ask how God could ``build in'' the wish to see Him as a
father figure and a loving good deity. It's very simple. Through persistent
reinforcement. By encouraging foolish or evil people to spread the word
about the good God, and by passing on this wish for a loving overseeing
father from generation to generation, he has built it into us. You assume
that some force, a consciousness of good or evil, must have been the
creator of the universe in which our Damager-God resides. I assume no such
thing. The forces of nature in the universe itself itself are certainly
neutral, they are associated with neither good nor evil. We human beings
seek to build things, but the evil God comes along and destroys anything
He doesn't like, or anything that may lead to knowledge about Him.

	Rick, why on Earth should I not say that it was God's fault that
Charles Manson and other disturbed people engage in evil actions? Is the
human mind naturally disturbed? What possible explanation could there be
for such mental disturbances except for a damaging entropic force from a
vile and evil God? Which of us is eroneously placing the blame on
``something else?'' Is it me, when I say ``the Damager-God is to blame?''
Or is it you, when you say ``people are to blame?'' How can people be
blamed for things that they cannot control? Certainly the Damager-God has
control over such things, and certainly He takes control whenever it suits
His whims, to wreak havoc on all of us for His pleasure. Are we passing
the buck, or is God getting us to pass His own buck for Him?

	You mentioned ``human rotteness'' in your article. If you believe
in God according to your assumptions about Him, then He is responsible for
any rotteness within us, having created us. But He hasn't created us. What
he has done is to tell people like you that you are rotten. What is rotten
about you? I have found you in our public and private discussions to be a
forthright, intelligent and generally nice person. More so than some people
who have insulted and mocked my beliefs because they are afraid of the truth.
Yet you of all people feel that you are rotten. Certainly you are a victim
of the evil propaganda of a malicious Damager-God, who wants you to believe
that you are rotten to make you miserable. Seeing God as kind and loving is
not just more difficult in the face of realization of the scope of His evil
acts. It is downright impossible. There is no evil resulting from our own
volitional action. God certainly puts the obstacles in our way, for His
own amusement, to watch us stumble. You may percieve this as a ``complete
negation of free will and responsibility.'' Perhaps it is, in a sense.
I tend to believe that there is no such thing, that God tells us that there
are things like free will and responsibility, and makes us believe in them,
solely to infuse us with guilt for things that are surely His fault alone.

	Finally, Rick, you say that you don't believe my evidence is
conclusive. Furthermore, you say that I have discounted every argument you
offered. I find it ironic that you claim that I simply back down to my
basic ``assumption'' that you're challenging. I say this because this is
what Hubeynz, Maroney, and Rosen (et al) accused Dan Boscovich (and others)
of doing when he posted lengthy diatribes about Christianity. The real
question is which of us is making the assumptions? Are you and Dan and
your fellow Christians (and other God whorshipers) making an assumption
about the nature of God, assuming that He is all powerful and good? Or
am I, when I conclude from the evidence of the Bible, the sciences, and
the world around us, that God most certainly exists and is a flaming
asshole of ridiculous (if not infinite) proportions? There are examples
in the Bible (of the God who hardened Pharaoh's heart to increase His own
glory and who molested and harmed Job just to prove His own power). There
are examples in scientific knowledge (of the natural flow of nature and
how some willful force is clearly interfering with it and damaging it).
There are examples in everyday life (Murphy's law, and my umbrella
example). And all of these point unequivocally to the presence of an evil
Damager-God, if you evaluate them in tandem. Your concluding sentences
go back to your own assumption about your blithely disagreeing with the
fact that God is entropy, choosing to believe instead in things like
mankind decaying without God's ``support.'' Please think about it. Which
of us is making assumptions? I know Ockham's Razor is not in vogue anymore,
but it has its place right here.
-- 
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez