Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Coming to know God Message-ID: <1090@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 21:25:55 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.1090 Posted: Tue Sep 3 21:25:55 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 00:47:49 EDT References: <316@pyuxn.UUCP> Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center Lines: 155 Xref: watmath net.origins:2286 net.religion:7524 net.religion.christian:1201 [G'head, eat me, I love it] From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman), Message-ID: <316@pyuxn.UUCP>: >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? No, the only difficulty is not an assumption about the *nature* of God. The real difficulty is the assumption about the *existence* of God. Saying that *if* God exists, then he "was created as a part of the universe" could be a reasonable theory. But why do you think God exists at all? Because sometimes when you take your umbrella with you it doesn't rain, and sometimes when you forget it it does rain? Not exactly bullet-proof evidence there. >Why bother to build systems of excuses for God? Um, well why bother to build systems of excuses for entropy? > 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. "Done in its [christianity's] name" is *not* the same thing as doing the will of Christ/God. Christ *never, ever, ever* advocated persecution, and doubtless would abhor a great many things that have been/are being done "in His name" (assuming he exists as described in the Bible, of course). > 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? I seem to recall she was in her eighties. Are you telling us that women give birth in their eighties "all the time"? >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. So you're telling us that the Bible is chock fulla lies, and we shouldn't be deceived by it. Then apparently you're intentionally attempting to deceive us when you quote Job's experiences and other Biblical events as "evidence" for the evil nature of God. Whatever make you think God's claims to have inflicted pain and suffering are any more true than his claims to have relieved them? If anything in there is a lie, then it's *all* suspect. God might just be claiming responsibility for any old thing, 'cause he wants to impress us with power he doesn't have. He might not be doing *any* of it. G'head, prove he wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. *Assuming* he exists, prove he has any power at all. >The forces of nature in the universe itself itself are certainly >neutral, they are associated with neither good nor evil. Well, not exactly. A gentle, steady rain on an all-but-parched farm is associated with good, and a hurricane is often considered evil. Both are products of natural forces. As are birth (creation) and death (decay, or entropy if you prefer). No need for supernatural intervention anywhere. >We human beings seek to build things, [...] Heh, heh, heh. Hunters who think it's "sporting" to just plain kill animals are actually busy seeking to build things. So was "Son of Sam". Right. Hitler really *was* seeking to build things. So was Jim Jones. Pretty shining examples of a fine human tendency that a damager-god would *surely* want to eradicate [read, of course, with heavy sarcasm]. > 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? How about an entirely natural entropic force? Or maybe adverse reactions to the radiation that naturally showers the earth? Or maybe chemical reactions to poisons that *humans* have polluted the environment with? Invoking the supernatural is entirely uncalled for until *absolutely everything* else has been thoroughly disproven. I.e., until never. >Which of us is eroneously placing the blame on >``something else?'' Is it me, when I say ``the Damager-God is to blame?'' Yes. >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. As mentioned above, you have yet to demonstrate that "certainly the Damager-God has control over such things", let alone that he even exists. >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? You *both* are. >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). You yourself say the Bible is full of lies intended to deceive us. I don't see any particular reason to believe the parts you mentioned any more than the parts where God claims to have created the heavens and the earth. >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). Like when *humans* willfully kill off entire species so they can get feathers for hats, or cheap blubber, or fur coats. Not God, HUMANS willfully interfering and damaging "the natural flow of nature". >There are examples in everyday life (Murphy's law, and my umbrella >example). As I mentioned in a previous article, Murphy's law isn't true. There are about a billion things that *could* have gone wrong in just the last ten minutes that didn't. Your umbrella example isn't true either. I haven't had an umbrella along for two weeks now, and it hasn't rained once. >And all of these point unequivocally to the presence of an evil >Damager-God, if you evaluate them in tandem. All of these point to a willingness to interpret things in the light of *assumptions*. A lot like the people you're trying to "enlighten". -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "Oh yeah, P.S., I...I feel...feel like...I am in a burning building And I gotta go." (Laurie Anderson)