Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcc6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!ix415
From: ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Coming to know God
Message-ID: <2200@sdcc6.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 23:25:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc6.2200
Posted: Thu Sep  5 23:25:08 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Sep-85 00:32:43 EDT
References: <8508172148.AA02946@sdcc6.ARPA> <308@pyuxn.UUCP> <2195@sdcc6.UUCP> <316@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 164
Xref: watmath net.religion:7553 net.religion.christian:1235
Summary: Let's try this proof thing one more time...

Paul,

We seem to be missing each other or maybe you have diferent definitions
of proof than I do.  Let me go overboard on an issue or two and ask you
and show you what I mean about proof or the lack thereof and then I'll
make a few other coments.

In article <316@pyuxn.UUCP>, pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes:
> 
> 	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?

But what does this have to do with proving the existence of God?  I made
a simple statment that you didn't prove that God existed and you respond
not to that statement but to another question I asked about the
difficulty of such an endeavor.  You went on a little about our universe
evolving and that this damager-God need not be created, but if He wasn't
created then He evolved?  How do powerful, non-corporeal "Godlike" creatures
evolve?  Are there lots of them?  I'm really confused about that.

> 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?
> 
Nope, that's not the only difficulty.  There is an inherant difficulty in
discussing such things as infinite, omnipotent (all sorts of those ent and
ite words) because we as people have finite minds.  I can discuss the
concept of infinity, I can draw graphs of equations whose boundaries are
infinite, but I can't count to it, I can't say where it is there's all sorts
of things I can't do to infinity.  That is the difficulty with God.  It's
not just my wish, it's from almost every mythology that ever existed.
Whether its Cronus and Rea or God Himself, there is always the question of
how long they've been there and that is a tough subject to discuss, let
alone think to seriously about.  What the heck would it mean to not be
present in time linearly?  Or to have always been?  Did time pass or did it
even exist or did God create time?  There are all sorts of difficult
questions about the existence and creation of God.

> 	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.'' 

My second example.  You completely ignored my argument.  I made the simple
statement that Jesus Christ WAS God.  Not that He was part of Him, but that
He was Him, just as He claimed.  But you didn't deal with that question.
Granted you would throw out all evidence from the Bible, but just as Beth
Christy pointed out really well, if you throw out the Bible as propaganda
and lies, where are you getting your information from?  I asked this
question last time and you still haven't answered it.
  
> 	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.)

I went back and checked because I didn't remember saying that and the
only thing I can find that makes sense is when I responded to your claim
about the antichrist ruling DURING THE MILLENIUM for a thousand years.  I
gave you the reference that showed that during the millenium, Satan would be
bound, but no where did I say anything about Satan's activities before the
millenium.

> 
> 	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?  ...
> 
Two problems.  First of all you call them mental disturbances.  While I
don't want to say that Charles Manson or Hitler were normal, blaming it on
some mental abnormality is making an unproved and unprovable assumption.
Again Beth Christy talks alot about this question.  Hunting for pleasure,
bullfighting, boxing, the list is almost infinite.  Even so-called "normal"
people enjoy and seek out violence and enjoy watching and witnessing pain
and destruction (check the t.v. or the magazines for the latest scoop).  And
I just flat out refuse to give you that, "It's all God's fault."

> 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

Would that it were true.  Without trying to sound like a martyr or making
myself out to be a saint let me at least say that I haven't committed any
mass murders lately and as much as possible I try to keep my responses civil
and as sincere as can be.  But as for a question of rottoness it's real easy
to look inside myself and see all sorts of horrid little creatures that would
just love to get their heads out and do all sorts of nasty stuff.  I don't
know about you but I often get more excited about criticising people and
making them look bad and making myself look brilliant and witty then I do
about encouraging them and responsibly answering their questions.  When I
get in the car, anybody who cuts me off is just lucky that I don't have
special powers to destroy objects at will.  I'm not exactly sure what
definition we would use for being a rotten person (and it's not a title I
love claiming) but if we go by the Bible's standard of measure for morality
(let's skip Love God with all your heart and focus on Love your neighbor as
yourself) I don't make the grade.  And without tooting my own horn, I'm not
that bad.  I work at it with as much energy as I can and I have it as the
second highest goal in my life (next to loving God) but I still wouldn't be
too excited to stand up in front of God when I die and hear Him read off a
list of all the things I've said and done to people, let alone the things
I've thought.

> 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.
> 
Wow, that is the scariest statement I have ever heard.  There is NO evil
resulting from volition action.  It's alot like some of the 'est-like'
religious views that say that we're perfect at the core, but how can you
straightfacedly say that you have never volitionally done anything wrong?
You've never lied?  You've never stolen anything?  Weren't those volitional?

If your answer to this really is that God determines all our choices than
why anything?  That might not sound like the most intelligent question but
if God determines all our actions than nothing matters because we can't do
anything other than what God makes us do.  So Hitler, Manson, you and me
are all just dupes and when you said that some of the other posters to the
net had responded derogatorily, you were criticising them for something they
couldn't do anything about; God made them do it?  Am I understanding you
correctly?

I'll be interested in reading a response.  The issues that I still feel need
some 'evidence' from your side are God's creation, the Bible being
propaganda, human action being controlled by God, people not being rotten,
and this last question that I wish to pose.

If God wants to make people suffer and be miserable then why did He give us
a Bible that, if followed, would cause more joy and happiness than you or I
can imagine?  I'm not talking about the Roman Catholic Church through the
middle ages, I'm talking about the Biblical ideals of love, peace, and unity
just to name a few that would make this world a better place to be.  The
reason why this response is slow in coming is because I was up counseling a
at a Christian highschool camp near Yosemite.  Based on what the Bible says
for reasoning, one girl admitted that she was an alcoholic and that she
didn't want to be one anymore; another girl made the same statement about
drugs.  Two sets of sisters made a committment to care for eachother and
stop fighting and four other kids dedicated themselves to following the
ideals of the Bible; all because of the words and commands in this Bible
that you admit God inspired.  Did God blow it?  Even if He didn't expect to
many people to follow it, why did He write down such a collection of truths
about what it takes to get people to relate to eachother?  And I'll tell you
right now that I will refuse to accept a response that says that they'll end
up blowing it over time.  I can clearly and simply say that because of my
relationship with God (or even because of following the teachings of the
Bible) I am a better person than I was before, last year, five yers ago and
before that too.  And I know hundreds of other examples of people who have
turned their lives around because of this Bible.  So what's the deal with
it?  Did God blow it?  Or is it true what Peter claims in John 6:68,
"You alone (Christ) have the words of eternal life."

                      		Rick Frey