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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Beth Christy talks about the Damager-God Message-ID: <1131@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 17:20:43 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.1131 Posted: Fri Sep 13 17:20:43 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 07:31:56 EDT References: <316@pyuxn.UUCP> <1090@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, <322@pyuxn.UUCP> Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center Lines: 47 Xref: watmath net.religion:7630 net.religion.christian:1289 [If God had wanted us to go around naked, we'd have been Born that way] [I've been working on a reply to this article (and understanding your position a little better, Paul), but they're gonna shut down our machine for a couple of days, so I'll just post this much and follow with the rest next week.] From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman), Message-ID: <322@pyuxn.UUCP>: > I am a little shocked at the degree of abusiveness towards my >position that I find in your article. It was somewhat unexpected, >considering the nature of your original article about maltheism, which >seems to express (misplaced) concern rather than anger. I apologize sincerely - I did not intend to be abusive, and I certainly feel no anger whatsoever towards you. On the contrary, I'm enjoying your articles a great deal. I appreciate your proposition of a totally different interpretation of both the bible and current real-world occurences - I enjoy the process of developing logical models of life, the universe and everything, and I'm glad to have a chance to work on one with you. But I do think your model needs work. I see some (what I consider to be) serious holes in it, and I guess I got a little over- zealous in pointing them out. I apologize, and if I do it again, please remember that I don't mean it personally at all. (BTW, I Was initially concerned for you, but you said you're doing ok so I'm taking your word for it). If anyone wants to skip the whole rest of the article, I think I can summarize my complaints pretty quickly. Your model rests on 3 assump- tions: 1) that a god exists; 2) that said god has enough power to affect nature (and people too, I think) according to its will; and 3) that all creative forces, and ONLY creative forces, are natural. I have two objections: 1) I oppose your claims that your model rests on NO assump- tions, i.e. that everything I just stated can be derived from observable evidence by logic alone; and 2) I think assumption 3 is just plain wrong - I believe that death is as natural as birth and that hurricanes are as natural as gentler rains. [The whole rest of the article will follow sometime next week (I hope).] Take care. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "What if the after-effect of the terrible bomb is unusual beyond belief? Wouldn't you rather the whole population had listened to somebody like the old Indian chief?" (The Roches)