Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!ames!barry
From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Question for Paul Zimmerman
Message-ID: <1159@ames.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 02:25:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.1159
Posted: Wed Sep 25 02:25:28 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 05:49:24 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 22

[]
	I'd like to open by thanking Paul Zimmerman for his contributions to
net.religion. There is nothing like the entry of a fresh point of view to
enliven and deepen a discussion.
	In your division of religious opinion into theist/atheist/maltheist, I
think you are making an oversight. You have equated theism with belief in a
god that is loving and good, but, as Byron Howes and some others have pointed
out, there are belief systems that believe in a kind of neutral god, a god
that encompasses both the good and evil aspects of existence. The basic idea,
as I understand it, is that good and evil are local and subjective conceptions
from the point of view of such a god, if indeed such a being could be said to
have a point of view at all. I think such religious conceptions are
fundamentally different from the Christian-style loving god, and require a
separate counter-argument. I have not seen you deal with this possibility,
though perhaps I missed the relevant article. I would be interested in what
you have to say.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	USENET:		 {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com