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.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Beth Christy talks about the Damager-God
Message-ID: <1150@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Sep-85 22:23:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.1150
Posted: Fri Sep 27 22:23:24 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 07:09:45 EDT
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 101
Xref: watmath net.religion:7799 net.religion.christian:1370

[just a silly little :-)]

From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman), Message-ID: <345@pyuxn.UUCP>:
>You did engage in the same brand
>of condescending ``concern'' that many Christians expressed, feeling that
>because I had reached a different conclusion than they, that I must be
>``disturbed,'' or ``sick.''

Actually, I didn't think you were "disturbed" or "sick".  It just
sounded like you were hurting.  I didn't mean to be condescending, but
I'd rather come across that way than to have ignored you in case you
really were in pain.  Anyway, you said you're ok, so I Am taking your
word for it.

>My own fear about you is that what you call
>your overzealousness to point out ``holes'' in my model stem from your
>own rationalizing about the nature of God and/or the possibility of the
>existence of an evil Damager-God.

Well, um, actually, I just like to argue.  In fact, I posted a response
to Dan Boscovich (sp?) that supported your view.  But you seem(ed) to
be more willing to re-evaluate/improve your position based on logical
reasoning, so I guess I've spent more time arguing with you.  Also,
I've enjoyed coming to understand your reasoning - I think I actually
understand why you think "the natural flow of things" is positive and
negative things intrude into it.  I don't agree that this is conclusive
evidence for the existence of a damager-god (see below), but it's kind
of neat to (I think) actually understand/feel something inspired by
phosphorous characters glowing in my office.

Now for the arguing (ahhhhhhhh! :-) :

>	You misstate the premises of my model. In fact, the premises you
>state DON'T ``rest on no assumptions,'' as you say, but alas they are not
>mine. I never spoke of a special status for ``creative forces.''

This is, I assume, in response to my claim that "all creative forces,
and ONLY creative forces, are natural" is one of your fundamental
assumptions.  But in your initial posting you stated:

>	In fact, the claim that He created anything at all is a sham.
>Heavenly bodies, life, mankind, all evolved out of the natural forces
>of the universe.  But what are the great things that God has taken
>credit for since this creation?
            (N.B. ==== ========)

In other words, the existence of heavenly bodies, life and mankind are
attributable to a creative, but natural, force.  In response to one of
my postings you said:

>	Another thing, Beth. You fail to distinguish the difference between
>the natural forces you describe. Rain is a natural event, necessary for
>life, useful for man in agricultural and other endeavors. Hurricanes are
>not. Birth is a natural event in the course of life. Death occurs as a
>result of decay, of entropy.

You *do* distinguish between birth, which is creative, and death, which
is destructive; between steady but gentle rain on almost parched farms,
which is creative, and hurricanes, which are destructive.  I think you
did indeed speak of a "special [i.e. 'natural'] status for ``creative
forces.''" Furthermore, I think you *have* to state that.  If you Don't
call the creative forces natural, then they must be supernatural (i.e.,
under the control of some god).  And if you Do allow destructive forces
to be natural, then you can't attribute them to the damager-god.

>Yet quite often a damaging force (physicists
>call it entropy in certain circumstances) appears that destroys the work
>accomplished by man. At whim, as if that force had a will of its own, in
>direct defiance of the natural flow of things. Certainly none of these
>are assumptions at all. The observable deliberate nature of that damaging
               [emphasis mine - BDC]    =================
>force is the evidence I cite as proof of the existence of the Damager-God.
>I hope this clarifies things.

I'll grant that a damaging force is indeed observable in our little
corner of space-time.  But the "deliberate nature of that damaging
force" is *not* observable.  To the contrary, the force appears quite
random.  "At whim", yes; "as if that force had a will of its own", no.
There's no pattern to it, no evidence of a plan.  It's just random hits.
Sometimes, *most* of the time, things go along pretty well.  Sometimes
they don't.  So?  Where's the deliberation?  Where's the evidence of
intelligent intent?  Where's the planning?  BTW, for the sake of this
argument, you've already convinced me that the bible is a pack of lies,
so I won't believe *any* of it - your evidence of intent, therefore,
must come entirely from empirical observations.  And I don't see it.
I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify things a bit more (really - no
sarcasm intended).

[There's more, but again time doesn't permit.  Hopefully later...]

[P.S. I really am enjoying this, and I really am trying to listen to
      you, and to understand what your saying, and to make constructive
      criticisms.  I'm just a bit of a zealot - please bear with me.]

-- 

--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)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com