Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site oakhill.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
From: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: How come God doesn't affect Dave?
Message-ID: <551@oakhill.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 22:11:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: oakhill.551
Posted: Fri Oct  4 22:11:12 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Oct-85 04:27:07 EDT
References: <305@pyuxn.UUCP> <630@ihu1m.UUCP> <309@pyuxn.UUCP>
Reply-To: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel)
Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx
Lines: 112

In article <363@pyuxn.UUCP> pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes:
>
>	I find it very strange that you claimed never to have suffered in your
>life, and then you tell us the story of how your lost your house in a flood.

Why is it that you keep repeating that I claim never to have suffered?  Not
only do my past postings never say anything like that but nobody else seems
to think that I've ever said it either.

I challenge you to quote anything that I said which even implied that I have
never suffered.

The only conclusion I can come to is that you don't want to listen to anything
that may weaken your thesis.

You can tell me that my life is really miserable, or that I've had a really
bad past, or that I simply choose to ignore bad things.  But it doesn't
change my reality one whit.

>You belittle this rather severe destruction as if to say ``it was nothing.''
>But certainly it was something, and something significant. You have been duped
>by the evil God into accepting this sort of damage and destruction as an
>accpetable level of harm, as the status quo.
>

Would you care to tell me why losing my house in a flood was significant?
I ended up with a much bigger and beautifull house with a living room
full of windows looking out over the Colorado River.  I ended up selling
it last November for **100 percent** profit over what I payed for it 3
years ealier.

I guess I should realize how unfortunate I was, eh?  Maybe I should blame the
pig-Damager God for all that money I now have in the bank.

Paul, can you tell me how I can get the Damager-God to do more harm to me
so I can get even more money?  If this is punishment - let me have more!

>       The fact that you keep coming back to saying ``if God's so powerful
>why doesn't He hurt me'' is most disconcerting. Why don't you ask the God
>whorshipers the corresponding question: ``If God's so powerful why does He
>allow evil to exist?'' You seem to have a double standard here.

Didn't you read my reply?  I most certainly did bring up your second point.
You even quote it back to me at the end of your message.  Talk about foot-
in-mouth.

>      ...                    You say you could claim that God tricks us into
>liking ice cream so that we will be poisoned by the sugar (by means of
>increased calorie intake and dental decay, I presume). Isn't this obviously
>true? God gives us a desire to eat things that aren't good for us. If that
>isn't proof enough of His evil, well, what more proof would you want?

This is rich. [Pun intended.]  Now you claim ice-cream is the work of the
Damager-God.  Next, you will probably claim that enjoying sex is one of
D-God's ploys.

It's obvious that you can't acknowlege anything that's good.  If you can
turn something as harmless and enjoyable as ice cream into a "trick" by
Damager-God I guess you could just as easily disavow me having a very pleasant
life.

>   ...          You decree that God is simply not responsible for ``acts of
>God'' (sounds absurd to me).

I asked you for proof that the flood which took by house was caused by God.
You have not responded.  I also asked why there have always been floods on
this earth even when they didn't do Man any damage.  Still no reply.

>It seems that for any proof I offer, you would say ``you can't include that.''

Is this your excuse for not offering any proof?  You claim you know what I'll
say?

>	And you do have a knack for belittling the destruction of the world.
>``All God has to do is...'' is what you say. God is waiting for just the
>right moment to cause the most awesome possible devastation, AND to make it
>seem to anyone who witnesses it or survives it that it was all man's fault.

Isn't it obvious that a mis-fired missle would be construed to be man's fault
and not God's?  And doesn't World War III come under your definition of
"the most awesome possible devastation" ?

>                              ...                                  You said
>the destruction of your house was no big deal. Apparently God has made you
>into a damage addict, needing everincreasing doses of His evil to believe.

You are correct.  Let me see (10 X $30,000) = $300,000.  Ok, it's a deal!
Please, please, D-God, flood my house ten times in a row.  I'll painfully
take the $300,000 profit and fully admit I'm in complete misery.  And even
after I visit the bank and move into my new palace in the mountains I promise
to always moan and groan about how bad my life really is and I'll never
acknowlege that I'm really happy.

>Yet there are many more who take the position of God as loving father
>seriously. Why don't you have anything to say about them?

Didn't I already?  Your closing quote of mine was exactly what your talking
about.  I mentioned that there seemed just as scant evidence that God (if
any) was a goody-goody two shoes as an evil pig-monster as you claim.

Maybe you should read more carefully.

>Perhaps there is still hope!

Hope for what?  That I'll recognize that I'm not really happy and that I'm
tricked by God into liking ice cream?  Not very likely.

>Be well,

Well, at least you end your messages on a nice note.

 --  Dave Trissel     {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet