Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!pez
From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: How come God doesn't affect Dave?
Message-ID: <386@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Oct-85 12:55:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.386
Posted: Thu Oct 17 12:55:38 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 04:23:13 EDT
References: <305@pyuxn.UUCP> <630@ihu1m.UUCP> <309@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Piscataway, N.J.
Lines: 89

Dave,

	I never said that you NEVER suffered, but certainly you have said
time and again that your suffering was miniscule, when in fact you have
suffered the loss of your house. (Among what other things, pray tell?)
I excerpt from your own article oakhill.531:

> It's difficult answering because it's not clear what you mean by "anti-nature
> work against [me]".  I gave examples of negative things in my life (boring
> work tasks etc.) but are you referring to these or much worse things like
> losing a leg or having a medical problem for the rest of a lifetime?

	When you were asked for negative things in your life, all you could
come up with (at the time) were ``boring work tasks, etc.'' Yet when you were
pressed for it you managed to come up with the destruction of your house.
How did that just slip your mind? You are certainly deliberately ignoring
God's evil for your own purposes. (and His?)  Earlier, in oakhill.509, you
said that you've ``had a really great time most all of [your] life.''

	I asked you about the double standard of asking one question (``If
God's so powerful why doesn't He hurt me?'') and ignoring the converse
question (``If God's so powerful (and good) why does He allow evil to exist?'')
that should be asked of the God whorshipers.  You responded, with a closing
paragraph in a response to me. But where are your responses directly to
those who make converse claims about God to those I make? That is your double
standard.

	What I find extremely ironic is your own ironic tone in response to
things I say. When I show evidence in favor of the concept that our liking
sugary foods like ice cream is in fact the work of God, you respond by saying
``Next, you will probably claim that enjoying sex is one of D-God's ploys.''
Well? Why not? What is so implausible about that? Is it any less plausible
than the claims of Christians that Satan is responsible for those very same
sorts of things? The only difference between my view and theirs (in essence,
and it's a big difference) is that they believe that God is good and Satan
is some separate ``evil'' entity, while I believe that God and Satan are one
and the same. If my views are so implausible, what does that make of Christian
views? It seems that anything I say, you will laugh at, responding with ``Next,
you'll claim that ...'' and jokingly refer to something else that God has
infected us with.

	You say ``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.'' I could just as easily say that it is you who refuses to
acknowledge evil when it stares you in the face. You can turn something
as horrifying as the destruction of your home into a nothing experience,
thus enabling you to ignore God's evil. It didn't have to have happened,
Dave. Why accept it at all? It's not worth ignoring or accepting.

	I said ``It seems that for any proof I offer, you would say [I]
can't include that.'' And you responded by saying ``Is this your excuse for
not offering any proof?  You claim you know what I'll say?'' But you DID say
that!  You told me specifically not to include certain kinds of proof because
you wouldn't accept them. In oakhill.539, you say:

> >Certainly He interferes in the lives of millions of people every day.
> Some examples please.  Don't say hurricanes and the like.  I mean something
> that you can really prove that God was behind. If there are personal things
> that happened to you all the better. You don't seem to want to talk about
> your personal life.  Any reason?

	I have spoken many times about my personal life in this forum. But
why should that make a difference to my arguments?

	You said ``Isn't it obvious that a mis-fired missile 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?'' But you
forget that we're not just talking about any possible scenario for Armageddon.
We're talking about THE ultimate most destructive scenario. Any misfired
missile just won't do to placate the whims of a God who wants to see the
violent destruction possible. Imagine the level of world destruction where
the two opposing sides survive enough to continue the battle, to build more
weapons and pollute the world with more radiation, demented world leaders
sitting in their mountain lairs pressing buttons like scavengers, creative
perpetual destruction, hell on earth. Does that sound ominously frightening?
And I'm just me, can you imagine what sort of destruction God Himself can
compound that with in His own scenario that may be beyond our imagination? 

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

	Could this statement perhaps apply to you, in your zeal to avoid
and ignore the consequences of the nature of God as I have described?

Be well (please?),
-- 
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez