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,net.religion.christian
Subject: Summary of responses to Rick Frey on maltheism
Message-ID: <387@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Oct-85 12:57:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.387
Posted: Thu Oct 17 12:57:19 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 04:23:39 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Piscataway, N.J.
Lines: 142
Xref: watmath net.religion:7998 net.religion.christian:1458

Rick,

	I'm getting very confused, Rick. You said that we are not talking
about the same God, that the Damager-God doesn't have the properties of the
one you believe in. I asked why you thought we were talking about different
concepts when we weren't. You BELIEVE that the God you whosrhip has the
properties you claim that He has. In fact, your only basis for believing
this is that He told you that He has those powers. I never said He wasn't
powerful. As a matter of fact, He is very powerful. But the contradictions
rampant throughout His stories tell me that He either doesn't exist or that
He is a lying pig. We can rule out the former because that is not a
possibility worth discussing, knowing as we do that there is some sort of
willful force out there through our own perceptions. So we are left with the
truth of the matter: God is a disgusting evil pig filth lying bastard out to
deceive us.

	You also say that the vision of God I talk about ``describe[s] what
the Bible says about Satan to the letter.'' Of course it does! God and Satan
are one and the same. As you say, ``the great deceiver, intent on destroying
people, trying to get people to worship Him.'' Well, Rick, THAT describes the
Damager-God to the letter, doesn't it?  You simply choose to believe God's
stories that Satan is some ``other'' entity, but not Him. He is the great and
good God, not an evil pig monster, right? How do we know this? The answer is
simple: BECAUSE HE SAYS SO! And you believe Him! I don't know whether or not
you have children, but have you ever seen a child who has an imaginary
playmate? Have you ever seen such a child blame the imaginary playmate when
he does something bad? Children don't get away with such things. Yet God does.

	I have answered more than once the question of why God must have
been formed along with the universe instead of being some external creator
of that universe. If you are talking about the ultimate universe of universes
which God is supposed to have created, then God would exist outside the
ultimate universe of universes. This would mean that the ultimate universe
of universes is NOT the ultimate universe of universes, because the one God
resides in would have that honor. So how was THAT universe created? It seems
the best you can do is have a God who was created along with the universe,
perhaps as a by-product of that creation. In accordance with the maxim
``absolute power corrupts absolutely,'' God, who has ultimate power within
the scope of this universe (after its creation and the establishment of
physical laws within it) has become corrupted, and hideously evil.

	You ask how we might know whether the scientists who derive the natural
laws aren't just stooges of God. Isn't it obvious that they are? What
information is discovered by scientists? Knowledge about how to cure cancer or
Aids, or how to solve the world's hunger and overpopulation problems? Or
knowledge of how to make weapons of awesome destruction to destroy the world?
Scientists' quest for knowledge is tainted by God's interference in the process
of exploration and experimentation, certainly for the purpose of increasing
the amount of evil in the world.

	Yes, Rick, your needs for these beliefs in a loving father image of
God may very well be very real. But that points again to the evil of God
deliberately encouraging such a need in people, so that we will look to Him
and offer Him whorship. You say ``don't just go back to your statement that
God and Satan are the same thing.'' Why do you forbid that? Why are you so
unwilling to accept that? If it is so obvious to you that what I describe is
depicted in the Bible under the name Satan, why do you so offhandedly reject
the concept that they are one and the same, as with the child and his
imaginary playmate? Are you afraid that it might be true?

	Despite what you claim, the only evidence that Jesus was what you say
he was is found in the word of God, and that is like accepting Richard Nixon's
account of the Watergate years. Josh MacDowell's book only proves my point:
if you accept apriori the assumption that God is good, all else follows. His
book does just that and nothing more. But WHY do that when there is evidence
to the contrary?

	I am also not taken to being told I didn't answer a question when
in fact I did. You asked if I would put up with an excuse from a child of
the form ``Sorry, I didn't clean my room because the evil, damager-God made me
be bad.'' I answered that question. But allow me to answer again in another
form. If YOUR child has grown up to be bad, a delinquent, how could this
happen? Are people naturally evil? Or did some bad influence (perhaps even
from you) make him what he has become? God works in mysterious ways, they
say. They're not so mysterious when you think about them. Perhaps YOU get close
to some children for an extended period of time and see how they are influenced
to become ``evil''.

	I asked you the following:

>> 	You say ``doesn't it seem kind of convenient that everything wrong
>> gets blamed on God and the good stuff comes only when God is too lazy to
>> really screw us?'' Yet you would claim that everything good in this world
>> should be credited to God while the ``bad stuff'' is our fault? Tell me,
>> Rick, which sounds more truthful to you? 

	And you responded:

> You've already heard my answer.  A rhetorical answer, expecting
> something you know I'm not going to grant you doesn't make a whole lot
> of sense in terms of trying to prove your point.

	In fact, Rick, I think you yourself have proven my point. You are
``not going to grant [me]'' any recognition of the two-sidedness of this
coin. I think that, in a very sad way, bespeaks your biases that are your own
downfall in attempting to learn the truth about God. I find it horrifically
shocking that you claim that Abraham's being ordered to bring his son to
sacrifice him to God is analogous to ``greater love hath no man...'' The
example I gave IS something terribly evil, and it is YOU who is trying
to twist it into something good just so that you can preserve your belief
that God is good.

	Then you say that it wasn't God destroying masses of people at His
whim, it was the Jews ``defending'' themselves. Of course, they have had to
(and still have to) defend themselves against such attacks.  But why ignore
the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? What evil did they perform? Or the
people of Jericho, or ALL the native inhabitants of Caanan who were evicted
or killed at God's whim to make room for people He wanted to live there (and
for what purpose?). Was this self-defense by the Jews, or a perfect example of
the evils of God. You say ``God makes it clear that you do what He says and
more often than not, survival depended on it.'' If you lived in a nation where
the leader acted the same way towards you, you would rightly call him evil.
You also quote ``And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is
better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes,
be cast into hell.'' Think about what stumbling means; it simply means not
obeying the will of God! Why not say ``Fuck you, God, I will live my own life,
I am not here to be your lackey and your toy. You are powerful and you may try
to hurt me, but I will retain my dignity. I owe nothing to you, I expect
nothing from you. Go away and leave us all alone.'' (A maltheist's ``prayer'')

	When I answered your question about who inspired such horrors as the
Inquisition by saying ``Who else but God?'' you responded by saying that
(again) you simply cannot accept that answer. It is your refusal to accept
that answer that is your personal downfall. If the destruction of masses
of people at the whim of God is not inspiration for the tortures and horrors
that followed in His name, pray tell, what is? Furthermore, you ignored
completely the points I made about the fate God has in store for those who
do try to preach ``real human love.'' I mentioned Gandhi and King, and
your response to that again skirted the issues. What are you afraid of?
You claim I didn't want to respond to your quotes, so you offered a few more.
Don't you recognize the absurdity of that? You say that you could never agree
with my position about God being evil because of your assumptions.  But then
you demand that I give consideration to passages from ``the word of God'' when
I don't believe that God was telling the truth in even a remote way when He
wrote those words. I think I have good reason behind my belief about the lies
of God, based on the rampant contradictions found in His words. What is your
reason for simply refusing to accept my concept about God?

Be well,
-- 
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez