Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!think!mit-eddie!pez From: pez@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Paul Zimmerman) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Does the Bible show God's evil? Message-ID: <3453@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> Date: Mon, 13-Oct-86 16:13:17 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.3453 Posted: Mon Oct 13 16:13:17 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 07:39:43 EDT References: <461@tekfdi.UUCP> <1003@unirot.UUCP> <2499@hcrvax.UUCP> Organization: M.I.T. EE/CS Computer Facility, Cambridge MA Lines: 86 Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:510 net.religion.christian:4864 In article <2499@hcrvax.UUCP>, ken@hcrvax.UUCP (ken scott, [decvax,ihnp4]!utzoo!hcr!ken) writes: >>The lesson we learn from Job is that we are insignificant >>in the eyes of God, we exist only to serve His purposes. If He ``needs'' a >>person to serve as an ``example'' for you, to provide a message or warning, God >>will interfere with that person's life to make it so. > > In a word: "Yeah! Why not?" > > I should admit, I am not a fundamentalist Christian, but my understanding > of their viewpoint suggests that that would be just fine. After all, if > not for God you wouldn't have these riches in the first place. *Moreover*, > and this is the most important point, suffering to serve God is the best > fate you could ask for yourself! What is brief earthly suffering against > a lifetime of bliss in heaven? Well, there are certainly a lot of assumptions and examples of ethical inconsistencies in that excerpt, but Ken is certainly not unique in offering them. People who would make excuses for God often do this very thing. They would forcefit a view of the world in which He is depicted as good for no reason other than their desire to see the world that way (a desire instilled by God, of course, for His own purposes). Ken, let's say you heard someone defending abusive parents using these very same words, words such as ``Why shouldn't a parent have an absolute right to do what he wishes to a child? Suffering to serve and obey a parent is the best fate a child could ask for! It's a great learning experience for the child! Without the parents, the child wouldn't be alive in the first place, so the parents have a RIGHT to do what they wish with the child.'' Would you agree with this inane assessment of the role of parents? If not (and I would suspect you wouldn't if you are a reasonable person), then how can you claim that it is legitimate to use these arguments (as you have done) in defense of the cruelty and maliciousness of God? (Please don't use the circular argument ``but you CAN'T judge God that way because He's God.'' Hearing that reasoning makes me physically ill, as I find it extremely disturbing to find that educated adults can use such a poor excuse for thinking. If you wish to use such an argument, please explain WHY God's being God is sufficient grounds for claiming that He can't be judged. And try to do so without going back to the "but He created us" argument which I'm sure you'll agree certainly isn't reason enough for this.) Furthermore, if you would condemn those who raise children according to the above beliefs, you must doubly condemn God, because His abilities allow Him to do so much more that He simply does not do because He doesn't feel like it. Parents cannot control every variable in a child's life, for we are simply not powerful enough to exercise that sort of control. God is, and His refusal to do what is in His power to do proves that His intent must be evil. After all, if it is to be considered wrong for us to commit the ``sin of omission,'' to fail to do good where good could have been done, then God should certainly be subject to that rule himself. Certainly some people take this to extremes when seeking to punish those who do not adhere to their laws (e.g., the Salem witch trials). And of course, they feel justified in behaving this way because God Himself does so! Is it any wonder all the violence that comes out of whorshiping God? (Unfortunately, many people DO raise children in exactly the way I just described, having learned from God and religion what a ``parent'' is supposed to be like.) > Having spouted all this, I might as well admit that I'm not a Christian > of any sort. But even so I find this viewpoint fairly amenable to > my way of thinking. While I may wail and bemoan my fate at every chance, > I still don't think "Boy are you ever a rotten Tao to be giving me this > boil on my bum!" Who the hell am I to say that? Do I know how the > higher purpose is served by my life or death? Nope, I just muddle along > doing the best I can, and leave the higher justice of it to them as > understands such things! Ken, do you feel this way about government? Do you feel that ``those in charge'' are better qualified to decide your fate for you? Do you just forget about voicing your opinions on matters of concern to you, leaving the decisions to those who CLAIM that they are ``better equipped'' to make such decisions? The same rules apply to dealing with God. Those who have been duped by God into such a passive existence, believing Him to be qualified to run things (what tests has He taken that show His ability to do this?), need to reflect a bit on how we should really deal with God, how much more He should be allowed to get away with. Alas, it is likely that they will not. The mesmerizing indoctrinational propaganda leading to a belief in God as benevolent parent often blocks the thinking and analyzing process in the human minds that it effects, most specifically when it comes to recognizing how that process has been tampered with by God and His cronies. ``Who the hell are you to demand fair treatment from the God who supposedly controls our lives?'' you ask? You are a person, a living organism with a rational mind and the capability of doing so, of recognizing the fallacies in God's contortive lying and false promises. --- Be well, Paul Zimmerman (pez@mit-eddie.UUCP, pez@unirot.UUCP)