The Damager God: A response (to Craig Stanfill)
Paul Zimmerman
You are essentially correct when you state the following dichotomy
between my beliefs and the beliefs of God whorshipers as follows:
> 1. God created the universe and man. 2. God is benevolent.
(versus)
> 3. God did NOT create the universe and man. 4. God is malevolent.
Then you say the following:
> The Judeo-Christian belief is based on the Bible and on our individual
> relationships with God in prayer. We believe what it says about God.
> And we feel His presence when we pray, and we hear His voice when he
> talks to us. The two agree; when God tells me something, it is
> understandable in terms of the scriptures.
And that sums it all up. You BELIEVE what it says. You BELIEVE
what God says. How many times does God have to lie and deceive and damage
and interfere before you will stop believing his filthy lies? You say
``God could not possibly be part of the universe'' because ``the acts of
God in the scripture make it clear that God is above physical laws.''
I beg to differ on two counts. First, the preponderance of evidence
supporting belief in the actions of God as described in the Bible (the
flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the parting of the Red Sea)
shows archeological evidence of explainable physical events occurring at
these times, thus proving that this God works WITHIN existing physical laws,
although obviously exercising great (though far from omnipotent) power.
Second, even if you could prove that God transcends the laws of THIS
universe, does He transcend the laws of His own universe? And how was that
universe (and of course God) created?
Then you claim that ``suffering is evil'' is just my opinion,
that each person's relationship to God (in suffering) is ``an individual
thing.'' You say that YOU do not attribute your own suffering ``to ill
will on His part.'' Well, that's all well and good, that YOU don't
attribute it to Him, but the fact remains that He is responsible for
direct interference in nature that causes damage in our lives. If not
Him, who? Us? Are you claiming that evil (instead of good) is part of
the natural flow (within us and within nature) and that God infuses
good into it all? That sounds a little backwards to me. Doesn't it sound
that way to you? You conclude that particular paragraph by saying ``It
is not for us to look at the suffering God visits on our fellow man
and judge God as good or evil.'' HOW DARE YOU make this claim! If it is
not our place to do this, then whose place is it? Certainly you are making
this claim based on you assumptions about anything God does and says being
good. I claim not only that it is appropriate to judge God in this way,
that it is a prerequisite for real fellowship with the human race (instead
of fellowship with an alien despicable filthy God).
Finally, you say ``it is dangerous to take the Bible as partially
true. If you accept accounts of God drowning the Pharaoh's army and
destroying Sodom but do not accept God as the benevolent creator of the
universe, you are doing just this.'' I find this sort of odd, because when
you claim that God is good, you blithely ignore all these things you mention
here. And you forget that God's word in the Bible is no better than an account
of Watergate written by Richard Nixon. Why believe it in light of all He has
done and all He stands for?
Be well,
--
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez
Charley Wingate
net.philosophy :-) and speak on this issue. This has a fair chance of being
my only posting on this subject, and I am going to be a bit flamy here. The
reason for that latter should become apparent.
Mr. Zimmerman (like Tim Maroney before him) would use the scriptures to
accuse God. God has done all these horrible things, and therefore he must
be evil.
It's not like this has not been thought of before. Anyone who aspires to
deal with the whole question of God's permission (and even apparent
encouragement) of evil has to read the book of Job before they dare speak.
The LORD's reply to Job is quite relevant to Mr. Zimmerman's arguments too,
and so I freely acknowledge my debts to this book.
Mr. Zimmerman's position is built upon a bedrock of pride. This is a man
who believes he understands the purpose behind every action of a being of
whose nature he knows nothing. Have you, Mr. Zimmerman, measured the hand
of God? Do you know the reach of his gaze? The length of his memory? Can
you comprehend what it is to stand out of time, to be omnipotent,
all-seeing, all-knowing?
Not content with one sin of pride, hew must compound it with another. He
would judge the LORD as a man. Would you judge a man as a dog? A dog as a
snail? An infant as an adult? What is death to one who can raise from the
dead? What is blindness to one who restores sight? Even Jesus, God of God,
would not presume to judge the Father.
Not content with that great hubris, he goes on to claim knowledge of the
very purpose of the universe, revealed to him alone. Not even the Buddha
had the gall to claim to know why life was suffering.
Mr. Zimmerman, I have suffered. I have been carried out into the land of
the mystics and brought directly to God. I have walked through great
valleys of silence. God is Good. To one who has been there, there can be
no other knowledge. I am not so proud as to claim to know why God does
these things. Maybe in the next life you will have a reason to curse God to
his face, rather than taunt his silence.
C Wingate
Mike Huybensz
> I'm going to look down from my whirlwind (it's what I use to trash
> net.philosophy :-) and speak on this issue. This has a fair chance of being
> my only posting on this subject, and I am going to be a bit flamy here. The
> reason for that latter should become apparent.
Is the apparent reason "extreme pomposity"? :-) I'm going to rearrange your
response a little, to put the ridiculous passages first.
> Mr. Zimmerman, I have suffered. I have been carried out into the land of
> the mystics and brought directly to God. I have walked through great
> valleys of silence. God is Good. To one who has been there, there can be
> no other knowledge. I am not so proud as to claim to know why God does
> these things. Maybe in the next life you will have a reason to curse God to
> his face, rather than taunt his silence.
"God is Good." Wow, that has all the intensity of the scene from Young
Frankenstein when Wilder tells the monster "You are Good!". The rhetorical
excess of the above passage merely underlines how poorly you can support
your claims. (One of the better lessons from Bertrand Russell.)
> Mr. Zimmerman (like Tim Maroney before him) would use the scriptures to
> accuse God. God has done all these horrible things, and therefore he must
> be evil.
And why not? You and others would use the scriptures to praise God.
Plainly, you're making a blatant fallacy of special pleading here (and
in subsequent passages.)
> It's not like this has not been thought of before. Anyone who aspires to
> deal with the whole question of God's permission (and even apparent
> encouragement) of evil has to read the book of Job before they dare speak.
> The LORD's reply to Job is quite relevant to Mr. Zimmerman's arguments too,
> and so I freely acknowledge my debts to this book.
The Lord's reply to Job is clearly a fallacy of argument. Simply substitute
"Hitler" for "Lord" and then see where the moral ground lies.
> Mr. Zimmerman's position is built upon a bedrock of pride. This is a man
> who believes he understands the purpose behind every action of a being of
> whose nature he knows nothing. Have you, Mr. Zimmerman, measured the hand
> of God? Do you know the reach of his gaze? The length of his memory? Can
> you comprehend what it is to stand out of time, to be omnipotent,
> all-seeing, all-knowing?
By this "logic" taking ANY position, pro- or anti-god, is hubris. Who are
you, or even any prophet, to dare to interpret the meaning of any
communication by a superior being?
> Not content with one sin of pride, hew must compound it with another. He
> would judge the LORD as a man. Would you judge a man as a dog? A dog as a
> snail? An infant as an adult? What is death to one who can raise from the
> dead? What is blindness to one who restores sight? Even Jesus, God of God,
> would not presume to judge the Father.
Another example of appallingly inappropriate analogies. The only way
those could be contorted into any semblance of a reasonable argument would
be "Would a dog judge a man as a dog?" etc. But as they stand, they show
only your irrationality on the subject.
But I suppose that, doglike, you think the only appropriate think to do is
to wag your tail no matter how your superior master beats you, starves you,
or slaughters you for the pot. Well, that too is a judgement. And plainly
an incompetant one.
> Not content with that great hubris, he goes on to claim knowledge of the
> very purpose of the universe, revealed to him alone. Not even the Buddha
> had the gall to claim to know why life was suffering.
I'll let Paul defend himself on this accusation, especially since you
haven't specified any particular statement. However, it would be very
amusing to hear Buddhas' thoughts on your beliefs....
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Charley Wingate
>> Mr. Zimmerman, I have suffered. I have been carried out into the land of
>> the mystics and brought directly to God. I have walked through great
>> valleys of silence. God is Good. To one who has been there, there can be
>> no other knowledge. I am not so proud as to claim to know why God does
>> these things. Maybe in the next life you will have a reason to curse God
>> to his face, rather than taunt his silence.
>"God is Good." Wow, that has all the intensity of the scene from Young
>Frankenstein when Wilder tells the monster "You are Good!". The rhetorical
>excess of the above passage merely underlines how poorly you can support
>your claims. (One of the better lessons from Bertrand Russell.)
Bertrand Russell, one of the great masters of rhetorical excess, would thus
be a sure argument against his own claims, would he not? His invariable use
of straw men in his arguments is the principal reason why I have little use
for them.
But all this is besides the point. What experience, Mike, do you have in
religion? You've never given evidence of being anything but a observer.
One might as well understand soldiering by reading books, or the experience
of giving birth by watching documentaries.
I don't care if you care to dispute me. I am not arguing; my call is for
you yourself to come and see. I will not defend the LORD. The only
argument I have is with Mr. Zimmerman's pride-- and anyone else's should
they care to make the same argument.
>> Mr. Zimmerman (like Tim Maroney before him) would use the scriptures to
>> accuse God. God has done all these horrible things, and therefore he must
>> be evil.
>And why not? You and others would use the scriptures to praise God.
>Plainly, you're making a blatant fallacy of special pleading here (and
>in subsequent passages.)
The purpose of scriture is to instruct. It is a source of information about
the LORD's relationship to the world. When I want to praise the LORD, I
sing a hymn, not quote scripture.
>> It's not like this has not been thought of before. Anyone who aspires to
>> deal with the whole question of God's permission (and even apparent
>> encouragement) of evil has to read the book of Job before they dare speak.
>> The LORD's reply to Job is quite relevant to Mr. Zimmerman's arguments too,
>> and so I freely acknowledge my debts to this book.
>The Lord's reply to Job is clearly a fallacy of argument. Simply substitute
>"Hitler" for "Lord" and then see where the moral ground lies.
Well, then obviously Hitler's argument falls flat on its face, due to the
fact that Hitler cannot claim to have been there when the Pliades were
created, whereas the LORD can. Why should I accept a moral analogy between
a man and a god?
>> Mr. Zimmerman's position is built upon a bedrock of pride. This is a man
>> who believes he understands the purpose behind every action of a being of
>> whose nature he knows nothing. Have you, Mr. Zimmerman, measured the hand
>> of God? Do you know the reach of his gaze? The length of his memory? Can
>> you comprehend what it is to stand out of time, to be omnipotent,
>> all-seeing, all-knowing?
>By this "logic" taking ANY position, pro- or anti-god, is hubris. Who are
>you, or even any prophet, to dare to interpret the meaning of any
>communication by a superior being?
And so I will retract (at least part of the way). I will not proclaim to
you that God is good. But I will continue to demand you to come see for
yourself, rather than stand behind a wall of books and jeer.
>> Not content with one sin of pride, hew must compound it with another. He
>> would judge the LORD as a man. Would you judge a man as a dog? A dog as a
>> snail? An infant as an adult? What is death to one who can raise from the
>> dead? What is blindness to one who restores sight? Even Jesus, God of
>> God, would not presume to judge the Father.
>Another example of appallingly inappropriate analogies. The only way
>those could be contorted into any semblance of a reasonable argument would
>be "Would a dog judge a man as a dog?" etc. But as they stand, they show
>only your irrationality on the subject.
So I take it, then, that you would judge a dog as a man.
>But I suppose that, doglike, you think the only appropriate think to do is
>to wag your tail no matter how your superior master beats you, starves you,
>or slaughters you for the pot. Well, that too is a judgement. And plainly
>an incompetant one.
Well, since I know him (however vaguely) and you know him not, you can
scarcely expect me to accept such a judgement.
Charley Wingate
Byron C. Howes
>
>the mystics and brought directly to God. I have walked through great
>valleys of silence. God is Good. To one who has been there, there can be
>no other knowledge. I am not so proud as to claim to know why God does
>these things. Maybe in the next life you will have a reason to curse God to
>his face, rather than taunt his silence.
Perhaps... I remain as unconvinced by Charley's argument as I do by Paul's.
The (apparent) inability to know g-d does not mean that g-d is good. G-d
says that g-d is good, but then crazy eddie says that crazy eddie is good.
Under the circumstances I will opt, with Charley, to continue seeking
understanding but I will try not to preform my conclusions.
--
Byron C. Howes
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
Mike Huybensz
> What experience, Mike, do you have in
> religion? You've never given evidence of being anything but a observer.
> One might as well understand soldiering by reading books, or the experience
> of giving birth by watching documentaries.
What experience, Charley, do you have in maltheism? You've never given
evidence of being anything but an observer....
Next thing you know, Charley will insist that doctors have to catch
diseases to understand and treat them. Shall I give Charley the job of
training Down's Syndrome patients to discover their own cures?
It's obvious to me that Charley's strategy of argument here is to erect
imaginary barriers to understanding, so that he won't have to defend
his position on common ground.
> I don't care if you care to dispute me. I am not arguing; my call is for
> you yourself to come and see. I will not defend the LORD. The only
> argument I have is with Mr. Zimmerman's pride-- and anyone else's should
> they care to make the same argument.
Oh golly, you're so far above us that you don't need to argue with us!
How godlike! You MUST be right! But it's not pride in YOUR case. :-(
> >> Mr. Zimmerman (like Tim Maroney before him) would use the scriptures to
> >> accuse God. God has done all these horrible things, and therefore he must
> >> be evil.
>
> >And why not? You and others would use the scriptures to praise God.
> >Plainly, you're making a blatant fallacy of special pleading here (and
> >in subsequent passages.)
>
> The purpose of scriture is to instruct. It is a source of information about
> the LORD's relationship to the world. When I want to praise the LORD, I
> sing a hymn, not quote scripture.
The purpose of scripture is to disinform. But you use it to instruct that
god is good, which is comparable to our use of accusing god. That is the
meaning of "praise" which you misread.
> >The Lord's reply to Job is clearly a fallacy of argument. Simply substitute
> >"Hitler" for "Lord" and then see where the moral ground lies.
>
> Well, then obviously Hitler's argument falls flat on its face, due to the
> fact that Hitler cannot claim to have been there when the Pliades were
> created, whereas the LORD can. Why should I accept a moral analogy between
> a man and a god?
If you cannot construct an analogously pompous statement for Hitler, you're
not trying.
Where does the analogy break down? Both God and Hitler were persuing
selfish ends, with innocents bearing the costs. Both claimed to have
"larger" purposes. Tell me how I can tell whether they really are
large and important. By their say-so? That's clearly special pleading.
> >By this "logic" taking ANY position, pro- or anti-god, is hubris. Who are
> >you, or even any prophet, to dare to interpret the meaning of any
> >communication by a superior being?
>
> And so I will retract (at least part of the way). I will not proclaim to
> you that God is good. But I will continue to demand you to come see for
> yourself, rather than stand behind a wall of books and jeer.
I do see for myself, and so does Paul. God is bad. I will proclaim it
because I think hubris is merely an institutionalized form of repression
of thought. Here again we see your anxiousness not to argue on the
subject.
> Well, since I know him (however vaguely) and you know him not, you can
> scarcely expect me to accept such a judgement.
I think I know the damager god better than you: I think you are misguided
by infatuation.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Tim Maroney
Here is a summary of Charley's message, with responses in parentheses.
The Book of Job explains it all. Don't ask me how, it just does. You can't
talk about this issue unless you've read the Book of Job. That has all the
answers. (Somehow, Charley neglected to give a summary of the argument, no
doubt just an innocent oversight on his part.... I've read Job and it seems
irrelevant to the issue of slaughtering innocent babies by divine order and
making disease bacteria.)
Mr Zimmerman's argument is built on pride. (Meaningless personal attack,
used in lieu of rational argument.) God is beyond our judgment. (I took
this argument apart specifically and precisely in "Even If I Did Believe",
which Wingate ignores because he is incapable of answering it. It is so
much easier to hide your head in the sand and spout the same old
already-refuted arguments than to face the truth, isn't it, Charley?)
You can't judge God by the same standards as men. Would you judge a man as
a dog? (Another point I dealt with specifically and exactly in "Even If I
Did Believe", leading me to wonder again whether one should judge Wingate as
an ostrich. Answer my refutations, don't just cover your eyes and hope
they'll go away. Intellectual dishonesty of this type is revolting. Grow
up, will you?)
The Buddha did not claim knowledge of the reasons for suffering. (A lie,
apparently born of ignorance but still a lie because of the irresponsibility
of speaking from ignorance. Ever hear of the Second Noble Truth, Charley?
"Suffering is caused by attachment." It's the foundation of Buddhism....)
I have had mystical experiences of overwhelming goodness. Therefore, there
is a God, and he is good. (I've also had plenty of mystical experiences of
this nature, and I dispute your conclusions. Mystical experience is just
that, not literal truth or any sort of proof. It is conditioned by personal
factors and predisposition. A Christian or a person raised almost entirely
as a Christian is no more going to experience an evil God than a Hindu is
going to have a vision of the Virgin Mary. Unless treated with skepticism,
mystical experiences =always= produce dogmatic attachment to their subject;
and we have seen the extent of Charley's skepticism.)
Charley's was the weakest, most bombastic, and most refutable (pre-refuted,
in fact) message I have seen on net.religion in weeks. C'mon, Charley, you
can do better than these damp, insubstantial breezes. Can't you?
A veritable limpet wearing the stolen coat of a sage....
-=-
Tim Maroney, CMU Center for Art and Technology
Tim.M...@k.cs.cmu.edu uucp: {seismo,decwrl,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 Religion is a branch of psychology.
Rich Rosen
>>Frankenstein when Wilder tells the monster "You are Good!". The rhetorical
>>excess of the above passage merely underlines how poorly you can support
>>your claims. (One of the better lessons from Bertrand Russell.)
> Bertrand Russell, one of the great masters of rhetorical excess, would thus
> be a sure argument against his own claims, would he not? His invariable use
> of straw men in his arguments is the principal reason why I have little use
> for them. [WINGATE]
Nice substantiatipon for those assertions about someone whose opinions you
don't like.
> I don't care if you care to dispute me. I am not arguing; my call is for
> you yourself to come and see. I will not defend the LORD. The only
> argument I have is with Mr. Zimmerman's pride-- and anyone else's should
> they care to make the same argument.
But no argument with your own pride at claiming to know the true nature of
god whilst berating Paul for stating a "falsehood" about the nature of that
same god. Hmmm... Methinks you could learn a thing or two from Paul.
>>> It's not like this has not been thought of before. Anyone who aspires to
>>> deal with the whole question of God's permission (and even apparent
>>> encouragement) of evil has to read the book of Job before they dare speak.
>>> The LORD's reply to Job is quite relevant to Mr. Zimmerman's arguments too,
>>> and so I freely acknowledge my debts to this book.
>>The Lord's reply to Job is clearly a fallacy of argument. Simply substitute
>>"Hitler" for "Lord" and then see where the moral ground lies.
> Well, then obviously Hitler's argument falls flat on its face, due to the
> fact that Hitler cannot claim to have been there when the Pliades were
> created, whereas the LORD can. Why should I accept a moral analogy between
> a man and a god?
Does the ability to CLAIM to have been there make the claim any "better"?
Hitler could have claimed, like Jesus, that he was the son of god. Would
that have made his claims any better? Apparently, judging from the way
you evaluate claims, it would to you. And that's scary.
>>> Mr. Zimmerman's position is built upon a bedrock of pride. This is a man
>>> who believes he understands the purpose behind every action of a being of
>>> whose nature he knows nothing. Have you, Mr. Zimmerman, measured the hand
>>> of God? Do you know the reach of his gaze? The length of his memory? Can
>>> you comprehend what it is to stand out of time, to be omnipotent,
>>> all-seeing, all-knowing?
>>By this "logic" taking ANY position, pro- or anti-god, is hubris. Who are
>>you, or even any prophet, to dare to interpret the meaning of any
>>communication by a superior being?
> And so I will retract (at least part of the way). I will not proclaim to
> you that God is good. But I will continue to demand you to come see for
> yourself, rather than stand behind a wall of books and jeer.
It seems to me that Paul HAS come to see god for himself, and as a result
has come to his conclusions. On what basis can you say that his conclusions
are wrong? Because he speaks from presumptions? Because he justifies his
claims with subjective experience only? Anything else?
>>But I suppose that, doglike, you think the only appropriate think to do is
>>to wag your tail no matter how your superior master beats you, starves you,
>>or slaughters you for the pot. Well, that too is a judgement. And plainly
>>an incompetant one.
> Well, since I know him (however vaguely) and you know him not, you can
> scarcely expect me to accept such a judgement.
And Paul claims that HE knows him, and that YOU do not. How are you going to
prove Paul's conclusions wrong without at the same time disproving your own?
--
"I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the
capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I
knew I was making chicken salad."
"I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is
La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
Rich Rosen
> net.philosophy :-) and speak on this issue. This has a fair chance of being
> my only posting on this subject, and I am going to be a bit flamy here. The
Yeah, as usual, you attack someone whose opinions you don't like.
> Mr. Zimmerman's position is built upon a bedrock of pride. This is a man
> who believes he understands the purpose behind every action of a being of
> whose nature he knows nothing. Have you, Mr. Zimmerman, measured the hand
> of God? Do you know the reach of his gaze? The length of his memory? Can
> you comprehend what it is to stand out of time, to be omnipotent,
> all-seeing, all-knowing?
This hand you ask Paul to measure. This is a hand you draw yourself by
outlining your own fingers on paper. It is based on your image of what
you choose to believe god is. Since Paul is not making your assumptions
about the nature of god, he is not bound by your restrictions that claim
"you can't say that, you're talking about god!!!" He is judging objectively
your notions about god from an external perspective. (Well, maybe not
objectively, but certainly without YOUR set of presumptions.)
> Not content with one sin of pride, hew must compound it with another.
There's another fine example. "Sin of pride". You (and your god, or so you
say) describe such pride as a sin. But if you don't accept your particular
notions about god, there is no "sin" involved. This is a perfect example
of the line of thinking I describe above ("You can't say that...").
> He would judge the LORD as a man. Would you judge a man as a dog? A dog
> as a snail? An infant as an adult? What is death to one who can raise from
> the dead? What is blindness to one who restores sight? Even Jesus, God of
> God, would not presume to judge the Father.
Good for him! The only thing wrong with such judging is that YOU say (that
*HE* says) it is wrong.
> Not content with that great hubris, he goes on to claim knowledge of the
> very purpose of the universe, revealed to him alone. Not even the Buddha
> had the gall to claim to know why life was suffering.
But the great Winga, of course, has never NEVER done anything like that,
such as asserting that it is an evil "sin of pride" to question god, or
that his assumptions are better than someone else's...
> Mr. Zimmerman, I have suffered. I have been carried out into the land of
> the mystics and brought directly to God. I have walked through great
> valleys of silence. God is Good. To one who has been there, there can be
> no other knowledge.
This comes back to haunt you, Charles. Paul claims, just as you do, to have
been "brought directly to god". He claims to have "been there" JUST as you
have, and he has claimed that there can be no other knowledge than that which
HE found. What does that say about the trips both you and he have made? Did
you have a better tour guide than he did? How do you know that?
> I am not so proud as to claim to know why God does these things.
Oh, but you ARE, dear Charles!!! You have engaged in a "sin of pride" when
you said that "God is Good". Just as you claimed that Paul did.
Paul Zimmerman
You start off by questioning my feeling that ``God has done all these
horrible things, and therefore he must be evil.'' If you start from an
assumption that for some reason God is an exception to the rule that those
who do horrible things are evil, then of course, you will see fit to
question man's ``right'' to make such a judgment. But of course, by
not making such an assumption (an assumption that God induces you to make
as part of His brainwashing), you become free to really understand what God
is all about.
You reach back to the Book of Job for God's justification of His
being evil. Skipping over the fact that this is like a gangster justifying
his criminal activities (with some nod to contributions to charity or
some such nonsense), the justification only makes sense if you already
believe that God, because He is powerful, is ``right'' and correct in doing
what He pleases. This mentality smacks of fascist dictatorship, and willing
subservience to such tyranny. Doubtless you will claim that I am judging
God as I would judge a man (a big point you keep making). But each time you
make this point, you fail to justify it: WHY should God be judged differently?
Because HE says so? Why do you fall into His trap? Take the first step,
Charley, and judge Him, recognize Him for what He is, and tell me how
it changes your thinking.
Charley, you say that I believe I understand the purpose behind the
actions of a being of whose nature I know nothing. (An almost exact quote,
anyway.) Don't you make that same claim yourself, endlessly, whenever you
assume the benevolent nature of God? Of the two of us, it seems you are
as guilty of ``the sin of pride'' as much as I am when you claim to know
that ``God is good.'' Not that such pride is really a sin. The real ``sin''
(according to God's self-centered definition of sin) is questioning His
word. I try to ``sin'' like that as often as possible. And as a result of
this sinning, I have come away with true knowledge of God. Also, you ask if
I comprehend what it is ``to be omnipotent, all-seeing, all-knowing.''
Since these qualities are simply assertions from God about what He claims
to be (which I do not believe), this question is irrelevant and moot.
Finally, you speak of my ``great hubris.'' Yet certainly is you
who speaks with the most pride and hubris of all! You assert that you have
been brought in contact with God, and ``know'' Him to be ``Good.'' (With a
capital G, no less!) And you say ``to one who has been there, there can
be no other knowledge.'' I'm sorry to disappoint you, Charley, but I have
been there, and I have been there without your naive assumptions about
God, and the knowledge I have come away with is very different from yours.
You say ``I am not so proud.'' Yet certainly your pride at your own
claims of special knowledge stick out like a sore thumb. Your ``knowledge''
is not special, nor is it accurate. It is tainted by the hand of the evil God.
I do not feel you are (as you say) a ``fool rushing in''into this discussion.
I hope you are openminded enough to get something out of it.
Tim Brengle
> I think I know the damager god better than you: I think you are misguided
> by infatuation. [Mike Huybensz]
Conversely, I think that you are misguided by bitterness.
Now. What was proved (or even accomplished) by either of those statements?
Are either of us convinced?
I believe (Charley, please correct me if I am wrong) that Charley was not
attempting to express any "moral superiority" with his posting. All he was
suggesting is that you (collectively) should be as open to God being good as
you ask us to be about his being a damager-god. Come and look. Visit with
me and my family and see the happiness that comes totally from our love of the
Lord. And THEN judge.
As I have tried to express before, How do you explain the loving touch of God
that I feel every day? How can He be the evil that you suppose of Him when
I *personally* feel His loving touch?
Tim Brengle
Charley Wingate
>I believe (Charley, please correct me if I am wrong) that Charley was not
>attempting to express any "moral superiority" with his posting. All he was
>suggesting is that you (collectively) should be as open to God being good as
>you ask us to be about his being a damager-god. Come and look. Visit with
>me and my family and see the happiness that comes totally from our love of
>the Lord. And THEN judge.
Gee, an invitation to correct someone. It's been a long time since I've
seen one of those. Makes you want to linger over it, doesn't it? I mena,
you could say almost ANYHING....
[generic voice of MOM: "Charley, quit toying with that argument and get to
work!"]
Sigh. Well, I would have LIKED to have said what Tim attributes to me. The
heat of passion affects all of us though, an I got a little overworked and
prideful myself.
So, right. What Tim says.
Charley Wingate
Mike Huybensz
No feud. Charlie and I enjoy it. Feel welcome. But we play rough....
> > I think I know the damager god better than you: I think you are misguided
> > by infatuation. [Mike Huybensz]
>
> Conversely, I think that you are misguided by bitterness.
>
> Now. What was proved (or even accomplished) by either of those statements?
> Are either of us convinced?
Perhaps you didn't notice, but my point was a converse construction. You
have now returned to the argument Charlie originally made. I constructed
the converse (as a humorous insult) to show how unconvincing Charlie's
argument was.
> All [Charlie] was suggesting is that you (collectively) should be as open
> to God being good as you ask us to be about his being a damager-god.
> Come and look. Visit with me and my family and see the happiness that
> comes totally from our love of the Lord. And THEN judge.
I have looked. The Christian God is evil.
> As I have tried to express before, How do you explain the loving touch of God
> that I feel every day? How can He be the evil that you suppose of Him when
> I *personally* feel His loving touch?
Simple. A mix of delusion, misinterpretation, and disinformation.
Just look at your own Bible, with the help of Tim Maroney's "Even If I
Did Believe" for the misinterpretation.
Try to explain to me your personal experiences that convince you of
God, and that God is good, and you will see by your inability that
you are illogical and deluded.
Look to the astonishing, bald-faced indoctrination that teaches you god-
whorshipers to interpret anything good as god and anything bad as Satan or
man. That's disinformation.
Open your eyes to the misery in the world. I'm happy for you that your
little world of family, church, and friends is great, but why do you say
your god is responsible for that and not for the misery in the world?
Not because of the "evidence" in the lying Bible, but because you've been
trained to, without thinking.
Now, I suppose you (and other believers) will perform the standard Christian
ritual of aversion, and exclaim "this person is bitter" (a conclusion based
on trained reflex rather than any factual analysis.) Having categorized me
as "bitter", now you can safely (for your belief system) let anything I
say float in one ear and out the other. None of what I'm saying is from
bitterness: it's from plain observation.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Rich Rosen
>> by infatuation. [Mike Huybensz]
> Conversely, I think that you are misguided by bitterness. [Tim Brengle]
Wow, a game of "To Tell the Truth"! Will the real misguided person please
stand up? (Provided, that is, that you know you're misguided.)
> Now. What was proved (or even accomplished) by either of those statements?
> Are either of us convinced?
Yes. You are apparently convinced of your own presumptions. Read on...
> I believe (Charley, please correct me if I am wrong) that Charley was not
> attempting to express any "moral superiority" with his posting. All he was
> suggesting is that you (collectively) should be as open to God being good as
> you ask us to be about his being a damager-god. Come and look. Visit with
> me and my family and see the happiness that comes totally from our love of the
> Lord. And THEN judge.
> As I have tried to express before, How do you explain the loving touch of God
> that I feel every day? How can He be the evil that you suppose of Him when
> I *personally* feel His loving touch?
There you have it. If that's not being "convinced", what is? The question
is still "Why?".