The Bible -- a reliable source of information about God
Rick Frey
saying but also seeing the immediate gainsaying of almost every point I
made without any real support for what you've said. I believe that what
you wrote was not a parody, but you accuse the believers in the 'good'
God of not thinking and then you turn around and say the 'proof' is on
your side and that I just haven't seen.
Let me start with a reference you made to having proven that God was
created (at best) in your first article. Your entire proof was that
since you could ask the question who created God He must not have
existed eternally and that someone had created Him. But that is absolutely
no proof whatsoever. It's your opinion and it doesn't hold water at all.
If you can imagine an infinite God, a deity as we normally think of them,
there's little problem in imagining it having existed eternally. But even
if you don't like that idea, you still haven't proven anything other than
that you can ask a difficult question.
A second point you seem to feel you can use authoritatively is that the
Bible is a lie and that God is evil. You responded to a number of my
arguments by simply discounting the Bible and saying that it was a
collection of stories created to propagate these lies about God. But other
than your 'observations' on the state of the world, where do you get your
evidence from? This logical inference you seem to base so much weight on,
that the world is in bad shape, God exists so therefor God is bad, does not
stand as any type of 'proof' whatsoever and even as a logical deduction it
leaves alot to be desired as do its corollaries as you have drawn them.
Just to hit on a few side points, you say that God copped out on saving the
world by sending His Son to come and die. That's a way of looking at it IF
you ignore the Bible. The Bible says that Christ was God (sorry any of you
out there who'll disagree with this) so God did come down and pay the price
that He asked for from people. His Son was Himself. God in no way copped
out. He suffered humiliation and all of the things you said He did, while
being God. What you started off on Christ being the Antichrist?? That made
very little sense. No where in the Bible does it say anything about Satan
having control of the earth for a thousand years after Christ's return. It
says that Satan will be bound, "And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent
of old, who is the devil and Satan and bound him for a thousand years" (Rev
20:2) but no where does it say anything about Satan ruling for a thousand
years. And the picture of the antichrist that Revelation paints (which you
don't believe in) is nothing like what the Bible (which again you disbelieve
so where are you getting this info on Christ being the antichrist?) says
about Christ. Forgive the schizophrenia of that last sentance.
Another thing you said that was unfounded was discounting my examples of
God's miracles. When Sarah and Abraham had a child, the Bible records that
Sarah was to old to have a child. You might still say that the Bible is
God's method of bringing lies, but don't say that it was "part of the natural
course of nature." Also, you said that the Jews were extraordinary fighters
so that makes God's claim to saving them in battle void again. But neither
the Jews nor the Bible supports your arguments. The Jews believed that God
gave them victories in battle (so it's not simply a christian doctrine) and
just look at some of the odds the Jews faced. In the story of Gideon, God
supposedly has an army of 22,000 cut down to 300 and they have to face an
army of 120,000 (Judges 7 and 8). If you want to argue that this is an
example of God's intermittent reinforcement or just another one of His lies,
ok, but don't account for it by Jewish military prowess. 300 against
120,000 doesn't work in any military strategy.
In your response to Beth Christy you said that God has built into us a wish
to see Him as a 'father-figure'. But if we evolved, how does God accomplish
this building in process? And another question that's a little off in left
field. If God was created and is evil, doesn't that necessitate another
evil, damager God behind Him that created Him? And if that's the case, then
who created the first, evil damager God? Or can damager Gods exist from
eternity and just not good Gods?
You make two points that apart are fine but when taken together ruin your
whole argument. You say that God is this destructive force, always on the
prowl for things to break or ruin and also that it's easy to point the
figure and place the blame on something else. But don't you think that
applies to some of the problems in the world today? Are you really going to
say it was God's fault that Charles Manson murdered all those people or that
whatever the guy's name was shot all those people in the McDonald's in San
Ysidro? Is that God's doing or is that you're just passing the buck of
human wrotteness (at least in these instances) to some 'evil God' such that
people are no longer responsible for what they do? Why place ALL the evil
on God? Natural disasters and the like I'll give you alot more credit that
seeing God as kind and loving is a little more difficult, but saying that
God "put's the obstacles in our way so as to lead us on that course" is a
complete negation of human free will and responsibility. Are you saying
that we really have no choice in the matter and that we're all puppets or
can we respond to these 'obstacles' in different matters such that evil out
of our own free will is what this evil, damager God wants?
Wow, after rereading your last paragraph in your response to my first
response to your first article (I hope that makes sense) the challenge you
issued is blown out of proportion. You seem to feel you have offered
conclusive 'evidence' that God is evil, that people are simply victims of
this evil God, the Bible is a sham and all sorts of other things that you
simply state and restate, but I'm somewhat confused as to which particular
things you cling to as 'conclusive' evidence? As to why they (Paul Dubois
or Don Boskovich) haven't stepped forward, I can offer one possible
explanation. You simply discounted every argument I offered without
offering any reasoning whatsoever other that your basic assumption which I'm
challenging (I'm sure alot of people are nodding their heads that that's
what alot of the Christian's posting on the net have done). I disagree that
God is entropy and I still stick word for word to my original statement that
without God's influence and support, this world and mankind will decay and
that God (who did create the world and men) is not the destructive force but
the force that wants to restate mankind to their original position of
fellowship with God that they willingly broke.
Rick Frey
Dan Boskovich
>or Don Boskovich) haven't stepped forward, I can offer one possible
Well, I see that my silence concerning Mr. Zimmerman's Evil-Damager-god
theory has him in wonder. When I first read your article, Mr. Z, I
felt it was pointless to respond. However, I did think that Rick Frey's
response was quite good and said just about everything I would have
wanted to say. But, I have changed my mind now and have decided to
respond after all.
What I am really interested in is what happened to you to bring you
to this conclusion. It would appear that at one time you probably
considered yourself a Christian, but was hurt by something or someone.
More likely you were hurt several times.
I know that you can not possibly really believe your theory without
being some sort of monster. To believe that an evil God is in control
of the universe, you would no doubt be an evil madman yourself.
More likely you have been hurt and are trying to hurt back. You are
trying to hurt God for letting such things happen to you when, after
all, you were only trying to serve Him. Or, maybe someone very close
to you was hurt! Something has hurt you and has caused you to be bitter
towards God! And now it is your turn to do some hurting!
Well, you have succeeded! You have surely hurt God by your description
of Him. You have also hurt the rest of God's people. In first Corinthians
chapter 12 it says how the body of Christ is like a human body. It has
many members and when one member suffers the whole body suffers. If you
are suffering, we are suffering with you.
Please consider these words:
We all suffer disapointments. We all suffer pain and loss in our lives.
We all question God's wisdom and love at times. I have been so angry
at God for "letting" certain things happen to me that I have questoned
Him. I have yelled and screamed at Him. I have shaken my fist at Him.
But when it was all over and I felt worse for my trouble, He was still
there waiting for me to calm down and seek His wisdom and comfort.
The Apostle Paul considered it an honor to suffer for Him. Paul said
it brought him closer to Christ when he suffered. Peter said much the
same thing. Millions have suffered and died for Him. Why? Because they
had truly experienced His love, joy, and peace. These things are worth
giving up world possessions and even life. That is why James can say,
"Consider it all joy when you go through various trials!" These trials
and suffering can cause us to seek Gods love and comfort in such a way
that we never would have had our life been a bed of roses! I believe
David said, "It is good for me that I have been afflicted!" Why? For
the reasons I just said. Paul said, "...that I might know the FELLOWSHIP
of His suffering."
Have you suffered as much as God has, MR. Z? To leave His place in glory
and become human flesh only to be tortured, ridiculed, and killed by
His own children, can hardly be compared to the suffering most of us
have gone through. Yet there is another difference. We deserve it! He
didn't!
If you don't see Gods love being offered to you, I truly feel sorry for
you and will remember you in my prayers. It is there waiting for you.
Don't let your suffering and pain keep you from the only lasting cure
for it. An evil-damager-god would have zapped you and me out a long time
ago. A loving, gracious, and merciful God waits patiently for us to
look up!
I bought my wife a little plaque about a year ago! I couldn't resist it
because it said these words which immediately struck my heart:
"I asked Jesus (God) how much He loved me; He said, 'This much!' Then He
streched out His hands and died!"
Sincerely,
Dan
Yosi Hoshen
evil god. I agree that if such a deity exits and the stories of the
bible are to be taken at their face value then that god can be viewed
as an evil god. Tim Maroney in his famous article titled, "Even If
I Did Believe", clearly demonstrated this darker side of the biblical
god. While Paul eloquently describes his point of view, it is
clear that he is guilty of the same presumption as the religionists'
side. Namely, he presupposes that god exists without providing us
with a shred of evidence that there is a god. The observation that
there is destruction and evil in our world is not a proof for the
existence of an evil god.
I think that it is impossible to prove that Jehovah, Zeus, Odin
or Ubizmo do not exist. Yet, evidence is lacking to support
the notion that any of the above deities or other creatures of the
imagination exist. It seems more likely that men created gods
then gods created men. The question is why men would create an
evil god? I will offer the following conjecture: Men created
an evil god because they were evil men. By inventing a god,
these men could scare and dominate others. They could also
justify their evil deeds, since they would claim that their
actions are supported by their god. Finally, as time elapsed,
the god creation event had been forgotten.
--
Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
Mike Huybensz
> What I am really interested in is what happened to you to bring you
> to this conclusion. It would appear that at one time you probably
> considered yourself a Christian, but was hurt by something or someone.
> More likely you were hurt several times.
>
> I know that you can not possibly really believe your theory without
> being some sort of monster. To believe that an evil God is in control
> of the universe, you would no doubt be an evil madman yourself.
>
> More likely you have been hurt and are trying to hurt back. You are
> trying to hurt God for letting such things happen to you when, after
> all, you were only trying to serve Him. Or, maybe someone very close
> to you was hurt! Something has hurt you and has caused you to be bitter
> towards God! And now it is your turn to do some hurting!
What a pompous, insulting, and fallacious ad-hominem argument!
(I'd compare it to something from 1984's Ministry of Love, except
that coming from Dan it's [fortunately] laughable.)
Let us consider an analogous situation to living in a maltheistic
universe: living in Uganda under Idi Amin or Cambodia under Pol Pot.
Obviously you wouldn't have to be personally hurt or be a monster to
recognize the reality of their depravity.
> Well, you have succeeded! You have surely hurt God by your description
> of Him. You have also hurt the rest of God's people. In first Corinthians
> chapter 12 it says how the body of Christ is like a human body. It has
> many members and when one member suffers the whole body suffers. If you
> are suffering, we are suffering with you.
More Orwellian rhetoric. The next step is to "cure" him against his will
of problems brought about by the maltheistic deity. Just as the Soviets
"cure" dissadents in asylums....
> Please consider these words:
>
> We all suffer disapointments. We all suffer pain and loss in our lives.
> We all question God's wisdom and love at times. I have been so angry
> at God for "letting" certain things happen to me that I have questoned
> Him. I have yelled and screamed at Him. I have shaken my fist at Him.
> But when it was all over and I felt worse for my trouble, He was still
> there waiting for me to calm down and seek His wisdom and comfort.
You may yeall and scream at prison bars: when you stop they're still
there. And you find that reassuring?
> Have you suffered as much as God has, MR. Z? To leave His place in glory
> and become human flesh only to be tortured, ridiculed, and killed by
> His own children, can hardly be compared to the suffering most of us
> have gone through. Yet there is another difference. We deserve it! He
> didn't!
What a twisted argument! What makes you think (assuming the idea
that the bible is superficially true) that JC really hurt? He just as
easily could have fooled us, with a fleshy automaton mistaken
for a god, to load more guilt upon gullible fools who say things like
"we deserve it!"
> If you don't see Gods love being offered to you, I truly feel sorry for
> you and will remember you in my prayers. It is there waiting for you.
> Don't let your suffering and pain keep you from the only lasting cure
> for it. An evil-damager-god would have zapped you and me out a long time
> ago. A loving, gracious, and merciful God waits patiently for us to
> look up!
Your stubborn adherance to this mind-boggling inanity provides all the
evidence I need to prefer the damager-god theory to yours.
> I bought my wife a little plaque about a year ago! I couldn't resist it
> because it said these words which immediately struck my heart:
>
> "I asked Jesus (God) how much He loved me; He said, 'This much!' Then He
> streched out His hands and died!"
Does this mean you want your wife to die? What sick and perverted
symbolism. Next to Christianity, satanic rock and roll seems innocent.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Tim Maroney
an extremely low and disgusting one. The most insulting tactic you can use
in argument is to disregard the content of what your opponent is saying and
instead spend your time claiming that some psychological trauma caused your
opponent's belief system. Once again Boskovich shows his true colors.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking
ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
Rick Frey
We seem to be missing each other or maybe you have diferent definitions
of proof than I do. Let me go overboard on an issue or two and ask you
and show you what I mean about proof or the lack thereof and then I'll
make a few other coments.
In article <3...@pyuxn.UUCP>, p...@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes:
>
> He claims in his article that my proof that God was created as a
> part of the universe (and was not the creator of that universe) is
> wrong. He says it's just my opinion. Well, Rick, if asking who created
> God is a ``difficult question,'' may I ask what is ``difficult'' about it?
But what does this have to do with proving the existence of God? I made
a simple statment that you didn't prove that God existed and you respond
not to that statement but to another question I asked about the
difficulty of such an endeavor. You went on a little about our universe
evolving and that this damager-God need not be created, but if He wasn't
created then He evolved? How do powerful, non-corporeal "Godlike" creatures
evolve? Are there lots of them? I'm really confused about that.
> Aren't you building difficulty into the question by making the assumption
> that God ``exists eternally''? (In whose timeline?) Isn't the only
> difficulty in the question your assumption about the nature of God,
> that He is the ultimate creator?
>
Nope, that's not the only difficulty. There is an inherant difficulty in
discussing such things as infinite, omnipotent (all sorts of those ent and
ite words) because we as people have finite minds. I can discuss the
concept of infinity, I can draw graphs of equations whose boundaries are
infinite, but I can't count to it, I can't say where it is there's all sorts
of things I can't do to infinity. That is the difficulty with God. It's
not just my wish, it's from almost every mythology that ever existed.
Whether its Cronus and Rea or God Himself, there is always the question of
how long they've been there and that is a tough subject to discuss, let
alone think to seriously about. What the heck would it mean to not be
present in time linearly? Or to have always been? Did time pass or did it
even exist or did God create time? There are all sorts of difficult
questions about the existence and creation of God.
> When you discuss my ``Christ as Antichrist'' concept, you make
> a variety of excuses for God. You say ``that wasn't His son, that was
> Him.'' To be sure, he is a part of Him in the sense that any son is a
> part of his father. But still it is clear that God sent His son to do the
> dirty work, to suffer the pain in His stead. Yes, Rick, though you don't
> want to face this, God ``copped out.''
My second example. You completely ignored my argument. I made the simple
statement that Jesus Christ WAS God. Not that He was part of Him, but that
He was Him, just as He claimed. But you didn't deal with that question.
Granted you would throw out all evidence from the Bible, but just as Beth
Christy pointed out really well, if you throw out the Bible as propaganda
and lies, where are you getting your information from? I asked this
question last time and you still haven't answered it.
> I take it you are not aware of a fundamental tenet of Christian
> theology when you ask where it says anything about ``Satan having control
> of the earth.'' (This was mentioned in Tullis' article from last week.)
I went back and checked because I didn't remember saying that and the
only thing I can find that makes sense is when I responded to your claim
about the antichrist ruling DURING THE MILLENIUM for a thousand years. I
gave you the reference that showed that during the millenium, Satan would be
bound, but no where did I say anything about Satan's activities before the
millenium.
>
> Rick, why on Earth should I not say that it was God's fault that
> Charles Manson and other disturbed people engage in evil actions? Is the
> human mind naturally disturbed? What possible explanation could there be
> for such mental disturbances except for a damaging entropic force from a
> vile and evil God? ...
>
Two problems. First of all you call them mental disturbances. While I
don't want to say that Charles Manson or Hitler were normal, blaming it on
some mental abnormality is making an unproved and unprovable assumption.
Again Beth Christy talks alot about this question. Hunting for pleasure,
bullfighting, boxing, the list is almost infinite. Even so-called "normal"
people enjoy and seek out violence and enjoy watching and witnessing pain
and destruction (check the t.v. or the magazines for the latest scoop). And
I just flat out refuse to give you that, "It's all God's fault."
> What is rotten
> about you? I have found you in our public and private discussions to be a
> forthright, intelligent and generally nice person. More so than some people
> who have insulted and mocked my beliefs because they are afraid of the truth.
> Yet you of all people feel that you are rotten. Certainly you are a victim
> of the evil propaganda of a malicious Damager-God, who wants you to believe
Would that it were true. Without trying to sound like a martyr or making
myself out to be a saint let me at least say that I haven't committed any
mass murders lately and as much as possible I try to keep my responses civil
and as sincere as can be. But as for a question of rottoness it's real easy
to look inside myself and see all sorts of horrid little creatures that would
just love to get their heads out and do all sorts of nasty stuff. I don't
know about you but I often get more excited about criticising people and
making them look bad and making myself look brilliant and witty then I do
about encouraging them and responsibly answering their questions. When I
get in the car, anybody who cuts me off is just lucky that I don't have
special powers to destroy objects at will. I'm not exactly sure what
definition we would use for being a rotten person (and it's not a title I
love claiming) but if we go by the Bible's standard of measure for morality
(let's skip Love God with all your heart and focus on Love your neighbor as
yourself) I don't make the grade. And without tooting my own horn, I'm not
that bad. I work at it with as much energy as I can and I have it as the
second highest goal in my life (next to loving God) but I still wouldn't be
too excited to stand up in front of God when I die and hear Him read off a
list of all the things I've said and done to people, let alone the things
I've thought.
> There is no evil resulting from our own
> volitional action. God certainly puts the obstacles in our way, for His
> own amusement, to watch us stumble. You may percieve this as a ``complete
> negation of free will and responsibility.'' Perhaps it is, in a sense.
> I tend to believe that there is no such thing, that God tells us that there
> are things like free will and responsibility, and makes us believe in them,
> solely to infuse us with guilt for things that are surely His fault alone.
>
Wow, that is the scariest statement I have ever heard. There is NO evil
resulting from volition action. It's alot like some of the 'est-like'
religious views that say that we're perfect at the core, but how can you
straightfacedly say that you have never volitionally done anything wrong?
You've never lied? You've never stolen anything? Weren't those volitional?
If your answer to this really is that God determines all our choices than
why anything? That might not sound like the most intelligent question but
if God determines all our actions than nothing matters because we can't do
anything other than what God makes us do. So Hitler, Manson, you and me
are all just dupes and when you said that some of the other posters to the
net had responded derogatorily, you were criticising them for something they
couldn't do anything about; God made them do it? Am I understanding you
correctly?
I'll be interested in reading a response. The issues that I still feel need
some 'evidence' from your side are God's creation, the Bible being
propaganda, human action being controlled by God, people not being rotten,
and this last question that I wish to pose.
If God wants to make people suffer and be miserable then why did He give us
a Bible that, if followed, would cause more joy and happiness than you or I
can imagine? I'm not talking about the Roman Catholic Church through the
middle ages, I'm talking about the Biblical ideals of love, peace, and unity
just to name a few that would make this world a better place to be. The
reason why this response is slow in coming is because I was up counseling a
at a Christian highschool camp near Yosemite. Based on what the Bible says
for reasoning, one girl admitted that she was an alcoholic and that she
didn't want to be one anymore; another girl made the same statement about
drugs. Two sets of sisters made a committment to care for eachother and
stop fighting and four other kids dedicated themselves to following the
ideals of the Bible; all because of the words and commands in this Bible
that you admit God inspired. Did God blow it? Even if He didn't expect to
many people to follow it, why did He write down such a collection of truths
about what it takes to get people to relate to eachother? And I'll tell you
right now that I will refuse to accept a response that says that they'll end
up blowing it over time. I can clearly and simply say that because of my
relationship with God (or even because of following the teachings of the
Bible) I am a better person than I was before, last year, five yers ago and
before that too. And I know hundreds of other examples of people who have
turned their lives around because of this Bible. So what's the deal with
it? Did God blow it? Or is it true what Peter claims in John 6:68,
"You alone (Christ) have the words of eternal life."
Rick Frey
Yosi Hoshen
> that simply fall apart from what gets referred to as natural decay.
> Now, I ask you, which is sillier? Believing that this natural decay
> simply exists as a unique unbalanced force given the name ``entropy,''
> or believing that this decay is the deliberate action of a malicious
> force, an evil deity, a Damager-God?
I think it is very difficult to measure silliness, but it is quite
clear that your view of nature is very silly. I admire your ability
to express yourself, yet, it is clear that you do not have a scientific
understanding. Science can explain entropy and decay very well. There
is nothing mysterious about them, they fit very well within the framework
of the natural laws. You may say that god is responsible for the
laws of nature. But then we could ask ourselves who is responsible for
the "existence" of god. It is unlikely that we could understand why
the natural laws are the way they are. Adding the god axiom does
not solve this problem.
> the reasons I give above. This is even documented in the Bible, with
> many examples already offered (the Tower of Babel, the hardening of
> Pharaoh's heart, the entire Book of Job), so we know we are both
> talking about the same God.
How can we take the fairy tails of Genesis as facts. You said
that god is a liar, so by your standards how can we trust the
word of the bible.
Rick Frey
> You repeatedly claim that I do not offer proof of the existence
> of God. I find this strange, since you have already mentioned to me that
> you are a believing Christian. Certainly it is not you I need to offer
> proof to.
That would be true if we were talking about the same God. But the one
to whom you refer evolved (??) and is evil and doesn't have the
properties of the one I believe so I'd be interested in hearing about
how this God came about.
> There are three possibilities for modeling the forces of good and evil.
Who said anything about modeling the forces of good and evil. You don't
belive that God has existed eternally and you don't believe that He was
created so where did He come from? Did He evolve? Were there others that
evolved? I asked this last time and this is the question that I want to hear
your proof of. I don't claim to have 'proof' that God exists. I believe
there is 'evidence' but that is significantly (and not just semantically)
different. Or are just going to assume that a non-corporeal, way-powerful
deity evolved even when many scientists don't believe there was enough time
for human evolution to have gotten as far as it has?
>
> Rick, you did make the simple statement that ``Jesus Christ WAS
> God.'' And I showed that that statement is simply an assertion that
> Christians make, believing what God has told them. Don't you see how
> His saying ``See? I have become human and suffered just like you.'' is
> a ruse and a sham?
You showed? There is alot more evidence supporting that a actual, human man
walked this earth 2000 years ago and did the miracles He is reported to have
done than there is evidence in anything you've said so far in this whole
discussion. You simply made an assertion back. Without going any further
about my belief, where do you get you evidence for Christ being a duped human
and a pawn of the damager-God? From the Bible?? From your 'observations'?
Forgive the accusatory tone of this paragraph, but you keep stating that
you've done something that I don't ever seem to see you having done.
>
> What else could you blame Hitler or Manson's abnormalities on?
> Are you falling for another of God's lies, about the fallenness of man?
> Is the reason that you ``just flat out refuse'' to admit that the evil
> done by men is God's fault because you are just afraid to admit this?
Forgive me for not remembering who said this, but in discussing how one would
act if free will didn't (or might not) exist, his conclusion was to go ahead
and think he had it anyway, because if he doesn't than it's some divine joke
and it was determined and there's no way out and if not, that's the way it
really is. So I still say that evil is a volitional choice and that Manson,
Hitler were just as bad as Sister Therassa (sp??) was good. Why is it that
only evil is controlled by God? Doesn't it seem kind of convenient that
everything wrong gets blamed on God and all the good stuff comes only when God
is too lazy to really screw us or when we as people outsmart (outsmart a
omniscient God??) and sneak in some fun without His being able to do anything
about it. Doesn't that just seem a little convenient? Would you put up with
that excuse from your kids? "Sorry Mom, I didn't clean my room because the
evil, damager-God made me be bad."
>
> I know you refuse to accept a response that would contradict what you
> want to believe about God. And that, of course, is truly sad. You ``speak with
> forked tongue'' when you talk about the Bible as bringing joy and happiness.
> You offhandedly dismiss thousands of years of hatred in the name of God (as
> if saying ``that doesn't count''). Don't you see that that's part of the
> elegance of God's method of lying? Make it seem like He's written a book of
> love, when in reality He's written a textbook on death and hatred.
But that's my question. Show me some of the death and hatred that God wrote
down for us to follow. Love your enemies? Bless them that curse you and pray
for them who despitefully use you? Are these the words that inspired the
inquisition? How about, "all those who live by the sword will die by the
sword." Did the Bible inspire the inquisition or did men? And how about the
chruch's burning of Ptolemy at the stake because he didn't accept their
doctrine without thinking. I can't find the reference right now, but Paul, in
one of his letters to a church commends them for searching the scriptures and
examining the apostles teaching to see if it is true. Did the Church look at
this verse when they refused to allow dissenting opinions from thier
doctrines? And how about the class set up the the church perpetuated, the
poor people continually being treated as if they weren't quite of the same
value as the church officials and the lords and nobles of the great houses (I
hate to use the word great here). The Bible clearly says that in order to be
first you must be last for even the Son of Man didn not come to be served but
to serve. Throughout the gospels, Christ commands us to love our neighbor as
ourself. Name one 3rd century through 20th century political or religious
leader who lives even a small part of that. Then think about how many
governments and people have come in the 'name' of Christ. Where is the
conflict? In the Bible or in the men? The Bible defines its purpose and
nature quite clearly, "It is the Spririt who gives life; the flesh profits
nothing; the words that I (Christ) have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
But there are some here who do not believe." (John 6:63,64) "If you abide in
My word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth
and the truth shall set you free." (John 8:31,32)
Rick Frey
Jay Kinney
I don't know about anyone else, but I've been greatly enjoying this
Damager-God discussion and have found it quite stimulating. I don't
think that anyone has mentioned that Paul Zimmerman's concepts closely
match the ancient gnostic concept of God as a Demiurge who *thinks*
he is the Big Cheese, but is actually just a Creator-god somewhat down
on the Totem-pole. The gnostics posited an Unknown God far beyond the
realm of Good & Evil who oversaw the whole mess and to which one could
make contact--once one saw thru the Demiurge.
These ideas are also part of the later thinking of SF author
Philip K. Dick (see his novel VALIS, for instance).
If anyone is interested, the first issue of a new magazine called
GNOSIS: A Journal of the Western Inner Traditions is just now (finally)
coming out with the initial issue's theme on "Gnosticism--Ancient and
Modern". Material includes articles on gnostic cosmologies, plus
previously unpublished material from PKDick's journals.
Subscriptions are $15 for 4 issues (Single copies postpaid are $5 for #1)
Checks or Money-orders in U.S. funds to:
The Lumen Foundation
P.O. Box 14217,
San Francisco, CA 94114 USA
Please forgive the plug, but it seemed particularly germane to the
discussion...
Cheers, Jay Kinney
<ihnpr>!hplabs!well!jay
Paul Zimmerman
Jay Kinney and now Byron Howes have written about how maltheism
is (at least in some ways) related to gnostic notions about the God we
know being just an intermediary deity who may only think He is the ultimate
God, dwarfed by a truly ultimate deity who is the ultimate benevolent power.
The problem I see with this idea is that it falls prey to the same
misconception as standard God whorship: that the ultimate power and force
MUST be good because we want it to be. Unfortunately, the evidence contradicts
that. Perhaps, as Byron says, there is an ultimate God who is very different
from the heinous evil Damager-God who wreaks havoc in all our lives. But,
sadly, it is that Damager-God we must face every day. As Byron says, we would
have no direct contact with the ultimate deity he describes. Anyway, if He
was truly good, wouldn't He take steps to eradicate the pig monster God
who maltreats this planet and its people?
Be well,
--
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez
Steve Swope
> from the heinous evil Damager-God who wreaks havoc in all our lives. But,
> sadly, it is that Damager-God we must face every day.
If this is the case, it is simply another way of saying that Satan and God
are not the same. It seems the main problem is agreeing on what names we're
going to use for what beings.
> As Byron says, we would
> have no direct contact with the ultimate deity he describes. Anyway, if He
> was truly good, wouldn't He take steps to eradicate the pig monster God
> who maltreats this planet and its people?
I disagree about our ability to contact the ultimate deity (which I refer to
as God). I believe that humans can and do communicate with God through
prayer. I also believe that God has taken steps to eradicate Satan (or the
damager-god, if you prefer). Christ's death on the cross insures the ultimate
defeat of Satan. Our choice is accept or reject the salvation offered.
Steve Swope (aka s...@wucs.UUCP)
"Brigadier, A straight line may be the shortest path between
two points, but it is by no means the most interesting!"
Byron C. Howes
>
>What you forgot, Steve, is that I also said that gnosticism is rife with
>the same assumption that other God whorshiping religions make. That
>assumption is that the ultimate God must be good.
(*sigh*) That simply isn't true. Gnostics believe that the "ultimate G-d"
(your words, not mine) is beyond notions of good and evil and the sort of
direct interference that is implied by such notions.
Satan does not exist, or at least is imprecisely defined, in the context
of Gnostic belief. There are those who espouse Satan as a facet of the
Demiurge, an idea which does clarify an inconsistant duality in christian
thought, but this Satan is not the soul-grabbing bearded nemesis of the
middle ages.
Gnostics are more concerned with the duality of the spiritual and the
material than in notions of good and evil Demiurges.
--
Byron C. Howes
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
Rick Frey
I'm going to take my article and put some of my questions next to your
answers and see if we can find out what's wrong. I write you and think
I've said something you need to answer, you write back with the same
idea and neither of us seem to be hitting the other, so let me make
clear a few of the points of my last article.
>> That would be true if we were talking about the same God. But the one
>> to whom you refer evolved (??) and is evil and doesn't have the
>> properties of the one I believe so I'd be interested in hearing about
>> how this God came about.
>
> Why do you keep insisting that we are talking about different
> Gods. Are you talking about the God that you whorship, the God who calls
> Himself the ruler of the universe? In that case, we are talking about the
> same God ...
We'll start here. You didn't answer my question. I said that the God
you're talking about evolved, is not omnipotent, not omniscient, did not
create the world and mankind and that right there is more than enough to
make him or it or whatever something completely different from what I
believe in. In everything you say, you describe what the Bible says of
Satan to the letter. The great deceiver, intent on destroying people,
trying to get people to worship him, but you are not talking about
"God". "God" (the God of the Bible) does not exist. There is this
evolved, nutty, powerful creature out there who's trying to trick
people, but we're just not on the same wavelength here. While you
disagree with the Bible, I can at least go to it to show some basis for
God having these attributes. Where do you get that your evil-god is not
omnipotent? How do you know he evolved and that he hasn't just tricked
the scientists? If there is this powerful evil god out there trying to
trick us all and make us miserable, how do you point to anything as true
and correct if this god can make people be stooges? How do you know
that the scientists who derive the natural laws aren't stooges?
> You are consistently skirting the issues about the nature
> of God in order to cling to beliefs about Him that you have learned to
> need. You contradict your own words several times when you say you feel
> that God exists but you demand proof from me of His existence.
>
Skirting them? How? I'm trying to get you to be clear on how this god
that you talk about is the same God that I talk about. And where did
you get that I learned to need these beliefs? Maybe I chose them?
Maybe the needs are real? And the proof of existence that I demand from
you is for this god that you're talking about. I believe that the God
of the Bible exists, but I don't know anything about evil, evolving,
semi-omnipotent gods out to get people aside from what the Bible tells
us about Satan. And don't just go back to your statement that God and
Satan are the same person/thing, because then you're back to this evil
God that I still want to know the above info on.
> Certainly there is evidence that Christ walked the Earth, but the
> only evidence we have that he did what you believe he did is the word of
> God Himself.
Wrong. There's lots of historical evidence supporting Christ's
existence outside of Biblical manuscripts. There are letters between
Roman court officials talking about what to do with this Christ, Jewish
historians talk about the uprisings he caused, all sorts of religious
sects refer to Him and to the things He did that are not part of the
Bible. There's plenty of evidence outside of the Bible. While almost
eveyone on the net has jumped on this guy, read Josh McDowell's book
(the chapters on the life of Christ) Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
Next point. Here was a question that I asked that you never answered.
>> Would you put up with that excuse from your kids? "Sorry Mom, I didn't
>> clean my room because the evil, damager-God made me be bad."
> Believing that evil is a
> ``volitional choice'' is simply giving in to the lies of God.
>
So you didn't answer my question, what are you going to do with your
kids? When your son comes home and says that he didn't mow the lawn
because the evil-damager God made him be bad are you going to buy it?
Kids don't choose to make jokes at one another? They don't enjoy the
self-glorification of cutting someone else down? You don't think they
know when they're doing something like that that they know is wrong?
You ought to go back and visit a sixth grade again sometime.
> 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?
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.
>
> You ask to see the death and hatred God wrote down. Look at the
> Bible itself for all the examples you need. The demand that a man sacrifice
> his son.
We'll take them one at a time. The demand for God to have perfection is
what you're really after (if it's not than you're not dealing with the
Bible). God claims to be perfect. God claims to have created the world
for purposes unknown (in many ways). God made a simple rule (or it
might be part of His nature) that He will not/cannot allow sin into His
presence. God made a rule that the wages of sin are death. If God was
to keep His own rules and yet have us in a relationship with Himself,
only He could pay the price that He demanded. He couldn't wave it
without invalidating the rule and the rule still stands, so He had to
pay for it. And it's funny that you take what the Bible calls the
greatest act of love ("Greater love hath no man than this, that a man
lay down hiw life for his friend.") and try to turn it into something
evil.
> The destruction of masses of people at God's say-so.
I would guess that you're referring to some of the Old Testament wars,
but if you read through alot of those stories, the other nations did
alot of picking on the Jews. While I don't know of any off-hand, I'm
fairly sure that there's historical/archeological evidence for the
Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Persians and probably
other nations completely taking over the Jews. Wouldn't you fight back?
In the one story where Saul doesn't wipe out the entire Amelikite nation
(he saves the King and bunches of sheep and stuff) years later (I can't
remember the reference off hand) it's an Amelikite spy who almost gets
the Jews wiped out again. God makes it clear that you do what He says
and more often than not, survival depended on it.
> The torturing
> and killing of people for the purpose of teaching Job a ``lesson.''
Huh? I quickly reread Job so I might have missed something, but whe
were the people who were tortured and killed? I didn't see Job's wife
mentioned in the ending of the book, but as far as I could tell, most of
the stuff happened to Job himself. And then its simply a question of
importance. Use the example of football practice. A coach and the
players make the decision that giving up free-time and working hard are
more beneficial to learning and growing as a team than messing around.
Another analogy I always use is this. Imagine your daughter, too young
to understand how a stove works or what red burners mean) starts to put
her hand on the burner. Are you not going to use whatever means
available to stop her? Obviously you'd stop short of shooting her, that
would defeat the purpose (we hope) but you'd yank her, grab her, do
almost anything else to keep her from hurting herself. You're going to
have to sit still here for a load of Biblical assumptions, but the Bible
claims that our relationship with God is eternal and infinitely more
important than the short time we'll have on this earth. In the story of
Job, God is making the simple point that Christ makes in Mark 9:47, "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." And also and more exactly like the story in Job, Mathew
16:26, "For what will a man be profitted if he gains the whole world and
forfeits his soul, for what in this world shall a man give in exchange
for the life of his soul?"
More on the Bible being a textbook for evil question:
>> But that's my question. Show me some of the death and hatred that God wrote
>> down for us to follow. Love your enemies? Bless them that curse you, pray
>> for them who despitefully use you? Are these the words that inspired the
>> inquisition? How about, "all those who live by the sword will die by the
>> sword." Did the Bible inspire the inquisition or did men?
> You ask who inspired the Inquisition and the torture and murder of
> millions in the name of God. I answer, who else but God?
But what kind of an answer is that? We were talking about how the Bible
was this source for evil and you tacked the inquisition on the teachings
of the Bible so I gave you a few quotes that sure seem to me to say no
inquisition, but your response was another rhetorical question that I'd
hope by now you'd know that I wouldn't agree with. I'm still
looking for you to answer my questions about how the Bible supported the
inquisition.
>
> Finally, you ask to hear about any leader since Christ who advocated
> real human love. I can think of two in this century. Mahatma Gandhi and
> Martin Luther King. Look at the fate God had in store for each of them.
>
When I asked that question, I was sure there were a few people that for
the most part could be said to fit that distinction so I won't argue
with those two. But that still doesn't even begin to touch the surface
of rulers who have come in the name of Christ or of God and have
practiced everything but what the Bible teaches.
>> The Bible defines its purpose and
>> nature quite clearly, "It is the Spririt who gives life; the flesh profits
>> nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
>> But there are some here who do not believe." (John 6:63,64) "If you abide in
>> My word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth
>> and the truth shall set you free." (John 8:31,32)
You didn't want to respond to this set of quotes so let me give you a
few more. "He it is who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is
who loves Me." John 14:21
"Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind
let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do
not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also the
interests of others." Philippians 2:3-4
Please explain to me what these are doing in the book of an evil god?
How does God get pleasure from teaching people ways to relate to one
another that emphasize everything this god's against?
Rick Frey