mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/30/85)
In article <802@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> 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
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/31/85)
In article <2029@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > In article <802@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > 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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/02/85)
>>"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. [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
brengle@hplabsc.UUCP (Tim Brengle) (11/05/85)
[Forgive me for jumping into the middle of what seems like a personal feud.] > 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
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/06/85)
In article <2806@hplabsc.UUCP> brengle@hplabsc.UUCP (Tim Brengle) writes: >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
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/07/85)
In article <2806@hplabsc.UUCP> brengle@hplabsc.UUCP (Tim Brengle) writes: > Forgive me for jumping into the middle of what seems like a personal feud. 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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/07/85)
>> 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. [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?". -- "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