[net.religion] Charley Wingate ``rushes in''

pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (11/04/85)

Charley,

	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.

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