pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (10/25/85)
Craig, 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
vch@rruxo.UUCP (Kerro Panille) (10/31/85)
>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. I am presently taking a Archeology course, and right now we are covering Mesopotania. No "archeological evidence" to this effect has been mentioned so far. Can you quote the source of this information?? So far, the archeological evidence only shows ruins of what are thought to be such palces as Sodom, etc. That might be interesting to mention in class. -- Vince Hatem ---------------- A Bell Communications Research | UZI |----------|_ _ _\/ T Raritan River Software Systems Center | |----------| /\ & 444 Hoes Lane ---------------- ROGER GUTS T 4D-360 / /\ DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' Piscataway, NJ 08854 / / TIES (201) 699-4869 /-----/ ...ihnp4!rruxo!vch TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche! (WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (11/04/85)
Vince, You asked about archeological evidence of explainable physical events described in the Bible. Though I don't have the references conveniently at my fingertips, I recall evidence (as you yourself mention) of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: the radiation count at the Dead Sea (the former site of Sodom and Gomorrah) is apparently higher than normal, and there is no means of accounting for a body of such intensely salinized water in that area. There is of course the evidence for the Ark on Mt. Ararat, though I understand that has fallen into disrepute. I also recall that there is evidence of some tumultuous incident in the Red Sea at approximately the time when the Israelites left Egypt. I hope this helps at least a little. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez