mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/29/85)
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. 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
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/29/85)
In article <2015@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > 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
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (10/31/85)
In article <2015@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) 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. 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
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (10/31/85)
Charley Wingate writes: > Not even the Buddha had the gall to claim to know why life was suffering. But that's exactly what the second Noble Truth is. The Four Noble Truths are the whole foundation of what the Buddha said--the subject of his first sermon, and the basis of Buddhism. If you missed them, you should not be bringing in the Buddha because you have not read what he has to say, or have totally missed his point. -- Sue Brezden ihnp4!drutx!slb ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I march to the beat of a different drummer, whose identity, location, and musical ability are as yet unknown. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) (11/02/85)
"Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Mat. 5:22.
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.Maroney@k.cs.cmu.edu uucp: {seismo,decwrl,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 Religion is a branch of psychology.rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/04/85)
> 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. [WINGATE] 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. -- "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