rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/01/70)
>>>Starvation, disease, storms, earthquakes, and so on, are a result, not >>>of a given sinful action (like rape or murder), but of sin in general. >> Whew!!!! For someone who posted a logical argument you >>certainly look silly trying to support it with this kind of >>evidence! Haven't you ever heard of Occam's Razor? [Hunter Scales] > If the argument holds logically, what's your problem? [CHARLI] Obviously (unfortunately), the answer to Hunter's question in the earlier paragraph is quite apparently a resounding "no". For if she had, she would know precisely what the problem is. > Do you have a simpler explanation for evil in the presence of an > omnipotent and benevolent God? Well, first, I might choose NOT to assume that "the presence of an omnipotent and benevolent god" is a fact, which is that tack you take. I could be an atheist and say that there is no such thing. I could be a "maltheist" and say that there is such a thing but that it isn't either omnipotent or benevolent. Or I could assume nothing. Neither assuming that a god exists nor assuming anything about its nature if it does. Furthermore, why have any explanation for "evil" at all? Don't you realize that when you presume that what you call "evil" (can you really give an objective definition of it that transcends your perspective or the perspective of your species?) has some deliberate force behind it, you are engaging in the same act that Christians seem to attack Paul Zimmerman for with such relish? In a world where different people and things exist with different perspectives and needs, and where some of those perspectives and needs are bound statistically to differ with yours, how you can you honestly attribute a label of evil to such actions and claim that they are the result of some deliberate evil force? -- "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
philip@gva04.DEC (Phil Ward DEC Geneva Mgmt. Science) (09/10/85)
Re: message from Beth Christy, 4 Sep 1985, and earlier from Dan
Boscovitch.
It is ludicrous to say that suffering brings us closer to Christ.
The Bible tells us that Christ suffered for our sins in order that we might
no longer suffer, and this illustrates the love of Christ for mankind. The
message that God enjoys the suffering of his children, which is implicit in
the teachings of the 'apostle' Paul and of the churches ever since, is
abominable.
James said, "Consider it all joy when you go through various
trials!" Yes, but trials <> suffering. A trial is like a training which
enables us to rise in our spiritual evolution and come to know ourselves
more fully and more deeply, and thus to know God more fully. It can be a
blessing in disguise, just as the good things that happen to us can be a
hindrance if we do not accept them with the right attitude. Gratuitous
suffering, such as banging one's head on a brick wall or flagellating
oneself, is quite different.
>> Paul said, "...that I might know the FELLOWSHIP of His suffering."
Paul was a fanatic and a sadist of the worst type. I cannot understand how
his writings found their way into a holy book like the Bible. The
fellowship of Christ lies in forgiveness and peace and harmony, not in
suffering.
/Phil Ward/
DEC Management Science Group, Geneva
(DEC E-NET) GVA04::PHILIP
(UUCP) {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-gva04!philip
(ARPA) philip%gva04.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
Tue 10-Sep-1985 18:37 Swiss Time ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (09/12/85)
In article <389>, philip@gva04.DEC (Phil Ward DEC Geneva Mgmt. Science) writes: > > It is ludicrous to say that suffering brings us closer to Christ. > The Bible tells us that Christ suffered for our sins in order that we might > no longer suffer, and this illustrates the love of Christ for mankind. The > message that God enjoys the suffering of his children, which is implicit in > the teachings of the 'apostle' Paul and of the churches ever since, is > abominable. > Where in the message of Paul does it say that God 'enjoys' the suffering of His people? Paul talks about God reproving those whom He loves (Hebrews 12:6), and he also talks about the example Christ set and that it will most likely follow for us (II Cor 1:5,6) but no where does God take pleasure from this suffering. And where are you getting your info from on Christ coming so that we might no longer suffer? I'd like to hear which verses you feel support this position. > James said, "Consider it all joy when you go through various > trials!" Yes, but trials <> suffering. A trial is like a training which > enables us to rise in our spiritual evolution and come to know ourselves > more fully and more deeply, and thus to know God more fully. Trials don't have to equal suffering, but they can and often do. Take football practice for an example. It too can be a training which enables us to rise in our athletic evolution and come to know ourselves more fully and deeply, but I'll tell you, it hurts. It is made up of lots and lots of pain. Hard work, committment, sacrifice; these things don't come without cost. Peter talks about the testing of our faith and how that produces righteousness. But what is the testing field? It's this world and this world is full of pain and suffering. Why would you think that our trials wouldn't include that when God's own Son couldn't even escape it? > > >> Paul said, "...that I might know the FELLOWSHIP of His suffering." > > Paul was a fanatic and a sadist of the worst type. I cannot understand how > his writings found their way into a holy book like the Bible. The > fellowship of Christ lies in forgiveness and peace and harmony, not in > suffering. > That is a strong statement that has little support in the actual writings and life of the one you look to for support. Christ warned his disciples that they would have a hard road before them. In Mathew 10:16-23, Christ prophesies about what life will be like following Him. "Behold I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves ... But beware of men for they will deliver you up to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues." You're correct in saying that in Christ there is peace, but as Jesus says in John 16:33, "These things I have spoken to you that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage, I have overcome the world." There is no denying that Christ's message was peace and that He suffered for us, in our place and that He overcame the world, but He DID NOT bring a millenial kingdom of heaven to the earth where there is no more suffering. He clearly says in this world you HAVE tribulation. His answer isn't that it'll go away (prior to His second coming) but that He overcame it and that in Him there is peace. One last passage that really hits hard on what you're suggesting is Mathew 16:24-27 (also in Luke 9:23-26). Christ commands His disciples to take up their crosses. Not their golf carts, not their Mercedes Benzs but their crosses. Implements of death. That death is to ourself and to the world, but that won't come without the committment, the sacrifice and the complete desire for change that Christs asks of us. "If any man wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow Me." The question that might be left is why the suffering? Just for one source, look to what Christ said. In talking about the disciples relationship to the world, He makes the statment, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world therefor the world hates you." (John 15:19) He goes on to say how they will do all the things they did to Him to the disciples and if you read the book of Acts, you see that that is basically true. I don't want to ever say that you can tell how good of a Christian someone is by how many people there are out to get him, but Western Christianity has been infused with this idea of a nice, polite, inconspicuous, unobtrusive Jesus that is no where to be found in the Bible. Christ made lots of enemies and He played things very straight. There is righteousness and there is sin and the two can't get along together. If 'the world' doesn't seem to mind us as Christians, than maybe there is something wrong. Christ warns us all about salt becoming tasteless and that is a message that all who believe need to keep in mind. Rick Frey
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/12/85)
> It is ludicrous to say that suffering brings us closer to Christ. >The Bible tells us that Christ suffered for our sins in order that we might >no longer suffer, and this illustrates the love of Christ for mankind. The >. . . . >Paul was a fanatic and a sadist of the worst type. I cannot understand how >his writings found their way into a holy book like the Bible. The >fellowship of Christ lies in forgiveness and peace and harmony, not in >suffering. > > /Phil Ward/ Christ suffered for our sins *in order that we might be forgiven our sins.* I've been a Christian for some years now, and I haven't quit suffering yet. Suffering is a fact of life in a fallen world. If the Bible said nothing about suffering, we could easily be lost and despair. But it is not silent on the subject! Read the first chapter of 2nd Corinthians. Read Job. Read Habakkuk, especially the last chapter. Read the Acts of the Apostles. (Ever heard of Stephen?) Not only Paul, but also James (try 5:7-11) and Peter (1st epistle, 4:12-19), and the Gospels tell of suffering, innocent suffering. They do not say that God makes people suffer, or that we should *try* to suffer (self-flagellation or the like). Rather, they accept suffering as a fact. They say it will happen. And I don't know anyone who has lived more than a few years who cannot testify to that. So try your rose-colored theology in the Soviet Union, Albania, Nepal, Iran, or some other place where Christians suffer *because* they are Christians. It doesn't work. Or try it here. Christians and non- Christians alike have heart attacks and cancer. We all are subject to injury. We are not spared lay-offs. We may have a parent or a child die. Read Ecclesiastes, or the Gospels. You aren't promised a life free of suffering until you obtain the resurrection. charli
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/14/85)
> I've been a Christian for some years now, and I haven't quit > suffering yet. [CHARLI PHILLIPS] No comment. (Well, one: this makes it sound like Paul Zimmerman is right about god, doesn't it?) > Suffering is a fact of life in a fallen world. What's interesting about this is that this is the diametric opposite of Zimmerman's maltheism: in his view, the world is a "good" place that god mucks up. In the Christian view put forth by Charli here, the world is a "fallen" place, where suffering is to be expected, while God brings the "good". Is either viewpoint any more arbitrary than the other? Is either viewpoint reflected in reality? Isn't the world just a place where a hell of a lot of things happen, to entities each with their own self-interest, where the natural course of events owing to physical laws results in things that are "good", "neutral", or "bad" (causing suffering) only based on your personal perspective (your growing different unique needs)? > So try your rose-colored theology in the Soviet Union, Albania, Nepal, > Iran, or some other place where Christians suffer *because* they are > Christians. It doesn't work. Or try it here. Christians and non- > Christians alike have heart attacks and cancer. We all are subject to > injury. We are not spared lay-offs. We may have a parent or a child > die. Read Ecclesiastes, or the Gospels. You aren't promised a life > free of suffering until you obtain the resurrection. [to Phil Ward} I think Phil Ward's assessment is quite accurate, in that Paul (not Zimmerman, Paul as in Tarsus---god, I feel like this is the University of Woolamaloo Religion Department, with everyone named Paul... :-) ... ahem, as I was saying, in that Paul adds needless additional suffering (and acceptance of suffering) into people's lives. Yes, there is suffering, not because of some damager god, but because of the nature and complexity of the world. But it is often within our power to do something about it and not just accept it or add to feelings of suffering unnecessary. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/17/85)
>> Suffering is a fact of life in a fallen world. [me] > >Isn't the world just a place where a hell of >a lot of things happen, to entities each with their own self-interest, where >the natural course of events owing to physical laws results in things that >are "good", "neutral", or "bad" (causing suffering) only based on your personal >perspective (your growing different unique needs)? [Rich Rosen] > I agree with you, Rich. For that matter, so does the Bible: I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. (Ecclesiastes 9:11) I was responding specifically to a doctrinal statement (i.e., that Christ died so that we wouldn't have to suffer). Because of personal circumstances at the moment I responded, my posting may have been poorly stated and excessive. If so, I apologize, especially to Phil. Any further discussions of the Christian perspective on evil and suffering should probably be carried out in net.religion.christian. charli
seshadri@t12tst.UUCP (Raghavan Seshadri) (09/20/85)
> From: charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) > So try your rose-colored theology in the Soviet Union, Albania, Nepal, > Iran, or some other place where Christians suffer *because* they are > Christians. It doesn't work. Or try it here. Christians and non- > > charli Nepal ? Nepal ????? Do you know what you are talking about ? -- Raghu Seshadri
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (09/20/85)
Rick, Why do you so vehemently deny the God's hateful enjoyment which He gets out of your suffering? You speak of the apostle Paul saying that God reproves those He loves. Isn't that enough for you? Must you devise a bizarre ``explanation'' to account for this, instead of accepting the fact that God is evil? Is God is as powerful as you believe Him to be, then He could do anything. I can only conclude that he must enjoy the suffering we endure in His presence, since if He didn't, He could simply will it away. I contend that the fact that he doesn't will it away is proof of His evil intent. Testing our faith in God, as Peter said, produces ``righteousness.'' But what you and he call righteousness is nothing but sheepish servitude and slavery. Of course, by this definition, righteousness (whorship of the Damager-God) and sin (failure to whorship) cannot co-exist, as you say. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (09/25/85)
Paul, We can keep this as a side argument and since you were short, I will be too. In article <351@pyuxn.UUCP>, pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes: > > Why do you so vehemently deny the God's hateful enjoyment which He > gets out of your suffering? You speak of the apostle Paul saying that > God reproves those He loves. Isn't that enough for you? Must you devise > a bizarre ``explanation'' to account for this, instead of accepting the > fact that God is evil? I don't know if you overlooked a typical child/parent relationship or if you disagree with the idea, but what about parents discipling children? Are they evil pigs too? Why do you have this idea that all discipline is bad? If my parents hadn't of spanked me when I got caught stealing candy from the supermarket down the street I might have never stopped or learned that it was wrong. And what about a football coach, is hell-week the work of a evil pig coach? Hell-week (the last week of summer where you have about six hours a day of practice, in the sun, with full pads) hurts one whole heck of a lot but my coach wasn't evil. When he made me run laps for missing practices, that wasn't evil either. Discipline and punishment are a part of learning. We accept it in the home, in the school, why should moral learning be any different? > I can only conclude that he must enjoy the > suffering we endure in His presence, since if He didn't, He could simply > will it away. I contend that the fact that he doesn't will it away is > proof of His evil intent. Monty Python said it simply and clearly in the ending of Time Bandits when the child star of the movie asks why the God figure created evil and His response (which is accurate in more abstract terms) was that it has something to do with free-will. God doesn't want the bad part of free-will, the death, the suffering, the separation from God, but without the ability to choose going away from God, there's no way to choose going to Him. You can't have one without the other. So what I'll be glad to grant you that you can accuse God of is for making us choose and making us responsible for our choice. But back to learning through discipline and reproof. It's such a fundamental part of life; animals learn through reinforcement and punishment, people learn similarly, so why is it a no go when it comes to God teaching us through trials (difficult times) and reproof (possible, not guaranteed recriminations for our actions)? It's simply not fair to let every one else use it without having it be fair for God. Rick Frey "All discipline seems for the moment not to be joyful, but sorrowful. Yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yeilds the peaceful fruit of righteousness." Hebrews 12:11
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/26/85)
>> . . . . the Soviet Union, Albania, Nepal, >> Iran, or some other place where Christians suffer *because* they are >> Christians. >> >> charli > >Nepal ? Nepal ????? Do you know what you are talking about ? >-- >Raghu Seshadri My apologies. I should not have included Nepal in the same list with the Soviet Union, Albania, and Iran. Religious persecution exists in Nepal, but it is not nearly as severe in that country as in the others I mentioned. In Nepal, it is legal to *be* any religion, but it is illegal to *change* ones religion, or to encourage someone else to *change* theirs. Effectively, one is required to adhere to the religion of ones parents. Changing ones own religion or encouraging others to change their religion is punishable by imprisonment. Christians, of course, are the most frequent offenders with respect to these laws, since evangelism is a requirement of the Christian faith. charli
planting@uwvax.UUCP (W. Harry Plantinga) (09/27/85)
In article <541@oakhill.UUCP>, Hunter Scales (oakhill!hunter) writes this in response to my article about why Paul's "damager God" argument doesn't hold: > This line of thinking might hold for "evil" such as murder, rape, > etc. How does it apply to letting innocent children die from > starvation, disease, storms, earthquakes etc? Or are these children > not christian and so are not "innocent" ? A fundementalist once tried > to convince me that people who had never heard of Christ would > nevertheless be damned to eternal hellfire!! > > Is it logically impossible to create a world without disease or at > least create human beings who are immune to viruses and bacterial > infection? I think it is possible and, further that man will eventually > create just such a world. This is the difference between an optimistic > but rational person and one who is besotted with a basically negative > religion. I could respond to this in two ways: I could tell you Christian doctrine on these points, or I could I could point out that your extension of Paul's argument is not valid either. Concerning Christian doctrine, let me just state that no one is innocent; all are deserving of punishment. However, for my main response I choose to do the latter, since "proofs" of the non-existence of God is how this dicussion started. As I see it, your extension of Paul's argument is this: (1) There is an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good God. (2) There is evil in the world which is not attributable to any human. (3) If a wholly good God knew of any evil which was not attributable to any human, and had the ability to stop it, he would. (4) This is a contradiction, so (1) is false. This argument also fails for a couple of reasons. First of all, it is possible that there are beings other than humans and God; I have in mind Satan, of course. It is possible that Satan is responsible for evil such as disease, etc. And as we have already seen in an earlier message, a wholly good could conceivably have reasons for allowing a being to sin. In another vein, there is a completely different reason for why this argument is not valid. Now let me point out that you don't have to believe these following possibilities true in order for them to show that your argument doesn't hold; you merely have to believe them possible, for then your argument is no longer has a contradiction; there are possible ways out. Suppose that this wholly good God nevertheless has a sense of justice. Their sin might deserve punishment in the form of disease, pestilence, etc. What's more, hardship might be *good* for them in the long run, for example, in that it might make them deal with questions such as these! It could be that if there were no hardship in the world, no on would seek God. Well enough of this. Arguments about whether God's exsistence is impossible or necessary are of small value--they rarely convince anyone of anything. Harry Plantinga planting@wisc-rsch.arpa {seismo,ihnp4,heurikon}!uwvax!planting
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (10/01/85)
Harry, You work from certain assumptions about God's nature and the nature of the universe. You say it is only possible to eliminate evil if free will is also eliminated, and that God has deemed it ``better'' to keep free will. First of all, free will is far from a proven fact. (Take a look at the dogfight between Ellis and Rosen!) It seems to me that God gives us the illusion of having free will in order to foist responsibility on us for things we do not control and then make us experience guilt about those things. So this illusion of free will is an example of God's evil, not an argument against believing in it. I am inclined to agree with Hunter Scales, that a world without evil is not only possible but feasible. But only if we rid ourselves of the influence of the evil Damager-God. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (10/02/85)
It does not require omnipotence to design a world where there are no earthquakes or no common cold. I figure, either God is not omnipotent, or he/she/it is evil. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/02/85)
In article <2213@sdcc6.UUCP> ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: > Monty Python said it simply and clearly in the ending of Time Bandits > when the child star of the movie asks why the God figure created evil > and His response (which is accurate in more abstract terms) was that it > has something to do with free-will. God doesn't want the bad part of > free-will, the death, the suffering, the separation from God, but > without the ability to choose going away from God, there's no way to > choose going to Him. You can't have one without the other. How appropriate that you select an authority on comedy to support your beliefs. :-) Even assuming that the line wasn't intended as tongue-in-cheek, it still doesn't answer the quantitative question of why there is so much evil in the world. Why couldn't a hypothetical good god have left out smallpox and a few of the others? Or even most of them? Free will bears little or no relationship to the large number of things attributed to "God's will". For example, I can choose to fornicate whether or not earthquakes kill thousands in Mexico. I can choose to fornicate whether or not a god decides to punish me harshly for it. The fact is, only a pig-god would choose to do things as noisomely as they are in the Bible and the world today. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
hunter@oakhill.UUCP (Hunter Scales) (10/03/85)
In article <329@cylixd.UUCP> charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) writes: >>>Thus, the argument that if God is omnipotent and wholly good, then he >>>would eliminate all evil fails: it assumes premisses which may be >>>false, such as that God can do anything and that if a good God saw >>>any evil, he would eliminate it. >>> Harry Plantinga >> >> This line of thinking might hold for "evil" such as murder, rape, >>etc. How does it apply to letting innocent children die from >>starvation, disease, storms, earthquakes etc? >>-- >>Motorola Semiconductor Inc. Hunter Scales > >I'm probably going to regret this, but here goes. (Biblical basis >for the assertions follows.) > >Christians generally hold that God made man and the universe good.[1] >When man sinned, it warped his nature to the extent that a man can no >longer be entirely good, even if he wants to. [2] Besides warping >*human* nature, the presence of sin also warped nature in general. [3] >Starvation, disease, storms, earthquakes, and so on, are a result, not >of a given sinful action (like rape or murder), but of sin in general. > >God also does not like the situation. He could (and we are told that he >will) create human bodies immune from these evils, and he could (and >will) create a universe without them. [4] But he cannot do so until sin >in general has been wiped out. He has not yet wiped out sin in general, >because doing so will unfortunately and necessarily wipe out a lot of >people as well, and God is reluctant to do that. [5] > >The gospel of Christ is that through His death and resurrection, we >can be delivered from our sinful nature, and that the world will also >ultimately be delivered from the results of sin as well. [6] [here follow the scriptural passages to support his "arguments".] Whew!!!! For someone who posted a logical argument you certainly look silly trying to support it with this kind of evidence! Haven't you ever heard of Occam's Razor? -- Motorola Semiconductor Inc. Hunter Scales Austin, Texas {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax,gatech}!ut-sally!oakhill!hunter (I am responsible for myself and my dog and no-one else)
planting@uwvax.UUCP (W. Harry Plantinga) (10/03/85)
Paul Zimmerman writes: > Harry, > > You work from certain assumptions about God's nature and the nature > of the universe. You say it is only possible to eliminate evil if free will > is also eliminated, and that God has deemed it ``better'' to keep free will. > First of all, free will is far from a proven fact. . . . > So this illusion of free will is an example of God's evil, not an argument > against believing in it. . . . In order to rebut your supposed proof that God is evil, it is only necessary that free will be possible, not actual. Then your "contradiction" fails.
ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) (10/05/85)
In article <781@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > How appropriate that you select an authority on comedy to support your > beliefs. :-) > True, but who's going to end up doing the laughing? And I don't mean that the people in heaven will sit up there laughing at those in hell, but God says that in heaven there will be no more tears; only joy. So I'm counting on a lot of laughter too. > Even assuming that the line wasn't intended as tongue-in-cheek, it still > doesn't answer the quantitative question of why there is so much evil in > the world. Why couldn't a hypothetical good god have left out smallpox > and a few of the others? Or even most of them? I have an interesting idea of an answer so let me try it and see what you think. I read net.origins also and I've seen your postings over there so I'll be referring to a series of discussions taking place there about the missing links. Somone asked why there were no close links between men and apes (closer than chimps et al) and the response was not that the question could be answered, but that it was wrong in the nature of its queary. One could ask about the links between man and lemmings and there are lots of evolutionary steps bewteen those two species (are they both species?, I'm not a biologist or a taxonomist). One last discussion I want to use as an analogy concerns some of the questions about the probabitities of life developing. One responder asked about the probability of getting dealt a specific bridge hand and made the link that asking for the odds for a specific life form developing is again a mistaken question. So after that lengthy prelude, my basic idea is that maybe there's all sorts of things that could happen to people that don't. Women could die after child birth (like some animal mothers). Teeth could rot out by age twenty instead of later in life. Many detrimental processes could happen faster, the list (if you're a good pessimist) is endless for the things that could be worse as well as those that could be better. So using that as a moral premise to hold against God, at least to me, doesn't seem to stand up. > For example, I can choose to fornicate whether or not earthquakes kill > thousands in Mexico. This is always going to be the best question (again in my eyes at least). I struggle with this one, trying to decide if these are the result of man's original sin and that the whole nature of God's creation became flawed or if God willfully causes them (rather than letting them occur). It's a good qustion. The only real thing I go back to that gives me any frame of reference not to call God a pig because of this is that in the garden of Eden, it wasn't like this. nature was perfect and in perfect subjection to both God's will and man's will. I still believe that nature must obey God's laws, but it seems to have gotten off the track that God creaed it on. Rick Frey
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/11/85)
>>[long discussion, with this primary point:] >>Starvation, disease, storms, earthquakes, and so on, are a result, not >>of a given sinful action (like rape or murder), but of sin in general. > Whew!!!! For someone who posted a logical argument you >certainly look silly trying to support it with this kind of >evidence! Haven't you ever heard of Occam's Razor? [Hunter Scales] If the argument holds logically, what's your problem? You wanted to know how the idea that God is omnipotent and wholly good could be reconciled with "impersonal" evil. That allowed me to use the omnipotence and benevolence of God as postulates in the explanation. Do you have a simpler explanation for evil in the presence of an omnipotent and benevolent God? charli P.S. >[here follow the scriptural passages to support his "arguments".] ^^^ It's "her".
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/12/85)
>> How appropriate that you select an authority on comedy to support your >> beliefs. :-) [HUYBENSZ commenting on Frey's quoting "god" from the film "Time Bandits" as answering the question "why" with "I think it has something to do free will"] > True, but who's going to end up doing the laughing? And I don't mean that > the people in heaven will sit up there laughing at those in hell, but God > says that in heaven there will be no more tears; only joy. So I'm counting > on a lot of laughter too. Some God you envision. Terry Gilliam (not Monty Python), who made "Time Bandits", quite obviously intended the introduction of Ralph Richardson as God as a very cute bit of satire. Sad that those who are so entrenched in their beliefs didn't get the joke. >> For example, I can choose to fornicate whether or not earthquakes kill >> thousands in Mexico. > This is always going to be the best question (again in my eyes at least). I > struggle with this one, trying to decide if these are the result of man's > original sin and that the whole nature of God's creation became flawed or > if God willfully causes them (rather than letting them occur). It's a good > qustion. And one with a simple answer if you don't make strange presumptive assumptions. Neither. -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/17/85)
I really don't know why I'm answering this, but . . . we all have our moments of weakness. Rich Rosen writes: >>>Haven't you ever heard of Occam's Razor? [Hunter Scales] > >> If the argument holds logically, what's your problem? [CHARLI] > >Obviously (unfortunately), the answer to Hunter's question in the >earlier paragraph is quite apparently a resounding "no". For if she >had, she would know precisely what the problem is. [Rich] > >> Do you have a simpler explanation for evil in the presence of an >> omnipotent and benevolent God? [charli] > Mr. Rosen, you should learn not to jump to unjustified conclusions. Of course I'm familiar with Occam's Razor. The second question should make that plain. I asked if Hunter had a *simpler* explanation of evil in the presence of an omnipotent and benevolent God; Occam's Razor (just to make the point) is that the simplest explanation that takes into account all known facts is to be preferred over more complex explanations. You and I do not disagree on this philosophical principal; we disagree on the facts. (And I believe that Willam of Ockham would have agreed with me on the facts. :-) ) charli
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (10/17/85)
In article <171@l5.uucp>, Laura Creighton writes: > It does not require omnipotence to design a world where there are no > earthquakes or no common cold. I figure, either God is not omnipotent, > or he/she/it is evil. That's not an exclusive or, Laura. Certainly He could be both (not omnipotent and evil). In fact, He is. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/18/85)
> I really don't know why I'm answering this, but . . . we all have our > moments of weakness. Yes, indeed. Perhaps a good reason for "answering this" is for the reason of understanding things. >>>>Haven't you ever heard of Occam's Razor? [Hunter Scales] >>> If the argument holds logically, what's your problem? >>> Do you have a simpler explanation for evil in the presence of an >>> omnipotent and benevolent God? [charli] >>Obviously (unfortunately), the answer to Hunter's question in the >>earlier paragraph is quite apparently a resounding "no". For if she >>had, she would know precisely what the problem is. [Rich] > Mr. Rosen, you should learn not to jump to unjustified conclusions. > Of course I'm familiar with Occam's Razor. The second question should > make that plain. On the contrary, it is that very phrasing of that second question that makes it all too clear that you do NOT understand the principle at all. That question is similar in nature to a question of the form "Why does Santa Claus never leave me any toys?" The assumptions don't even wait until the question to end (to being the formulation of answers with assumptions). The assumptions are right there IN THE QUESTION! A simpler for explanation "for evil"? Isn't the notion that there is force of deliberate evil AT ALL a tremendous assumption, which has been shown time and time again to be rooted in a subjective wish to classify all things beneficial/harmful to YOU as "good"/ "evil"? "In the presence of an omnipotent and benevolent God"????? If that's not a remarkable set of assumptions, I don't know what is! Not only do you assume the existence of a god, but you assume its shape, form, and quality according to your liking! Finally, from the earlier article you ask "If the argument holds logically, what's your problem?" Forgive me, but that makes it clear that you do not understand at all the principle of Occam's Razor? The example of its usage bandied about this group goes something like this: You come home and find your bird missing from its cage and feathers in the mouth of your sleeping cat. You have at least two possible conclusions you can draw: (1) Interdimensional aliens entered your house through a space-time-cheese warp in the fabric of the continuum, put your cat to sleep with an anti-matter ineptoid ray, stole the bird for their own purposes, and placed feathers in your cat's mouth to incriminate him, or (2) your cat ate the bird. "If the argument holds logically (as the first scenario does), what's your problem?" is antithetical to the principle of invoking the solution that has the least assumptions, which is (of course) Occam's Razor. > I asked if Hunter had a *simpler* explanation of evil > in the presence of an omnipotent and benevolent God; Occam's Razor (just > to make the point) is that the simplest explanation that takes into > account all known facts is to be preferred over more complex explanations. All known FACTS. But the variables you add in are hardly facts. As I have shown they are assumptions themselves and have no place in the question in the first place. Asking that sort of question is about as presumptive as you can get. > You and I do not disagree on this philosophical principal; we disagree > on the facts. When you have enough eivdence to call them facts, then we can say that this is just a "difference of opinion" about facts. Since you don't, you are merely invoking the "principle" in a very poor and erroneous fashion. > (And I believe that Willam of Ockham would have agreed with me on the > facts. :-) ) And people of his day and age (and profession) have been wrong before about such things... -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (10/22/85)
In article <388@pyuxn.UUCP> pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes: >In article <171@l5.uucp>, Laura Creighton writes: > >> It does not require omnipotence to design a world where there are no >> earthquakes or no common cold. I figure, either God is not omnipotent, >> or he/she/it is evil. > >That's not an exclusive or, Laura. Certainly He could be both (not omnipotent >and evil). In fact, He is. > >Be well, >-- >Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories >pyuxn!pez I guess I was not clear. I meant this an an exclusive or. IF (God is omnipotent) THEN (God is evil) /* else there would be no earthquakes */ ELSE (God could be other than evil) /* maybe God hates earthquakes as well*/ The binding is on omnipotence. Either God is omnipotent and evil or not omnipotent. (Non-omnipotent evil Gods are possible, of course.) I followed this one down, and came to the conclusion that ``omnipotent'' was an ill-formed concept. Nothing can be omnipotent, in the same way that nothing can be square and round at teh same time, or blue and yellow at the same time. Clearly you have arrived at the other end -- omnipotence is possible and thus the Christian God is evil. I am interested as to how you got there; I find it more believable that the Christian God is not omnipotent. -- Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/23/85)
>>> It does not require omnipotence to design a world where there are no >>> earthquakes or no common cold. I figure, either God is not omnipotent, >>> or he/she/it is evil. [LAURA] >>That's not an exclusive or, Laura. Certainly He could be both (not omnipotent >>and evil). In fact, He is. [ZIMMERMAN] > I guess I was not clear. I meant this an an exclusive or. > IF (God is omnipotent) > THEN (God is evil) /* else there would be no earthquakes */ > ELSE > (God could be other than evil) > /* maybe God hates earthquakes as well*/ Sorry, Laura, that's NOT an exclusive or by any stretch. You're saying A is non-omnipotent, and B is evil, and you offer "If ~A then B", but you don't have the opposing "If A then ~B" to make an exclusive or. I think Paul is saying that the possibility certainly exist that god could be BOTH evil and non-omnipotent, there's nothing in the way of that. > The binding is on omnipotence. Either God is omnipotent and evil or not > omnipotent. (Non-omnipotent evil Gods are possible, of course.) That's exactly what Paul was saying: it's NOT an exclusive or. (Remember the two conditions you gave in your original article were "either god is not omnipotent OR it is evil".) -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) (10/23/85)
In article <785@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > I can't follow your logic. The above statement seems consistant with two > non-christian hypotheses: > > 1) That the hypothetical god is incapable of fixing those bad things, and > thus not omnipotent. > > 2) That the hypothetical god doesn't really care enough about us to fix > them, or wants them that way so that we can suffer. > In my last response I was answering a different part of your question, but since you've brought this up, I'll see what I can come up with. The whole foundation for the question has to do with where did evil come from, who is/are responsible for it and can/should anything be done about the fact that it does currently exist by an omnipotent God. Part 1 - Where does evil come from. While Genesis uses the word death, the Bible speaks of death (and I feel consequently evil) resulting from man's original choice to disobey God. Not to make this sound like beginning Sunday school, but that is traditional Christian doctrine. Part 2 - Who is responsible for evil. If I put you off with the simplicity and dogmaticity (??) of my first response, it's mainly because to me, this is more of the crux of the issue. As hard as it is to understand, I feel that both God and man are responsible for evil. Man's part we've already looked at, but just to add one point, not only does the Bible say that Adam sinned, but Paul, in Romans, says that as Adam sinned, so do all men. To me this means that I'm not suffering unjustly for something Adam did, I'm a joint instigator and cause of the problem. Back to responsibility and God's side of the issue. To say that God is not the author of evil is in some ways true but in some ways misleading. Nothing exists outside of God creating it and willing it. In John 1:3 it says, "And without Him (Christ) was not anything made that was made an all things were made by Him." God throughout Isaiah continually claims to be the sole creator of everything, so to some extent, God is the creator of evil. But the crucial issue is the way that God is the creator of evil. Since nothing exists outside of God creating it (forgive me for stating that as a given in contrast to your own beliefs, this is simply for the purpose of the discussion) God must have either directly created evil and sin or He must have created the means for those to come about. And to me that's the crucial difference. Forgive me if you feel I've taken a long way to get to a simple point, but lots of people feel they understand this concept (who disagree with it) but when you sit down to try to find oout where, they have all sorts of extraneoous notions about this process. To state another fundamental assumpion (which I freely admit is a big one) as far as I can tell both rationally and experientally, free will (which I believe exists) necessitates the existence of the 'other' side to choose. If God were the damager-God of Paul Zimmerman's arguments than there would still be the possibility of good in the world even though this God had designed things to work the other way. Basically it comes down to this. God created man and willfully and deliberately gave them the gift of choice (made them choose, whichever you prefer) and in creating that choice process, God allowed there to be a consequence for choice away from Him. This is where things get fuzzy, like Laura was saying, omnipotent doesn't mean able to create paradoxes (i.e. round squares). That's not a limit to power, simply the necessity of a world with specific meanings. So could God have created a world where people have free will but yet do not suffer for their mistakes? Possibly. Could God have created a world with free will but where there is no choice away from God? To me that seems like a paradox. Second to last part. Since this 'world' God's creating right now must have the ability to choose going away for God to meet the criteria for free will, there is still the question of why must their be consequences for wrong actions? You can imagine two scenarios. One, where the football coach tells everyone to run laps and no one does and nothing happens and another where the football coach makes everyone 'pay' for their disobedience. While one might seem much more fogiving and loving than the other, each situation has a different thrust for the goals they're trying to accomplish. In the don't worry about it situation, there is little impetus for change and my under- standing of why someone might create a scenario like that would be to let the players play. In the second scenario, there is a specific desire on the coach's part for the players too conform to what He has called them to do. I'm not trying to discuss the relative value of either so much as I'm trying to say that either free will necessitates the secoond scenario or maybe God simply chose to have things be that way. Last part. Our world now consists of free will, consequence for choice or action and a still relatively undefined thing called 'suffering'. The question that this all reduces down to is that since God has given us the ability to choose either for Him or against Him and since He wants us to choose for Him and we as people do not consistently choose God, there must be some method for God to get us back on the right track. I'm not sure who said this but some said "Pain is God's megaphone to a deaf world". People have the ability to turn off their ears when it comes to God (just like they can close themeselves off to parents, friends, education, almost anything). God would love to just tap us on the back and have us turn aroound and say,"sorry God". But when a light tap doesn't work, it becomes a firm pat then a stronger grab till He eventually drops an atomic bomb on yoour shoulder. If this seems wrong to you, it's a simple question of priorities. If life on this earth is more important than what God tells us about our eternal lives, then for God to mess up our life on earth for that is a waste. But if we are going to live eternally and live with the choice that we make on this earth, then I'm up for God doing anything it takes to get me into a right relationship with Him. The very last thing. I kind of glanced over it in the last paragraph and it's a crucial question. Why don't I naturally choose to do what God wants? Why do I (we) seem to have this tendency to want to go away from God? In answering it I would say two things. First of all, I've felt like my whole life has been lived on a balance, even more like trying to balance a circular disc on the tip of a pin. God seems to have created me amazingly in terms of seeing both sides of things, always being on the edge of knowing what's right and what's wrong and realizing there's a consequence for my actions. But much of this was a learned discrimination. At times I've tried as hard as I could to shut God up and put Him in a nice little box. I succeeded for almost two years during high school but God worked His way back out my Freshman year in college. All my experience (all 22 years!) has shown me people who somewhere insde realize that there is a consequence for action and it's just a question of how much of it do you want to face vs. how much you want to do just what you want to do no matter what it does to anyone/thing else. People can get incredibly hard, and it's not so much of a blanket thing, where you're either completely open or completely closed. I was willing to face my problems of cynicism and being overly critical (not that they're solved by any means) but I hid from and ignored what God was trying to tell me about my relationships with friends. So someone can be compltely open and amazing in one area and a complete bonehead in another. But every thing I've seen in terms of morality and conscience confirms in me that God created each of us with a picture of Himself inside of us. We can live trying to prune our lives to fit that picture or we can whitewash over it build any type of hoouse we want. This is one of my favorite quotes by one of my favorite authors and this is the second time that I've got to use it this week. (I know you're not a C.S Lewis fan, but the quote is still right on the mark in terms of what God is saying to us as people). "There are those who will say to God, Thy will be done and there are those to whom God will say thy will be done." From later on in the same book (The Great Divorce) he says, "No soul who truly seeks after joy shall be denied." Sorry this got so long. I have a tendency to get excited about these discussions and ramble somewhat. I hope you can find the thread of coherency in this that makes any sense to you and I'll stop now and let you hammer on this and bring up specific questions rather than me trying to guess what you'll ask. Rick Frey "If you seek for me with all your heart you will find me says the Lord." (Jeramiah 24:25)
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (10/25/85)
Laura, The original premise you presented was that God is either non-omnipotent or evil. I responded by saying that it wasn't necessarily an exclusive or, that God could be (and in fact IS) both. Your latest response said that you meant it as an exclusive or, but your proof of this shows otherwise. > IF (God is omnipotent) > THEN (God is evil) /* else there would be no earthquakes */ > ELSE > (God could be other than evil) > /* maybe God hates earthquakes as well*/ > > The binding is on omnipotence. Either God is omnipotent and evil or not > omnipotent. (Non-omnipotent evil Gods are possible, of course.) Well, Laura, that was my claim all along. But the definition of ``exclusive or'' is that it could be one (non-omnipotent) or the other (evil) but not both. You admit yourself that God could be both, thus we are not talking about an exclusive or. My claim always has been that He IS both. You claimed that I was stating that ``omnipotence is possible and thus the Christian God is evil.'' This has never been my position, and I have no idea where you acquired this misconception. I agree with you that ``the Christian God'' is not omnipotent, but He most certainly is evil. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (10/28/85)
Sorry, Paul I went back to the original article and see that I have misread what you posted. A nice, simple mistake, just don't take in the word ``not'' in the phrase ``not omnipotent''. Sigh, blush... I am still unsure as to why you think that the Damager God exists at all, though. -- Help beutify the world. I am writing a book called *How To Write Portable C Programs*. Send me anything that you would like to find in such a book when it appears in your bookstores. Get your name mentioned in the credits. Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
scott@hpuslma.UUCP (10/29/85)
Rick, Right on and Amen! I don't know where this discussion started but it appears to be interesting and true. Jim Scott N0GLP St. Louis
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/30/85)
In article <134@sdcc7.UUCP> ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: [reordered somewhat for my purposes.... mrh] > Sorry this got so long. I have a tendency to get excited about these > discussions and ramble somewhat. I hope you can find the thread of coherency > in this that makes any sense to you and I'll stop now and let you hammer on > this and bring up specific questions rather than me trying to guess what > you'll ask. When I get excited and write too much, or write something that sounds good but isn't pertinent, I edit. I rethink what exactly I need to say, throw out big hunks (maybe everything) and rewrite. Please take the time to define your thoughts clearly, rather than saddle us with the labor of trying to find meaning in a muddle. Don't be sorry: be ashamed, and do something about it. Especially, make your paragraphs short and to the point. I try not to go over about 6 lines in a paragraph. Usually that's all you need, and a good subject sentence makes them easy to examine. Most of your paragraphs are much longer and unfocused. > In article <785@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > > > I can't follow your logic. The above statement seems consistant with two > > non-christian hypotheses: > > > > 1) That the hypothetical god is incapable of fixing those bad things, and > > thus not omnipotent. > > > > 2) That the hypothetical god doesn't really care enough about us to fix > > them, or wants them that way so that we can suffer. > > The whole foundation for the question has to do with where did evil come > from, who is/are responsible for it and can/should anything be done about > the fact that it does currently exist by an omnipotent God. A god that could do something about evil (if evil or gods actually exist) may not need to be omnipotent. After all, if evil is caused by Satan, and Satan is not omnipotent, and Satan ceases to cause evil, that's enough. > Part 1 - Where does evil come from. While Genesis uses the word death, the > Bible speaks of death (and I feel consequently evil) resulting from man's > original choice to disobey God. Not to make this sound like beginning Sunday > school, but that is traditional Christian doctrine. Right. And traditional Christian doctrine is blatantly stupid on that point as it takes two to tango. > Part 2 - Who is responsible for evil. If I put you off with the simplicity > and dogmaticity (??) of my first response, it's mainly because to me, this is > more of the crux of the issue. As hard as it is to understand, I feel that > both God and man are responsible for evil. Man's part we've already looked > at, but just to add one point, not only does the Bible say that Adam sinned, > but Paul, in Romans, says that as Adam sinned, so do all men. To me this > means that I'm not suffering unjustly for something Adam did, I'm a joint > instigator and cause of the problem. That's nonsense according to many doctrines of original sin. And if not according to those doctrines, we then are irresistably tempted to sin by our environment in a way we cannot control, and then punished for it. That's as stupidly unjust as I can imagine. > Back to responsibility and God's side of the issue. To say that God is not > the author of evil is in some ways true but in some ways misleading. Nothing > exists outside of God creating it and willing it. In John 1:3 it says, "And > without Him (Christ) was not anything made that was made an all things were > made by Him." God throughout Isaiah continually claims to be the sole > creator of everything, so to some extent, God is the creator of evil. > > But the crucial issue is the way that God is the creator of evil. Since > nothing exists outside of God creating it (forgive me for stating that as a > given in contrast to your own beliefs, this is simply for the purpose of the > discussion) God must have either directly created evil and sin or He must have > created the means for those to come about. And to me that's the crucial > difference. Forgive me if you feel I've taken a long way to get to a simple > point, but lots of people feel they understand this concept (who disagree > with it) but when you sit down to try to find oout where, they have all sorts > of extraneoous notions about this process. To state another fundamental > assumpion (which I freely admit is a big one) as far as I can tell both > rationally and experientally, free will (which I believe exists) necessitates > the existence of the 'other' side to choose. If God were the damager-God of > Paul Zimmerman's arguments than there would still be the possibility of > good in the world even though this God had designed things to work the > other way. Even granting all those absurd premises, there's no reason why the other side should be so noxious, omnipresent, and unavoidable. For example, bad people could continue to live forever, and good people could die and go to heaven (good riddance. :-) > Basically it comes down to this. God created man and willfully and > deliberately gave them the gift of choice (made them choose, whichever you > prefer) and in creating that choice process, God allowed there to be a > consequence for choice away from Him. This is where things get fuzzy, like > Laura was saying, omnipotent doesn't mean able to create paradoxes (i.e. > round squares). That's not a limit to power, simply the necessity of a world > with specific meanings. So could God have created a world where people have > free will but yet do not suffer for their mistakes? Possibly. Could God > have created a world with free will but where there is no choice away from > God? To me that seems like a paradox. But neither of those in any way answers my two hypotheses. > Second to last part. Since this 'world' God's creating right now must have > the ability to choose going away for God to meet the criteria for free will, > there is still the question of why must their be consequences for wrong > actions? You can imagine two scenarios. One, where the football coach tells > everyone to run laps and no one does and nothing happens and another where > the football coach makes everyone 'pay' for their disobedience. While one > might seem much more fogiving and loving than the other, each situation has a > different thrust for the goals they're trying to accomplish. In the don't > worry about it situation, there is little impetus for change and my under- > standing of why someone might create a scenario like that would be to let the > players play. In the second scenario, there is a specific desire on the > coach's part for the players too conform to what He has called them to do. > I'm not trying to discuss the relative value of either so much as I'm trying > to say that either free will necessitates the secoond scenario or maybe God > simply chose to have things be that way. Maybe the football coach is a sadist and is exercising the players more than is safe or healthy. Maybe he's just feeding his ego. > Last part. Our world now consists of free will, consequence for choice or > action and a still relatively undefined thing called 'suffering'. The > question that this all reduces down to is that since God has given us the > ability to choose either for Him or against Him and since He wants us to > choose for Him and we as people do not consistently choose God, there must be > some method for God to get us back on the right track. I'm not sure who said > this but some said "Pain is God's megaphone to a deaf world". People have > the ability to turn off their ears when it comes to God (just like they can > close themeselves off to parents, friends, education, almost anything). God > would love to just tap us on the back and have us turn aroound and say,"sorry > God". But when a light tap doesn't work, it becomes a firm pat then a > stronger grab till He eventually drops an atomic bomb on yoour shoulder. If > this seems wrong to you, it's a simple question of priorities. If life on > this earth is more important than what God tells us about our eternal lives, > then for God to mess up our life on earth for that is a waste. But if we are > going to live eternally and live with the choice that we make on this earth, > then I'm up for God doing anything it takes to get me into a right > relationship with Him. Substitute Hitler for god in most of the above, and it is analogous. But we dislike Hitler and you like god. Why? > The very last thing. I kind of glanced over it in the last paragraph and > it's a crucial question. Why don't I naturally choose to do what God wants? > Why do I (we) seem to have this tendency to want to go away from God? In > answering it I would say two things. First of all, I've felt like my whole > life has been lived on a balance, even more like trying to balance a circular > disc on the tip of a pin. God seems to have created me amazingly in terms > of seeing both sides of things, always being on the edge of knowing what's > right and what's wrong and realizing there's a consequence for my actions. > But much of this was a learned discrimination. At times I've tried as hard > as I could to shut God up and put Him in a nice little box. I succeeded for > almost two years during high school but God worked His way back out my > Freshman year in college. All my experience (all 22 years!) has shown me > people who somewhere insde realize that there is a consequence for action and > it's just a question of how much of it do you want to face vs. how much you > want to do just what you want to do no matter what it does to anyone/thing > else. People can get incredibly hard, and it's not so much of a blanket > thing, where you're either completely open or completely closed. I was > willing to face my problems of cynicism and being overly critical (not that > they're solved by any means) but I hid from and ignored what God was trying > to tell me about my relationships with friends. So someone can be compltely > open and amazing in one area and a complete bonehead in another. But every > thing I've seen in terms of morality and conscience confirms in me that > God created each of us with a picture of Himself inside of us. We can > live trying to prune our lives to fit that picture or we can whitewash over > it build any type of hoouse we want. So you choose to dignify your malleability and conformism by claiming that you have a picture of god within you? Is god that way too? Frankly, I consider that a blatant case of wishful thinking based on zero evidence. > This is one of my favorite quotes by one of my favorite authors and this is > the second time that I've got to use it this week. (I know you're not a C.S > Lewis fan, but the quote is still right on the mark in terms of what God > is saying to us as people). "There are those who will say to God, Thy will be > done and there are those to whom God will say thy will be done." From later > on in the same book (The Great Divorce) he says, "No soul who truly seeks > after joy shall be denied." Mystic bullshit. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) (10/31/85)
Mike Huybensz writes a lengthy response to Rick Frey, and I think the last
line sums it up:
> Mystic bullshit.
Pardon me, but what else, to your way of thinking, might you expect
to find on net.religion?mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/01/85)
In article <162@pluto.UUCP> warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) writes: > Mike Huybensz writes a lengthy response to Rick Frey, and I think the last > line sums it up: > > > Mystic bullshit. > > Pardon me, but what else, to your way of thinking, might you expect > to find on net.religion? Intelligent, comparative analysis based on clearly stated facts and premises. The majority of Rick's article consisted of the kind of high-quality argument I enjoy. His last few paragraphs (if I recall correctly) degenerated from that standard to typical vague (or coded) sect-specific pronouncements. In other words, mystic bullshit. Let me explain my opinion of bullshit a little better though. I'm an entomologist on the side. To lots of organisms, bullshit is literally and figuratively manna from heaven. But if I want to learn about nutrition, I don't start with the nutritive makeup of manure. And for my own tastes, I like things that are not pre-digested. :-) If you want to understand the effect and nature of mystic bullshit, watch the recent movie version of 1984, especially the scene where the people are screaming "sex crimes" and then burst into tearful reverence as the image of the leader appears. That conditioning is the purpose of church singing, chanting, repetition of dogmas, etc. It is a method of channeling thought into authority-approved, pre-defined pathways. It is the substitution of meaningless reflex for thought. It's very difficult to see this pattern in your own life. Start first with observing it in others, gradually closer to home. It's an omnipresent part of human life, and none of us are immune. The best we can do is to recognize it, and gradually unshackle our thinking from the accumulated years of indoctrination. I've been working on it for at least 15 years, and still I feel powerful, automatic, emotional responses to a whole range of symbolisms of many different ways that I've been exposed to. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh