pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (08/28/85)
Rick Frey writes in his recent article that he has some problems with some of my points. That is to be expected, since acquiring and understanding the truth about God is a painful and slow process. Most people (myself included) do not accept the truth about God so easily. We fear this truth so much, that we avoid and deny it at all costs. Rick feels that my proofs are insubstantial. He says I am just making assertions about my belief without backing them up. I would like to follow through on this and answer his comments. He claims in his article that my proof that God was created as a part of the universe (and was not the creator of that universe) is wrong. He says it's just my opinion. Well, Rick, if asking who created God is a ``difficult question,'' may I ask what is ``difficult'' about it? Aren't you building difficulty into the question by making the assumption that God ``exists eternally''? (In whose timeline?) Isn't the only difficulty in the question your assumption about the nature of God, that He is the ultimate creator? When you discuss my ``Christ as Antichrist'' concept, you make a variety of excuses for God. You say ``that wasn't His son, that was Him.'' To be sure, he is a part of Him in the sense that any son is a part of his father. But still it is clear that God sent His son to do the dirty work, to suffer the pain in His stead. Yes, Rick, though you don't want to face this, God ``copped out.'' I don't consider it copping out, though, since the whole premise behind sending Jesus was a lie in the first place, designed to deceive and enslave and encourage evil. Why bother to build systems of excuses for God? I take it you are not aware of a fundamental tenet of Christian theology when you ask where it says anything about ``Satan having control of the earth.'' (This was mentioned in Tullis' article from last week.) This is one of prime examples of bad excuses for God that Christian theologians and clergymen have used for some time when asked ``Why are there so many horrible things in this world if there is a good loving God?'' Since people have learned to want to believe that there is a good loving God, they will accept almost anything that perpetuates that belief. Certainly, the explanation that says that God is Himself the very devil that He lays blame on for evil things is the simpler and far more satisfying explanation. It provides for God to have His praises sung by whorshipful lackeys unimpeded while still having the opportunity to engage in evil for His perverse pleasure. Christ IS the Antichrist. He is a lie perpetuated by an evil Damager-God. Look at which religious force has been in total power over most of the Western world for most of the last two thousand years. Look at the amount of torture, death, and all-round evil done in its name. Do you honestly have any doubts that Christ is the Antichrist, and that Christianity, along with all whorship of God, is aiding and abetting the deeds of a pig monster who laughs at us and humiliates us for fun? Rick also claimed that my discounting of his examples of ``God's'' miracles was unfounded. The first example he gave was Sarah's childbirth. Think about it, Rick. Who would have been standing there in her way preventing her from having a child in the first place? Through that force of entropy? Women give birth to children late in life all the time, and that is part of the natural course of nature. How old was Sarah when she had this child? Where did that information come from? How do you know that she was in fact ``too old?'' The same thing is true for the experiences of the Isrealites in battle. Generals throughout history have made their battle stories seem larger than life. Certainly it's in God's interest for Him to pass down the story that it was His action that saved the people, not their own fortitude. Who wrote down and passed down what the Jews believed about God bringing them victory? Or did he simply deceive them the way He is still deceiving you today? The Old Testament is just as full of God's lies as the New. You also ask how God could ``build in'' the wish to see Him as a father figure and a loving good deity. It's very simple. Through persistent reinforcement. By encouraging foolish or evil people to spread the word about the good God, and by passing on this wish for a loving overseeing father from generation to generation, he has built it into us. You assume that some force, a consciousness of good or evil, must have been the creator of the universe in which our Damager-God resides. I assume no such thing. The forces of nature in the universe itself itself are certainly neutral, they are associated with neither good nor evil. We human beings seek to build things, but the evil God comes along and destroys anything He doesn't like, or anything that may lead to knowledge about Him. Rick, why on Earth should I not say that it was God's fault that Charles Manson and other disturbed people engage in evil actions? Is the human mind naturally disturbed? What possible explanation could there be for such mental disturbances except for a damaging entropic force from a vile and evil God? Which of us is eroneously placing the blame on ``something else?'' Is it me, when I say ``the Damager-God is to blame?'' Or is it you, when you say ``people are to blame?'' How can people be blamed for things that they cannot control? Certainly the Damager-God has control over such things, and certainly He takes control whenever it suits His whims, to wreak havoc on all of us for His pleasure. Are we passing the buck, or is God getting us to pass His own buck for Him? You mentioned ``human rotteness'' in your article. If you believe in God according to your assumptions about Him, then He is responsible for any rotteness within us, having created us. But He hasn't created us. What he has done is to tell people like you that you are rotten. What is rotten about you? I have found you in our public and private discussions to be a forthright, intelligent and generally nice person. More so than some people who have insulted and mocked my beliefs because they are afraid of the truth. Yet you of all people feel that you are rotten. Certainly you are a victim of the evil propaganda of a malicious Damager-God, who wants you to believe that you are rotten to make you miserable. Seeing God as kind and loving is not just more difficult in the face of realization of the scope of His evil acts. It is downright impossible. There is no evil resulting from our own volitional action. God certainly puts the obstacles in our way, for His own amusement, to watch us stumble. You may percieve this as a ``complete negation of free will and responsibility.'' Perhaps it is, in a sense. I tend to believe that there is no such thing, that God tells us that there are things like free will and responsibility, and makes us believe in them, solely to infuse us with guilt for things that are surely His fault alone. Finally, Rick, you say that you don't believe my evidence is conclusive. Furthermore, you say that I have discounted every argument you offered. I find it ironic that you claim that I simply back down to my basic ``assumption'' that you're challenging. I say this because this is what Hubeynz, Maroney, and Rosen (et al) accused Dan Boscovich (and others) of doing when he posted lengthy diatribes about Christianity. The real question is which of us is making the assumptions? Are you and Dan and your fellow Christians (and other God whorshipers) making an assumption about the nature of God, assuming that He is all powerful and good? Or am I, when I conclude from the evidence of the Bible, the sciences, and the world around us, that God most certainly exists and is a flaming asshole of ridiculous (if not infinite) proportions? There are examples in the Bible (of the God who hardened Pharaoh's heart to increase His own glory and who molested and harmed Job just to prove His own power). There are examples in scientific knowledge (of the natural flow of nature and how some willful force is clearly interfering with it and damaging it). There are examples in everyday life (Murphy's law, and my umbrella example). And all of these point unequivocally to the presence of an evil Damager-God, if you evaluate them in tandem. Your concluding sentences go back to your own assumption about your blithely disagreeing with the fact that God is entropy, choosing to believe instead in things like mankind decaying without God's ``support.'' Please think about it. Which of us is making assumptions? I know Ockham's Razor is not in vogue anymore, but it has its place right here. -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (08/30/85)
In recent postings, Paul Zimmerman charged that the god of the bible is an evil god. I agree that if such a deity exits and the stories of the bible are to be taken at their face value then that god can be viewed as an evil god. Tim Maroney in his famous article titled, "Even If I Did Believe", clearly demonstrated this darker side of the biblical god. While Paul eloquently describes his point of view, it is clear that he is guilty of the same presumption as the religionists' side. Namely, he presupposes that god exists without providing us with a shred of evidence that there is a god. The observation that there is destruction and evil in our world is not a proof for the existence of an evil god. I think that it is impossible to prove that Jehovah, Zeus, Odin or Ubizmo do not exist. Yet, evidence is lacking to support the notion that any of the above deities or other creatures of the imagination exist. It seems more likely that men created gods then gods created men. The question is why men would create an evil god? I will offer the following conjecture: Men created an evil god because they were evil men. By inventing a god, these men could scare and dominate others. They could also justify their evil deeds, since they would claim that their actions are supported by their god. Finally, as time elapsed, the god creation event had been forgotten. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (09/04/85)
[G'head, eat me, I love it] From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman), Message-ID: <316@pyuxn.UUCP>: >Well, Rick, if asking who created >God is a ``difficult question,'' may I ask what is ``difficult'' about it? >Aren't you building difficulty into the question by making the assumption >that God ``exists eternally''? (In whose timeline?) Isn't the only >difficulty in the question your assumption about the nature of God, >that He is the ultimate creator? No, the only difficulty is not an assumption about the *nature* of God. The real difficulty is the assumption about the *existence* of God. Saying that *if* God exists, then he "was created as a part of the universe" could be a reasonable theory. But why do you think God exists at all? Because sometimes when you take your umbrella with you it doesn't rain, and sometimes when you forget it it does rain? Not exactly bullet-proof evidence there. >Why bother to build systems of excuses for God? Um, well why bother to build systems of excuses for entropy? > Christ IS the Antichrist. He is a lie perpetuated by an evil >Damager-God. Look at which religious force has been in total power over >most of the Western world for most of the last two thousand years. Look >at the amount of torture, death, and all-round evil done in its name. "Done in its [christianity's] name" is *not* the same thing as doing the will of Christ/God. Christ *never, ever, ever* advocated persecution, and doubtless would abhor a great many things that have been/are being done "in His name" (assuming he exists as described in the Bible, of course). > Rick also claimed that my discounting of his examples of ``God's'' >miracles was unfounded. The first example he gave was Sarah's childbirth. >Think about it, Rick. Who would have been standing there in her way >preventing her from having a child in the first place? Through that >force of entropy? Women give birth to children late in life all the time, >and that is part of the natural course of nature. How old was Sarah when >she had this child? I seem to recall she was in her eighties. Are you telling us that women give birth in their eighties "all the time"? >Where did that information come from? How do you know >that she was in fact ``too old?'' The same thing is true for the experiences >of the Isrealites in battle. Generals throughout history have made their >battle stories seem larger than life. Certainly it's in God's interest for >Him to pass down the story that it was His action that saved the people, not >their own fortitude. Who wrote down and passed down what the Jews believed >about God bringing them victory? Or did he simply deceive them the way He >is still deceiving you today? The Old Testament is just as full of God's >lies as the New. So you're telling us that the Bible is chock fulla lies, and we shouldn't be deceived by it. Then apparently you're intentionally attempting to deceive us when you quote Job's experiences and other Biblical events as "evidence" for the evil nature of God. Whatever make you think God's claims to have inflicted pain and suffering are any more true than his claims to have relieved them? If anything in there is a lie, then it's *all* suspect. God might just be claiming responsibility for any old thing, 'cause he wants to impress us with power he doesn't have. He might not be doing *any* of it. G'head, prove he wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah. *Assuming* he exists, prove he has any power at all. >The forces of nature in the universe itself itself are certainly >neutral, they are associated with neither good nor evil. Well, not exactly. A gentle, steady rain on an all-but-parched farm is associated with good, and a hurricane is often considered evil. Both are products of natural forces. As are birth (creation) and death (decay, or entropy if you prefer). No need for supernatural intervention anywhere. >We human beings seek to build things, [...] Heh, heh, heh. Hunters who think it's "sporting" to just plain kill animals are actually busy seeking to build things. So was "Son of Sam". Right. Hitler really *was* seeking to build things. So was Jim Jones. Pretty shining examples of a fine human tendency that a damager-god would *surely* want to eradicate [read, of course, with heavy sarcasm]. > Rick, why on Earth should I not say that it was God's fault that >Charles Manson and other disturbed people engage in evil actions? Is the >human mind naturally disturbed? What possible explanation could there be >for such mental disturbances except for a damaging entropic force from a >vile and evil God? How about an entirely natural entropic force? Or maybe adverse reactions to the radiation that naturally showers the earth? Or maybe chemical reactions to poisons that *humans* have polluted the environment with? Invoking the supernatural is entirely uncalled for until *absolutely everything* else has been thoroughly disproven. I.e., until never. >Which of us is eroneously placing the blame on >``something else?'' Is it me, when I say ``the Damager-God is to blame?'' Yes. >Or is it you, when you say ``people are to blame?'' How can people be >blamed for things that they cannot control? Certainly the Damager-God has >control over such things, and certainly He takes control whenever it suits >His whims, to wreak havoc on all of us for His pleasure. As mentioned above, you have yet to demonstrate that "certainly the Damager-God has control over such things", let alone that he even exists. >The real >question is which of us is making the assumptions? Are you and Dan and >your fellow Christians (and other God whorshipers) making an assumption >about the nature of God, assuming that He is all powerful and good? Or >am I, when I conclude from the evidence of the Bible, the sciences, and >the world around us, that God most certainly exists and is a flaming >asshole of ridiculous (if not infinite) proportions? You *both* are. >There are examples >in the Bible (of the God who hardened Pharaoh's heart to increase His own >glory and who molested and harmed Job just to prove His own power). You yourself say the Bible is full of lies intended to deceive us. I don't see any particular reason to believe the parts you mentioned any more than the parts where God claims to have created the heavens and the earth. >There >are examples in scientific knowledge (of the natural flow of nature and >how some willful force is clearly interfering with it and damaging it). Like when *humans* willfully kill off entire species so they can get feathers for hats, or cheap blubber, or fur coats. Not God, HUMANS willfully interfering and damaging "the natural flow of nature". >There are examples in everyday life (Murphy's law, and my umbrella >example). As I mentioned in a previous article, Murphy's law isn't true. There are about a billion things that *could* have gone wrong in just the last ten minutes that didn't. Your umbrella example isn't true either. I haven't had an umbrella along for two weeks now, and it hasn't rained once. >And all of these point unequivocally to the presence of an evil >Damager-God, if you evaluate them in tandem. All of these point to a willingness to interpret things in the light of *assumptions*. A lot like the people you're trying to "enlighten". -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "Oh yeah, P.S., I...I feel...feel like...I am in a burning building And I gotta go." (Laurie Anderson)
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (09/06/85)
Paul, We seem to be missing each other or maybe you have diferent definitions of proof than I do. Let me go overboard on an issue or two and ask you and show you what I mean about proof or the lack thereof and then I'll make a few other coments. In article <316@pyuxn.UUCP>, pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes: > > He claims in his article that my proof that God was created as a > part of the universe (and was not the creator of that universe) is > wrong. He says it's just my opinion. Well, Rick, if asking who created > God is a ``difficult question,'' may I ask what is ``difficult'' about it? But what does this have to do with proving the existence of God? I made a simple statment that you didn't prove that God existed and you respond not to that statement but to another question I asked about the difficulty of such an endeavor. You went on a little about our universe evolving and that this damager-God need not be created, but if He wasn't created then He evolved? How do powerful, non-corporeal "Godlike" creatures evolve? Are there lots of them? I'm really confused about that. > Aren't you building difficulty into the question by making the assumption > that God ``exists eternally''? (In whose timeline?) Isn't the only > difficulty in the question your assumption about the nature of God, > that He is the ultimate creator? > Nope, that's not the only difficulty. There is an inherant difficulty in discussing such things as infinite, omnipotent (all sorts of those ent and ite words) because we as people have finite minds. I can discuss the concept of infinity, I can draw graphs of equations whose boundaries are infinite, but I can't count to it, I can't say where it is there's all sorts of things I can't do to infinity. That is the difficulty with God. It's not just my wish, it's from almost every mythology that ever existed. Whether its Cronus and Rea or God Himself, there is always the question of how long they've been there and that is a tough subject to discuss, let alone think to seriously about. What the heck would it mean to not be present in time linearly? Or to have always been? Did time pass or did it even exist or did God create time? There are all sorts of difficult questions about the existence and creation of God. > When you discuss my ``Christ as Antichrist'' concept, you make > a variety of excuses for God. You say ``that wasn't His son, that was > Him.'' To be sure, he is a part of Him in the sense that any son is a > part of his father. But still it is clear that God sent His son to do the > dirty work, to suffer the pain in His stead. Yes, Rick, though you don't > want to face this, God ``copped out.'' My second example. You completely ignored my argument. I made the simple statement that Jesus Christ WAS God. Not that He was part of Him, but that He was Him, just as He claimed. But you didn't deal with that question. Granted you would throw out all evidence from the Bible, but just as Beth Christy pointed out really well, if you throw out the Bible as propaganda and lies, where are you getting your information from? I asked this question last time and you still haven't answered it. > I take it you are not aware of a fundamental tenet of Christian > theology when you ask where it says anything about ``Satan having control > of the earth.'' (This was mentioned in Tullis' article from last week.) I went back and checked because I didn't remember saying that and the only thing I can find that makes sense is when I responded to your claim about the antichrist ruling DURING THE MILLENIUM for a thousand years. I gave you the reference that showed that during the millenium, Satan would be bound, but no where did I say anything about Satan's activities before the millenium. > > Rick, why on Earth should I not say that it was God's fault that > Charles Manson and other disturbed people engage in evil actions? Is the > human mind naturally disturbed? What possible explanation could there be > for such mental disturbances except for a damaging entropic force from a > vile and evil God? ... > Two problems. First of all you call them mental disturbances. While I don't want to say that Charles Manson or Hitler were normal, blaming it on some mental abnormality is making an unproved and unprovable assumption. Again Beth Christy talks alot about this question. Hunting for pleasure, bullfighting, boxing, the list is almost infinite. Even so-called "normal" people enjoy and seek out violence and enjoy watching and witnessing pain and destruction (check the t.v. or the magazines for the latest scoop). And I just flat out refuse to give you that, "It's all God's fault." > What is rotten > about you? I have found you in our public and private discussions to be a > forthright, intelligent and generally nice person. More so than some people > who have insulted and mocked my beliefs because they are afraid of the truth. > Yet you of all people feel that you are rotten. Certainly you are a victim > of the evil propaganda of a malicious Damager-God, who wants you to believe Would that it were true. Without trying to sound like a martyr or making myself out to be a saint let me at least say that I haven't committed any mass murders lately and as much as possible I try to keep my responses civil and as sincere as can be. But as for a question of rottoness it's real easy to look inside myself and see all sorts of horrid little creatures that would just love to get their heads out and do all sorts of nasty stuff. I don't know about you but I often get more excited about criticising people and making them look bad and making myself look brilliant and witty then I do about encouraging them and responsibly answering their questions. When I get in the car, anybody who cuts me off is just lucky that I don't have special powers to destroy objects at will. I'm not exactly sure what definition we would use for being a rotten person (and it's not a title I love claiming) but if we go by the Bible's standard of measure for morality (let's skip Love God with all your heart and focus on Love your neighbor as yourself) I don't make the grade. And without tooting my own horn, I'm not that bad. I work at it with as much energy as I can and I have it as the second highest goal in my life (next to loving God) but I still wouldn't be too excited to stand up in front of God when I die and hear Him read off a list of all the things I've said and done to people, let alone the things I've thought. > There is no evil resulting from our own > volitional action. God certainly puts the obstacles in our way, for His > own amusement, to watch us stumble. You may percieve this as a ``complete > negation of free will and responsibility.'' Perhaps it is, in a sense. > I tend to believe that there is no such thing, that God tells us that there > are things like free will and responsibility, and makes us believe in them, > solely to infuse us with guilt for things that are surely His fault alone. > Wow, that is the scariest statement I have ever heard. There is NO evil resulting from volition action. It's alot like some of the 'est-like' religious views that say that we're perfect at the core, but how can you straightfacedly say that you have never volitionally done anything wrong? You've never lied? You've never stolen anything? Weren't those volitional? If your answer to this really is that God determines all our choices than why anything? That might not sound like the most intelligent question but if God determines all our actions than nothing matters because we can't do anything other than what God makes us do. So Hitler, Manson, you and me are all just dupes and when you said that some of the other posters to the net had responded derogatorily, you were criticising them for something they couldn't do anything about; God made them do it? Am I understanding you correctly? I'll be interested in reading a response. The issues that I still feel need some 'evidence' from your side are God's creation, the Bible being propaganda, human action being controlled by God, people not being rotten, and this last question that I wish to pose. If God wants to make people suffer and be miserable then why did He give us a Bible that, if followed, would cause more joy and happiness than you or I can imagine? I'm not talking about the Roman Catholic Church through the middle ages, I'm talking about the Biblical ideals of love, peace, and unity just to name a few that would make this world a better place to be. The reason why this response is slow in coming is because I was up counseling a at a Christian highschool camp near Yosemite. Based on what the Bible says for reasoning, one girl admitted that she was an alcoholic and that she didn't want to be one anymore; another girl made the same statement about drugs. Two sets of sisters made a committment to care for eachother and stop fighting and four other kids dedicated themselves to following the ideals of the Bible; all because of the words and commands in this Bible that you admit God inspired. Did God blow it? Even if He didn't expect to many people to follow it, why did He write down such a collection of truths about what it takes to get people to relate to eachother? And I'll tell you right now that I will refuse to accept a response that says that they'll end up blowing it over time. I can clearly and simply say that because of my relationship with God (or even because of following the teachings of the Bible) I am a better person than I was before, last year, five yers ago and before that too. And I know hundreds of other examples of people who have turned their lives around because of this Bible. So what's the deal with it? Did God blow it? Or is it true what Peter claims in John 6:68, "You alone (Christ) have the words of eternal life." Rick Frey
dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (09/06/85)
>>Where did that information come from? >>The same thing is true for the experiences >>of the Isrealites in battle. Generals throughout history have made their >>battle stories seem larger than life. Certainly it's in God's interest for >>Him to pass down the story that it was His action that saved the people, not >>their own fortitude. Who wrote down and passed down what the Jews believed >>about God bringing them victory? Or did he simply deceive them the way He >>is still deceiving you today? The Old Testament is just as full of God's >>lies as the New ^^^ York Times if you are talking about modern IsrAEl in battle. Seems that Israel's generals have had a super record in battle since 1948, as reported in the New York Times. I think it is quite remarkable that shortly after six million Old Testament worshippers were killed by one madman, a new nation was born. Makes me think that someone up there has a hand in it! Perhaps someday in the future, skeptics will question if six million were actually killed and also the heroism of the 20th century Israeli Army - but only if all of this is recorded in one sanctioned book. I better get my pen ready now. David "Ezra" Green
de@moscom.UUCP (Dave Esan) (09/15/85)
> Perhaps someday in the future, skeptics will > question if six million were actually killed Someday?? The Center for Historical Review and the entire network of Klan/Neo-Nazi/ Identity Church people today deny that the six million died. Shana Tova David Esan (ritcv!moscom!de)
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (09/20/85)
In article <571@moscom.UUCP> de@moscom.UUCP (Dave Esan) writes: >> Perhaps someday in the future, skeptics will >> question if six million were actually killed > >Someday?? > >The Center for Historical Review and the entire network of Klan/Neo-Nazi/ >Identity Church people today deny that the six million died. A character named Don Black has been doing exactly that recently on net.politics. See my article From: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Weisenthal's Fables Message-ID: <796@lsuc.UUCP> Date: 18 Sep 85 22:40:09 GMT Lines: 114 if you're interested. Dave Sherman Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave