[net.religion] The true God lives in the real world

pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (08/11/85)

	There are alot of people on this net who talk alot about God.
Then there are alot of people who yell at them and tell them that
they're making a bunch of ``wifhful thinking'' assumptions, which prompts
them to yell back and say that they're not, and so on, and so on.

	What people like Mr. Hubeynz and Mr. Rosen and their colleagues
fail to realize is that the predominating evidence shows that there
most certainly is a God. What people like Mr. Boscovich and Mr. Wingate
and their colleagues fail to realize is that the evidence indicates that
this God is an asshole. Allow me to explain.

	Let's think about the origin of the universe and where God
fits in. If you think of God as the creator of the universe in some
space-timeframe outside our own, then you're left with the open
question of who created God and His space-timeframe, and so on, and
so on. So the best we can do is have God created along with the
whole universe. Thus His claim to the title ``creator of the universe''
is most likely a sham. Think about it.

	In fact, the claim that He created anything at all is a sham.
Heavenly bodies, life, mankind, all evolved out of the natural forces
of the universe. But what are the great things that God has taken
credit for since this creation? Throwing people out of the Garden of
Eden and hiding it forever from mankind. A great flood that destroyed
virtually all life on Earth. The violent destruction of two cities. 
The murder of every firstborn Egyptian son. The obliteration of the
native inhabitants of Caanan. In other words, all destructive forces.
This God is not a creator in any sense of the word. Instead, He is a
destroyer, a damager who rips through the world of nature to wreak His
havoc of destruction.

	Think about this for a minute. Scientists do a fairly good
job of explaining the scientific laws that govern our universe, but
when it comes to certain deteriorating destructive forces, they just
throw up their hands and say, ``Well, that's ENTROPY.'' Well, what is
this entropy if not the will of an evil Damager-God vindictively
engaging in destruction at every turn? Ever hear the maxim ``It's so
much easier to destroy something than to construct something?'' Ever
wonder why that was? In a world of supposedly equal and unbiased
physical forces, why is destruction so much easier than creation?
Scientists will say ``that's entropy,'' but isn't that just begging the
question by giving the phenomenon a name?

	I see this as unequivocal evidence of the existence of an
evil Damager-God. I see this as especially applicable to our lives
as human beings. This Damager-God sees us as playthings to toy with
and mutilate for pleasure. Take a look at the way wars wind up being
fought for the stupidest of reasons. It's as if someone deliberately
made some stupid destructive mistake just to provoke a war, despite
the best efforts of human beings to avoid it. Take a look at our own
daily lives. No matter how much we prepare or take precautions
against something, it (or something else we ``forgot'') occurs. I put
the word forgot in quotes with good reason. Ever prepare really hard
for an event, laying out everything to be done, only to forget something
anyway? How could that happen? Could it be that the Damager-God
damaged your mind to make you forget, just to cause you trouble and
provide Him with a good laugh?

	When I first read Tim Maroney's ``Even If I Believed in Your
God'' essay a few years ago, I recognized some really good points there.
Since that time, I've come to recognize a lot more. His writing exposed
the nature of the Biblical God by dissecting the Bible itself. What I
realized later was that Tim had reached the wrong conclusion. Tim
thought ``This picture of God is so full of contradiction and lies that
it cannot be true.'' I thought ``This picture of God is so full of
contradiction and lies that it could only be the product of a God as
evil as the one it depicts.'' Look at how the Damager-God teaches you
with His books that all He does is good. In infesting your minds with
the desire to believe in a good, loving father figure, He offers you
Himself as that image. When you see his destructiveness and damaging
and still believe and pray to Him, He gets the last laugh again. He
has you in the most bent over position you could possibly dream up.
You want Him to be your loving father. You still believe that He is
even when He unleashes His destructiveness. And what's more, you
accept that destructiveness as ``good'' just because He was the one who
did it. He's trapped you, to use Rich Rosen's language, in your own
wishful thinking. Like Pavlov training his dog through intermittent
reinforcement, he answers the prayers of some of his followers, just
enough to keep the rest of them praying, tongues hanging out, tails
wagging. He's trained you to want to believe in Him as the loving
father, and He uses that against you to keep you believing.

	What does all this mean? It means that life is basically a
war with God. God kills us all in the end. (``Entropy'' causes our
bodies to wither away and die.) But He has His share of fun stringing
out our lives, toying with us, delighting in our suffering, and then
claiming ``That's not me, that's the evil Satan.'' (Actually they're
one and the same.) Which gets the faithful back to their assigned
task of praying and paying homage to Him, and associating any possible
reprieve of pleasure that may present itself in this life with that
evil Satan. To top it all off, He gives you the illusion of self and
free will to make you feel responsible for all that He does to you.
What more perfect system of tyranny could possibly be envisioned?

	I wonder why I capitalize words like God and He and His
when referring to this monster. Just a bad habit, I guess. I wish
there were letters smaller than lower case with which to begin His
name. Unfortunately, my ``religion'' as it were (call it ``maltheism''
if you like) offers little hope, little advice as to what we can do
in the face of a hideous evil monster Damager-God. He has even
built into us a revulsion to suicide that prevents us from taking our
own lives, ending our misery and His opportunities to abuse us. The
best we can hope to do is fight Him at every turn, gain some happiness
against His will, grapple with Him for it every chance we get, and spit
in His face as we do it. Perhaps someday science will discover a way
to shred the fabric of space-time and destroy His entropic evil.
But who can we pray to in hopes that they will?
-- 
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez

beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (08/13/85)

From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman), Message-ID: <292@pyuxn.UUCP>:
> [lotta stuff about "an evil Damager-God", and mention of "maltheism"]
>-- 
>Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories

Sh*t.  If this wasn't satire, then *something* evil sure hurt this
boy.  Hang in there, Paul.  Take it slow'n'easy.

Peace,
  Beth

pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (08/16/85)

	There are alot of people on this net who talk alot about God.
Then there are alot of people who yell at them and tell them that
they're making a bunch of ``wifhful thinking'' assumptions, which prompts
them to yell back and say that they're not, and so on, and so on.

	What people like Mr. Hubeynz and Mr. Rosen and their colleagues
fail to realize is that the predominating evidence shows that there
most certainly is a God.  What people like Mr. Boscovich and Mr. Wingate
and their colleagues fail to realize is that the evidence indicates that
this God is an asshole.  Allow me to explain.

	Let's think about the origin of the universe and where God
fits in.  If you think of God as the creator of the universe in some
space-timeframe outside our own, then you're left with the open
question of who created God and His space-timeframe, and so on, and
so on.  So the best we can do is have God created along with the
whole universe.  Thus His claim to the title ``creator of the universe''
is most likely a sham.  Think about it.

	In fact, the claim that He created anything at all is a sham.
Heavenly bodies, life, mankind, all evolved out of the natural forces
of the universe.  But what are the great things that God has taken
credit for since this creation?  Throwing people out of the Garden of
Eden and hiding it forever from mankind.  A great flood that destroyed
virtually all life on Earth.  The violent destruction of two cities. 
The murder of every firstborn Egyptian son.  The obliteration of the
native inhabitants of Caanan.  In other words, all destructive forces.
This God is not a creator in any sense of the word. Instead, He is a
destroyer, a damager who rips through the world of nature to wreak His
havoc of destruction.

	Think about this for a minute.  Scientists do a fairly good
job of explaining the scientific laws that govern our universe, but
when it comes to certain deteriorating destructive forces, they just
throw up their hands and say, ``Well, that's ENTROPY.''  Well, what is
this entropy if not the will of an evil Damager-God vindictively
engaging in destruction at every turn?  Ever hear the maxim ``It's so
much easier to destroy something than to construct something?''  Ever
wonder why that was?  In a world of supposedly equal and unbiased
physical forces, why is destruction so much easier than creation?
Scientists will say ``that's entropy,'' but isn't that just begging the
question by giving the phenomenon a name?

	I see this as unequivocal evidence of the existence of an
evil Damager-God.  I see this as especially applicable to our lives
as human beings.  This Damager-God sees us as playthings to toy with
and mutilate for pleasure.  Take a look at the way wars wind up being
fought for the stupidest of reasons.  It's as if someone deliberately
made some stupid destructive mistake just to provoke a war, despite
the best efforts of human beings to avoid it.  Take a look at our own
daily lives.  No matter how much we prepare or take precautions
against something, it (or something else we ``forgot'') occurs.  I put
the word forgot in quotes with good reason.  Ever prepare really hard
for an event, laying out everything to be done, only to forget something
anyway?  How could that happen?  Could it be that the Damager-God
damaged your mind to make you forget, just to cause you trouble and
provide Him with a good laugh?

	When I first read Tim Maroney's ``Even If I Believed in Your
God'' essay a few years ago, I recognized some really good points there.
Since that time, I've come to recognize a lot more.  His writing exposed
the nature of the Biblical God by dissecting the Bible itself.  What I
realized later was that Tim had reached the wrong conclusion. Tim
thought ``This picture of God is so full of contradiction and lies that
it cannot be true.''  I thought ``This picture of God is so full of
contradiction and lies that it could only be the product of a God as
evil as the one it depicts.''  Look at how the Damager-God teaches you
with His books that all He does is good.  In infesting your minds with
the desire to believe in a good, loving father figure, He offers you
Himself as that image.  When you see his destructiveness and damaging
and still believe and pray to Him, He gets the last laugh again.  He
has you in the most bent over position you could possibly dream up.
You want Him to be your loving father.  You still believe that He is
even when He unleashes His destructiveness.  And what's more, you
accept that destructiveness as ``good'' just because He was the one who
did it.  He's trapped you, to use Rich Rosen's language, in your own
wishful thinking.  Like Pavlov training his dog through intermittent
reinforcement, he answers the prayers of some of his followers, just
enough to keep the rest of them praying, tongues hanging out, tails
wagging.  He's trained you to want to believe in Him as the loving
father, and He uses that against you to keep you believing.

	What does all this mean?  It means that life is basically a
war with God.  God kills us all in the end.  (``Entropy'' causes our
bodies to wither away and die.)  But He has His share of fun stringing
out our lives, toying with us, delighting in our suffering, and then
claiming ``That's not me, that's the evil Satan.''  (Actually they're
one and the same.)  Which gets the faithful back to their assigned
task of praying and paying homage to Him, and associating any possible
reprieve of pleasure that may present itself in this life with that
evil Satan.  To top it all off, He gives you the illusion of self and
free will to make you feel responsible for all that He does to you.
What more perfect system of tyranny could possibly be envisioned?

	I wonder why I capitalize words like God and He and His
when referring to this monster.  Just a bad habit, I guess.  I wish
there were letters smaller than lower case with which to begin His
name.  Unfortunately, my ``religion'' as it were (call it ``maltheism''
if you like) offers little hope, little advice as to what we can do
in the face of a hideous evil monster Damager-God.  He has even
built into us a revulsion to suicide that prevents us from taking our
own lives, ending our misery and His opportunities to abuse us.  The
best we can hope to do is fight Him at every turn, gain some happiness
against His will, grapple with Him for it every chance we get, and spit
in His face as we do it.  Perhaps someday science will discover a way
to shred the fabric of space-time and destroy His entropic evil.
But who can we pray to in hopes that they will?
-- 
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez

dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (08/29/85)

In article <2137CJC@psuvm> CJC@psuvm.BITNET writes:
>Before dismissing this idea, reread the biblical account of the plagues
>in Egypt; my copy states repeatedly:
>     
>       "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not let them go."
>     
>  Why not? Read Exodus 10: v.1-2
>     
>      "Then the Lord said to Moses "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened
>   his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs
>   of mine among you, and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and
>   of your son's son how I have made sport of the Egyptians   ""

    Can you imagine Moses' dismay if God would have told him to go to
    Pharoah and demand the release of his people and Pharoah would have
    told Moses to go fly a kite! God told Moses this so that Moses would
    know that God was in control. So that Moses could be confident that
    he wasn't out of his mind. That it was an omnipotent and omniscient
    God who he was dealing with.

    The fact that God hardened Pharoah's heart doesn't release Pharoah
    from responsibility for his own actions. This is an old theological
    debate from way back. Can free will and God's sovereignty both exist
    at the same time. The answer is YES!

>  The later, most destructive plagues were not necessary to provide for the
>release of the Israelites, but rather a show of the destructive power of
>the Lord.

    Wrong! It took right up to the last plague to cause Pharoah to let
    them go. Than, he changed his mind again and went after them!

>     
>    Then read the Book of Job and consider the deaths of Job's seven sons
>and three daughters and of his very many servants - struck down not for
>any fault of their's, but merely for a petty show of power.

    You haven't read the book of Job or you would understand the valuable
    lesson that Job learned from all of it.

>     
>    Then, for variety, jump forward a few thousand years to Lisbon, Portugal
>on Nov. 1, 1755. One of the more destructive earthquakes in European history
>occurred in one of the most devoutly Christian cities of the time, on a
>religious holiday when most of the population of the city was in the huge
>stone cathedrals: 60,000 people were killed. What kind of god would knock
>down his church onto his own worshippers?  For an example of the long-term
>results of that tantrum, read Voltaire's "Candide".

     James 4:14 You do not what your life will be like tomorrow; Life is
     just a vapor that appears for just a moment, than vanishes away!"

     60,000 is nothing compared to the several million that were killed
     during the persecutions of Nero and his cohorts! They didn't
     complain and they had a choice. Jesus warned of the man who built
     up his barn to stock up his goods but forgot to provide for his
     eternal soul. I am sure that those who died from the earthquake
     who were truly children of God were not the slightest bit upset
     when they woke up in His wonderful presense!

>     
>    And then find an insurance policy and read the list of events that
>are considered to be "acts of God" - earthquake, flood, tornado, etc.

     Acts of God, but a result of man's rebellion.

>     
>    If god exists and did all the things he is credited with doing, then
>he is powerful, and sometimes he does good. But sometimes he is destructive
>to the point of evil, and certainly he is capricious.  My own opinion? -
>he may or may not exist, I have no proof, if he exists I much prefer to
>avoid his notice.
>     
     If the God of the Bible exists, I would truly want to belong to
     Him. For I have never seen such an act of love as that which He
     demonstrated.

     "Herein is God's love demonstrated; In that while we were yet sinners,
     Christ died for us!"   Romans 5:8


						Dan

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/02/85)

In article <397@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>     Can you imagine Moses' dismay if God would have told him to go to
>     Pharoah and demand the release of his people and Pharoah would have
>     told Moses to go fly a kite! God told Moses this so that Moses would
>     know that God was in control. So that Moses could be confident that
>     he wasn't out of his mind. That it was an omnipotent and omniscient
>     God who he was dealing with.

A god could just as easily have softened Pharoh's heart, and spared
everybody a whole lot of trouble.  That too would have impressed Moses.

>     The fact that God hardened Pharoah's heart doesn't release Pharoah
>     from responsibility for his own actions. This is an old theological
>     debate from way back. Can free will and God's sovereignty both exist
>     at the same time. The answer is YES!

Hardening Pharoh's heart is clearly a god manipulating a human contrary
to the human's will, however much you deny it.  Pharoh might well have
released them without that interference.

> >    Then, for variety, jump forward a few thousand years to Lisbon, Portugal
> >on Nov. 1, 1755. One of the more destructive earthquakes in European history
> >occurred in one of the most devoutly Christian cities of the time, on a
> >religious holiday when most of the population of the city was in the huge
> >stone cathedrals: 60,000 people were killed. What kind of god would knock
> >down his church onto his own worshippers?  For an example of the long-term
> >results of that tantrum, read Voltaire's "Candide".
> 
>      James 4:14 You do not what your life will be like tomorrow; Life is
>      just a vapor that appears for just a moment, than vanishes away!"

Only a dmager god would make lives so wretchedly evanescent.  So what if
the authors of the Bible noticed that life is brief?  Anybody can observe
that, the same way they can observe the sun rising.

>      60,000 is nothing compared to the several million that were killed
>      during the persecutions of Nero and his cohorts! They didn't
>      complain and they had a choice. Jesus warned of the man who built
>      up his barn to stock up his goods but forgot to provide for his
>      eternal soul. I am sure that those who died from the earthquake
>      who were truly children of God were not the slightest bit upset
>      when they woke up in His wonderful presense!

I'm sure you would be truly horrified to find out the truth of the
damager god, since you haven't the stomach for anything except for
your pollyanna fairy tales of a nice god.  I count numerous billion who
have suffered because of the damager god: the 60,000 and Nero's
"millions" can all be laid at the damager god's feet.

> >    And then find an insurance policy and read the list of events that
> >are considered to be "acts of God" - earthquake, flood, tornado, etc.
> 
>      Acts of God, but a result of man's rebellion.

The state is not wicked: you are wicked for opposing the state and
making the state punish you.  What a boot-licking, servile and
pathetic attitude.  The damager god says you deserve to be oppressed.

> >    If god exists and did all the things he is credited with doing, then
> >he is powerful, and sometimes he does good. But sometimes he is destructive
> >to the point of evil, and certainly he is capricious.  My own opinion? -
> >he may or may not exist, I have no proof, if he exists I much prefer to
> >avoid his notice.
> >     
>      If the God of the Bible exists, I would truly want to belong to
>      Him. For I have never seen such an act of love as that which He
>      demonstrated.
>
>      "Herein is God's love demonstrated; In that while we were yet sinners,
>      Christ died for us!"   Romans 5:8

Lots of people die much more real deaths than the putatively ressurected
JC did.  That "he did it for love" propaganda is merely a revisionist
fairy tale designed by the damager god's minions to enslave the weak
minded.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor) (09/03/85)

In article <397@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>In article <2137CJC@psuvm> CJC@psuvm.BITNET writes:
>>Before dismissing this idea, reread the biblical account of the plagues
>>in Egypt; my copy states repeatedly:
>>     
>>       "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not let them go."
>>     
>>  Why not? Read Exodus 10: v.1-2


Etc, etc, etc, etc.   Folks, this belongs in net.religion.*, NOT net.origins.
Keep an eye on the newgroups line when you post your articles.  It's hard
enough wading through all the bogus pseudo-scientific arguments presented
here without having to deal with purely religious tracts.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The best defense against logic is ignorance.
                     
    Steve Tynor
    Georgia Instutute of Technology

 ...{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs,
     ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp, rlgvax, sb1,
     uf-cgrl, unmvax, ut-sally}  !gatech!gitpyr!tynor

beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (09/04/85)

	     [Take me, but please, I beg you, spare the rest]

Well, I've been arguing the other side too long now, might as well switch
for a while.

From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich), Message-ID: <396@scgvaxd.UUCP>:
>  The Apostle Paul considered it an honor to suffer for Him. Paul said
>  it brought him closer to Christ when he suffered. Peter said much the
>  same thing.

I think Paul Zimmerman would agree with you that suffering brings you
closer to Christ, since he believes that (anti)Christ encourages suffering.

>  Millions have suffered and died for Him. Why?

Yeah.  Why?  Why would an omnipotent, loving God ask humans, his own
creation, to suffer and die for *anything*, let alone for his own
glory?  Do you have kids?  Would you ever even *consider* asking them
to be persecuted, tortured or killed just to glorify *you*?  Wouldn't
rather suffer the consequences of people disbelieving you than ask your
own children to be killed?  I would, and I think most parents would.
So why does God think it's better for Christians to be tortured and
killed than to renounce Christ for a coupla minutes?

>  Because they
>  had truly experienced His love, joy, and peace. These things are worth
>  giving up world possessions and even life. That is why James can say,
>  "Consider it all joy when you go through various trials!" These trials
>  and suffering can cause us to seek Gods love and comfort in such a way
>  that we never would have had our life been a bed of roses!

But if a loving, omnipotent God created us, why didn't he create us
such that we could experience his love and comfort all the time?  Isn't
that what most loving parents wish for their children - that they be
happy, loving people, and that they experience the absolute minimum
necessary tribulation?  Human parents aren't omnipotent, they have to
work within the current structure of the universe.  But the Creator is
supposed to be the Creator of *all*, even of the structure of the
universe.  So if he really was a loving God, why did even create the
possibility of pain and suffering?

>  I believe
>  David said, "It is good for me that I have been afflicted!"  Why? For
>  the reasons I just said. Paul said, "...that I might know the FELLOWSHIP
>  of His suffering."

Same question.  Why does it take suffering to know fellowship?

>  Have you suffered as much as God has, MR. Z? To leave His place in glory
>  and become human flesh only to be tortured, ridiculed, and killed by
>  His own children, can hardly be compared to the suffering most of us
>  have gone through. Yet there is another difference. We deserve it! He
>  didn't!

*Why* do we deserve it?  Because this loving, omnipotent God said so,
that's why.  We were disobedient, so he's going to make us *pay* for it.
When you're child disobeys, you might possibly spank her/him.  But you
don't put an eternal curse on him/her and all of her/his descendants,
such that whenever they give birth they go through pretty ultimate agony,
or such that they can no longer communicate with each other (Tower of
Babel) and end up loathing each other.  If you have limited powers, you
try to explain why their disobedience could hurt them and it's really in
their best interests to listen to you.  If you're omnipotent, why the
hell don't you just make it so they don't get hurt at all, and are still
functional, productive, loving, happy children?  If God's omnipotent and
created *everything*, then pain and suffering are part of the plan.

>  I bought my wife a little plaque about a year ago! I couldn't resist it
>  because it said these words which immediately struck my heart:
>
>  "I asked Jesus (God) how much He loved me; He said, 'This much!' Then He
>  streched out His hands and died!"

I trust you love your wife, and I trust she loves you.  Why would you
choose to die, to separate yourself from her and her from you?  Humans
are (have been created) weak - we have doubts sometimes, fears sometimes.
Why would you test her faith that you were not destroyed, knowing the
faith will slip sometimes, that sometimes she'll be afraid and unsure and
in pain because of your separation?  Why don't you just stay with her and
let both of you rejoice in your love for each other?

From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich), Message-ID: <397@scgvaxd.UUCP>:
>In article <2137CJC@psuvm> CJC@psuvm.BITNET writes:
>>Before dismissing this idea, reread the biblical account of the plagues
>>in Egypt; my copy states repeatedly:
>>     
>>       "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not let them go."
>>     
>>  Why not? Read Exodus 10: v.1-2
>>     
>>      "Then the Lord said to Moses "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened
>>   his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs
>>   of mine among you, and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and
>>   of your son's son how I have made sport of the Egyptians   ""
>
>    Can you imagine Moses' dismay if God would have told him to go to
>    Pharoah and demand the release of his people and Pharoah would have
>    told Moses to go fly a kite!

And could imagine Moses' delight if God had told him to go to Pharoah and
demand the release of his people and Pharoah would have said "Ok, sure."
Why fuss around?  God was obviously mucking around with Pharoah's heart
anyway, but he was hardening it!  Why not just soften his heart?  Because
that would mean he was interfering with Pharoah's free will?  Apparently
not:

>    The fact that God hardened Pharoah's heart doesn't release Pharoah
>    from responsibility for his own actions. This is an old theological
>    debate from way back. Can free will and God's sovereignty both exist
>    at the same time. The answer is YES!

So why not *soften* Pharoah's heart?

>>    Then read the Book of Job and consider the deaths of Job's seven sons
>>and three daughters and of his very many servants - struck down not for
>>any fault of their's, but merely for a petty show of power.
>
>    You haven't read the book of Job or you would understand the valuable
>    lesson that Job learned from all of it.

And what lesson would possibly be worth the lives of ten innocent
children and several other innocent people?  If an American citizen, who
has limited power to influence people, resorted to flat out murder of
her/his grandchildren just to teach his own child a lesson, s/he'd be
offerred the death sentence.  And ten-to-one YOU'D say it was the work of
the devil.  So why is it ok for any God, who has unlimited power to
teach, to do the same thing?  And why on earth (in heaven) is it ok for a
*loving* God to do it?  Murder of innocent people is murder of innocent
people, and there's no excuse for it.

>     I am sure that those who died from the earthquake
>     who were truly children of God were not the slightest bit upset
>     when they woke up in His wonderful presense!

Jim Jones thought that too.  Jim Jones was a crazed destructive lunatic.

>     If the God of the Bible exists, I would truly want to belong to
>     Him. For I have never seen such an act of love as that which He
>     demonstrated.
>
>     "Herein is God's love demonstrated; In that while we were yet sinners,
>     Christ died for us!"   Romans 5:8

There are a lot of parents who have died trying to save their children
from burning houses, burning cars, raging rivers, ....  There are any
number of people (firefighters, police officers and just regular folks)
who have lost their lives saving total strangers.  That's pretty darn
loving.  And I doubt seriously any of them have ever let their children
be killed just because their children were loyal to them, or destroyed
entire cities that didn't do what they wanted.  According to God's own
commandments, they've got a better track record than God does.  Do you
worship them?

There *are* some troubles believing in a loving, omnipotent God.

-- 

--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)

bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (09/05/85)

In article <cybvax0.720> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>
>>     The fact that God hardened Pharoah's heart doesn't release Pharoah
>>     from responsibility for his own actions. This is an old theological
>>     debate from way back. Can free will and God's sovereignty both exist
>>     at the same time. The answer is YES!
>
>Hardening Pharoh's heart is clearly a god manipulating a human contrary
>to the human's will, however much you deny it.  Pharoh might well have
>released them without that interference.
>

Incorrect.  The Bible teaches that the heart (i.e. will) of man is evil and
wicked.  Pharaoh, on his own, could have acted no other way.  The
unregenerate man (Pharaoh) can only act according to his nature, which 
Pharaoh did in this case.  What happened to Pharaoh happens to every 
person who rejects God and His offer of salvation.


-- 
Tom Albrecht 		Burroughs Corp.
			...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl

Communism is to government what astrology is to science.

ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (09/06/85)

[]
While perusing some newsgroups I have given up (and net.origins, alas, is
one) I came across the following thought:
> 
> Incorrect.  The Bible teaches that the heart (i.e. will) of man is evil and
> wicked.  Pharaoh, on his own, could have acted no other way.  The
> unregenerate man (Pharaoh) can only act according to his nature, which 
> Pharaoh did in this case.  What happened to Pharaoh happens to every 
> person who rejects God and His offer of salvation.
> 
It occurs to me that this is a falsifiable proposition.  If it is correct
then either I am religious or I will always act in an evil manner.  I
conclude that many (perhaps most) of the people I know who claim not to be
religious are lying.

> Communism is to government what astrology is to science.

Cute.  However I note that although I am a scientist (as are many of my
relatives) no astrologer has ever murdered any of my cousins.  Regrettably
the same is not true of communists.
-- 
"Support the revolution        Ethan Vishniac
 in Latin America...           {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
    Buy Cocaine"               ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
                               Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas

tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/13/85)

> > [Tom Albrecht- I think]
> > Communism is to government what astrology is to science.
-------
> [Ethan Vishniac]
> Cute.  However I note that although I am a scientist (as are many of my
> relatives) no astrologer has ever murdered any of my cousins.  Regrettably
> the same is not true of communists.
-------
Good point, Ethan.  How about:
"Communism is to government what religion is to science."
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (09/15/85)

>Good point, Ethan.  How about:
>"Communism is to government what religion is to science."

  The metaphor is all screwed up. More like:

    Communism is to government what Determinism is to science

-michael