rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/18/84)
> The following is the posting reposted by Mr. Hoshen. I cannot let this go > unanswered even though I wasn't present at the time of the original posting. > This man has a very twisted view of the God that I love and I will not allow > him to curse and swear at my God without returning a fair defense. [NICHOLS] Ken Nichols (qantel!ken) spent over 600 lines describing why he feels Tim Maroney's view of god was twisted. Hopefully, my article pointing out where the twistedness really lies will be much shorter. The "God that Ken loves" is apparently just what he chooses to see it as, nothing more. These articles will analyze the presumptions Ken makes, and hopefully will show the fallacies in his line of thinking. (All CAPS for emphasis are mine and not Ken's, except as noted.) The defense was not "fair"; it was full of holes. I'd like to point out those holes. [I REALIZE THIS SERIES OF FIVE ARTICLES TOTALLING OVER 300 LINES IS LONG, SO IF YOU MUST EITHER SKIM OR SKIP THESE, PLEASE READ PART 5, CONTAINING CONCLUSIONS.] First, Ken consistently engages in drawing a picture of a god AS HE EXPECTS GOD TO BE. The question to ask is: is this based on the way a deity actually is, or is it ONLY Ken's expectations and desires? > If God is the creator of the universe, and of you and me, why wouldn't that > give Him the right to desire glorification. Since He is self-sufficient, he > needs no one to glorify Him. He gives us the privelage to add a very small > iota to His glory. Why should He even allow that (I don't know)? It just > gets me sooo irked to hear people condemn God because He doesn't follow what > humans consider moral standards. God makes all the standards, not man. On the contrary, it is "man" who has made a picture of god in "his" own image. If a human (as these people perceive humans to be, see below for Ken's view of human beings) were god, this is how it would act. This view of god having the "right" to desire glorification is clearly rooted in an anthropomorphic view of god, with the image of humans (anthropo-) tainted and marred by an almost psychotic self-hatred ("self-hatred" in terms of hating one's humanness). > No human or animal or plant or planet or star or sun or anything in this > universe has the "right" to exist and not be blown to atoms by the breath of > Almighty God. Not only did God create the universe, but He is sustaining it > with His power (it doesn't take much). He can chose to uncreate the universe > with one word if He so desires. We have no "rights" in the sight of a perfect > God. Every person has one right on this earth, the right to go to Hell. All > have sinned Romans 3:23 (not just the original sin of Adam and Eve, more on > that later). All deserve eternal punishment (I'm talking about myself here > to). Not a very high opinion of human beings there. It is apparent that the crux of this belief is the desire FOR THERE TO HAVE TO BE a god who fits the bill that Ken describes. Nothing more. "We have no rights in the sight of a perfect god." Whose idea was it to have a perfect god? Who says there is one? Some more of Ken's assumptions about the nature of humanity follow (CAPS mine): > Man DESERVES EVEN WORSE for his blatent hatred and rebellion against God. > > (in response to Tim's quoting of torture applied at God's whim) > Just getting our JUST DESERTS. > > You have a choice. You don't have to go to Hell. Although THIS IS WHAT ALL > MANKIND DESERVES, there exists a way of escape. > > Tim is lost here. God does have amazing infinite compassion and mercy. > Why look, he's letting your body live another second! That's MORE COMPASSION > AND MERCY THAN ANY OF US DESERVE. WE ALL DESERVE TO BE DAMNED RIGHT NOW! > Among the other ways He shows His mercy is allowing us to live on the earth, > > God is perfectly justified in having the Israelites wipe out the other races > in Canan, ALL MANKIND DESERVES ANIHILATION. I think the train of thought is clear. Humans are deserving of death and torture. Are the conclusions of someone who feels this way, who has these preconceptions about humankind, any more trustworthy than those of someone who feels that he (or humanity in general) is a god, making opposite but equally unwarranted presumptions? -- "Come with me now to that secret place where the eyes of man have never set foot." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/18/84)
Ken makes other assumptions about god, humanity, and the universe: > God is good. God is just. Man is sinfull. God is holy. Man deserves > death and punishment forever. God must give that punishment no matter how > good He is. See the balance? He has done alot to keep you out of Hell. I guess that sums up Ken's view: define a god the way you like it, define "man" (lowly humanity) in relation to god BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY *YOU* FEEL HUMANITY IS, AND BECAUSE YOU FEEL THAT SINCE HUMANITY IS SO HORRIBLE, THERE *MUST* (!!!!!) BE SOMETHING ULTIMATELY GOOD TO BALANCE. This is the crux of ALL religious belief: not necessarily the horrific self-mutilatory stance of Ken Nichols here, but the act of expecting/wanting for the universe to be a certain way, and then showing evidence (which you don't need to look at objectively---it's obvious) to "support" this. > The people Tim is refering to are people who cannot face the reality of a holy > God who must judge sin. Justice must be meted out to those who insist on > going there own way. Another assumption. "Justice MUST be meted out..." "a holy god who MUST judge sin" Where did these ideas come from? Do they have a basis in reality, or are they just what Ken (and others) would like to believe the universe to be like? I have heard this line of thinking before in this newsgroup: David Norris asked "If there is no god, what does that do to the concept of punishment/desert/justice?". (Implying that since these wouldn't exist in the absence of a deity, there therefore must be a god.) Jeff Sargent, in numerous articles, has asked why anyone would want to continue living if all there was was "this physical world". It might be nice to think that the universe is organized (and run) around justice and reward/punishment (afterlife?) and absolute definitions of good and evil. But is this the way things are, or IS IT JUST THE WAY YOU MIGHT LIKE THE UNIVERSE TO BE??? I would really like an answer to this question, as no one has ever come forth with one any time I have asked it. >> but you can't hold some starving infant in Namibia >>responsible for the actions of two long-dead people, any more than you can >>hold me responsible for the acts of Jack the Ripper. There just isn't >>sufficient connection to establish guilt. [TIM] > No, I can't. But God can and does, whether you choose to admit it or not!!! Yes *you* can. You *have* done so by defining a god who does, a god which is little more than your own projection of what you feel a god *should* be. > GOD CANNOT SIN, IT IS CONTRARY TO HIS NATURE, WHICH IS PERFECTION!!!! Define it that way, and thus it's so. -- Occam's Razor: I liked it so much, I bought the company! Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/18/84)
Ken also rationalizes away things that don't make sense in his world view by adding in other variables: man is evil because he is created in sin, and anything bad in the world is not god's fault, but rather Satan's fault. But these capricious additions to the picture still result in major contradictions within the belief system. > Until Tim understands the hatred of sin by God, he will never understand > these passages. When God looks upon a man, He wants to love him. But He > can't see beyond man's sin because of His holiness. (AN IMPERFECTION OF GOD?) > Sin has tainted this world that God created in perfection, and it will not > be restored until Christ comes back to reign. As Tim said, if god created a perfect universe, where did sin come from? Doesn't this imply that god is imperfect? Or is sin a part of god's plan, created by god because god deemed it necessary? If so, what is the "blame" borne by each human for god's having given him/her sin? The fact that there is simply NO cohesive logic in these notions makes it clear to me that they are rooted in what someone would WISH to believe, with feeble attempts to "rationalize" the holes in the notions. On the other hand, as Tim said, if the god you describe does exist, we have a pretty poorly run universe, run by a rather inept but despotic god. You might say "So what? He's god, he MUST be worshipped." People who think this way react very well to fascistic manipulation: "This is our leader. He is all powerful. Thus he should be obeyed." (In fact, religious thought is a form of fascistic manipulation! Actually that's historically inaccurate---religion and its ways of manipulating minds came *before* fascism arrived to make use of those same techniques.) As long as you ALREADY accept the "divine right of kings/despots/gods", then you'll be a good sheep. Thinking people can hopefully see beyond this. > Until then, the earth is under Satan's authority, and he can do with it as he > pleases (with God's permission). Another example of rationalizing to make things fit. God makes a perfect world. We've discussed why sin might exist as a part of god's plan, but wait, there are other things that have no bearing on sin that are simply horrible things that evolved as part of the natural process of the universe. How do we explain that in our god model? SIMPLE! It's Satan's fault. > I beleive that diseases were created when the earth was cursed because of > man's sin. Amazing how every evil thing comes back around to man's sin, isn't > it? Yes, isn't it? Says something about Ken's view of the universe. Is it based on reality, or simply on WHAT KEN WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE? Yet another example of rationalizing by adding arbitrary facets to the belief system. "Every evil thing comes back to man's sin". Because that capricious arbitrary addition makes it all clearer, it therefore is so. Having corresponded with Ken before, I have some idea how he might respond to the discovery of such logical contradictions and presuppositions in his belief system: I don't care if it's unsupported by logic, I don't care about logic, that's the way it really is! I would hope that Ken can explain his reasons for thinking that "that's the way it really is" beyond the presuppositions and contradictions. -- "If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy!" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/18/84)
> The people building the Tower of Babel were attempting to reach God, so as to > be like Him. He was crushing the pride they had in themselves and their > 'human acheivment'. This same pride exists today (the Olympics comes to > mind). God will not allow man to accend to His glory. Translation: many religionists do not like the results of much of what humanity has done, thus they "believe" that a god exists that will keep humanity's "evil cravings" (put there by god?) in check. But is that evil behavior based in part on the self-hatred, the humanity-hatred, and other irrational illogical self-debasing notions prevalent in Ken's mindset? > Tim missed the point of the verse he quoted. When a Christian does one of the > above things to another human, and we do it for His glory not ours, God says > it's just as if we did it to Him and that it is counted is worthy of praise. > When a non-Christian does own of the above things to another human, it > is either for their own glory, or maybe because they think it's the 'right' > thing to do. In either case, it means nothing to God, and you might as well > not have even done it. Doing 'right' things will NEVER SAVE YOU FROM THE > WRATH OF GOD. I'll agree with Ken here. If god does exist, whatever you do means nothing to god---whether you're good, bad, (?) or indifferent. Why would a being who sees all of our time and space at once care about the actions of a few insignificant (they don't think so) beings on an obscure planet? And if it did care, why would it behave in such a vindictive manner? Could it be because YOU wish it to be so? Does that it REALLY make it so? > WHY DO YOU EXPECT ALMIGHTY GOD TO LIVE UP TO YOUR PUNY STANDARDS OF MORALITY?? > DID YOU MAKE THE STANDARDS??? I don't think so! [CAPS are Ken's] No. The believers made them. I'm sure if god exists, he's sick and tired of being told by THEM to live up to THEIR expectations of what "he" should be. Just as sure as you are about the nature of something that, if it did exist, would be far beyond the anthropomorphic (based on *your* view of humanity) bombast you describe. -- "Come with me now to that secret place where the eyes of man have never set foot." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/18/84)
> The greatest evil in the world today is man's twisted perception of the way > God should act. I'll agree with that! Twisted perceptions involving a god who controls and metes out justice and sends anyone it dislikes to eternal damnation. Since I have no reason to believe that a god exists, I'd venture that I don't have any preconceptions as to how it "should" act. Mr. Nichols, on the other hand, is quite clear as to what his preconceptions are. > Do you give a child everything he wants because you love him? No, of course > not. You must love in wisdom, thinking of what's best for the child. Well, > God's love and mercy are the same as that. You may think you know what's best > for the world, just like the child who thinks he knows what's best for him. > I think in both cases the higher authority is most likely right. Some people simply presume the "higher authority" to be right simply because it is DEFINED as a higher authority. They often make good tools for manipulators of human thought. Others question 1) the basis of the decision of the authority, and 2) whether or not the authority exists. To Ken, it exists because it MUST, in order to emulate the parent-child model he describes for his image of god and human beings. > Please except God's offer of Jesus Christ as Savior while He still offers it > to you. Don't wait until you become bitter, and your heart is hardened like > Tim's. God loves you, and desires to commune with you. But he can only do > so if you confess your sin and relinquish your pride in yourself for the joy > of the Christian life. As long as we are proselytizing, let me say this: Please look at what religious believers, Christians and non-Christians alike, are saying. They take hopes and dreams and wishes of many human beings, hopes for justice, dreams of eternal life, wishes for someone to watch over them, and they first *assume* these hopes, dreams, and wishes to be reality, telling them that what they hope for does exist, with the more gullible among them more than ready to hear an "authority" claim that it is all as they hope, sans evidence. Then they further impose other preconceptions on top of these presumptions. Humans are low in the sight of god. God can blow you away in a microsecond, so you should be thankful you're still alive. God will offer you good only if you obey and worship his laws. What IS this image of god? Take the most horrible human beings in history (your pick), the ones that these people use AS THE BASIS for judging the human race, and seat an amalgamation of those human beings on the throne of god!!! A throne that is just as much wishful thinking as the desire for justice, and eternal life. A deity that is just a projection of what these people BELIEVE god MUST be like!! Once this rationalization and presupposition is complete, judge all the "evidence" that presents itself, USING THE AFOREMENTIONED PRESUPPOSITIONS AS GIVENS, AS AXIOMS. Put it all in a blender, and you've got a religion. Pure and simple. > P.S. Any and all responses welcome. Flame me if you like, but don't you dare > revile the God I love. What is being reviled are your preconceptions, your presumptions about how you expect god to be, your assumption that these presumptions and preconceptions are true simply because you believe them to be so, and your failure to answer questions about incredible contradictions and rationalizations in your essay. Tim Maroney and I disagreed on many things; he replaced god-directed religion with humanity-directed religion, while I chose to engage in neither (both of the two being based on opposing but equally unwarranted assumptions about humanity and the universe). But he hit it right on the head with his EVEN IF I DID BELIEVE essay, so much so that Yosi Hoshen saw fit to repost it again at this time. (Thank you.) In answering this essay in the past, many Christians have fallen into the same trap that Ken fell into: answering Tim's "attack on god". Tim *didn't* attack god. Neither did I. We examined the god described by Christendom based on the only source: the books written about that god. Moreover, since we never have seen a reason to believe that this god exists (based on the lack of hard evidence found in those books), what we are "attacking" is the belief system that has led YOU to believe (we think unjustifiably) in the existence of this god, by pointing out the contradictions, the arbitrary tenets that seem thrown in to cover up inconsistencies in the system, the presumptive nature of believing in a god AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE IT TO EXIST, etc. I do hope to hear answers to the questions/points raised here, explaining why you (collective generic you, not just Ken) feel they are either incorrect or irrelevant (with some explanation of why this is so). -- "Come with me now to that secret place where the eyes of man have never set foot." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi [dcs]) (10/19/84)
You say that Ken Nichols assumes a god that he wishes existed, and then performs whatever mental gymnastics it takes to continue believing in this god. I seriously doubt that this is a god that Ken actually *wants*, and I have a different theory about the motivation for the efforts Ken must make to keep believing. At some point, Ken has been told that the all-powerful god (who can blow us all away with a shrug) will damn anybody to eternal torment who does not accept Jesus Christ as his saviour. Possibly his parents told him at a very early age. Young children don't usually question what their parents say. Once somebody accepts such a belief, it is next to impossible to convince him otherwise, since *belief* is *required* to avoid doing eternity in Hell. Ken Nichols is absolutely certain of his beliefs, because he is *scared* to doubt. David Canzi, watdcsu!dmcanzi