lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (02/03/84)
[This critique only addresses Tim's followup and associated articles. If your site did not receive my critique of Tim's "Even If I DID Believe...", let me know by mail, so I can know whether to send copies or re-post it.] In case you didn't catch the logical inconsistency of Tim's essay, he made it more obvious in his followup of 10 Jan 84 (6543@unc.UUCP). In this critique, I will center on two things: nature of judgment and of a moral standard, in regards to being a god. The right and authority to judge are essential to being a god. The moment you begin to judge a god, you make yourself to be a god over it, denying that it is the god you said it is. Further, the moment you place a god under your judgment, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME of that judgment, you have made yourself higher than that god. Therefore, since worship goes up, worshipping a god you have judged (and thus is under you) is completely nonsensical. What is evidence of judgment? Placing any kind of standard on a god other than that god's own standard. Then the god of the standard thus placed becomes the higher god. So what does Tim say? "I will show that it is not just possible but absolutely necessary to judge any god." "...ordering the slaughter of innocents is a prima facie evil act -- you have to get your god outside the normal standards of good and evil if you are going to withstand this criticism." [I dealt with the idea of "innocents" in the original critique.] "...the person who is outside both [religions] must resolve these conflicting claims by means of some external standard." "What standard is available? The only one that comes to mind is the presence or lack of compassion in the god under investigation....This is due to my inherently compassionate internal moral code; compassion is my ideal of good. A being that fails to display compassion towards innocents is evil by my moral standard...." And the god of an "inherently compassionate >internal< moral code" is none other than the one they are internal to. Therefore [fanfare]: ALL BOW BEFORE THE HIGH AND MIGHTY <*TIM*>, PRINCE OF COMPASSION AND AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE FITNESS OF ALL WHO CAN BE WORSHIPPED :-) [I have tried to avoid sarcasm as much as possible, but it became necessary to answer a fool according to his folly.] Given Tim's statements, it does not surprise me that he would not want to worship the God of Israel as described in the Bible. But then, by the same standard, he could not worship ANY god, because he would have to submit to that god (if indeed Tim worshipped him), and give up any right to judge it. But Tim insists on judging gods, so that cannot happen. The only thing left is for Tim to worship himself. Yawn.... The other issue is a moral standard. More specifically, the question is "What is the authority behind a moral standard?" The answer, pure and simple, is the god of that standard. The basis for whatever you decide morality by is your god. By your decision of morality, you have essentially worshipped your god. Tim's articles usually contain one or more moral judgments: > "Omnipotence make the slaughter of the firstborn unneedful, and therefore morally unjustifiable." > "Yahweh struck down all the first-born in the land of Egypt [whose people had a god of the first-born] ... This is immorality, pure and simple." > "It doesn't seem to me that the offense of apostacy [sic] is deserving of the death penalty." but now he shows us the basis for those judgments: "...my inherently compassionate internal moral code..." If this sounds boring, welcome to the club. The only basis for Tim's morality is himself, and that is the one he worships. Tim is not alone in this. In regard to God punishing Adam's descendants for Adam's sin, Kenneth Almquist wrote: "There is simply on way I can accept God's action as moral." again begging the question of the standard behind the decision of morality. Again, by what standard can we judge God's morality and still have him be God? To repeat the beginning statement, the act of making the judgment, *whether the result is approval or not*, imposes a higher standard, and thus a higher god. Having better things to do than this, Larry Bickford, ihnp4!{sun,amd70,decwrl}!qubix!lab
kechkayl@ecn-ee.UUCP (02/05/84)
#R:qubix:-81100:ecn-ee:18600003:000:619 ecn-ee!kechkayl Feb 5 02:30:00 1984 Sorry, fool. According to your logic, if Hitler had conquered the world and had the power of life and death over everyone, we would not be able to call him a bloody handed murderer. Even so, I would shout that particular fact from the house tops. I don't care how powerful the bastard is, RIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (WheW!!!, Shouldn't get so hot!) Killing people, except in self defense, is WRONG. (EVIL!). Anyone who kills people for no reason other than a hurt ego is EVIL!!!!!!!! Sorry, but I feel no compunctions over judging God, since he can judge me! Thomas Ruschak ecn-ee!kechkayl
dap@ihopa.UUCP (afsd) (02/05/84)
In response to Larry Bickford's article in which he states that we cannot judge God because that would put us above God: Larry, I believe that Adolph Hitler is God. What I would like you to do is to show me that this isn't the case. By the way, please make sure that you do not judge Herr Hitler's actions by any moral standards since he IS the standard and to judge him would be putting yourself above him. That is, everything Hitler does is right BY DEFINITION and I can never accept that any of his actions are less than perfect so please don't use any such illogic in your proof. The point Tim Maroney was making was that without judging God, you have no argument at all to show that my supposition about Hitler is wrong. Or if you do, by all means, let's hear the proof, within the constraints outlined above. Darrell Plank BTL-IH ihopa!dap P.S. Hitler is not dead. He has just passed into his spiritual haven. Believe me Larry, he keeps his eye on everything you say and do, so all of you non-believers out there had better watch your step!!
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (02/06/84)
Larry gives new meaning to the word "circumlocution". (Actually, he gives the same old meaning to the word "circumlocution".) Larry talks about Tim placing himself in a position of judgmental authority, yet it is Larry who has all the answers about god. The right to be beyond human judgment is fundamental to being a god, according to Larry. (He knows this to be true; god has told him.) Well, that's one man's view of god (and possibly that of many others) but so what? I could just as easily say that that property is fundamental to being a United States President. Care to comment, Larry? Or would you go along with whatever any petty dictator tells you to do? (Never mind your devotion to other controlling forces...) You have defined god yourself (or subscribed to a definition) to suit your needs (apparently)---a god that is above the law because he is the law. Such thinking really smacks of fascism. Larry says: > Given Tim's statements, it does not surprise me that he would not want > to worship the God of Israel as described in the Bible. But then, by the > same standard, he could not worship ANY god, because he would have to > submit to that god (if indeed Tim worshipped him), and give up any right > to judge it. But Tim insists on judging gods, so that cannot happen. > The only thing left is for Tim to worship himself. Yawn.... Wrong again, Larry. Your one-track mind has again failed to let you see another (to me, more viable) option. Don't worship anything. Is that frightening to you? Do you need to have something to worship, regardless of any proof (or lack thereof) of its existence? You compare belief in a morality code (one either developed by human beings, as I contend, or one "granted" to us by god, as you contend) with worship of god. Belief in a positive idea is a good thing, but don't compare it with worshipping a deity. I don't worship my morality code. I live by it. God or no god. You say you are avoiding sarcasm, yet your whole tone is sarcastic throughout (at least when I'm sarcastic I start out that way and end up that way and don't make claims that I'm being otherwise). Tim's note may have been boring to you, but that's probably because you didn't hear a word he said. -- Pardon me for breathing... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
edhall@randvax.UUCP (02/07/84)
-------------------------------- Larry Bickford says: > The right and authority to judge are essential to being a god. The > moment you begin to judge a god, you make yourself to be a god over it, > denying that it is the god you said it is. Following that logic, I'd have to avoid judging anyone put in a position of authority over me. Lovely thought, isn't it, should that authority be a tyrant or a fool... Faith unquestioned is shallow faith indeed. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (02/07/84)
Rich Rosen writes: > Your ... mind has again failed to let you see > another (to me, more viable) option. Don't worship anything. Is that > frightening to you? Do you need to have something to worship, regardless > of any proof (or lack thereof) of its existence? You compare belief in a > morality code (one either developed by human beings, as I contend, or one > "granted" to us by god, as you contend) with worship of god. Belief in a > positive idea is a good thing, but don't compare it with worshipping a > deity. I don't worship my morality code. I live by it. God or no god. A book by a friend of mine named Doug Dickey (former campus minister at Purdue, now at Cal State Fullerton), entitled "What Else?", makes this point (I'm quoting the idea rather than the exact words; the book is not with me): People are incurably religious. The question is not *whether* people will worship, but rather *what* will be worshipped. By "religious", he of course did not mean that everyone likes the rituals of organized religion; rather, that everyone is looking for answers to life's deepest questions (why am I here? and the like), which the various belief systems offer answers for. The point is that there is probably SOMETHING in your life, Rich, which you, in some sense, worship. Another point Dickey made was that an idol (a false god) always looks like God in some way; a counterfeit is, by definition, an imitation of the original. The book then analyzed several belief systems, some fairly formal (e.g. humanism), some less formalized (e.g. materialism, hedonism). All of them, he showed, give you something to base your life on, to offer allegiance to, and indeed to worship. If you're really interested, you might check out your local Christian bookstore. If the book isn't in stock, it can (probably) be ordered from Standard Publishing. Another book which I think I may have recommended to you before is C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" (a good way for you to learn about the belief system you are attacking, so you don't flame out of ignorance). I suggest that you read it rather than ask me to digest it for you; Lewis's points, particularly his DEDUCTION (not blind assertion) that the code generally accepted as "moral" or "good" must have been created by some agency outside what we normally call "the world" or "reality", are much more cogent in the original than in my hazy memory. Also, the real point of Christianity is NOT belief in a positive idea, or even in a moral code. (I will grant that many who label themselves as Christians seem to think that it is; but I parted company with them some time ago.) The point is to be in right relationship to God, which will (eventually) result in your being in right relationship to yourself, to other people, and to the world at large. And it works! A great part of the psychological healing I have experienced in the last several years occurred in the "Intensive Prayer" ward, i.e. when I really opened up to God and He came in and changed me. Ask those who knew me several years ago to compare me then with me now. I'm much nicer to be around, much happier, much more confident, etc. This is not quantifiable PROOF that God exists or that He helps those who call on Him, but it's certainly EVIDENCE. One final point: All this only works when the Christian humbles himself, acknowledges that he's screwed up (in two senses: he's made mistakes, and he's in sub-optimal condition), admits that God knows the right thing to do much better than he does, and repents. Lest you be put off by that last churchy- sounding word, I will point out that it is a translation of the Greek word "metanoia", which means, approximately, "change the mind". God doesn't want to force anything on you. Rather, he wants to bring you to the point at which you discover for yourself that your existing choices are not the best thing for you or anyone else, so you change your mind because you WANT to change and be different. "He who exalts himself shall be humbled; but he who humbles himself shall be exalted." It's true. It has worked for me. -- Jeff Sargent/...pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
kechkayl@ecn-ee.UUCP (02/07/84)
#R:qubix:-81100:ecn-ee:18600004:000:175 ecn-ee!kechkayl Feb 6 13:49:00 1984 Whoops! Sorry, I meant to say "Might does not make right", not "Right does not make right". A freudian slip of the keyboard, Thomas Ruschak ecn-ee!kechkayl
kfk@ccieng2.UUCP (02/09/84)
I have this weird desire to stick my neck out today, but hopefully not too far. ---------- From ihopa!dap Sun Feb 5 14:36:14 Subject: Re: critiquing the (yawn) followups Larry, I believe that Adolph Hitler is God. What I would like you to do is to show me that this isn't the case. By the way, please make sure that you do not judge Herr Hitler's actions by any moral standards since he IS the standard and to judge him would be putting yourself above him. That is, everything Hitler does is right BY DEFINITION and I can never accept that any of his actions are less than perfect so please don't use any such illogic in your proof. ---------- Can I offer a counterexample? I would like to suggest that Adolph Hitler is not God, but I don't intend proving it by some moral standard. I would sug- gest that he is not God because Adolph Hitler is like any other man in very many ways. If he is like any other man, then he is (regrettably) a lot like me, and I *know* that I'm not any sort of God. Therefore, Adolph Hitler is not (was not) God. I think that is a reasonable sort of statement to make, since it avoids trying to pin some moral standard (over which we, as men, are never going to agree) on God. What I think my statement does is make Hitler guilty of non-Godly humanity by proof of human similarity. To pre-answer a couple of responses: Assertion: But since he is human, he is a god. (I *think* this would be Tim's statement.) Response: Umm...your opinion, which I don't have to accept, any more than you have to accept my assertion that humans are not gods. Neither is readily provable. Assertion: But you have used an external standard by which to make that choice. Response: I don't think so. I think I used a self-evident (to me) *internal* mechanism. Just a thought, seeing what might be generated. -- Karl Kleinpaste ...![ [seismo, allegra]!rochester!ritcv, rlgvax]!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk
bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (02/09/84)
I think this discussion has wavered from the point Tim was trying to make. As I read what Tim has to say, it seems the process of selecting a reli- gion/faith/god necessarily involves some evaluation of that religion/faith/ god. If not, then what is to prevent one from following Satan, Ubizmo, or Adolph Hitler. The process of judgement, or evaluation of you find that word too loaded, exists irrespective of the outcome. Larry Bickford's argument that to judge G-d asserts that one is above G-d is flawed in that, by this line of reasoning, Larry has judged G-d just as surely as has Tim. The difference is that the outcome of Larry's judgement was acceptance; the outcome of Tim's judgement was rejection. In both cases, however, the attributes, works and actions of the Deity in question were initially weighed with some probability of acceptance and some probability of rejection. There is, of course, a middle ground. Karl Kleinpastes counterargument seems to me to be peculiar in that it excludes the possibility that the deity in question may appear to be both a deity and human. Substitute the word Jesus for Adolph Hitler and the disctinction will become clear. -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill (decvax!mcnc!unc!bch)
speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (02/10/84)
Sorry, fool. According to your logic, if Hitler had conquered the world and had the power of life and death over everyone, we would not be able to call him a bloody handed murderer. So? Laura Crieghton is continuously calling the God of the Bible a bloody handed murderer and SHE hasen't disappeared from the net... Your logic is very lame and easily refutable. -- - Speaker speaker@umcp-cs speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay
kfk@ccieng2.UUCP (02/11/84)
---------- From unc!bch Thu Feb 9 01:08:08 1984 Subject: Re: critiquing the (yawn) followups Karl Kleinpastes counterargument seems to me to be peculiar in that it excludes the possibility that the deity in question may appear to be both a deity and human. Substitute the word Jesus for Adolph Hitler and the disctinction will become clear. ---------- Well, I thought about that one for a couple of minutes, and I tried it out. I even edited the original version of my article, substituting the names as sug- gested. I don't accept the argument as stated (or as it appears to be stated; I have long since given up the belief that I fully understand anyone in this newsgroup, including myself at times), because the major point about Jesus versus Adolph Hitler is that Jesus was (in much more important ways) NOT like any other man. He had the form of a man, yes; but he did not behave as a man would on very many occasions. I do not reject the idea of man and deity being one entirely; I just think that there has been only one extremely special case. As I look around me, I see no one who appears to me to be sufficient to be viewed as a God. Jesus, on the other hand, does appear to do that. -- Karl Kleinpaste ...![ [seismo, allegra]!rochester!ritcv, rlgvax]!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk
kechkayl@ecn-ee.UUCP (02/11/84)
#R:umcp-cs:-504200:ecn-ee:18600005:000:253 ecn-ee!kechkayl Feb 10 12:55:00 1984 The point is not that we would not be able to do it without dying, but by the logic presented, we would not be able to morally object to him, since he is all powerful, and 'we cannot comprehend his motives' Thomas Ruschak ecn-ee!kechkayl
bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (02/14/84)
I'm beginning to feel like I am in the middle of a pastiche story -- one of those stories where author A writes a couple of paragraphs, covers the first one and passes the manuscript to author B. Author B then writes a couple of paragraphs, covers all but the last paragraph and passes the manuscript on to author C etc. In order to put this all in perspective, I have tried to bring in the essential elements of this "discussion" from the beginning, with my own comments on Karl Kleinpaste's latest submission at the end. ---------- ihopa!dap : I believe that Adolph Hitler is God. What I would like you to do is to show me that this isn't the case. By the way, please make sure that you do not judge Herr Hitler's actions by any moral standards since he IS the standard and to judge him would be putting yourself above him. That is, everything Hitler does is right BY DEFINITION and I can never accept that any of his actions are less than perfect so please don't use any such illogic in your proof. ---------- Karl: Can I offer a counterexample? I would like to suggest that Adolph Hitler is not God, but I don't intend proving it by some moral standard. I would sug- gest that he is not God because Adolph Hitler is like any other man in very many ways. If he is like any other man, then he is (regrettably) a lot like me, and I *know* that I'm not any sort of God. Therefore, Adolph Hitler is not (was not) God. I think that is a reasonable sort of statement to make, since it avoids trying to pin some moral standard (over which we, as men, are never going to agree) on God. What I think my statement does is make Hitler guilty of non-Godly humanity by proof of human similarity. To pre-answer a couple of responses: Assertion: But since he is human, he is a god. (I *think* this would be Tim's statement.) Response: Umm...your opinion, which I don't have to accept, any more than you have to accept my assertion that humans are not gods. Neither is readily provable. Assertion: But you have used an external standard by which to make that choice. Response: I don't think so. I think I used a self-evident (to me) *internal* mechanism. Just a thought, seeing what might be generated. ----------- Byron: Karl Kleinpaste's counterargument seems to me to be peculiar in that it excludes the possibility that the deity in question may appear to be both a deity and human. Substitute the word Jesus for Adolph Hitler and the distinction will become clear. ----------- Karl: Well, I thought about that one for a couple of minutes, and I tried it out. I even edited the original version of my article, substituting the names as sug- gested. I don't accept the argument as stated (or as it appears to be stated; I have long since given up the belief that I fully understand anyone in this newsgroup, including myself at times), because the major point about Jesus versus Adolph Hitler is that Jesus was (in much more important ways) NOT like any other man. He had the form of a man, yes; but he did not behave as a man would on very many occasions. I do not reject the idea of man and deity being one entirely; I just think that there has been only one extremely special case. As I look around me, I see no one who appears to me to be sufficient to be viewed as a God. Jesus, on the other hand, does appear to do that. ---------- Byron: Karl, I thought the purpose of your counterexample was to disprove the asser- tion that Adolph Hitler was God by reason of human similarity and not by invoking any moral standard. It seems to me that when we exclude actions, attitudes or any other aspect of the personages being compared that might fall under evaluation by some moral standard, that we are left with two human beings who have considerable similarity to ourselves (two hands, two feet, bodily functions and needs, etc.) The areas at which they differ from the norm, and the consequent subjective evaluation of those areas, cannot be called into evidence by the criterion of your own argument! We are discussing disproving deityhood by similarity, not dissimilarity, to humans. [Note that this is a logical, not theological, argument. The original proposition was made for heuristic purposes and I had assumed that the fol- lowing argument was carried on in the same spirit. Then I, like Karl, often fail to understand many of the people in this newsgroup so there's no telling.] At any rate, if anybody has not edited Karl's original argument by now, sub- stituting the name 'Jesus' for 'Adolph Hitler' here it is: [The following by no means represents my own views but is offered only for comparison.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can I offer a counterexample? I would like to suggest that Jesus is not God, but I don't intend proving it by some moral standard. I would sug- gest that he is not God because Jesus is like any other man in very many ways. If he is like any other man, then he is (regrettably) a lot like me, and I *know* that I'm not any sort of God. Therefore, Jesus is not (was not) God. I think that is a reasonable sort of statement to make, since it avoids trying to pin some moral standard (over which we, as men, are never going to agree) on God. What I think my statement does is make Jesus guilty of non-Godly humanity by proof of human similarity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- My point was that if Karl's argument can be applied to Jesus as well as to Adolph Hitler with equal result then it fails to discriminate in a way which is useful for disproof of *any* individual as both deity and human. -- "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill (decvax!mcnc!unc!bch)
dap@ihopa.UUCP (afsd) (02/15/84)
Regarding the assertion that since Hitler is like other people in many ways, this could be argued against in many ways, but the point is, Hitler actually only ACTED human and refrained from using miracles for much the same reason that Christians claim that God doesn't perform miracles - he wanted us to love him of our own accord, not because we thought he could perform miracles. In point of fact, at least Hitler was consistent on this point rather than spurting out several miracles in a limited historical time and then holding back for a couple of thousand years. Darrell Plank BTL-IH ihnp4!ihopa!dap