pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (09/05/85)
Dan, I am glad that you have seen fit to respond to the evidence of the evil of God. Your response leaves a little to be desired, but I welcome the chance to discuss the nature of the Damager-God with you. You ask ``what happened to [me] to lead [me] to this conclusion.'' You assume that I must have once considered myself a Christian, but was hurt. In the true sense of believing in God, I was never a Christian, I never believed in God as you know it. As far as being hurt goes, of course I have been hurt. Anyone who has lived a full life has experienced hurt of some kind or other. The question is ``Why?'' Is it because of the random elements of chance that evolutionists attribute their theories to? Or is it because of the deliberate interference of a Damager-God? I also do not understand why you say I must be an ``evil madman'' to believe that an evil God in control. Isn't that what they call ``assuming your conclusion?'' Assuming that I must be evil because I believe in the existence of a heinous Damager-God? I don't believe that you are evil just because you believe the lies of an evil Damager-God. Why do you feel conversely about me? You say you ``know'' I could not possibly really believe my ``theory.'' I believe it because the evidence makes it clear that it is true. Why do you believe your ``theory?'' Since I was never ``trying to serve'' God, I am not trying to hurt Him back. I am trying to erode the base of sheepish whorshipful support for a pig monster who gains pleasure from our misery by letting people know what He is really like. I don't believe that He is as all powerful as you might believe (obviously He makes mistakes), and I believe someday He will be beaten. And I live in hope for that day. If I have ``hurt God,'' as you say, then I am extremely proud. I doubt that this has occured, because I am just one human being, and billions of people still offer the sheepish whorship He has sought by inducing the belief into our minds about how good He is despite His evil doings. You are as much a victim of this as the other billions, Dan. I feel truly sorry for you. If you feel you are suffering, it is because you have fallen for His lines and now sympathize with Him, despite what you know about His evil. If you feel as honored as Paul did to suffer, then you have fallen for God's biggest lie: ``Suffering for me is good.'' Why do you believe this? Dan, you give me words to consider. You say we all suffer pain and loss. We all yell and scream at God. You say you have felt worse after doing so. Well, if you didn't start from the assumption that God must be good, what conclusion might you draw from that? Perhaps, the conclusion that God punished you for questioning Him, and that He did so, not out of love or goodness, but out of vindictive evil. Why DON'T you reach that conclusion? Could it be because you have been brainwashed into believing otherwise? As I have said to others, don't waste prayers to the pig filth Damager-God, on me or on you. There is no love from Him waiting for anybody. Did He really ``become human flesh,'' or did He just select a man as His son and dupe him into suffering for Him, in His place, then duping the rest of mankind into believing it all? Why do you persistently believe in God's lies when you have already said that you know better, that you have questioned the goodness of God? Why the heck did you stop? Dan, let's assume for the moment a balance between your view and mine. Let's look at the difference between your view and mine. You believe that God exists and is good, I believe that God exists and is heinously evil. You believe I am thoroughly mistaken when I say that the Damager-God is a filthy disgusting monster, and I believe that you are equally mistaken in your beliefs. You have said that everyone suffers pain, and that I am wrong to attribute it to an evil God, that I should be attributing good things to Him. I have said that the good that happens in people's lives only occurs when we beat God, when we work at achieving things against His will, or when God uses intermittent reinforcement to seduce the minds of His whorshipers. I have also said that in contrast to the hard work we must go through to achieve the slightest good, evil seems to happen as if by itself, as if it had a will of its own! My question to you is, based on the evidence, which of us is doing the assuming, and which of us has reached a conclusion based on the facts? I welcome your joining this conversation and look forward to your reply. One thing I ask, Dan. I don't appreciate being referred to with contempt as ``Mr. Z.'' I'd appreciate being called by name, Mr. Zimmerman if you must or Paul if you like. I don't refer to you as ``Bosco,'' do I? Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
jay@well.UUCP (Jay Kinney) (09/13/85)
I don't know about anyone else, but I've been greatly enjoying this
Damager-God discussion and have found it quite stimulating. I don't
think that anyone has mentioned that Paul Zimmerman's concepts closely
match the ancient gnostic concept of God as a Demiurge who *thinks*
he is the Big Cheese, but is actually just a Creator-god somewhat down
on the Totem-pole. The gnostics posited an Unknown God far beyond the
realm of Good & Evil who oversaw the whole mess and to which one could
make contact--once one saw thru the Demiurge.
These ideas are also part of the later thinking of SF author
Philip K. Dick (see his novel VALIS, for instance).
If anyone is interested, the first issue of a new magazine called
GNOSIS: A Journal of the Western Inner Traditions is just now (finally)
coming out with the initial issue's theme on "Gnosticism--Ancient and
Modern". Material includes articles on gnostic cosmologies, plus
previously unpublished material from PKDick's journals.
Subscriptions are $15 for 4 issues (Single copies postpaid are $5 for #1)
Checks or Money-orders in U.S. funds to:
The Lumen Foundation
P.O. Box 14217,
San Francisco, CA 94114 USA
Please forgive the plug, but it seemed particularly germane to the
discussion...
Cheers, Jay Kinney
<ihnpr>!hplabs!well!jaybch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (09/14/85)
In article <184@well.UUCP> jay@well.UUCP (Jay Kinney) writes: > >I don't know about anyone else, but I've been greatly enjoying this >Damager-God discussion and have found it quite stimulating. I don't >think that anyone has mentioned that Paul Zimmerman's concepts closely >match the ancient gnostic concept of God as a Demiurge who *thinks* >he is the Big Cheese, but is actually just a Creator-god somewhat down >on the Totem-pole. The gnostics posited an Unknown God far beyond the >realm of Good & Evil who oversaw the whole mess and to which one could >make contact--once one saw thru the Demiurge. Oh boy, a chance for me to come out of my closet again! The big difference between the Demiurge and the Damager G-d is that the Demiurge isn't evil, just unaware that it's not at the top of the deific heap, so to speak. In some traditions he is called Samael, "The Blind G-d." Gnostics are not maltheists, in general, and we would reject Zimmerman's views. Gnostics do not believe that one can make contact with The Father. The Father is perfect and unreachable and exists as a principle, rather than as a thing, to us. One can, and should, touch the Sophia (Wisdom,) but that is not the same. Seeing through the Demiurge does not mean one sees the Father, merely that one percieves the universe in a different way. Thanks for the pointer to the journal, I had not heard of it. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch