pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (08/19/85)
This is a response to Rick Frey's article in which he finds fault with some of the conclusions I come to about the Damager-God. He seems to be saying that God does both good and evil, so why should He be labeled singularly evil. I would like to answer his points here. I don't understand why He should be given ``credit'' for things that happen as part of the natural course of nature. Clearly the destructive things that occurred, such as the flood, the demolition of Sodom and Gomorrah, and so on, were events that were deliberate and not part of a natural flow. Saving the Israelites in battles where they were outnumbered? The modern day Israelis achieved the same thing, through totally natural means like clever military strategy. Besides, I made reference to the way God engages in intermittent (but rare) reinforcement by ``answering prayers'' on rare occasions and by fabricating stories that get passed down as gospel truth. Testimonials to these are used to propagate the lies He has invented. You say ``people themselves seem to be on a course for self destruction,'' as if to absolve God of His responsibility for putting the obstacles in our way so as to lead us on that course. I was not saying that God ``created'' entropy; he has been shown not to have created anything. What I meant was that God is entropy. Whenever the stability of a system is deliberately damaged, or whenever an attempt by man to organize and form something is thwarted, you can bet it is the Damager-God's work. He surely didn't design people at all, Rick. It is only with His input and influence, through His entropic interference, that we decay. Your whole paragraph works from the assumption that God is good, which is obviously false. It is His being involved that ``screws things up'' all by itself. You say ``It's his world?'' Big deal! It's his world only by virtue of His power, certainly not by virtue of His worthiness for such a post. My first article explained why God at best was created along with the universe, which means His claim to the title of creator is a lie. You mention that ``He Himself went through the suffering,'' but this is also a lie. He sent His son to the dirty work, to suffer the pains of being human that He bestowed on us. This is typical of what we can expect from this God. The idea that a perfect benevolent God would deliberately create ``fallen'' humans in an imperfect (damaged) world sounds good. But it only holds water if you assume this God is perfect and benevolent, which we have little reason to do. Are we ``fallen,'' or were we pushed? You said that ``in this world'' perfection must be achieved through suffering. Of course, God made it that way. He damaged the natural course of events to impede the path to perfection for people. You can analyze that in terms of ``if God was good, what would be His motivation for doing this?'' But if God is not good, you don't have to do that at all. If God is evil, it's clear He did it out of malevolence. Perhaps He Himself was unable to achieve perfection (it's clear He is nowhere near perfect) and and thwarts us out of jealousy and revenge. You also say how much more rejoiceful it is if sinners are saved than if people are just always faithful. What you've done is to show that God simply likes to stack the deck in His favor, by forcing those circumstances in which that is more likely. Furthermore, there's very little good to be said about being faithful to such a God. When you say that my conclusions are similar to typical father/son relationships, you show that you've fallen for God's ``I am your loving father'' joke, hook, line and sinker. I think your making that comparison just epitomizes how some abused children still cling to and love their abusive parents. This is not an example of a child not liking the restrictions of his parents. This is an example of an abusive malevolent prankster being reviled by those He plays His pranks upon for His pleasure. > "For god so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." John 3:16 > "But God demonstrates His own love toward us in that while we were > yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:28 Remember that this is God's word, and as such we cannot trust it. Did He care about this son? Did He treat Him the way He treated His other ``children?'' You said that the Bible is a perfect circle, covering itself completely. Yes, it is a document written by God designed to give a false impression about Him, to convince people to glorify and whorship Him. Its content is deceptive and cannot be used directly to evaluate God. Only through knowledge about what God is really trying to say and do, the ``intent'' not the ``content'', can we begin to discover how evil He really is. I have to sit here puzzled by those who continue to believe in and whorship God in light of all of this. The Bible says ``There are none so blind as those who will not see.'' Why are these people ignoring the advice of their own Bible in this matter? I am surprised that someone like Dan Boscovich or Paul DuBois has not stepped forward to speak for their beliefs. They seem to me to be the type who will hold to their beliefs at all cost, even in the face of evidence against them of the type that I have presented. I am not surprised that people like them would cling to their beliefs about God no matter what. Maybe they would feel lost without them. But I'm a bit surprised that none of them has stepped forward to attempt a rebuttal of my evidence. Perhaps they fear an unequivocal loss in such a debate would damage their own belief system and force them to abandon it. In that case, I can see their reason for remaining silent. -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (08/26/85)
Hmm, I'm kind of stuck between seeing the sincerity of what you're saying but also seeing the immediate gainsaying of almost every point I made without any real support for what you've said. I believe that what you wrote was not a parody, but you accuse the believers in the 'good' God of not thinking and then you turn around and say the 'proof' is on your side and that I just haven't seen. Let me start with a reference you made to having proven that God was created (at best) in your first article. Your entire proof was that since you could ask the question who created God He must not have existed eternally and that someone had created Him. But that is absolutely no proof whatsoever. It's your opinion and it doesn't hold water at all. If you can imagine an infinite God, a deity as we normally think of them, there's little problem in imagining it having existed eternally. But even if you don't like that idea, you still haven't proven anything other than that you can ask a difficult question. A second point you seem to feel you can use authoritatively is that the Bible is a lie and that God is evil. You responded to a number of my arguments by simply discounting the Bible and saying that it was a collection of stories created to propagate these lies about God. But other than your 'observations' on the state of the world, where do you get your evidence from? This logical inference you seem to base so much weight on, that the world is in bad shape, God exists so therefor God is bad, does not stand as any type of 'proof' whatsoever and even as a logical deduction it leaves alot to be desired as do its corollaries as you have drawn them. Just to hit on a few side points, you say that God copped out on saving the world by sending His Son to come and die. That's a way of looking at it IF you ignore the Bible. The Bible says that Christ was God (sorry any of you out there who'll disagree with this) so God did come down and pay the price that He asked for from people. His Son was Himself. God in no way copped out. He suffered humiliation and all of the things you said He did, while being God. What you started off on Christ being the Antichrist?? That made very little sense. No where in the Bible does it say anything about Satan having control of the earth for a thousand years after Christ's return. It says that Satan will be bound, "And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan and bound him for a thousand years" (Rev 20:2) but no where does it say anything about Satan ruling for a thousand years. And the picture of the antichrist that Revelation paints (which you don't believe in) is nothing like what the Bible (which again you disbelieve so where are you getting this info on Christ being the antichrist?) says about Christ. Forgive the schizophrenia of that last sentance. Another thing you said that was unfounded was discounting my examples of God's miracles. When Sarah and Abraham had a child, the Bible records that Sarah was to old to have a child. You might still say that the Bible is God's method of bringing lies, but don't say that it was "part of the natural course of nature." Also, you said that the Jews were extraordinary fighters so that makes God's claim to saving them in battle void again. But neither the Jews nor the Bible supports your arguments. The Jews believed that God gave them victories in battle (so it's not simply a christian doctrine) and just look at some of the odds the Jews faced. In the story of Gideon, God supposedly has an army of 22,000 cut down to 300 and they have to face an army of 120,000 (Judges 7 and 8). If you want to argue that this is an example of God's intermittent reinforcement or just another one of His lies, ok, but don't account for it by Jewish military prowess. 300 against 120,000 doesn't work in any military strategy. In your response to Beth Christy you said that God has built into us a wish to see Him as a 'father-figure'. But if we evolved, how does God accomplish this building in process? And another question that's a little off in left field. If God was created and is evil, doesn't that necessitate another evil, damager God behind Him that created Him? And if that's the case, then who created the first, evil damager God? Or can damager Gods exist from eternity and just not good Gods? You make two points that apart are fine but when taken together ruin your whole argument. You say that God is this destructive force, always on the prowl for things to break or ruin and also that it's easy to point the figure and place the blame on something else. But don't you think that applies to some of the problems in the world today? Are you really going to say it was God's fault that Charles Manson murdered all those people or that whatever the guy's name was shot all those people in the McDonald's in San Ysidro? Is that God's doing or is that you're just passing the buck of human wrotteness (at least in these instances) to some 'evil God' such that people are no longer responsible for what they do? Why place ALL the evil on God? Natural disasters and the like I'll give you alot more credit that seeing God as kind and loving is a little more difficult, but saying that God "put's the obstacles in our way so as to lead us on that course" is a complete negation of human free will and responsibility. Are you saying that we really have no choice in the matter and that we're all puppets or can we respond to these 'obstacles' in different matters such that evil out of our own free will is what this evil, damager God wants? Wow, after rereading your last paragraph in your response to my first response to your first article (I hope that makes sense) the challenge you issued is blown out of proportion. You seem to feel you have offered conclusive 'evidence' that God is evil, that people are simply victims of this evil God, the Bible is a sham and all sorts of other things that you simply state and restate, but I'm somewhat confused as to which particular things you cling to as 'conclusive' evidence? As to why they (Paul Dubois or Don Boskovich) haven't stepped forward, I can offer one possible explanation. You simply discounted every argument I offered without offering any reasoning whatsoever other that your basic assumption which I'm challenging (I'm sure alot of people are nodding their heads that that's what alot of the Christian's posting on the net have done). I disagree that God is entropy and I still stick word for word to my original statement that without God's influence and support, this world and mankind will decay and that God (who did create the world and men) is not the destructive force but the force that wants to restate mankind to their original position of fellowship with God that they willingly broke. Rick Frey
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (08/29/85)
> As to why they (Paul Dubois >or Don Boskovich) haven't stepped forward, I can offer one possible Well, I see that my silence concerning Mr. Zimmerman's Evil-Damager-god theory has him in wonder. When I first read your article, Mr. Z, I felt it was pointless to respond. However, I did think that Rick Frey's response was quite good and said just about everything I would have wanted to say. But, I have changed my mind now and have decided to respond after all. What I am really interested in is what happened to you to bring you to this conclusion. It would appear that at one time you probably considered yourself a Christian, but was hurt by something or someone. More likely you were hurt several times. I know that you can not possibly really believe your theory without being some sort of monster. To believe that an evil God is in control of the universe, you would no doubt be an evil madman yourself. More likely you have been hurt and are trying to hurt back. You are trying to hurt God for letting such things happen to you when, after all, you were only trying to serve Him. Or, maybe someone very close to you was hurt! Something has hurt you and has caused you to be bitter towards God! And now it is your turn to do some hurting! Well, you have succeeded! You have surely hurt God by your description of Him. You have also hurt the rest of God's people. In first Corinthians chapter 12 it says how the body of Christ is like a human body. It has many members and when one member suffers the whole body suffers. If you are suffering, we are suffering with you. Please consider these words: We all suffer disapointments. We all suffer pain and loss in our lives. We all question God's wisdom and love at times. I have been so angry at God for "letting" certain things happen to me that I have questoned Him. I have yelled and screamed at Him. I have shaken my fist at Him. But when it was all over and I felt worse for my trouble, He was still there waiting for me to calm down and seek His wisdom and comfort. 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. Millions have suffered and died for Him. Why? 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! 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." 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! If you don't see Gods love being offered to you, I truly feel sorry for you and will remember you in my prayers. It is there waiting for you. Don't let your suffering and pain keep you from the only lasting cure for it. An evil-damager-god would have zapped you and me out a long time ago. A loving, gracious, and merciful God waits patiently for us to look up! 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!" Sincerely, Dan
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/01/85)
In article <396@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: > What I am really interested in is what happened to you to bring you > to this conclusion. It would appear that at one time you probably > considered yourself a Christian, but was hurt by something or someone. > More likely you were hurt several times. > > I know that you can not possibly really believe your theory without > being some sort of monster. To believe that an evil God is in control > of the universe, you would no doubt be an evil madman yourself. > > More likely you have been hurt and are trying to hurt back. You are > trying to hurt God for letting such things happen to you when, after > all, you were only trying to serve Him. Or, maybe someone very close > to you was hurt! Something has hurt you and has caused you to be bitter > towards God! And now it is your turn to do some hurting! What a pompous, insulting, and fallacious ad-hominem argument! (I'd compare it to something from 1984's Ministry of Love, except that coming from Dan it's [fortunately] laughable.) Let us consider an analogous situation to living in a maltheistic universe: living in Uganda under Idi Amin or Cambodia under Pol Pot. Obviously you wouldn't have to be personally hurt or be a monster to recognize the reality of their depravity. > Well, you have succeeded! You have surely hurt God by your description > of Him. You have also hurt the rest of God's people. In first Corinthians > chapter 12 it says how the body of Christ is like a human body. It has > many members and when one member suffers the whole body suffers. If you > are suffering, we are suffering with you. More Orwellian rhetoric. The next step is to "cure" him against his will of problems brought about by the maltheistic deity. Just as the Soviets "cure" dissadents in asylums.... > Please consider these words: > > We all suffer disapointments. We all suffer pain and loss in our lives. > We all question God's wisdom and love at times. I have been so angry > at God for "letting" certain things happen to me that I have questoned > Him. I have yelled and screamed at Him. I have shaken my fist at Him. > But when it was all over and I felt worse for my trouble, He was still > there waiting for me to calm down and seek His wisdom and comfort. You may yeall and scream at prison bars: when you stop they're still there. And you find that reassuring? > 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! What a twisted argument! What makes you think (assuming the idea that the bible is superficially true) that JC really hurt? He just as easily could have fooled us, with a fleshy automaton mistaken for a god, to load more guilt upon gullible fools who say things like "we deserve it!" > If you don't see Gods love being offered to you, I truly feel sorry for > you and will remember you in my prayers. It is there waiting for you. > Don't let your suffering and pain keep you from the only lasting cure > for it. An evil-damager-god would have zapped you and me out a long time > ago. A loving, gracious, and merciful God waits patiently for us to > look up! Your stubborn adherance to this mind-boggling inanity provides all the evidence I need to prefer the damager-god theory to yours. > 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!" Does this mean you want your wife to die? What sick and perverted symbolism. Next to Christianity, satanic rock and roll seems innocent. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (09/04/85)
While I disagree with both Boskovich and Zimmerman, Boskovich's message was an extremely low and disgusting one. The most insulting tactic you can use in argument is to disregard the content of what your opponent is saying and instead spend your time claiming that some psychological trauma caused your opponent's belief system. Once again Boskovich shows his true colors. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"