pez@unirot.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman ) (08/15/86)
I think it is best to answer Bob Bales' latest set of assertions about the Bible on a point by point basis. > >Such as when He flooded the entire world because He felt like it. > > Just because He "felt like it?" No: "And God saw that the wickedness of man > was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his > heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5) God is a God of justice. And > when evil became so great that only Noah and his family were righteous, that > evil, in the name of justice, had to be punished. You are answering my questions circularly. I say that God does not act out of any sense of justice, and that this is clear from the Bible. You seem to think you can ``prove'' that HE does act out of a sense of justice by just saying that He does. In most courts that I am familiar with, an assertion by the ``prosecutor'' that the defendant is ``wicked'' is not enough to convict. What proof do we have that man was ``evil'' and ``wicked?'' God has this childish tendency to call everything involving dissocation from Him to be ``evil.'' It is my contention that He simply did this again here. People failed to accede to His wishes, so He unleashed a flood. Just because He felt like it. Certainly no one forced Him to do this. > > Such as when He playfully toyed with Abraham and watched him squirm as he > > was about to actually sacrifice his son to Him. > > I believe that this incident is often misunderstood. The test of Abraham's > faith was not primarily the test that Paul seems to be objecting to: a trial > of whether or not Abraham loved God enough (or was sufficiently obedient) to > give Him a human sacrifice. It's odd that later on you condemn whole races of people for doing exactly what God almost insisted that Abraham do. I keep hearing those who believe in the benevolent God claiming that ``you're misunderstanding this.'' It seems to me that the people they accuse of misunderstanding things have it right on the money, but their perfectly reasonable conclusions clash with the ``benevolent God'' premise that THEY (the believers) hold. Bob talks about how, during the writing of the New Testament, they snuck some additional commentary in there to proclaim that ``well, this incident wasn't as bad as it seems, God showed Abraham proof of His power to resurrect.'' This rewriting of history out of the pages of 1984 is unfortunately typical of Christian writing. > (If God were truely > evil, why would he have stopped the sacrifice?) Perhaps He had gotten enough amusement out of watching a puppet obeying blindly. Also, it seems He wanted to record an air of difference about HIM over the other gods, HE didn't allow human sacrifice. This would be used to justify slaughter of people later on. > > Such as when He created discord at the Tower of Babel to deliberately > > prevent people from working together to seek knowledge. (Of course, it was > > knowledge about Him, and thus very dangerous to His power over us.) > > The purpose of the confusion of tongues seems to be to cause the people to > move out and settle the earth, as was necessary for the human race to survive, > instead of remaining in one place. Of course, it's very easy to make excuses for God, claiming the ``real reasons'' for His engaging in evil after the fact. Bob, why did it happen right then, at that time? There certainly is significance to the fact that He deliberately fostered divisions among people to thwart them from working together (and He still does so!). Your explanation is just a poor rationalization made up after the fact to preserve the ``good God'' belief. > Paul likes to picture God as setting up petty rules and then striking with > overwhelming force when they are violated. But that is not the case. God does > not punish because he is piqued. You can say this till you are blue in the face, Bob, it does not change what happened in the Bible, the Bible that you supposedly believe. > So, in this case, did God destroy the Canaanites because "they interfered with > his divine plan?" No. The record shows that this was just punishment. Being on the land He had decided to give to other people is something worthy of punishment? Even our government offers recompense when utilizing ``eminent domain.'' And it usually (at least nowadays, native Americans unfortunately excepted) doesn't slaughter the people on the land in question. What were these people punished for? > the Canaanites are an example that God's punishments are based on "man's > inhumanity to man." Leviticus 18 contains a number of prohibitions against > sexual and other perversions, including adultery, incest, and human sacrifice. > (The last were sacrifices to the god Molech. Smith's Bible Dictionary says > "Human sacrifices (infants) were offered up to this idol, the victims being > slowly burnt to death in the arms of the idol, which were of metal, hollow, > and could be heated on the inside.") You quote a list of things that God simply says ``don't do,'' but you don't say why it is ``wrong'' other than that God says it is. Then you add in ``human sacrifice.'' This sounds a lot like the disinformation campaigns that Christians mount towards non-Christian religions such as wiccans, satanists, and pagans. Of course, they also mounted this same campaign against the Jews, accusing them of murdering Christian children for their Passover dinners. ``Kill them, they're heathens, they do horrible things to children and animals, and what's more they don't believe in the true God!'' Sound familiar? Where did we learn this behavior from? Where else? From God! > Paul has asked (I am paraphrasing here) "Who is God to punish us?" And "Why > not be concerned with one's relationship to man instead of to God?" Well, > first of all, as Creator of the universe, God has an inherent right to set > the laws for His creation and to punish violations of those laws. Does this apparently fully believed ``axiom'' really hold true? Do our parents, as our ``creators,'' have the right to impose their will on our lives for all eternity? Doubtless one return argument will be ``but in God's eyes we ARE children, and like a good parent He is taking care of us.'' The evidence shows that He is more like an abusive parent than a good one, and that He seeks to rein us in no matter how far out of the nest we wander. Like some overly possessive parent, He forces us to abide by His rules, using guilt, false promises, and ultimately violence, to get His way. Who is this most childish entity in the universe to call us ``children?'' > look at the description of the behavior of the people of Sodom to see some of > the native practices. The question is, do such acts deserve punishment? The only reason you've offered for answering this question in the affirmative is ``because God says so.'' > > Such as the ``testing'' (taunting) of Job for His own ego gratification, > > murdering innocent people in the process. > > Except that God didn't bring the calamities upon Job and his family. Satan > did. Briefly, the scene is this: God points out to Satan that at least one > righteous man, Job, exists. Santan says, "Yes, he serves You, but only because > You are good to him -- not because You are God. If you stop protecting him, > and let me harm him, he will stop serving you." And God allowed Satan to > bring things upon Job to determine on what Job's faith was based. But Satan > was the instigator and the doer of the evil. And God cared not whether one of His creations was being tortured by this ``other'' entity? This is the compassion of God? USING a person to win a ``bet'' with Satan? The lesson we learn from Job is that we are insignificant in the eyes of God, we exist only to serve His purposes. If He ``needs'' a person to serve as an ``example'' for you, to provide a message or warning, God will interfere with that person's life to make it so. Believers often forget that this person chosen as an example might be them, or their loved ones? Doesn't that bother them? They don't seem to indicate that it does. Certainly I have explained why I believe Satan to be just a pseudonym for God, one that He uses to cast off blame for evil acts away from Himself. Whether or not this is true, it is clear that God, in letting ``Satan'' do this, proves His evil intent. > When all of the Bible record of these incidents is read, it becomes clear that > this record does not indicate that God does or did evil. How so? All you have offered is contorted rationalizations that serve as poor justifications for God's act that damage people's lives. What seems clear to me is that there is no other reasonable explanation for much of God's behavior other than that He is malicious and evil. Do you have a better explanation, one that doesn't work circularly from the ``good God'' premise to prove itself as a conclusion? -- Be well, Paul Zimmerman topaz!unirot!pez
kaufman@nike.uucp (Bill Kaufman) (08/15/86)
In article <461@tekfdi.UUCP> bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales) writes: >>Such as when He flooded the entire world because He felt like it. > >Just because He "felt like it?" No: "And God saw that the wickedness of man >was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his >heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5) God is a God of justice. And What's your definition of "wickedness," please? I think there are several things tha have to be defined before we can start on this (and, no, I haven't been reading net.religion; there probably IS one there). The only definition inherent in the Book is, "disobeyance of The Big One"; nothing else. >> Such as when He playfully toyed with Abraham and watched him squirm as he >> was about to actually sacrifice his son to Him. (Wellll, ...nasty, yes, but Evil?) >> Such as when He created discord at the Tower of Babel to deliberately >> prevent people from working together to seek knowledge. (Of course, it was >> knowledge about Him, and thus very dangerous to His power over us.) > >The purpose of the confusion of tongues seems to be to cause the people to >move out and settle the earth, as was necessary for the human race to survive, >instead of remaining in one place. There is no indication that evil of any >kind was involved. Certainly, there is no support to paint the incident, as >Paul did in another posting, as a "race war." Sure, He moves in mysterious ways, but couldn't He have used a more direct method (plague, famine, drought in all inhabited areas, perhaps)? This one act has been the source of nearly EVERY unnatural, intentional death since. Now you know who to blame. >> Such as the ``testing'' (taunting) of Job for His own ego gratification, >> murdering innocent people in the process. > >Except that God didn't bring the calamities upon Job and his family. Satan >did. Briefly, the scene is this: God points out to Satan that at least one >righteous man, Job, exists. Santan says, "Yes, he serves You, but only because >You are good to him -- not because You are God. If you stop protecting him, >and let me harm him, he will stop serving you." And God allowed Satan to >bring things upon Job to determine on what Job's faith was based. But Satan >was the instigator and the doer of the evil. The Big One not only ALLOWED Satan to shpx Job (i.e., dropped his "protection") but, by bringing his name up in the first place, practically SIGNS Job's DEATH CERTIFICATE! (A hyperbole; no flames, please.) >> You asked for examples of God's evil. I hope this suffices for now. > >When all of the Bible record of these incidents is read, it becomes clear that >this record does not indicate that God does or did evil. > > Bob Bales > Tektronix You're definition of "evil" seems to be, "That which does not conform to G*d's views." By this definition, G*d can NEVER be "evil". While this is a very functional definition, this is patently NOT the definition the first poster used. Oh, an addendum: In one section (Old Testament; unsure of which book), one of His prophets is insulted by a bunch of street punks. G*d's response? The kids were ripped to shreds by (a pack of wolves/bears ?). -Annoyingly, Bilbo. ___________________________________________________________________________ / DISCLAIMER: If I had an opinion, do you think I'd let my employers know? \ |E-MAIL: kaufman@orion.arpa or kaufman@orion.arc.nasa.gov | |FLAMES: There are no flames. Re-check your opinions. |QUOTE: "I'M NOT ON DRUGS! I WAS JUST THINKING! MOM, JUST GET ME A PEPSI, | | OK?" -Suicidal Tendencies, "Institutionalized" | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ken@hcrvax.UUCP (09/05/86)
In article <1003@unirot.UUCP> pez@unirot.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman ) writes: >The lesson we learn from Job is that we are insignificant >in the eyes of God, we exist only to serve His purposes. If He ``needs'' a >person to serve as an ``example'' for you, to provide a message or warning, God >will interfere with that person's life to make it so. In a word: "Yeah! Why not?" I should admit, I am not a fundamentalist Christian, but my understanding of their viewpoint suggests that that would be just fine. After all, if not for God you wouldn't have these riches in the first place. *Moreover*, and this is the most important point, suffering to serve God is the best fate you could ask for yourself! What is brief earthly suffering against a lifetime of bliss in heaven? Also, perhaps God said it best when he spoke to Job and said: Where were you when I make the great whale? When I created the world and breathed life into man, and bowled two 300 point games in a row, what were you up to? I don't recall seeing you around when I was taming chaos, pallywal! Basically, we are not in a position to criticize. Having spouted all this, I might as well admit that I'm not a Christian of any sort. But even so I find this viewpoint fairly amenable to my way of thinking. While I may wail and bemoan my fate at every chance, I still don't think "Boy are you ever a rotten Tao to be giving me this boil on my bum!" Who the hell am I to say that? Do I know how the higher purpose is served by my life or death? Nope, I just muddle along doing the best I can, and leave the higher justice of it to them as understands such things! Cheers, Ken -- - Ken Scott [decvax,inhn4]!utzoo!hcr!ken "You say I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes."
bobb@tekfdi.UUCP (Robert Bales) (09/15/86)
There are two issues involved in the discussion of whether the Bible shows God to be good or evil: 1). What does the Bible say? 2). Is the Bible true? Much of the discussion of these issues is combined; however, I'll separate them, as much as possible. This posting discusses the first of these. Paul Zimmerman originally claimed that the Bible record of specific incidents (the flood, the sacrifice of Isaac, the trials of Job, and the destruction of the Caananites) showed God to be evil. When I pointed out that the Bible says, for example, that those destroyed in the flood were altogether evil, Paul (and others) responded that the latter statement was simply God's weak excuse to cover His evil act. This gets into the area of #2. With regards to #1, it is totally irrelevant. The Bible says the flood was justified punishment. If you believe that God is good, the Bible says the flood was justified punishment. If you believe that God is evil, the Bible still says the flood was justified punishment. (At least, neither Paul nor anyone else claimed that the Bible did not say this. They simply want to discount the statement.) You may not believe it, but neither you belief nor even whether the statement is true or false has any bearing on what the statement is. Thus, while we may discuss whether or not God is evil, the statement that the Bible says He is evil is provably (and proven) false. Paul would discard parts of the Bible record. In another posting, he says: > If we are to accept the Bible for what it really says, and not just for > what God says it says, we can come to no other conclusion than that God > exists and is evil. In my posting on the subject, I quoted the Bible, chapter and verse. I don't see how you can get any closer to "what it really says" than that! The point is "what God says it says" in in the Bible, and hence is also "what it really says." And even if the two really were different, there would have to be some basis for distinguishing the two. Paul gives NO OTHER basis than the ASSUMPTION that God is evil and His words cannot be trusted. This analysis of the Bible is highly circular: it produces as a conclusion what it has assumed as a premise. (Paul also says my arguments are circular. However, my argument here does not assume God is benevolent. It assumes only that the words of the Bible reresent what the Bible says.) To sum up, I said: >> When all of the Bible record of these incidents is read, it becomes clear >> that this record does not indicate that God does or did evil. To which Paul responded: > How so? All you have offered is contorted rationalizations that serve as > poor justifications for God's act that damage people's lives. How so? I think Paul's postings best answer this question. The face that, in each of the specific cases we discussed, Paul questions and discounts large portions of the Bible record is the best proof that "ALL of the Bible record" does not support his position. If the Bible supported his position, he would not say that God is rationalizing and lying in it. Instead, he would insist that it was true and would not change a word of it. As far as whether or not what the Bible says is "contorted rationalizations," that pertains to what I have called area #2 and is part of another discussion. Bob Bales, Tektronix
pez@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Paul Zimmerman) (10/13/86)
In article <2499@hcrvax.UUCP>, ken@hcrvax.UUCP (ken scott, [decvax,ihnp4]!utzoo!hcr!ken) writes: >>The lesson we learn from Job is that we are insignificant >>in the eyes of God, we exist only to serve His purposes. If He ``needs'' a >>person to serve as an ``example'' for you, to provide a message or warning, God >>will interfere with that person's life to make it so. > > In a word: "Yeah! Why not?" > > I should admit, I am not a fundamentalist Christian, but my understanding > of their viewpoint suggests that that would be just fine. After all, if > not for God you wouldn't have these riches in the first place. *Moreover*, > and this is the most important point, suffering to serve God is the best > fate you could ask for yourself! What is brief earthly suffering against > a lifetime of bliss in heaven? Well, there are certainly a lot of assumptions and examples of ethical inconsistencies in that excerpt, but Ken is certainly not unique in offering them. People who would make excuses for God often do this very thing. They would forcefit a view of the world in which He is depicted as good for no reason other than their desire to see the world that way (a desire instilled by God, of course, for His own purposes). Ken, let's say you heard someone defending abusive parents using these very same words, words such as ``Why shouldn't a parent have an absolute right to do what he wishes to a child? Suffering to serve and obey a parent is the best fate a child could ask for! It's a great learning experience for the child! Without the parents, the child wouldn't be alive in the first place, so the parents have a RIGHT to do what they wish with the child.'' Would you agree with this inane assessment of the role of parents? If not (and I would suspect you wouldn't if you are a reasonable person), then how can you claim that it is legitimate to use these arguments (as you have done) in defense of the cruelty and maliciousness of God? (Please don't use the circular argument ``but you CAN'T judge God that way because He's God.'' Hearing that reasoning makes me physically ill, as I find it extremely disturbing to find that educated adults can use such a poor excuse for thinking. If you wish to use such an argument, please explain WHY God's being God is sufficient grounds for claiming that He can't be judged. And try to do so without going back to the "but He created us" argument which I'm sure you'll agree certainly isn't reason enough for this.) Furthermore, if you would condemn those who raise children according to the above beliefs, you must doubly condemn God, because His abilities allow Him to do so much more that He simply does not do because He doesn't feel like it. Parents cannot control every variable in a child's life, for we are simply not powerful enough to exercise that sort of control. God is, and His refusal to do what is in His power to do proves that His intent must be evil. After all, if it is to be considered wrong for us to commit the ``sin of omission,'' to fail to do good where good could have been done, then God should certainly be subject to that rule himself. Certainly some people take this to extremes when seeking to punish those who do not adhere to their laws (e.g., the Salem witch trials). And of course, they feel justified in behaving this way because God Himself does so! Is it any wonder all the violence that comes out of whorshiping God? (Unfortunately, many people DO raise children in exactly the way I just described, having learned from God and religion what a ``parent'' is supposed to be like.) > Having spouted all this, I might as well admit that I'm not a Christian > of any sort. But even so I find this viewpoint fairly amenable to > my way of thinking. While I may wail and bemoan my fate at every chance, > I still don't think "Boy are you ever a rotten Tao to be giving me this > boil on my bum!" Who the hell am I to say that? Do I know how the > higher purpose is served by my life or death? Nope, I just muddle along > doing the best I can, and leave the higher justice of it to them as > understands such things! Ken, do you feel this way about government? Do you feel that ``those in charge'' are better qualified to decide your fate for you? Do you just forget about voicing your opinions on matters of concern to you, leaving the decisions to those who CLAIM that they are ``better equipped'' to make such decisions? The same rules apply to dealing with God. Those who have been duped by God into such a passive existence, believing Him to be qualified to run things (what tests has He taken that show His ability to do this?), need to reflect a bit on how we should really deal with God, how much more He should be allowed to get away with. Alas, it is likely that they will not. The mesmerizing indoctrinational propaganda leading to a belief in God as benevolent parent often blocks the thinking and analyzing process in the human minds that it effects, most specifically when it comes to recognizing how that process has been tampered with by God and His cronies. ``Who the hell are you to demand fair treatment from the God who supposedly controls our lives?'' you ask? You are a person, a living organism with a rational mind and the capability of doing so, of recognizing the fallacies in God's contortive lying and false promises. --- Be well, Paul Zimmerman (pez@mit-eddie.UUCP, pez@unirot.UUCP)