pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (09/11/85)
Keywords: Evil, free will Summary: Free will negates evil God argument Jon, Why do you say ``uh oh?'' You speak of ``our two Gods,'' but let me assure you they are one and the same. I'm not sure what your point is. You accurately describe God's evil actions regarding Lot's wife, Sodom and Gomorrah, the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, and the slaughter of the native Caananites. But then you go off on an obscure tangent. You ask about soothing voices from within us, our civilized behavior, and charity, and you assume all this comes from God? Jon, all this is what is within us naturally as human beings! Certainly none of us needs to be attributed to what we know to be a hideous Damager-God. You say that ``if [I] posit such a creature [as the Damager-God] then it is responsible for our existence.'' How can you claim this? Yes, Jon, perhaps God does not destroy us simply to assure a continual supply of victims. Why do you discard that idea as impossible? It is extremely likely. You ask ``when has evil maintained such a prolonged burst of energy.'' The very simple answer: since God came into existence. Is that so difficult to fathom? The things you claim are not ``actual precepts of the New Testament'' or ``perversions of what Jesus said'' (including anti-semitism, holy war, intolerance) are certainly what the real will and desire of God really is. God wants to see His ``word'' spread in order to promote hatred and violence and death, things God loves. Remember what the Bible says about whose realm the Earth would be in the millenium after the death of Jesus. Satan. (Really an alias of God's that He uses when being visibly evil.) And what religion has had virtual control of the Earth (through conquest, crusade, and colonialism) during that time? Christianity. Isn't it clear that the Christian religion as taught by God is the tool of evil? The ``joy'' or ``good'' you speak of is an illusion foisted upon us by God. A perfect example is ``Suffering for God is a good pleasurable thing.'' You talk about your own ``arguments with Christianity.'' You mention disagreements with people like Falwell, and your ``problems'' with the Catholic Church, past and present. Can't you see that God is purposely ENCOURAGING these divisions, writing a Bible designed to be misinterpreted in numerous ways, specifically to foster divisiveness and hatred among Christian groups. It is sad that in you He seems to have succeeded. I'm sorry that these conclusions are hard for you to take. I hope you take the time to give them the consideration they deserve. If evil to you is ``not having the opportunity to exercise [your] free will,'' then you have found the source of evil in God. God squelches and interferes with what little freedom you have, and at the same time creates the illusion of free will which fosters guilt for the evil or self-damaging actions that God makes you do. It is a pity that, in your own words, you cannot view God in any other way than good. Because it you could, your life would be the richer for it. You say you have proven God's goodness logically, but when you work from axioms that associate God with things you feel are good, your logic is flawed. You compare God with what you describe as a good parent. It would seem, however, that God is much more accurately depicted as an abusive parent, and God whorshipers as abused children who still cling to their hopes and wishes that our parent is good and loving despite the abuse. Yes, Jon, you have given me an insight into your faith. I hope I have been able to show where it is unfounded. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
scs@wucs.UUCP (Steve Swope) (09/15/85)
In article <343@pyuxn.UUCP>, pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes: > > ... But then you go off on an obscure tangent. You ask about soothing > voices from within us, our civilized behavior, and charity, and you assume > all this comes from God? Jon, all this is what is within us naturally as > human beings! Certainly none of us needs to be attributed to what we know ^^ ^^^^ No. what *you claim*. > to be a hideous Damager-God. You say that ``if [I] posit such a creature > [as the Damager-God] then it is responsible for our existence.'' How can > you claim this? If you claim that a damager-god created us to suffer (for its enjoyment), you imply that whatever is within us was created by it as well. If you claim that it did not create us, but merely tortures us, you ignore the possibility of there being another power, one that is good and creative by nature (as opposed to evil and destructive). And if such a power exists, it will of necessity be at odds with the destroyer. It seems more likely that the damager-god is an alias used by Satan than that Satan is an alias used by the damager-god. Steve Swope (aka scs@wucs.UUCP) "Brigadier, A straight line may be the shortest path between two points, but it is by no means the most interesting!"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/16/85)
> In article <343@pyuxn.UUCP>, pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes: >> ... But then you go off on an obscure tangent. You ask about soothing >> voices from within us, our civilized behavior, and charity, and you assume >> all this comes from God? Jon, all this is what is within us naturally as >> human beings! Certainly none of us needs to be attributed to what we know > ^^ ^^^^ > No. what *you claim*. [STEVE SWOPE] > >> to be a hideous Damager-God. You say that ``if [I] posit such a creature >> [as the Damager-God] then it is responsible for our existence.'' How can >> you claim this? > > If you claim that a damager-god created us to suffer (for its enjoyment), you > imply that whatever is within us was created by it as well. Paul, to my knowledge, has persistently claimed just the opposite. Why are you bothering to speculate that this might have bearing on what he has said? > If you claim that it did not create us, but merely tortures us, you ignore the > possibility of there being another power, one that is good and creative by > nature (as opposed to evil and destructive). And if such a power exists, it > will of necessity be at odds with the destroyer. It seems more likely that > the damager-god is an alias used by Satan than that Satan is an alias used by > the damager-god. Why does it seem "more likely"? Don't you mean "equally likely"? If not, why not? Paul's story seems just as plausible as yours. Maybe more so. Unless, of course, you work from certain assumptions. It seems that Paul does. It seems that you do as well, at least as much so as Paul. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
scs@wucs.UUCP (Steve Swope) (09/18/85)
In article <1711@pyuxd.UUCP>, rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> >> If you claim that a damager-god created us to suffer (for its enjoyment), you >> imply that whatever is within us was created by it as well. > > Paul, to my knowledge, has persistently claimed just the opposite. Why are you > bothering to speculate that this might have bearing on what he has said? > I did this partially because I'm not sure exactly what Paul claims in this respect (I'm a relative newcomer to the discussion), but primarily to present counter-arguments to both cases. It was my intention to show that either view of a damager-god was invalid (these cases are the only two; it either created us or did not). If both views are shown to be invalid, the entire concept must be regarded as invalid. >> If you claim that it did not create us, but merely tortures us, you ignore the >> possibility of there being another power, one that is good and creative by >> nature (as opposed to evil and destructive). And if such a power exists, it >> will of necessity be at odds with the destroyer. It seems more likely that >> the damager-god is an alias used by Satan than that Satan is an alias used by >> the damager-god. > > Why does it seem "more likely"? Don't you mean "equally likely"? If not, > why not? It is more likely because of the existence of the greater power (see my original argument). The damager-god alias would be used by Satan to slander this higher power, which Christians refer to as God. Attributing evil to God advances Satan's goals in that it gives a false image of God's nature. If there were only a damager-god, the taking of an alias would seem irrelevant. Steve Swope (aka scs@wucs.UUCP) "Brigadier, A straight line may be the shortest path between two points, but it is by no means the most interesting!"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/18/85)
>>>If you claim that it didn't create us but merely tortures us, you ignore the >>>possibility of there being another power, one that is good and creative by >>>nature (as opposed to evil and destructive). And if such a power exists, it >>>will of necessity be at odds with the destroyer. It seems more likely that >>>the damager-god is an alias used by Satan than that Satan is an alias used by >>>the damager-god. [SWOPE] >>Why does it seem "more likely"? Don't you mean "equally likely"? If not, >>why not? [ROSEN] > It is more likely because of the existence of the greater power (see my > original argument). The damager-god alias would be used by Satan to slander > this higher power, which Christians refer to as God. Attributing evil to > God advances Satan's goals in that it gives a false image of God's nature. > If there were only a damager-god, the taking of an alias would seem > irrelevant. [SWOPE] That makes no sense at all. It assumes that this "greater power" must be good, if indeed a greater power exists. It is at least equally likely (perhaps more likely) that Paul's scenario is correct, since you presume much more than he does. Besides, if there is this greater power that IS good, why is the lesser evil power still around? Any explanations you might give for that (and a few have been postulated---to keep us honest, to give free will, to let us learn in life, ad somniem...) would be at least as presumptive as Paul's explanations, if not more so. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr