pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (08/16/85)
There are alot of people on this net who talk alot about God. Then there are alot of people who yell at them and tell them that they're making a bunch of ``wifhful thinking'' assumptions, which prompts them to yell back and say that they're not, and so on, and so on. What people like Mr. Hubeynz and Mr. Rosen and their colleagues fail to realize is that the predominating evidence shows that there most certainly is a God. What people like Mr. Boscovich and Mr. Wingate and their colleagues fail to realize is that the evidence indicates that this God is an asshole. Allow me to explain. Let's think about the origin of the universe and where God fits in. If you think of God as the creator of the universe in some space-timeframe outside our own, then you're left with the open question of who created God and His space-timeframe, and so on, and so on. So the best we can do is have God created along with the whole universe. Thus His claim to the title ``creator of the universe'' is most likely a sham. Think about it. In fact, the claim that He created anything at all is a sham. Heavenly bodies, life, mankind, all evolved out of the natural forces of the universe. But what are the great things that God has taken credit for since this creation? Throwing people out of the Garden of Eden and hiding it forever from mankind. A great flood that destroyed virtually all life on Earth. The violent destruction of two cities. The murder of every firstborn Egyptian son. The obliteration of the native inhabitants of Caanan. In other words, all destructive forces. This God is not a creator in any sense of the word. Instead, He is a destroyer, a damager who rips through the world of nature to wreak His havoc of destruction. Think about this for a minute. Scientists do a fairly good job of explaining the scientific laws that govern our universe, but when it comes to certain deteriorating destructive forces, they just throw up their hands and say, ``Well, that's ENTROPY.'' Well, what is this entropy if not the will of an evil Damager-God vindictively engaging in destruction at every turn? Ever hear the maxim ``It's so much easier to destroy something than to construct something?'' Ever wonder why that was? In a world of supposedly equal and unbiased physical forces, why is destruction so much easier than creation? Scientists will say ``that's entropy,'' but isn't that just begging the question by giving the phenomenon a name? I see this as unequivocal evidence of the existence of an evil Damager-God. I see this as especially applicable to our lives as human beings. This Damager-God sees us as playthings to toy with and mutilate for pleasure. Take a look at the way wars wind up being fought for the stupidest of reasons. It's as if someone deliberately made some stupid destructive mistake just to provoke a war, despite the best efforts of human beings to avoid it. Take a look at our own daily lives. No matter how much we prepare or take precautions against something, it (or something else we ``forgot'') occurs. I put the word forgot in quotes with good reason. Ever prepare really hard for an event, laying out everything to be done, only to forget something anyway? How could that happen? Could it be that the Damager-God damaged your mind to make you forget, just to cause you trouble and provide Him with a good laugh? When I first read Tim Maroney's ``Even If I Believed in Your God'' essay a few years ago, I recognized some really good points there. Since that time, I've come to recognize a lot more. His writing exposed the nature of the Biblical God by dissecting the Bible itself. What I realized later was that Tim had reached the wrong conclusion. Tim thought ``This picture of God is so full of contradiction and lies that it cannot be true.'' I thought ``This picture of God is so full of contradiction and lies that it could only be the product of a God as evil as the one it depicts.'' Look at how the Damager-God teaches you with His books that all He does is good. In infesting your minds with the desire to believe in a good, loving father figure, He offers you Himself as that image. When you see his destructiveness and damaging and still believe and pray to Him, He gets the last laugh again. He has you in the most bent over position you could possibly dream up. You want Him to be your loving father. You still believe that He is even when He unleashes His destructiveness. And what's more, you accept that destructiveness as ``good'' just because He was the one who did it. He's trapped you, to use Rich Rosen's language, in your own wishful thinking. Like Pavlov training his dog through intermittent reinforcement, he answers the prayers of some of his followers, just enough to keep the rest of them praying, tongues hanging out, tails wagging. He's trained you to want to believe in Him as the loving father, and He uses that against you to keep you believing. What does all this mean? It means that life is basically a war with God. God kills us all in the end. (``Entropy'' causes our bodies to wither away and die.) But He has His share of fun stringing out our lives, toying with us, delighting in our suffering, and then claiming ``That's not me, that's the evil Satan.'' (Actually they're one and the same.) Which gets the faithful back to their assigned task of praying and paying homage to Him, and associating any possible reprieve of pleasure that may present itself in this life with that evil Satan. To top it all off, He gives you the illusion of self and free will to make you feel responsible for all that He does to you. What more perfect system of tyranny could possibly be envisioned? I wonder why I capitalize words like God and He and His when referring to this monster. Just a bad habit, I guess. I wish there were letters smaller than lower case with which to begin His name. Unfortunately, my ``religion'' as it were (call it ``maltheism'' if you like) offers little hope, little advice as to what we can do in the face of a hideous evil monster Damager-God. He has even built into us a revulsion to suicide that prevents us from taking our own lives, ending our misery and His opportunities to abuse us. The best we can hope to do is fight Him at every turn, gain some happiness against His will, grapple with Him for it every chance we get, and spit in His face as we do it. Perhaps someday science will discover a way to shred the fabric of space-time and destroy His entropic evil. But who can we pray to in hopes that they will? -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
clark@grdian.DEC (Dave Clark, 283-6322) (08/21/85)
Paul - if your description of God is correct, then He isn't very efficient in His purpose. The world should be a much more terrible place in which to live than it is, shouldn't it? Plus, most of the "evil" you have described as having been perpetrated by your God has actually been committed by mankind. Wait a minute, you said something about there being no free will ... that must mean that God has used men to destroy other men, correct? They didn't actually choose to do it. Well, Paul, did you choose to write your article? Why has He allowed YOU to reveal His true nature to us? Actually, your theory of the nature of God is no better an explanation than any other I've heard .... Paul, even though you may have been hurt by people in your lifetime, you don't need to concoct an anti-theory to validate your feelings. It's all one big cry for help, isn't it? You talk about a "built-in revulsion for suicide," but I believe that if you continue in your line of thinking, you will eventually find the idea of suicide not so revolting after all, and it will be entirely of your own doing. Of course, it's possible that the sole purpose of your articles was to point out the hypocracy and absurdity of the Christian God, but you claim that there was no satire involved. Could you tell me why you choose to believe in a malevolent deity rather than no deity at all? "What lies behind us and what lies before us Dave Clark are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
CJC@psuvm.BITNET (08/24/85)
Before dismissing this idea, reread the biblical account of the plagues
in Egypt; my copy states repeatedly:
"But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not let them go."
Why not? Read Exodus 10: v.1-2
"Then the Lord said to Moses "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened
his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs
of mine among you, and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and
of your son's son how I have made sport of the Egyptians ""
The later, most destructive plagues were not necessary to provide for the
release of the Israelites, but rather a show of the destructive power of
the Lord.
Then read the Book of Job and consider the deaths of Job's seven sons
and three daughters and of his very many servants - struck down not for
any fault of their's, but merely for a petty show of power.
Then, for variety, jump forward a few thousand years to Lisbon, Portugal
on Nov. 1, 1755. One of the more destructive earthquakes in European history
occurred in one of the most devoutly Christian cities of the time, on a
religious holiday when most of the population of the city was in the huge
stone cathedrals: 60,000 people were killed. What kind of god would knock
down his church onto his own worshippers? For an example of the long-term
results of that tantrum, read Voltaire's "Candide".
And then find an insurance policy and read the list of events that
are considered to be "acts of God" - earthquake, flood, tornado, etc.
If god exists and did all the things he is credited with doing, then
he is powerful, and sometimes he does good. But sometimes he is destructive
to the point of evil, and certainly he is capricious. My own opinion? -
he may or may not exist, I have no proof, if he exists I much prefer to
avoid his notice.
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (08/26/85)
Dave Clark's followup article to mine contained a number of fallacies which I would like to address here. He said that based on my view of God, this Damager-God isn't very efficient at what He does. Well, Dave, I never said that He was. An earlier article stated that this God was at best created along with the universe, so He is not the perfect all-powerful ``creator'' He is imagined to be. He has obviously failed at His task of complete enslavement. But, we may well ask, would such complete enslavement serve His purpose? Maybe He needs to have some apparent freedom that He doesn't tamper with, so as to make His torture more complete. By doing this, He gains even more control. Notice the ranting and raving of people like Ken Ardnt and Steve Dyer about my article. The contempt for a position that they seem too afraid to confront. Such ranting and raving serves a purpose for this God. It reassures Him (it is apparent that He is rather insecure, judging from His commandment ``Thou shalt have no other Gods before me'') of His control to see that His sheep (such as Ardnt) laugh off the evidence so wholeheartedly. It seems that this is the reason He allows people like me to learn this and even to talk about it openly. He is seeking reassurance that His power is still strong. Dave also said that ``most of the evil perpetrated by God was actually committed by mankind.'' I beg to differ. Did mankind destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? Did mankind flood the Earth destroying almost all life on it? Did mankind invent racial hatred (or was it infused into us at the Tower of Babel)? Before Babel we were all working together on a great project, unimpeded by God's whimsical interference. And God saw that this was bad. People working together in harmony might learn too many things about the universe, they might learn about God. So He chose to put a stop to it by infusing us with different languages and instilling race hatred among what became ``different'' peoples. What did we do to merit such heinous acts being done to us? Disobeying God? Is that all it takes? Who is He to mete out ``punishment'' for ``transgressions'' when it is He who is evil? Is it any wonder people like Don Black today are talking about how horrible ``one-worldism'' is, and spreading newer and better race hatred? Black is an agent of God, a whorshiper of the pig monster in the sky, and he is doing His bidding by spreading hatred and lies. God feeds on the insecurities of such people, who need to blame other people for their problems (when they should be blaming Him). He points them in the right direction and sets them off spreading hate. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that this is man's doing. Don Black is a servant of God. God is most definitely on His side. That is why we will see a horrible bloodbath (as predicted by God?) in the coming years. In addition, Dave assumes that I ``may have been hurt by people in [my] lifetime,'' and that this is the basis for my theory. Sorry to disillusion you, Dave, but I was not hurt by people, I was hurt by God. I came to realize that the events that happened to me and to others that damaged and harmed us were solely the doing of the Damager-God. Even things done by people were certainly not their fault, but the fault of the evil God. I blame no person for what happens, for this is clearly out of our hands. I am not ``cry[ing] for help,'' because no human (and certainly no deity) can help us out of this state. I also think your remarks on suicide are about as offbase as humanly possible. I have to wonder where such ideas would come from. Do you subconsciously wish that someone with my knowledge might really want to die? I don't, you know. I know it's going to happen someday, but I will seek happiness in all humanely possible ways in this life, while I can, despite the efforts of God. Do you hope that I am somehow ``disturbed'' just because I hold these views that you don't like? The only thing I am disturbed about is the way people so willingly accept the lies of God. Finally, Dave speculates that my purpose might have been to ridicule the Christian God. That is most certainly a part of my purpose. Again, unlike Tim Maroney, who saw hypocrisy and inconsistency in the Bible and concluded that this God could not be real, I saw the same things and concluded that this God is real and that He is a pig, out to deceive and enslave us all. I think the hypocrisy points to a liar telling the story rather than the story simply being inconsistent and therefore wrong. We must look beyond the inconsistencies and look for motivation. Assuming God wrote this book with inconsistencies intact, what was His purpose? He tells us He is good while telling us about His evil actions. Is this for the purpose of making us ``learn'' that when He does bad, it is good? What lessons are we to learn from this? Dave claims that my theory is no better than any other explanation he's heard. I claim that the evidence is far better on my side than on the God whorshiping side. Perhaps an analysis of what my beliefs and pro-God religious beliefs have in common (along with where we differ) is in order. A future article will be devoted to this. -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (08/29/85)
Without commenting on the merit or lack thereof of Paul Zimmerman's belief system, I would like to point out that he is misrepresenting my position in the essay "Even If I Did Believe". I did not therein conclude that the God described does not exist, and I do not know where Mr. Zimmerman got the idea that I had. The thesis of the essay was that =if= the God described by fundamentalists exists, it would not be deserving of worship. The essay did not deal at all with the issue of existence or non-existence of this God, only with the appropriateness of worshipping such an entity. In fact, I do not believe in such a being, because a simple application of skeptical thought to the issue makes it clear that such an extraordinary claim as the existence of an omnipotent, sentient, universe-creating entity requires extraordinary proof. But this was not touched upon in "Even If I Did Believe", in which the question was explicitly left open. I'd also like to add that the willingness of many posters to believe what they want to believe regardless of evidence and experience is amazing. I am referring not to Paul, but to such loony tunes as Arndt and Dyer. Wishful thinking reigns, and these people seem to think it is some kind of virtue. -=- 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!"
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (08/29/85)
In article <2137CJC@psuvm> CJC@psuvm.BITNET writes: >Before dismissing this idea, reread the biblical account of the plagues >in Egypt; my copy states repeatedly: > > "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not let them go." > > Why not? Read Exodus 10: v.1-2 > > "Then the Lord said to Moses "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened > his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs > of mine among you, and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and > of your son's son how I have made sport of the Egyptians "" Can you imagine Moses' dismay if God would have told him to go to Pharoah and demand the release of his people and Pharoah would have told Moses to go fly a kite! God told Moses this so that Moses would know that God was in control. So that Moses could be confident that he wasn't out of his mind. That it was an omnipotent and omniscient God who he was dealing with. The fact that God hardened Pharoah's heart doesn't release Pharoah from responsibility for his own actions. This is an old theological debate from way back. Can free will and God's sovereignty both exist at the same time. The answer is YES! > The later, most destructive plagues were not necessary to provide for the >release of the Israelites, but rather a show of the destructive power of >the Lord. Wrong! It took right up to the last plague to cause Pharoah to let them go. Than, he changed his mind again and went after them! > > Then read the Book of Job and consider the deaths of Job's seven sons >and three daughters and of his very many servants - struck down not for >any fault of their's, but merely for a petty show of power. You haven't read the book of Job or you would understand the valuable lesson that Job learned from all of it. > > Then, for variety, jump forward a few thousand years to Lisbon, Portugal >on Nov. 1, 1755. One of the more destructive earthquakes in European history >occurred in one of the most devoutly Christian cities of the time, on a >religious holiday when most of the population of the city was in the huge >stone cathedrals: 60,000 people were killed. What kind of god would knock >down his church onto his own worshippers? For an example of the long-term >results of that tantrum, read Voltaire's "Candide". James 4:14 You do not what your life will be like tomorrow; Life is just a vapor that appears for just a moment, than vanishes away!" 60,000 is nothing compared to the several million that were killed during the persecutions of Nero and his cohorts! They didn't complain and they had a choice. Jesus warned of the man who built up his barn to stock up his goods but forgot to provide for his eternal soul. I am sure that those who died from the earthquake who were truly children of God were not the slightest bit upset when they woke up in His wonderful presense! > > And then find an insurance policy and read the list of events that >are considered to be "acts of God" - earthquake, flood, tornado, etc. Acts of God, but a result of man's rebellion. > > If god exists and did all the things he is credited with doing, then >he is powerful, and sometimes he does good. But sometimes he is destructive >to the point of evil, and certainly he is capricious. My own opinion? - >he may or may not exist, I have no proof, if he exists I much prefer to >avoid his notice. > If the God of the Bible exists, I would truly want to belong to Him. For I have never seen such an act of love as that which He demonstrated. "Herein is God's love demonstrated; In that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us!" Romans 5:8 Dan
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/02/85)
In article <397@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > Can you imagine Moses' dismay if God would have told him to go to > Pharoah and demand the release of his people and Pharoah would have > told Moses to go fly a kite! God told Moses this so that Moses would > know that God was in control. So that Moses could be confident that > he wasn't out of his mind. That it was an omnipotent and omniscient > God who he was dealing with. A god could just as easily have softened Pharoh's heart, and spared everybody a whole lot of trouble. That too would have impressed Moses. > The fact that God hardened Pharoah's heart doesn't release Pharoah > from responsibility for his own actions. This is an old theological > debate from way back. Can free will and God's sovereignty both exist > at the same time. The answer is YES! Hardening Pharoh's heart is clearly a god manipulating a human contrary to the human's will, however much you deny it. Pharoh might well have released them without that interference. > > Then, for variety, jump forward a few thousand years to Lisbon, Portugal > >on Nov. 1, 1755. One of the more destructive earthquakes in European history > >occurred in one of the most devoutly Christian cities of the time, on a > >religious holiday when most of the population of the city was in the huge > >stone cathedrals: 60,000 people were killed. What kind of god would knock > >down his church onto his own worshippers? For an example of the long-term > >results of that tantrum, read Voltaire's "Candide". > > James 4:14 You do not what your life will be like tomorrow; Life is > just a vapor that appears for just a moment, than vanishes away!" Only a dmager god would make lives so wretchedly evanescent. So what if the authors of the Bible noticed that life is brief? Anybody can observe that, the same way they can observe the sun rising. > 60,000 is nothing compared to the several million that were killed > during the persecutions of Nero and his cohorts! They didn't > complain and they had a choice. Jesus warned of the man who built > up his barn to stock up his goods but forgot to provide for his > eternal soul. I am sure that those who died from the earthquake > who were truly children of God were not the slightest bit upset > when they woke up in His wonderful presense! I'm sure you would be truly horrified to find out the truth of the damager god, since you haven't the stomach for anything except for your pollyanna fairy tales of a nice god. I count numerous billion who have suffered because of the damager god: the 60,000 and Nero's "millions" can all be laid at the damager god's feet. > > And then find an insurance policy and read the list of events that > >are considered to be "acts of God" - earthquake, flood, tornado, etc. > > Acts of God, but a result of man's rebellion. The state is not wicked: you are wicked for opposing the state and making the state punish you. What a boot-licking, servile and pathetic attitude. The damager god says you deserve to be oppressed. > > If god exists and did all the things he is credited with doing, then > >he is powerful, and sometimes he does good. But sometimes he is destructive > >to the point of evil, and certainly he is capricious. My own opinion? - > >he may or may not exist, I have no proof, if he exists I much prefer to > >avoid his notice. > > > If the God of the Bible exists, I would truly want to belong to > Him. For I have never seen such an act of love as that which He > demonstrated. > > "Herein is God's love demonstrated; In that while we were yet sinners, > Christ died for us!" Romans 5:8 Lots of people die much more real deaths than the putatively ressurected JC did. That "he did it for love" propaganda is merely a revisionist fairy tale designed by the damager god's minions to enslave the weak minded. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor) (09/03/85)
In article <397@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >In article <2137CJC@psuvm> CJC@psuvm.BITNET writes: >>Before dismissing this idea, reread the biblical account of the plagues >>in Egypt; my copy states repeatedly: >> >> "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not let them go." >> >> Why not? Read Exodus 10: v.1-2 Etc, etc, etc, etc. Folks, this belongs in net.religion.*, NOT net.origins. Keep an eye on the newgroups line when you post your articles. It's hard enough wading through all the bogus pseudo-scientific arguments presented here without having to deal with purely religious tracts. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The best defense against logic is ignorance. Steve Tynor Georgia Instutute of Technology ...{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp, rlgvax, sb1, uf-cgrl, unmvax, ut-sally} !gatech!gitpyr!tynor
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (09/04/85)
[Take me, but please, I beg you, spare the rest] Well, I've been arguing the other side too long now, might as well switch for a while. From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich), Message-ID: <396@scgvaxd.UUCP>: > 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. I think Paul Zimmerman would agree with you that suffering brings you closer to Christ, since he believes that (anti)Christ encourages suffering. > Millions have suffered and died for Him. Why? Yeah. Why? Why would an omnipotent, loving God ask humans, his own creation, to suffer and die for *anything*, let alone for his own glory? Do you have kids? Would you ever even *consider* asking them to be persecuted, tortured or killed just to glorify *you*? Wouldn't rather suffer the consequences of people disbelieving you than ask your own children to be killed? I would, and I think most parents would. So why does God think it's better for Christians to be tortured and killed than to renounce Christ for a coupla minutes? > 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! But if a loving, omnipotent God created us, why didn't he create us such that we could experience his love and comfort all the time? Isn't that what most loving parents wish for their children - that they be happy, loving people, and that they experience the absolute minimum necessary tribulation? Human parents aren't omnipotent, they have to work within the current structure of the universe. But the Creator is supposed to be the Creator of *all*, even of the structure of the universe. So if he really was a loving God, why did even create the possibility of pain and suffering? > 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." Same question. Why does it take suffering to know fellowship? > 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! *Why* do we deserve it? Because this loving, omnipotent God said so, that's why. We were disobedient, so he's going to make us *pay* for it. When you're child disobeys, you might possibly spank her/him. But you don't put an eternal curse on him/her and all of her/his descendants, such that whenever they give birth they go through pretty ultimate agony, or such that they can no longer communicate with each other (Tower of Babel) and end up loathing each other. If you have limited powers, you try to explain why their disobedience could hurt them and it's really in their best interests to listen to you. If you're omnipotent, why the hell don't you just make it so they don't get hurt at all, and are still functional, productive, loving, happy children? If God's omnipotent and created *everything*, then pain and suffering are part of the plan. > 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!" I trust you love your wife, and I trust she loves you. Why would you choose to die, to separate yourself from her and her from you? Humans are (have been created) weak - we have doubts sometimes, fears sometimes. Why would you test her faith that you were not destroyed, knowing the faith will slip sometimes, that sometimes she'll be afraid and unsure and in pain because of your separation? Why don't you just stay with her and let both of you rejoice in your love for each other? From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich), Message-ID: <397@scgvaxd.UUCP>: >In article <2137CJC@psuvm> CJC@psuvm.BITNET writes: >>Before dismissing this idea, reread the biblical account of the plagues >>in Egypt; my copy states repeatedly: >> >> "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not let them go." >> >> Why not? Read Exodus 10: v.1-2 >> >> "Then the Lord said to Moses "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened >> his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs >> of mine among you, and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and >> of your son's son how I have made sport of the Egyptians "" > > Can you imagine Moses' dismay if God would have told him to go to > Pharoah and demand the release of his people and Pharoah would have > told Moses to go fly a kite! And could imagine Moses' delight if God had told him to go to Pharoah and demand the release of his people and Pharoah would have said "Ok, sure." Why fuss around? God was obviously mucking around with Pharoah's heart anyway, but he was hardening it! Why not just soften his heart? Because that would mean he was interfering with Pharoah's free will? Apparently not: > The fact that God hardened Pharoah's heart doesn't release Pharoah > from responsibility for his own actions. This is an old theological > debate from way back. Can free will and God's sovereignty both exist > at the same time. The answer is YES! So why not *soften* Pharoah's heart? >> Then read the Book of Job and consider the deaths of Job's seven sons >>and three daughters and of his very many servants - struck down not for >>any fault of their's, but merely for a petty show of power. > > You haven't read the book of Job or you would understand the valuable > lesson that Job learned from all of it. And what lesson would possibly be worth the lives of ten innocent children and several other innocent people? If an American citizen, who has limited power to influence people, resorted to flat out murder of her/his grandchildren just to teach his own child a lesson, s/he'd be offerred the death sentence. And ten-to-one YOU'D say it was the work of the devil. So why is it ok for any God, who has unlimited power to teach, to do the same thing? And why on earth (in heaven) is it ok for a *loving* God to do it? Murder of innocent people is murder of innocent people, and there's no excuse for it. > I am sure that those who died from the earthquake > who were truly children of God were not the slightest bit upset > when they woke up in His wonderful presense! Jim Jones thought that too. Jim Jones was a crazed destructive lunatic. > If the God of the Bible exists, I would truly want to belong to > Him. For I have never seen such an act of love as that which He > demonstrated. > > "Herein is God's love demonstrated; In that while we were yet sinners, > Christ died for us!" Romans 5:8 There are a lot of parents who have died trying to save their children from burning houses, burning cars, raging rivers, .... There are any number of people (firefighters, police officers and just regular folks) who have lost their lives saving total strangers. That's pretty darn loving. And I doubt seriously any of them have ever let their children be killed just because their children were loyal to them, or destroyed entire cities that didn't do what they wanted. According to God's own commandments, they've got a better track record than God does. Do you worship them? There *are* some troubles believing in a loving, omnipotent God. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "Oh yeah, P.S., I...I feel...feel like...I am in a burning building And I gotta go." (Laurie Anderson)
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (09/05/85)
In article <cybvax0.720> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >> The fact that God hardened Pharoah's heart doesn't release Pharoah >> from responsibility for his own actions. This is an old theological >> debate from way back. Can free will and God's sovereignty both exist >> at the same time. The answer is YES! > >Hardening Pharoh's heart is clearly a god manipulating a human contrary >to the human's will, however much you deny it. Pharoh might well have >released them without that interference. > Incorrect. The Bible teaches that the heart (i.e. will) of man is evil and wicked. Pharaoh, on his own, could have acted no other way. The unregenerate man (Pharaoh) can only act according to his nature, which Pharaoh did in this case. What happened to Pharaoh happens to every person who rejects God and His offer of salvation. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl Communism is to government what astrology is to science.
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (09/06/85)
[] While perusing some newsgroups I have given up (and net.origins, alas, is one) I came across the following thought: > > Incorrect. The Bible teaches that the heart (i.e. will) of man is evil and > wicked. Pharaoh, on his own, could have acted no other way. The > unregenerate man (Pharaoh) can only act according to his nature, which > Pharaoh did in this case. What happened to Pharaoh happens to every > person who rejects God and His offer of salvation. > It occurs to me that this is a falsifiable proposition. If it is correct then either I am religious or I will always act in an evil manner. I conclude that many (perhaps most) of the people I know who claim not to be religious are lying. > Communism is to government what astrology is to science. Cute. However I note that although I am a scientist (as are many of my relatives) no astrologer has ever murdered any of my cousins. Regrettably the same is not true of communists. -- "Support the revolution Ethan Vishniac in Latin America... {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Buy Cocaine" ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU Department of Astronomy University of Texas
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/06/85)
[This article, at least, belongs only in net.christian, since it is about a putative action of the Christian god.] In article <2109@burdvax.UUCP> bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) writes: > In article <cybvax0.720> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >Hardening Pharoh's heart is clearly a god manipulating a human contrary > >to the human's will, however much you deny it. Pharoh might well have > >released them without that interference. > > Incorrect. The Bible teaches that the heart (i.e. will) of man is evil and > wicked. Pharaoh, on his own, could have acted no other way. The > unregenerate man (Pharaoh) can only act according to his nature, which > Pharaoh did in this case. What happened to Pharaoh happens to every > person who rejects God and His offer of salvation. A classic example of being taken in by the big lie. The Bible's teaching that the heart of man is evil is obviously a case of the maltheistic deity blaming us for his own crimes. The ancient Jews cheered his malicious acts among the Egyptians for obvious reasons, which is the only reason why the hardening of Pharoh's heart would be reported accurately. A Pharoh who wasn't manipulated might well have let them go. A Pharoh who was manipulated in the opposite direction definitely would have let them go. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/13/85)
> > [Tom Albrecht- I think] > > Communism is to government what astrology is to science. ------- > [Ethan Vishniac] > Cute. However I note that although I am a scientist (as are many of my > relatives) no astrologer has ever murdered any of my cousins. Regrettably > the same is not true of communists. ------- Good point, Ethan. How about: "Communism is to government what religion is to science." -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (09/15/85)
>Good point, Ethan. How about: >"Communism is to government what religion is to science." The metaphor is all screwed up. More like: Communism is to government what Determinism is to science -michael