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."