pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (10/14/86)
>In article <262@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >> I've got it, you want God to prove that He can be a Candy Man, >> and make you a "Snicker bar tree". Least that's one of my favorites! In <3455@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> pez@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Paul Zimmerman) writes: > What I find consistently disturbing is the flagrant rationalization >for God's behavior. Behavior?? Ha! That's terrific, Gads, let's forget about God for the moment and think of "nature". 'Nature you have have not been behaving the way I want, shame on you. I'm going to ... to ah .. . well I can't think of anything now but I'll get you one of these days. ' >If God is as you you describe Him, all powerful and >benevolent, then we have every single right to absolutely demand whatever we >want from Him. Sure as long as you are breathing, but that won't be long, by comparison with the age of the earth. >It's certainly no skin off his nose, and certainly the >capability exists for Him to do so. .. . .... .... >God really is: a pompous ass. Look at His boasting and bragging about how >powerful He is, followed by His excuses for not doing all He can to bring >about what we need and want in this world. There are stories on the "Outer Limits" "Amazing Stories" etc. every once in a while where the good "wizard" grants the demands and the demandor lives to regret it. Candy, cocaine, are all here so when you raise your children, why don't you give your own children all they want. Oh and they should not have to go to school or attend clubs or relgious meetings either. Heaven forbid! :-) Now, giving in to your childrens whims means that you are all powerful to your children, right? I think you would do what is best for them in the long run, and that may be not to grant the demand, or even "listen" if they don't learn civility. Otherwise, they well may turn out to be "pompous asses". But, does it make you any less there parent if you choose not to respond? I sincerely hope you are not offended by being put in the position of "not knowing as much as God knows about what is best for you". (Watch out for the fall out) >He was, why hasn't He built it so that we ALL get it ALL right here in this >world? Who is He to ``test'' us? Is He so perfect? The Bible shows that He is >not, that He gets angered and takes it out on human beings, I suppose He isn't any different than we are and we "test". Anger is inherently wrong?? No! Are we talking about God as Nature? Even "nature" tests.. . survival of the more fit - although apparently for humans over the last 25,000 years, "society" has put a monkey wrench in the works. > Paul questions our ``right'' to demand that God do the diametric >opposite of His regular behavior, that He give rather than take, that He >cooperate rather than dictate. He makes it seem through his words that those >who dare to see things in this way are like children looking for a ``candy >man.'' It seems to me quite clear that those who attempt to sway us to see >things in that way lack any real foundation for their assertions about God, >as they seem to feel they must resort to such crude emotionally manipulative >tactics as labelling their opponents as ``children.'' While that might >certainly satisfy their own egos in that they have ``justified'' their >dismissal of the opponents' viewpoint as the ``ravings'' of a child (to >themselves), Gosh I didn't know that only children had a sweet tooth. I think that if an adult can't be child like once in a while, there is something seriously wrong. On the other hand, I have never heard of "mature adults" "demanding" to be taken care of, although there are people who would misuse welfare, and insurance policies. The fact that you generated a two paragraph response to a two line comment, indicates to me it must have touch a very important issue for you. Sorry you were derailed by the cliche' that "only children love candy". I really think that "immature adults" be included as "demanding". >.. . . . they have failed >to actually say anything substantial that proves their opponents wrong. >do start trying to discuss this whole issue in a rational fashion, it almost >always (with few exceptions) deteriorates into ``you must be paranoid/crazy'' >or ``your words sound like the ravings of a child.'' What's ironic is this >is the same sort of thing that is told to people who rebel in totalitarian >countries. The points made about the nature of the cruelty of the despot >are undeniable, so the response is that ``this is the way it is, you are >being childish/insane if you oppose it.'' Proof? You want proof? You are dreaming! This isn't geometry 102. I certainly would not question your sanity. Totalitarian countries (and perhaps the Democratic Party :-)) very well may act paternalistically, but the "demands" of subjugated people are not in the least trivial. I think in this case, the problem was that a human life wasn't at stake, it was an orchard tree, and the demand was that God should set aside perfectly good ecological and agricultural practices. One can take courses on "getting what one wants", by taking "Dale Carnegie courses, offered in most metro areas. Christians, and others, too would like God to intervene for them in some "super natural" way quite very often. They do it with considerably more care and sometimes even with humility. If you knew what I know and you probably never can, you might tone your approach down a bit. God give me a new hard disk, and a mazda and a .. . . and make it snappy! :-) +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+