Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Response to Ken Nichols' article on Tim Maroney (part 1) Message-ID: <190@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 18-Oct-84 10:54:19 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.190 Posted: Thu Oct 18 10:54:19 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Oct-84 09:49:04 EDT References: <239@qantel.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 75 Keywords: presumptions about god, low opinion of humanity > The following is the posting reposted by Mr. Hoshen. I cannot let this go > unanswered even though I wasn't present at the time of the original posting. > This man has a very twisted view of the God that I love and I will not allow > him to curse and swear at my God without returning a fair defense. [NICHOLS] Ken Nichols (qantel!ken) spent over 600 lines describing why he feels Tim Maroney's view of god was twisted. Hopefully, my article pointing out where the twistedness really lies will be much shorter. The "God that Ken loves" is apparently just what he chooses to see it as, nothing more. These articles will analyze the presumptions Ken makes, and hopefully will show the fallacies in his line of thinking. (All CAPS for emphasis are mine and not Ken's, except as noted.) The defense was not "fair"; it was full of holes. I'd like to point out those holes. [I REALIZE THIS SERIES OF FIVE ARTICLES TOTALLING OVER 300 LINES IS LONG, SO IF YOU MUST EITHER SKIM OR SKIP THESE, PLEASE READ PART 5, CONTAINING CONCLUSIONS.] First, Ken consistently engages in drawing a picture of a god AS HE EXPECTS GOD TO BE. The question to ask is: is this based on the way a deity actually is, or is it ONLY Ken's expectations and desires? > If God is the creator of the universe, and of you and me, why wouldn't that > give Him the right to desire glorification. Since He is self-sufficient, he > needs no one to glorify Him. He gives us the privelage to add a very small > iota to His glory. Why should He even allow that (I don't know)? It just > gets me sooo irked to hear people condemn God because He doesn't follow what > humans consider moral standards. God makes all the standards, not man. On the contrary, it is "man" who has made a picture of god in "his" own image. If a human (as these people perceive humans to be, see below for Ken's view of human beings) were god, this is how it would act. This view of god having the "right" to desire glorification is clearly rooted in an anthropomorphic view of god, with the image of humans (anthropo-) tainted and marred by an almost psychotic self-hatred ("self-hatred" in terms of hating one's humanness). > No human or animal or plant or planet or star or sun or anything in this > universe has the "right" to exist and not be blown to atoms by the breath of > Almighty God. Not only did God create the universe, but He is sustaining it > with His power (it doesn't take much). He can chose to uncreate the universe > with one word if He so desires. We have no "rights" in the sight of a perfect > God. Every person has one right on this earth, the right to go to Hell. All > have sinned Romans 3:23 (not just the original sin of Adam and Eve, more on > that later). All deserve eternal punishment (I'm talking about myself here > to). Not a very high opinion of human beings there. It is apparent that the crux of this belief is the desire FOR THERE TO HAVE TO BE a god who fits the bill that Ken describes. Nothing more. "We have no rights in the sight of a perfect god." Whose idea was it to have a perfect god? Who says there is one? Some more of Ken's assumptions about the nature of humanity follow (CAPS mine): > Man DESERVES EVEN WORSE for his blatent hatred and rebellion against God. > > (in response to Tim's quoting of torture applied at God's whim) > Just getting our JUST DESERTS. > > You have a choice. You don't have to go to Hell. Although THIS IS WHAT ALL > MANKIND DESERVES, there exists a way of escape. > > Tim is lost here. God does have amazing infinite compassion and mercy. > Why look, he's letting your body live another second! That's MORE COMPASSION > AND MERCY THAN ANY OF US DESERVE. WE ALL DESERVE TO BE DAMNED RIGHT NOW! > Among the other ways He shows His mercy is allowing us to live on the earth, > > God is perfectly justified in having the Israelites wipe out the other races > in Canan, ALL MANKIND DESERVES ANIHILATION. I think the train of thought is clear. Humans are deserving of death and torture. Are the conclusions of someone who feels this way, who has these preconceptions about humankind, any more trustworthy than those of someone who feels that he (or humanity in general) is a god, making opposite but equally unwarranted presumptions? -- "Come with me now to that secret place where the eyes of man have never set foot." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr