Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!pez
From: pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: The Bible -- a reliable source of information about God
Message-ID: <308@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 13:34:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.308
Posted: Mon Aug 19 13:34:20 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 19:54:55 EDT
References: <8508172148.AA02946@sdcc6.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Piscataway, N.J.
Lines: 93
Xref: watmath net.origins:2153 net.religion:7430 net.religion.christian:1108


	This is a response to Rick Frey's article in which he finds fault
with some of the conclusions I come to about the Damager-God. He seems
to be saying that God does both good and evil, so why should He be labeled
singularly evil. I would like to answer his points here.

	I don't understand why He should be given ``credit'' for things
that happen as part of the natural course of nature. Clearly the
destructive things that occurred, such as the flood, the demolition of
Sodom and Gomorrah, and so on, were events that were deliberate and not
part of a natural flow. Saving the Israelites in battles where they were
outnumbered? The modern day Israelis achieved the same thing, through
totally natural means like clever military strategy. Besides, I made
reference to the way God engages in intermittent (but rare) reinforcement
by ``answering prayers'' on rare occasions and by fabricating stories that
get passed down as gospel truth. Testimonials to these are used to propagate
the lies He has invented.

	You say ``people themselves seem to be on a course for self
destruction,'' as if to absolve God of His responsibility for putting
the obstacles in our way so as to lead us on that course. I was not saying
that God ``created'' entropy; he has been shown not to have created
anything. What I meant was that God is entropy. Whenever the stability
of a system is deliberately damaged, or whenever an attempt by man to
organize and form something is thwarted, you can bet it is the Damager-God's
work. He surely didn't design people at all, Rick. It is only with His
input and influence, through His entropic interference, that we decay.
Your whole paragraph works from the assumption that God is good, which is
obviously false. It is His being involved that ``screws things up'' all
by itself. You say ``It's his world?'' Big deal! It's his world only by
virtue of His power, certainly not by virtue of His worthiness for such a
post. My first article explained why God at best was created along with
the universe, which means His claim to the title of creator is a lie.

	You mention that ``He Himself went through the suffering,'' but
this is also a lie. He sent His son to the dirty work, to suffer the
pains of being human that He bestowed on us. This is typical of what we
can expect from this God. The idea that a perfect benevolent God would
deliberately create ``fallen'' humans in an imperfect (damaged) world
sounds good. But it only holds water if you assume this God is perfect
and benevolent, which we have little reason to do. Are we ``fallen,''
or were we pushed?

	You said that ``in this world'' perfection must be achieved through
suffering. Of course, God made it that way. He damaged the natural course
of events to impede the path to perfection for people. You can analyze
that in terms of ``if God was good, what would be His motivation for doing
this?'' But if God is not good, you don't have to do that at all. If God
is evil, it's clear He did it out of malevolence. Perhaps He Himself was
unable to achieve perfection (it's clear He is nowhere near perfect) and
and thwarts us out of jealousy and revenge. You also say how much more
rejoiceful it is if sinners are saved than if people are just always
faithful. What you've done is to show that God simply likes to stack
the deck in His favor, by forcing those circumstances in which that is
more likely. Furthermore, there's very little good to be said about being
faithful to such a God.

	When you say that my conclusions are similar to typical father/son
relationships, you show that you've fallen for God's ``I am your loving
father'' joke, hook, line and sinker. I think your making that comparison
just epitomizes how some abused children still cling to and love their
abusive parents. This is not an example of a child not liking the
restrictions of his parents. This is an example of an abusive malevolent
prankster being reviled by those He plays His pranks upon for His pleasure.

> "For god so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."  John 3:16
> "But God demonstrates His own love toward us in that while we were
> yet sinners, Christ died for us."  Romans 5:28

	Remember that this is God's word, and as such we cannot trust it.
Did He care about this son? Did He treat Him the way He treated His other
``children?'' You said that the Bible is a perfect circle, covering itself
completely. Yes, it is a document written by God designed to give a false
impression about Him, to convince people to glorify and whorship Him. Its
content is deceptive and cannot be used directly to evaluate God. Only
through knowledge about what God is really trying to say and do, the ``intent'' not the ``content'', can we begin to discover how evil He really is.

	I have to sit here puzzled by those who continue to believe in and
whorship God in light of all of this. The Bible says ``There are none so
blind as those who will not see.'' Why are these people ignoring the
advice of their own Bible in this matter? I am surprised that someone like
Dan Boscovich or Paul DuBois has not stepped forward to speak for their
beliefs. They seem to me to be the type who will hold to their beliefs
at all cost, even in the face of evidence against them of the type that I
have presented. I am not surprised that people like them would cling to
their beliefs about God no matter what. Maybe they would feel lost without
them. But I'm a bit surprised that none of them has stepped forward to
attempt a rebuttal of my evidence. Perhaps they fear an unequivocal loss
in such a debate would damage their own belief system and force them to
abandon it. In that case, I can see their reason for remaining silent.
-- 
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez