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.religion.christian Subject: Re: How come God doesn't affect Dave? Message-ID: <347@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 08:45:11 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.347 Posted: Tue Sep 17 08:45:11 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 04:21:46 EDT References: <305@pyuxn.UUCP> <630@ihu1m.UUCP> <309@pyuxn.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Piscataway, N.J. Lines: 67 Dave, You are persistently misunderstanding my questions. Yes, you gave examples of negative things in your life. My point was that you have chosen to lump them all together, the trivial with the severe, and describe them all as ``minor.'' My question was why? It seems to me that you are doing this because the evil God has conditioned you to not care about the damage done to you, perhaps to the point where you accept it (or even like it, as some Christians do). You have essentially devalued horribility just to retain the notion of a benevolent God. Houses, careers, marriages, all collapse due to the influence of the evil God after a great deal of hard work on the part of human beings. Houses blow away as a result of hurricanes. Careers end after years of schooling and experience due to ``unforeseen circumstances.'' Marriages dissolve because God builds certain ideas into people's heads about what marriage and family are all about, only to have their expectations dashed, taking that out on their spouse. Remember that unforeseen circumstances like these are often called ``acts of God.'' Ever stop to wonder why? You keep harping on the idea that, because God doesn't damage you with regularity and severity, He is ``weak.'' I have explained that it is very egocentric to assume that if God doesn't harm you He must be weak. Certainly He interferes in the lives of millions of people every day. And what of that ultimate damage that He plans for the Earth: Armageddon? Wouldn't a project like that take up a lot of time and effort? Remember, this God is by no means as omnipotent as He claims, though the documents of history have shown His capabilities through evil acts of great magnitude that we have some evidence for (the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah). You ask why God doesn't just destroy Chicago the way He destroyed Sodom. I thought it was San Francisco and Los Angeles that were analogous to Sodom and Gomorrah? :-) I guess planning Armageddon is hard enough work. Has it already begun? Isn't the recent spate of plane crashes part of God's plan for Armageddon as He ``prophesied'' in the Bible? Dave, you mention ``all the times in-between where people have been happy.'' And you say it is me who is looking at one side. You claim some sort of balance between horrible and wonderful, saying that they are evened out. Why do you so blithely accept the fact that there is ``horribleness'' at all? Has God convinced you that a certain amount of horribleness is ``O.K.?'' You ask ``if God is so bad why are you happy?'' And you say I have not answered this. Yet certainly we need to ask why you choose to view your life as good in light of all the damage from God that you dismiss and ``minor.'' Have you answered that? You also say that my ideas have included God being ``so tricky that [He] won't blatantly do things or else we will catch on.'' I never said that. I merely said that that is a method by which He keeps people believing. Look at you right here in your own articles! Indeed, He WOULD enjoy us suffering ``regularly'' while He openly laughs. But how long would it last? How long could he keep that up? No, Dave, He may be a heinous evil pig, but He has a certain amount of intelligence, and He is skillful at knowing just how much evil He can ``get away with,'' when to start and stop, when to ``test'' His enslaved subjects (as in the Book of Job), and when the time is ripe for an ultimate evil (like the deception of Jesus and his followers, or Armageddon). Finally, I apologize if I lumped you in with those who did claim that I was ``mad or crazy'' because my beliefs differed from theirs. However, you were persistent in claiming that I was the one being selective in how I interpreted the Bible to reach my conclusions about the nature of God. I asked you whether it might be you who is being selective in interpretation when you conclude that God is good. I do hope to hear your answer. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez