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: <363@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Mon, 30-Sep-85 20:16:02 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.363 Posted: Mon Sep 30 20:16:02 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 01:28:13 EDT References: <305@pyuxn.UUCP> <630@ihu1m.UUCP> <309@pyuxn.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Piscataway, N.J. Lines: 58 Dave, I find it very strange that you claimed never to have suffered in your life, and then you tell us the story of how your lost your house in a flood. You belittle this rather severe destruction as if to say ``it was nothing.'' But certainly it was something, and something significant. You have been duped by the evil God into accepting this sort of damage and destruction as an accpetable level of harm, as the status quo. It need not be that way. Without the hate of God, it would be a much better world. The fact that you keep coming back to saying ``if God's so powerful why doesn't He hurt me'' is most disconcerting. Why don't you ask the God whorshipers the corresponding question: ``If God's so powerful why does He allow evil to exist?'' You seem to have a double standard here. It can also be found in your ``parody.'' You say you could claim that God tricks us into liking ice cream so that we will be poisoned by the sugar (by means of increased calorie intake and dental decay, I presume). Isn't this obviously true? God gives us a desire to eat things that aren't good for us. If that isn't proof enough of His evil, well, what more proof would you want? The fact that you see this as a ``parody'' belies the types of assumptions you make, and gives me an indication of which of us is engaging in ``the utmost in absurdity.'' You decree that God is simply not responsible for ``acts of God'' (sounds absurd to me). When you ask for examples, you demand that those examples don't include ``hurricanes and the like.'' I find that extremely presumptuous. It seems that for any proof I offer, you would say ``you can't include that.'' Yet if a God whorshiper were to offer similar types of proof, without the substantiation and analyzing I supply with mine, it seems that you would gladly accept it. And you do have a knack for belittling the destruction of the world. ``All God has to do is...'' is what you say. God is waiting for just the right moment to cause the most awesome possible devastation, AND to make it seem to anyone who witnesses it or survives it that it was all man's fault. And you talk about being egocentric? You ``complain'' that God floods the earth but does not cause YOU headaches. You have already admitted that He has done this and continues to do this. Perhaps you are seeking ``punishment'' from God (expecting it), and not getting it, and are disappointed. You said the destruction of your house was no big deal. Apparently God has made you into a damage addict, needing everincreasing doses of His evil to believe. Dave, there are a number of people who take my position very seriously. Yet there are many more who take the position of God as loving father seriously. Why don't you have anything to say about them? Admittedly, you did say the following: > The Christian religion postulates a bad god known as Satan to blame > You on the other hand seem to take the opposite view. Since there is a god > and yet evil exist in the world, then god must be behind the evil. Plausible > as far as it goes. In fact, this seems a little more comprehensible than the > typical Christian's view. Perhaps there is still hope! Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez