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