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!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Once more from the whirlwind
Message-ID: <2014@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Nov-85 15:31:23 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.2014
Posted: Sat Nov  2 15:31:23 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 05:59:32 EST
References: <2015@umcp-cs.UUCP> <802@cybvax0.UUCP> <2029@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 77

>>"God is Good."  Wow, that has all the intensity of the scene from Young
>>Frankenstein when Wilder tells the monster "You are Good!".  The rhetorical
>>excess of the above passage merely underlines how poorly you can support
>>your claims.  (One of the better lessons from Bertrand Russell.)

> Bertrand Russell, one of the great masters of rhetorical excess, would thus
> be a sure argument against his own claims, would he not?  His invariable use
> of straw men in his arguments is the principal reason why I have little use
> for them. [WINGATE]

Nice substantiatipon for those assertions about someone whose opinions you
don't like.

> I don't care if you care to dispute me.  I am not arguing; my call is for
> you yourself to come and see.  I will not defend the LORD.  The only
> argument I have is with Mr. Zimmerman's pride-- and anyone else's should
> they care to make the same argument.

But no argument with your own pride at claiming to know the true nature of
god whilst berating Paul for stating a "falsehood" about the nature of that
same god.  Hmmm...  Methinks you could learn a thing or two from Paul.

>>> It's not like this has not been thought of before.  Anyone who aspires to
>>> deal with the whole question of God's permission (and even apparent
>>> encouragement) of evil has to read the book of Job before they dare speak.
>>> The LORD's reply to Job is quite relevant to Mr. Zimmerman's arguments too,
>>> and so I freely acknowledge my debts to this book.

>>The Lord's reply to Job is clearly a fallacy of argument.  Simply substitute
>>"Hitler" for "Lord" and then see where the moral ground lies.

> Well, then obviously Hitler's argument falls flat on its face, due to the
> fact that Hitler cannot claim to have been there when the Pliades were
> created, whereas the LORD can.  Why should I accept a moral analogy between
> a man and a god?

Does the ability to CLAIM to have been there make the claim any "better"?
Hitler could have claimed, like Jesus, that he was the son of god.  Would
that have made his claims any better?  Apparently, judging from the way
you evaluate claims, it would to you.  And that's scary.

>>> Mr. Zimmerman's position is built upon a bedrock of pride.  This is a man
>>> who believes he understands the purpose behind every action of a being of 
>>> whose nature he knows nothing.  Have you, Mr. Zimmerman, measured the hand
>>> of God?  Do you know the reach of his gaze?  The length of his memory?  Can
>>> you comprehend what it is to stand out of time, to be omnipotent,
>>> all-seeing, all-knowing?

>>By this "logic" taking ANY position, pro- or anti-god, is hubris.  Who are
>>you, or even any prophet, to dare to interpret the meaning of any
>>communication by a superior being?

> And so I will retract (at least part of the way).  I will not proclaim to
> you that God is good.  But I will continue to demand you to come see for
> yourself, rather than stand behind a wall of books and jeer.

It seems to me that Paul HAS come to see god for himself, and as a result
has come to his conclusions.  On what basis can you say that his conclusions
are wrong?  Because he speaks from presumptions?  Because he justifies his
claims with subjective experience only?  Anything else?

>>But I suppose that, doglike, you think the only appropriate think to do is
>>to wag your tail no matter how your superior master beats you, starves you,
>>or slaughters you for the pot.  Well, that too is a judgement.  And plainly
>>an incompetant one.

> Well, since I know him (however vaguely) and you know him not, you can
> scarcely expect me to accept such a judgement.

And Paul claims that HE knows him, and that YOU do not.  How are you going to
prove Paul's conclusions wrong without at the same time disproving your own?
-- 
"I was walking down the street.  A man came up to me and asked me what was the
 capital of Bolivia.  I hesitated.  Three sailors jumped me.  The next thing I
 knew I was making chicken salad."
"I don't believe that for a minute.  Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is
 La Paz."				Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr