Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Once more from the whirlwind
Message-ID: <806@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 15:41:39 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.806
Posted: Thu Oct 31 15:41:39 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 12:20:27 EST
References: <2015@umcp-cs.UUCP> <802@cybvax0.UUCP> <2029@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 79
Summary: 

In article <2029@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
> In article <802@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
> What experience, Mike, do you have in
> religion?  You've never given evidence of being anything but a observer.
> One might as well understand soldiering by reading books, or the experience
> of giving birth by watching documentaries.

What experience, Charley, do you have in maltheism?  You've never given
evidence of being anything but an observer....

Next thing you know, Charley will insist that doctors have to catch
diseases to understand and treat them.  Shall I give Charley the job of
training Down's Syndrome patients to discover their own cures?

It's obvious to me that Charley's strategy of argument here is to erect
imaginary barriers to understanding, so that he won't have to defend
his position on common ground.

> 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.

Oh golly, you're so far above us that you don't need to argue with us!
How godlike!  You MUST be right!  But it's not pride in YOUR case.  :-(

> >> Mr. Zimmerman (like Tim Maroney before him) would use the scriptures to
> >> accuse God.  God has done all these horrible things, and therefore he must
> >> be evil.
> 
> >And why not?  You and others would use the scriptures to praise God.
> >Plainly, you're making a blatant fallacy of special pleading here (and
> >in subsequent passages.)
> 
> The purpose of scriture is to instruct.  It is a source of information about
> the LORD's relationship to the world.  When I want to praise the LORD, I
> sing a hymn, not quote scripture.

The purpose of scripture is to disinform.  But you use it to instruct that
god is good, which is comparable to our use of accusing god.  That is the
meaning of "praise" which you misread.

> >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?

If you cannot construct an analogously pompous statement for Hitler, you're
not trying.

Where does the analogy break down?  Both God and Hitler were persuing
selfish ends, with innocents bearing the costs.  Both claimed to have
"larger" purposes.  Tell me how I can tell whether they really are
large and important.  By their say-so?  That's clearly special pleading.

> >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.

I do see for myself, and so does Paul.  God is bad.  I will proclaim it
because I think hubris is merely an institutionalized form of repression
of thought.  Here again we see your anxiousness not to argue on the
subject.

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

I think I know the damager god better than you: I think you are misguided
by infatuation.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh