Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcc7.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc7!ln63fac
From: ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Summary of responses to Rick Frey on maltheism
Message-ID: <145@sdcc7.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 02:47:19 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc7.145
Posted: Tue Oct 29 02:47:19 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 00:04:51 EST
References: <387@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 249
Xref: linus net.religion:7694 net.religion.christian:1495
Summary: Back to you Paul ...

Paul,

Before I get started, let me try to make a point or two.  First of all we 
really seem to be missing eachother in terms of the questions we feel we're
asking and the answers we're getting and giving.  The only way I could think
of to make this a little easier on ourselves is to have a follow up article
that has the questions that I've been trying to ask spelled out as clearly as
possible with spaces provided for your answers.  Forgive me if you feel like
you've been beating your same answers into the ground, but either I'm thick
headed or I'm just missing what you're saying but somehow we both still feel
that questions have gone unanswered so maybe this will alleviate that
problem.

One other point that I think I've noticed lately is that you seem to feel
that because you make your assertions more often or more vehemently that
yours are either truer or less assumptive than mine.  Since both of us have
fairly defined positions in terms of overall scope, saying back and forth our
contradictory assertions doesn't accomplish anything.  Where we have lots of
room to discuss is in the areas that we both feel are irrational or
inconsistent in the other persons beliefs.  More likely than not you won't
get through to me (or I to you) by repeating that God is a (long string of
evil adjectives) but if you can show me that some part of my set of beliefs
doesn't hold, then you've got an inroad.  That was my idea in talking about
the Bible and the damager-God, because to me it seems illogical and
inconsistent to have an evil God inspire a book that tells people how to live
peacefully, and joyfully.  Anyhow, onto to the response.

> In fact, your only basis for believing
> this is that He told you that He has those powers. 

We'll start here.  How do you know that that is my only basis?  I believe
that God is revealed through His creation.  I've seen testimony of God in my
own life and in friend's life through things like answered prayers, changes
that have taken place and even miracles and prophecys (the church I'm at is
strongly charismatic).  Paul in Romans says what I feel pretty clearly, "For
that which is known about God is evident with them for God made it evident
to them.  For since the creation of the world, his divine nature and eternal
power have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so
that they are without excuse."  Romans 1:22 (roughly)

> You also say that the vision of God I talk about ``describe[s] what
> the Bible says about Satan to the letter.'' Of course it does! God and Satan
> are one and the same. As you say, ``the great deceiver, intent on destroying
> people, trying to get people to worship Him.'' Well, Rick, THAT describes the
> Damager-God to the letter, doesn't it?  You simply choose to believe God's
> stories that Satan is some ``other'' entity, but not Him. 

This is what I mean about our foundational differences and this also shows
somewhat what I mean about you seeming to feel that your position is
intrinsically stronger than mine.  You simply choose to believe that this
damager-God is not Satan.  There's no difference in terms of who's assuming
and who's not assuming, it's just a difference of assumptions.

simple: BECAUSE HE SAYS SO! And you believe Him! I don't know whether or not
you have children, but have you ever seen a child who has an imaginary
playmate? Have you ever seen such a child blame the imaginary playmate when
he does something bad? Children don't get away with such things. Yet God does.

> I have answered more than once the question of why God must have
> been formed along with the universe instead of being some external creator
> of that universe. If you are talking about the ultimate universe of universes
> which God is supposed to have created, then God would exist outside the
> ultimate universe of universes. This would mean that the ultimate universe
> of universes is NOT the ultimate universe of universes, because the one God
> resides in would have that honor. So how was THAT universe created? 

This whole proof rests on one major assumption that is completely subjective
and unprovable and to me isn't even likely.  Why must God reside in a
universe?  When you start talking about eternal deities, we're dealing with a
presence in time that is nothing like we understand it.  Also, omnipresence
implies a way of dealing with space that we don't understand.  Why should the
God of the Bible (who claims to be all of these things) be bound to the
restrictions and rules that the Bible claims He created?  God does not need a
place to live nor does the problem of time effect Him or relate to Him the
way it does to us.  God ceated time and space.  Granted these are my
assumptions, but why should a deity that is supposedly responsible for
creating everything be bound inside of His creation?  That's what I mean
about your assumption not seeming practical.

> You ask how we might know whether the scientists who derive the natural
> laws aren't just stooges of God. Isn't it obvious that they are? 

Nope, not obvious at all, especially when a large number of the 16th through
19th century scientists felt that they were discovering the secrets of the
world that God had created (and not your damager God).  

> What information is discovered by scientists? Knowledge about how to cure 
> Aids, or how to solve the world's hunger and overpopulation problems? Or
> knowledge of how to make weapons of awesome destruction to destroy the world?

Does the background in Physics needed to understand lasers make one evil?  Or
is it the specific formulas and calculations that produce the actual beam
of light?  Or is it just knowledge in general is evil?  Where does this evil
actually reside?  Is the knowledge of optics evil when it's in a laser but
friendly and nice when it's in an x-ray?  Is the knowledge of biochemistry
evil when it's used to produce germ warfare but friendly when it produces
vaccines and cures to diseases (why didn't you list Polio, Bubonic Plague,
Small Pox as diseases instead of two that haven't been cured).  Forgive me if
it's trite and cliche but guns don't kill people, people kill people.  And
it's the same way with science.  Knowledge is neutral.  There is no such
thing as an evil fact, theory or hypoothesis.

> Why do you so off-handedly reject the concept that they are one and the same

Why do you so off-handedly reject my claims.  Just because yoou make points
like this more often than I have done in the past (and would like to do in
the future) doesn't mean that you're assertions are less founded on
assumptions than mine.

> Despite what you claim, the only evidence that Jesus was what you say
> he was is found in the word of God, and that is like accepting Richard Nixon's
> account of the Watergate years. Josh MacDowell's book only proves my point:
> if you accept apriori the assumption that God is good, all else follows. 

Sorry if this appears harsh, but this is blatantly wrong.  Josh McDowell's
book cites numerous extra-Biblical sources in support of Christ's existence
and claims.  There are the reports of Jewish historians of the time, Roman
censuses, letters between Roman officials, official documents and court
records discussing Christ and Paul.  If you give any credit to history 
whatsoever in terms of accuracy or validity, Christ (maybe only second to 
the apostle Paul) is the best substantiated figure of antiquity.

> I am also not taken to being told I didn't answer a question when 
> in fact I did. 

Ok, sorry if I've missed it but I couldn't find anything that made sense too
me as an answer to this question.  Sorry for asking you to repeat yourself,
but it's still a question I'm confused to see how you can answer in terms of
what you believe.

> If YOUR child has grown up to be bad, a delinquent, how could this
> happen? Are people naturally evil? Or did some bad influence (perhaps even
> from you) make him what he has become? 

You asked earlier if I had any children.  I'm only 22 so I have no kids of my
own but I've been working with high schoool kids for the last three years
now, counseling and teaching in both churches and public schools.  I've also
taught in both public and private elementary schools (mainly sixth grade) so
I've had a decent background in dealing with kids and with the causes/sources
of their problems.  I completley agree that many kids have been 'pushed' in
the wrong direction by the bad influences you refer to above.  But what
about the kids out of the good home with loving parents, material security,
good teachers, good friends, nice siblings?  I've seen lots of kids who
simply chose to rebel, against anything they could find to rebel against.  If
we have the free will to fight against the damager-God, why don't we have the
free will to choose to be bad?

Side note.  I'm not quite sure what you mean with the example of the child
and the imaginary playmate.  Just having finished a few courses in child
development (I'm a psychology major at UCSD) we dealt with a number of case
studies of 'imaginary playmates' so I'm interested to hear what you feel that
represents or shows about your point.  It's not that you were so unclear, but
it was just ambiguous enough so that I'd rather ask you to clarify rather
than answer something that you might not be saying.

> In fact, Rick, I think you yourself have proven my point. You are
> ``not going to grant [me]'' any recognition of the two-sidedness of this
> coin. I think that, in a very sad way, bespeaks your biases that are your own
> downfall in attempting to learn the truth about God. 

Is that really true?  Why would I be discussing this issue if I didn't feel
that somewhere we had enough common ground to be able to talk on.  Granted I
have my own, different set of assumptions, but so do you.  In the example of
the Bible and the damager-God, I completely stepped into your set of
assumptions and tried to show how the Bible we have today (it's still the
same Bible) does not make sense coming from a God you describe.  That's not
giving you any credit?  If you mean do I accept your assumptions, no.  But if
we can't discuss something without having identical beliefs this is going to
be a quiet world.

> shocking that you claim that Abraham's being ordered to bring his son to
> sacrifice him to God is analogous to ``greater love hath no man...'' The
> example I gave IS something terribly evil, and it is YOU who is trying
> to twist it into something good just so that you can preserve your belief
> that God is good.

We've got a small (maybe big) problem here.  I never used that example.  The 
example I did use was Christ coming to die for our sins which I still
maintain is the greatest act of love ever demonstrated on this earth (as
Paul claims in Romans 5:8).  We had a similar problem before with the
discussion about Satan and the millenium.  If you want to hammer on me,
great, but if possible show my quote so you can be sure that you've got the
right person and right topic.

	Then you say that it wasn't God destroying masses of people at His
whim, it was the Jews ``defending'' themselves. Of course, they have had to
(and still have to) defend themselves against such attacks.  But why ignore
the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? What evil did they perform? 

Forgive the short answer, but read Genesis 19.  Sodom's sin was very clear.

> Or the people of Jericho, or ALL the inhabitants of Caanan who were evicted
> or killed at God's whim to make room for people He wanted to live there (and
> for what purpose?). Was this self-defense by the Jews, or a perfect example of
> the evils of God. 

Much better question.  And one that I freely admit that I don't have an
answer for but this question also shows just how willing we both are tomake
assumptions.  Since the Bible doesn't say they did anything bad, does that
mean they didn't?  The Bible doesn't say anything about the people inside
Canan other than they were huge.  You assume that it's God being evil and
kicking out an innocent bystander who never did anything wrong and there's
absolutely no support for such an assumption.  I assume the people were
treated justly because God claims to deal justly and in all the other
recorded cases God has dealt justly.

> I mentioned Gandhi and King, and your
> response to that again skirted the issues.  What are you so afraid of?

I agreed with you before and I'll agree with you again.  King and Ghandi in
many ways both preached for human love.  But you yourself gave the
definition of sin.  Not dealing with the world, not going to church, not
memorizing Bible stories, but in relating to and obeying God.  And I can't
speak for Ghandi or King.  From what little I know, King was a minister and
believed in Christ.  What I know about Ghandi (mostly from the movie) shows 
me that he was more of an ecollectic and a politician than he was whole 
heartedly concerned with what God wanted.  Granted you might not feel that
means anything, but the Bible says, "Without faith it is impossible to
please God." (Hebrews 11:6)  Maybe you can tell me, what am I afraid of?

> Think about what stumbling means; it simply means not
> obeying the will of God! 

Completely true.  That is the entire definition of sin, disobeying God.

> Why not say ``Fuck you, God, I will live my own life,
> I am not here to be your lackey and your toy. You are powerful and you may try
> to hurt me, but I will retain my dignity. I owe nothing to you, I expect
> nothing from you. Go away and leave us all alone.'' (A maltheist's ``prayer'')
> 
I guess I'm glad that you're willing to stand on your convictions instead
of just mushing around on the fence, but, to the letter you've
described the one thing that God has asked us not to do.  C.S. Lewis, in
a book entitled "The Great Divorce" explained the way God will deal with
mankind.  "There are two types of people in this world.  Those who say to
God, 'Thy will be done' and those to whom God says, 'thy will be done'". 
You've made it very clear which type you are and all I can say outside of 
trying to dissuade you and show you that I belive you're wrong is that God 
will answer you're prayer; completely, totally and forever.  More so than you 
could ever imagine.  If you see at all what I'm saying, read The Great 
Divorce.  It gives a clear picture of exactly what the choice you talk  
about entails.

					Rick Frey

"For a time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting
to have their ears tickled, they will gather to themselves teachers in
accordance with their own desires and will turn away their ears from the
truth, and will turn aside to myths."  (II Timothy 4:3,4)