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: The Damager God: Another fool rushes in
Message-ID: <802@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 12:18:19 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.802
Posted: Tue Oct 29 12:18:19 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 01:27:36 EST
References: <390@pyuxn.UUCP> <2015@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 75
Summary: 

In article <2015@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
> I'm going to look down from my whirlwind (it's what I use to trash
> net.philosophy :-) and speak on this issue.  This has a fair chance of being
> my only posting on this subject, and I am going to be a bit flamy here.  The
> reason for that latter should become apparent.

Is the apparent reason "extreme pomposity"?  :-)  I'm going to rearrange your
response a little, to put the ridiculous passages first.

> Mr. Zimmerman, I have suffered.  I have been carried out into the land of
> the mystics and brought directly to God.  I have walked through great
> valleys of silence.  God is Good.  To one who has been there, there can be
> no other knowledge.  I am not so proud as to claim to know why God does
> these things.  Maybe in the next life you will have a reason to curse God to
> his face, rather than taunt his silence.

"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.)

> 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.)

> 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.

> 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?

> Not content with one sin of pride, hew must compound it with another.  He
> would judge the LORD as a man.  Would you judge a man as a dog?  A dog as a
> snail?  An infant as an adult?  What is death to one who can raise from the
> dead?  What is blindness to one who restores sight?  Even Jesus, God of God,
> would not presume to judge the Father.

Another example of appallingly inappropriate analogies.  The only way
those could be contorted into any semblance of a reasonable argument would
be "Would a dog judge a man as a dog?" etc.  But as they stand, they show
only your irrationality on the subject.

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.

> Not content with that great hubris, he goes on to claim knowledge of the
> very purpose of the universe, revealed to him alone.  Not even the Buddha
> had the gall to claim to know why life was suffering.

I'll let Paul defend himself on this accusation, especially since you
haven't specified any particular statement.  However, it would be very
amusing to hear Buddhas' thoughts on your beliefs....
-- 

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