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.christian
Subject: Re: God and suffering
Message-ID: <811@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 13:12:45 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.811
Posted: Mon Nov  4 13:12:45 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 07:38:44 EST
References: <134@sdcc7.UUCP> <803@cybvax0.UUCP> <2028@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 51
Summary: 

In article <2028@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
> In article <803@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
> 
> >> Part 1 - Where does evil come from.  While Genesis uses the word death, the
> >> Bible speaks of death (and I feel consequently evil) resulting from man's
> >> original choice to disobey God.  Not to make this sound like beginning
> >> Sunday school, but that is traditional Christian doctrine.
> 
> >Right.  And traditional Christian doctrine is blatantly stupid on that point
> >as it takes two to tango.
> 
> Well, I simply don't understand what "it takes two to tango" is supposed to
> mean...

"Disobeying God" is nothing more than an argument where God applies the
fallacy of "might makes right".  A man disagrees with a god, and a god
disagrees with a man.  Why is the god assumed to be right?

> ... it is Adam and Eve themselves who create evil, not the LORD.  To claim
> that the LORD's response to this is simply punitive is, again, to presume to
> understand the universe from the LORD's throne.  The LORD's anger might well
> be due to the changes he makes to the world in response to this change in
> man-- and again, the reasons for these particular changes is lost in the
> mind of the LORD.

"The King can do no wrong."  Might makes right.  Dieistic-imperialism.
You really just want to be good little slaves, and not question big massah
in the sky.

> The doctrines generally have in common the theme that we have created
> human nature so that we inevitably choose to sin.

"We, white man?"  I created my human nature or someone elses?  Give me a
break.

> >Even granting all those absurd premises, there's no reason why the other
> >side should be so noxious, omnipresent, and unavoidable.  For example,
> >bad people could continue to live forever, and good people could die and
> >go to heaven (good riddance. :-)
> 
> And roses could come in blue, and cows could have six legs.  The universe
> has to be one particular way, after all.  Sounds to me like Mike is claiming
> to know what 42 is the answer to.

That same conservative answer can be used to fallaciously oppose ANY change.
"Free blacks?  And roses could come in blue, and cows could have six legs.
The universe has to be one particular way, after all."  Come, Charlie, argue
reasonably.
-- 

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