Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Once more from the whirlwind Message-ID: <2029@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 15:34:41 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2029 Posted: Wed Oct 30 15:34:41 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 07:23:21 EST References: <2015@umcp-cs.UUCP> <802@cybvax0.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 92 In article <802@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> 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.) 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. But all this is besides the point. 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. 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. >> 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. >> 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? >> 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. >> 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. So I take it, then, that you would judge a dog as a man. >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. Charley Wingate