Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!bellcore!petrus!magic!joevax!nvc!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God and suffering
Message-ID: <2061@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 18:45:45 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.2061
Posted: Wed Nov  6 18:45:45 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 05:33:20 EST
References: <2028@umcp-cs.UUCP> <811@cybvax0.UUCP> <2097@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 32

>>"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? [HUYBENSZ]

> How can this be an argument for assuming that the LORD is a liar?  And
> besides, it isn't the onipotence of the LORD that matters, it is the
> omnicience.  I just can't see how one can make an apriori argument tha the
> quite obviously limited human perspective is competent to pass judgement
> upon a being which comprehends all of existence instantaneously. [WINGATE]

Of course, the eminent theologian Charles Wingate, for the n+12th time, fails
to acknowledge (perhaps eve to himself?) that it is HE who has made the
"apriori judgment".  With his "limited human perspective", is he "competent"
to make a judgment that this being exists (or, as Zimmerman would claim,
that this being is in fact what Charles claims him to be)?

>>"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.

> Mike is tending to reinforce my increasing notion that this reaction is
> essentially an emotional reaction, not an argument.  If he is repelled by
> the notion of serving the LORD, fine with me.  That's his prerogative.

Just because the only way YOU can react is with an "emotional reaction" doesn't
mean that that applies to everyone else.  Your emotional reaction consists of
judging that Mike, because he doesn't agree with your precious presumptions
about god, must be "repelled by the notion of serving god", which you assume
to be the obvious correct thing to do.
-- 
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr