Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: critiquing the (yawn) followups Message-ID: <442@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Feb-84 11:07:17 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxn.442 Posted: Mon Feb 6 11:07:17 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 02:43:02 EST References: <811@qubix.UUCP> Organization: Central Services Org., Piscataway N.J. Lines: 39 Larry gives new meaning to the word "circumlocution". (Actually, he gives the same old meaning to the word "circumlocution".) Larry talks about Tim placing himself in a position of judgmental authority, yet it is Larry who has all the answers about god. The right to be beyond human judgment is fundamental to being a god, according to Larry. (He knows this to be true; god has told him.) Well, that's one man's view of god (and possibly that of many others) but so what? I could just as easily say that that property is fundamental to being a United States President. Care to comment, Larry? Or would you go along with whatever any petty dictator tells you to do? (Never mind your devotion to other controlling forces...) You have defined god yourself (or subscribed to a definition) to suit your needs (apparently)---a god that is above the law because he is the law. Such thinking really smacks of fascism. Larry says: > Given Tim's statements, it does not surprise me that he would not want > to worship the God of Israel as described in the Bible. But then, by the > same standard, he could not worship ANY god, because he would have to > submit to that god (if indeed Tim worshipped him), and give up any right > to judge it. But Tim insists on judging gods, so that cannot happen. > The only thing left is for Tim to worship himself. Yawn.... Wrong again, Larry. Your one-track mind has again failed to let you see another (to me, more viable) option. Don't worship anything. Is that frightening to you? Do you need to have something to worship, regardless of any proof (or lack thereof) of its existence? You compare belief in a morality code (one either developed by human beings, as I contend, or one "granted" to us by god, as you contend) with worship of god. Belief in a positive idea is a good thing, but don't compare it with worshipping a deity. I don't worship my morality code. I live by it. God or no god. You say you are avoiding sarcasm, yet your whole tone is sarcastic throughout (at least when I'm sarcastic I start out that way and end up that way and don't make claims that I'm being otherwise). Tim's note may have been boring to you, but that's probably because you didn't hear a word he said. -- Pardon me for breathing... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr