Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!lab From: lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: critiquing the (yawn) followups Message-ID: <811@qubix.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Feb-84 03:38:11 EST Article-I.D.: qubix.811 Posted: Fri Feb 3 03:38:11 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 07:24:36 EST Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA Lines: 94 [This critique only addresses Tim's followup and associated articles. If your site did not receive my critique of Tim's "Even If I DID Believe...", let me know by mail, so I can know whether to send copies or re-post it.] In case you didn't catch the logical inconsistency of Tim's essay, he made it more obvious in his followup of 10 Jan 84 (6543@unc.UUCP). In this critique, I will center on two things: nature of judgment and of a moral standard, in regards to being a god. The right and authority to judge are essential to being a god. The moment you begin to judge a god, you make yourself to be a god over it, denying that it is the god you said it is. Further, the moment you place a god under your judgment, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME of that judgment, you have made yourself higher than that god. Therefore, since worship goes up, worshipping a god you have judged (and thus is under you) is completely nonsensical. What is evidence of judgment? Placing any kind of standard on a god other than that god's own standard. Then the god of the standard thus placed becomes the higher god. So what does Tim say? "I will show that it is not just possible but absolutely necessary to judge any god." "...ordering the slaughter of innocents is a prima facie evil act -- you have to get your god outside the normal standards of good and evil if you are going to withstand this criticism." [I dealt with the idea of "innocents" in the original critique.] "...the person who is outside both [religions] must resolve these conflicting claims by means of some external standard." "What standard is available? The only one that comes to mind is the presence or lack of compassion in the god under investigation....This is due to my inherently compassionate internal moral code; compassion is my ideal of good. A being that fails to display compassion towards innocents is evil by my moral standard...." And the god of an "inherently compassionate >internal< moral code" is none other than the one they are internal to. Therefore [fanfare]: ALL BOW BEFORE THE HIGH AND MIGHTY <*TIM*>, PRINCE OF COMPASSION AND AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE FITNESS OF ALL WHO CAN BE WORSHIPPED :-) [I have tried to avoid sarcasm as much as possible, but it became necessary to answer a fool according to his folly.] 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.... The other issue is a moral standard. More specifically, the question is "What is the authority behind a moral standard?" The answer, pure and simple, is the god of that standard. The basis for whatever you decide morality by is your god. By your decision of morality, you have essentially worshipped your god. Tim's articles usually contain one or more moral judgments: > "Omnipotence make the slaughter of the firstborn unneedful, and therefore morally unjustifiable." > "Yahweh struck down all the first-born in the land of Egypt [whose people had a god of the first-born] ... This is immorality, pure and simple." > "It doesn't seem to me that the offense of apostacy [sic] is deserving of the death penalty." but now he shows us the basis for those judgments: "...my inherently compassionate internal moral code..." If this sounds boring, welcome to the club. The only basis for Tim's morality is himself, and that is the one he worships. Tim is not alone in this. In regard to God punishing Adam's descendants for Adam's sin, Kenneth Almquist wrote: "There is simply on way I can accept God's action as moral." again begging the question of the standard behind the decision of morality. Again, by what standard can we judge God's morality and still have him be God? To repeat the beginning statement, the act of making the judgment, *whether the result is approval or not*, imposes a higher standard, and thus a higher god. Having better things to do than this, Larry Bickford, ihnp4!{sun,amd70,decwrl}!qubix!lab