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