This is the introduction for the series An Evil God?
Introduction
“The Bible may be an arresting and poetic work of fiction,” says Richard Dawkins, “but it is not the sort of book you should give your children to form their morals.”
Like most Christians, I once thought that the Bible was the only source of morality for humanity. The thought that it could teach immorality would have been blasphemous. It was the most beautiful book in the world, written by God himself.
In other words, I was delusional. Even though I had read the Bible many times, I could only see it through the lens of faith. If anything was confusing or seemed out of place, it only spoke of my unfaithfulness and ignorance — it couldn’t be anything wrong with the Bible itself.
With that perspective, the Bible cannot be proven wrong. The Bible doesn’t contain contradictions, only paradoxes. God isn’t schizophrenic, he’s mysterious and beyond our understanding. And if your prayers don’t work, well, it’s because you don’t have enough faith.
It’s amazing that anyone can escape the cult of Christianity after using that kind of circular logic for so long.
The Bible Can Support Anything
As history attests, the Bible can be cited to support almost anything. It can inspire both good and evil, for it contains both.
It can be used to support pacifism (Jesus says “do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”) and war and genocide (God commands Saul to “strike Amalek and [destroy] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant…”).
It can be used to support slavery (Paul says “slaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling … as you would Christ”) and human dignity (Jesus says “love your neighbor as yourself”); misogynism (Paul says “women are not permitted to speak [in church], but should be in submission,”) and equality (Paul says “there is no male or female … you are all one”); in obeying government (Paul says “let every person be subject to the governing authorities”) and disobeying government (The apostles refused to obey the Roman authorities saying they “must obey God rather than man”).
It can support killing those who disagree with you (God said “you shall not permit a sorceress to live”) or to love and pray for them (Jesus said “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”).
It can support intellectualism and reason (God said “come, let us reason together”) and blind faith (Jesus said “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”); family values (Paul says, “if anyone does not provide for his relatives … he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever”) and family hatred (Jesus says, “[whoever] does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters … cannot be my disciple.”); monogamy (Paul said “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband”) and polygamy (God said “if [a man] takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food or her clothes…”).
It is the same with God. He is a forgiving God who “forgives iniquity, transgression and sin” and an unforgiving God who sends a flood to destroy everyone on earth and banishes anyone who does not believe in Jesus to everlasting torment in hell. He insists he is a just God, yet to prove his justice he cites his unjust practice of “visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.” He is love itself, yet hated Esau from birth. This can go on.
Is it any wonder there are so many sects of Christianity that all disagree?
Because It was Written by Men
The Bible can support all these positions because it was written and changed by men throughout thousands of years. It is not, as Christians often claim, a cohesive, peaceful, loving, perfect, God-written treatise.
I am not denying that the Bible has many inspiring and morally uplifting stories and teachings — it does. But I also think we too often ignore or forget the dark side of the Bible.
I’m going to show you that side by looking at some of the stories from a different perspective. As we will see, Yahweh is not just the God of love and justice, but a God full of wrath and jealousy, who delights in acts that most of us — without the blinders of faith — would consider the height of evil.
758 Comments
Can’t wait for this!
I love the idea. The Bible is full of options, you will never run out of posts!
What blasphemy!
Of course an atheist would only focus on the negative stuff!!
Haha… just kidding. Looking forward to these posts!
Only a good Christian would focus on the positive stuff.
For me it’s all or nothing. Most believers would admit that there are some things that don’t make sense in the Bible, but for some reason that in no way discredits anything else they spend their lives believing without question.
Very strang.
@dc-agape: Indeed, it’s hard to narrow down all my options!
Daniel, when I finally sat down and read the whole thing, I was amazed that this thing actually serves as the basis and foundation for 1/3 of the world’s population. It also showed me that if the bible is the foundation, then it is intuitively obvious that it’s all made up. If the very foundation of a belief system is fake and made up, what do they have left?
Maybe I’m being too logical in that, but you look at the obvious con job, the fables, the incorrect statements, etc. and you just have to wonder. You are right:
“It’s amazing that anyone can escape the cult of christianity after using that kind of circular logic for so long.”
I feel so sorry for people who don’t even have the wherewithal to question.
I am enthusiastic for this series. I have tried to read the Bible several times in my life, but, having no religious upbringing, I was confused too quickly by contradictions. When I asked my more religious friends about it, they gave me answers that are not even remotely implicit in the text, so I am looking forward to a description of their thoughts by someone who knows the arguments.
One particular story that has bugged me is Cain and Abel. God says to Cain “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” (Genesis 4:7) Immediately after it says “But unto Cain and his offering he had no respect” (Genesis 4:5). Whenever I ask someone, they handwave and say that it is implied that Cain did not give his best offering, but it always seemed to me that Cain was being disfavored because he did not have any sheep to sacrifice to God, as Abel did.
I am very excited to see the rest of this series!
You raise some good points here. I’ve often heard Christians say (and used to say it myself) that they base their morals on the Bible, while everyone else is acting as his/her own God. But all Christians have to choose which verses to emphasize, which interpretations to prefer, and which Christian group to align themselves with (all of whom have somewhat different teachings). So it’s hard to get away from personal choice as the ultimate authority.
Is this series yours? Or is it something on the web/tv?
I generally agree with you: the Bible has been so polluted by the taint of humanity that, if there was ever a hint of the divine contained in it, it’s buried beneath the vast majority of fractured human fallibility.
As an aside (and not an attempt to convince you of anything), I believe it’s possible to believe in God while rejecting Christianity. You might not want to have anything to do with religion or God now (as it sounds like your break from evangelism left scars), and that’s something I can respect. Still, there’s a huge distinction between the notion of a God, and humanity’s attempts to describe him.
In any case, I stop by your blog every once in a while, and I’ve always found it interesting. Keep it up…
God is Loving but he is Just. He gives us choices and we choose the consequences. I am sincerely sorry you hate God this much, but he did not forsake you.
LOL, standard misconception #5… Do YOU hate the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?
No, I don’t feel anything for the imaginary god figure, but I do feel a great deal of disdain towards many of the people who proclaim with absolute certianty that their god is the one true god, and they somehow have answers to everything…
“Still, there’s a huge distinction between the notion of a God, and humanity’s attempts to describe him.”
Why so?
Once God becomes a personal God, there is very little difference.
I can believe the Universe is God, but if it does not take a personal interest in my life, what does it matter?
I can postulate the most intelligent man or woman on earth.
I can postulate other intelligent beings on other worlds more intelligent than the smartest humans.
I can postulate the smartest being on a planet with the smartest beings in all the universe, they would have godlike powers to use.
So What!
@ Whateverman:
There is no distinction or difference between the idea of god and “humanity’s attempts to describe him”. Ideas, in the absence of another sapient race, are human derived – hence the idea of god = ideas about god (”humanity’s attempts to describe him”).
The only thing that your convulted logic tells me is that you think there is singular ‘true’ idea of god that did not come from a human source (seeing as how god is a fundamentally human idea, what with giving a face to the faceless).
Whateverman: The thing is, I for one have never seen the need for God beyond a psychological security blanket. Moreover, there is no way I could believe in God without any proof whatsoever of his existence (which there is not).
There is no proof for God but there is proof that points to him. You can not prove a spirit unless it shows itself to you, even then people will not believe. Define proof – Is Proof a video of God in the skies, then no, we have none. But do we have the Bible, the Historical account of Creation and beginning and end – yes, we have this. God created us to glorify him, so I am sorry you don’t want him, but the truth is you do need him. Do you need water? how about food? if I say i do not need food I will feel the consequences of that decision of not eating. The same is with God, whether you want to believe or not, we were created by God and just because you say you don’t want to believe does not make it not real. If I say you don’t exist, do you exist? I can not, and will not try to, force my faith onto you. Christianity is not a philosophy or religion, but a relationship with God, and Lifestyle.
Clay, we also have a historical account of creation for Middle-earth. Is that enough to believe that it too is real?
As to proof of God’s existence, as long as there are alternative explanations for the supporting evidence (proof) then knowing with certainty which explanation to support can be difficult. Personally, I find testable falsifiable explanations to be more comforting than unassailable or circular explanations. The former means that sometimes I am wrong and if I am wrong then I can grow and learn.
I just happened to find your blog this morning. I absolutely love it. I used to be a devout Christian as well…Now I’m an agnostic. It is wonderful knowing that there are so many of us ex-faithful out there…
Excellent post. I agree completely.
Two words:
GENITAL MUTILATION!!!!
Yay for the Rabbinical laws!
@Whateverman: This is my own series, not taken from web or TV.
Hey! Great blog, and I am going to enjoy reading this series. But I have a few things to comment on:
As someone in the same boat (christian to atheist/agnostic) I still cannot shake some of the lingering questions that I have concerning my upbringing in faith and irrational behaviour that comes from christianity….
When I look at some of these points, the question that raises to me is contextual…. When Jesus said to hate their own family I wonder if that’s more a translation error… To give an example, I am a musician. I have put everything in my life to the side to follow my career in music. Stable Housing, Stable Job, Stable Girlfriend, you name it. Perhaps that is what he was saying in the context of that speech?
Also I am noticing that there is a lot of Old Testament God to New Testament God switches. One of the main arguments that I hear from christians concerning the almost immediate shift from OT God to NT God is that “things change, so does God”, which seems highly contradictory to me, but nonetheless, I wonder if it was necessary for the people of the Old Testament to have a jealous, warfaring, mutinous god who was more concerned about establishing dominance than waging peace. Just a thought about this.
I think that it would be interesting to do a side by side, contextual comparison of the new testament “god”. It would give us who don’t believe more information and abilities to combat closed mindsets :)
Thanks again for this blog. I appreciate it as someone who moved from a mostly liberal area (and being a christian)to an overwhelmingly christian area (and becoming an atheist).
Proto wrote There is no distinction or difference between the idea of god and “humanity’s attempts to describe him”. Ideas, in the absence of another sapient race, are human derived – hence the idea of god = ideas about god (”humanity’s attempts to describe him”).
That’s acceptable if you feel that “God” has never visited the planet. I suspect this not to be the case, but it’s a very personal belief, and something I wont advocate to others.
Still, I feel confident enough of my personal belief to be able to suggest that there’s a difference between a Creator Deity and human ideas about him. If you’re asking me to restate my comment based on your interpretation of the (lack of) evidence, I’m going to have to decline.
Proto wrote again The only thing that your convulted logic tells me is that you think there is singular ‘true’ idea of god that did not come from a human source (seeing as how god is a fundamentally human idea, what with giving a face to the faceless).
I’m curious as to where you think my logic is flawed. Given that this is the first time I’ve ever actually commented on Florien’s blog (as far as I remember), and really haven’t provided much of anything beyond personal opinion (re. arguments, reasoning, logic), I don’t find your claim to be substantially credible.
Could you please give me an example of my flawed logic? Be sure to only use examples from my post on 17-November (or a previous entry, if one can be found).
—
wazza wrote The thing is, I for one have never seen the need for God beyond a psychological security blanket. Moreover, there is no way I could believe in God without any proof whatsoever of his existence (which there is not).
There’s nothing wrong with this. As far as I’m concerned, belief in God can only be sincere and informed (for lack of a better term) if it comes primarily from your own thought process. In other words, if you’ve concluded there’s no God, more power to you.
I’m not confident enough in my belief to assert otherwise.
As an afterthought, I agree with you about the security blanket bit. It does seem obvious that some people feel a need to have all of the tough questions answered, and their place in line for heaven reserved in advance.
—
Mr. Florien: thanks. I look forward to subsequent entries…
Daniel, seriously, the blatant out of context quoting (quote mining) is making my head spin. As this is just an introduction, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you make your case without this fallacy as you get into the series. But please, if you’re going to do this, be fair about it or I’ll be forced smack you with context.
Eric Kemp
@Cryogen:
Actually, I think you’re making much of Daniel’s point for him. Depending on the interpretation you choose, the Bible can say anything, pretty much.
I used to drive truck. Lonely hours on the road and the company of no-one besides yourself and Rush Gasbag can make you crazy, hence the truckstops are full of people who found Jesus in the glove compartment one day.
Whenever one of these fundagelicals (because you never seem to meet the moderate liberal-type christians) started beaking off about “a whole Bible, not a Bible full of holes,” I’d begin by asking them about Leviticus.
Inevitably they knew one verse, something about guys doing guys. Then I’d ask them if they’d ever played football–You know? “Tossed around the ol’ pigskin.” Pig skin. The stuff Leviticus specifically forbids you to wear? You’re damned if you did, y’know.
Did they wear poly-nylon blend socks? Damned again. Ever eat a big ol’ mess o’ crawfish? Oops–God really hates that.
But somehow there were always enough holes in THEIR Bibles for them to crawl through.
If those Christians who most strictly interpret the statutes of god can commit things specifically listed as “abominations” in His sight, then there’s nothing the Bible can’t be used to explain or excuse.
With regard to the other religions using the Bible, well Islam had to torture the text in order to make it fit a sixth-century political movement. Judaism is … well, quaint. If there weren’t some slow progress going on there I could make quite a living as a Shabbos Goy–one who does the work Jews are not permitted to do on Shabbos, like switch on the lights.
When Jesus says to hate your family, it’s poetic hyperbole. As true as a beanstalk reaching to the sky. Or a princess sleeping for a hundred years. And for the same reason.
Christianity sucks. All religion does. Human is far from intelligent.
@Eric: Are you serious? My whole point is that people quote mine and make the Bible say whatever they want. And did you really expect me to quote the entire chapter for each quote? This would have been 50 pages long.
The truth is, it often isn’t a context issue. It’s an interpretation issue. Maybe you haven’t read many bible commentaries, but they are all arguing the context and the meaning and the translation! Well-meaning Christians are always arguing over what a text means, even when the context makes it “obvious” to whichever side is arguing.
It sounds like you take the good ol’ fundamentalist approach: There’s only one meaning to this text, and I’M the one who knows it!
Daniel
“My whole point is that people quote mine and make the Bible say whatever they want.”
And if your motive is to perpetrate this fallacy, then you’ve done a good job. I wouldn’t expect you to quote a chapter in an introduction. But if you’re going to dedicate an entire post to the slavery issue, let’s say, then I WOULD expect some context to be included.
However, in order to show the “dark side” to the Bible, and that God is an evil God, you’re going to have to show that the Bible ACTUALLY says that God supports slavery, genocide etc.
But, like I said, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt since this was just an introduction.
Here comes a shocker. I agree with you. Anyone can make the Bible say and support anything they want it to. But that’s the point, it’s what they want it to say, not what it actually says.
“Well-meaning Christians are always arguing over what a text means, even when the context makes it “obvious” to whichever side is arguing.”
and
“It sounds like you take the good ol’ fundamentalist approach: There’s only one meaning to this text, and I’M the one who knows it!”
The first statement assumes that neither one of the sides of an argument CAN be correct. It assumes there is no correct context, interpretation or meaning. As to your second statement: I don’t think I HAVE the meaning, I know that there IS a meaning, a correct context, a correct translation.
That doesn’t mean there is ONLY ONE translation or meaning, but that does mean there is a correct way to go about it. That is to say that the authors of the books of the Bible wrote in a particular language, to a particular audience for a particular place and time. The only correct method for interpreting what the Bible says about a topic or says in a particular passage, is to attempt to discern what the authors meant to say. Words have meaning and authors have purposes to their words, the Bible is no different. To apply any kind of personal ideas or modern cultural understandings to the Bible is to start off on the wrong foot.
“And if your motive is to perpetrate this fallacy, then you’ve done a good job.”
Don’t think of it as perpetuating, think of it as pointing and laughing.
Seriously, one of the easiest way to show the flaws of a method of interpretation is to show how it results in conclusions that no one would accept. If we treat the bible in the same fashion that the mainstream evangelicals do – as a collection of 33,000 fortune cookies for use in proof texting – we can show just how laughable that method is.
“That is to say that the authors of the books of the Bible wrote in a particular language, to a particular audience for a particular place and time.”
You’re preaching to the choir here. I got $50 in my pocket that’s yours if you go to your local megachurch and tell them they’re doing it wrong. They’re convinced that the author of “The Revelation of St. John” is talking about Barack Obama.
Oh, and then get out alive. I don’t pay out to next of kin.
Eric,
Would you say that without trying to interpret the specific quotes of the Bible Daniel included above by including their context, and saying they are “metaphores” for something more meaningful, that they should not be taken at face value?
I am guessing that Daniel is saying that it’s when the meaning of these quotes are over-complicated by arguing over the minute details of every word (both within the quote and before and after it) that we start to run into trouble with people’s biases getting in the way of the supposed “true” meaning.
If there really are mistakes in translations (which there has to be), then that is one thing. But I think all we can really do as skeptics is read it at face value.
As a side note: As I imagine scholors and theologians over the centuries translating the Bible many times to arrive with what we have today, being that they were biased toward their religion (as I can’t imagine a secularist being so willing to translate the word of God), wouldn’t you think that they perhaps even translated certian passages to sound even better than they did originally, so as to make their God sound great? This would of course mean that God could have sounded even more cruel than he already does.
@ Metro:
“If those Christians who most strictly interpret the statutes of god can commit things specifically listed as “abominations” in His sight, then there’s nothing the Bible can’t be used to explain or excuse.”
I completely agree with you and this is the catalyst of why I looked at the whole religion thing and redefined my stance. HOWEVER, I do believe that there is a level of context that needs to be kept when discussing things of this nature. If you take things out of context you can prove/disprove anything that you want to, and (unless I read this wrong) the idea of the post is that the judeo-christian god is contradictory and truly an evil character, more concerned with ego than truly being a “god”.
The problem is that the majority of christians will look at you funny for saying “the god of the old testament and the god of the new testament are the same god and if god doesn’t change then something is fishy”. I’ve even said that, where god has exhibited some heinous human traits (jealousness, envy, spite, anger) and yet claims perfection. It’s a hollow claim, even in the context of righteousness.
Most christians today focus on New Testament christ and say “Jesus came to fufill the law”. I think the bigger danger lies in the fallacies and dangerously ignorant tendancies in the new testament. a two thousand year old book is no basis for modern morality, and what little understanding you can gleam from it, transcends religion or religious thought.
VorJack
“Seriously, one of the easiest way to show the flaws of a method of interpretation is to show how it results in conclusions that no one would accept.”
I honestly have no idea what you mean by that.
“I got $50 in my pocket that’s yours if you go to your local megachurch and tell them they’re doing it wrong. They’re convinced that the author of “The Revelation of St. John” is talking about Barack Obama.”
Are you attempting to suggest that Christians think Obama is the anti-Christ?
I just want to make sure that’s what you mean before I pee myself with laughter.
Eric Kemp
McBloggenstein
That’s got to be one of the best blogger names.
“Would you say that without trying to interpret the specific quotes of the Bible Daniel included above by including their context, and saying they are “metaphores” for something more meaningful, that they should not be taken at face value?”
No, I take poetry as poetry, parable as parable and history as history. I don’t label difficult passages with “figurative” just because I don’t want to tackle them. And I don’t deny that there are difficult, seemingly contradictive, seemingly “why the heck did God do that?” passages in the Bible. I’ll give away all the goodies once Daniel chooses a specific topic, but suffice to say that in general I find it inconsistent to verify the historicity of an act God committed (Jericho) but ignore the reasons and context of that act.
” . . . that we start to run into trouble with people’s biases getting in the way of the supposed “true” meaning.”
I would agree with this completely.
“If there really are mistakes in translations (which there has to be), then that is one thing. But I think all we can really do as skeptics is read it at face value.”
I think you have a misconception on how we got our current Bible. If our current Bible was based upon a single manuscript from a single area, then yea, we might have a bunch of mistakes in there that would change the meaning of the text. However, our current orthodox Bible translations (the big ones being NASB, NIV and NKJV) are based upon thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, and pieces of manuscripts from thousands of sources (locations) over hundreds of years. When you exhaustively pour over each manuscript, and compare them, mistranslations become a non-issue. Why this is the case is too long for me to put here, and plus you wouldn’t believe me, you’d have to research it yourself.
“As I imagine scholors and theologians over the centuries translating the Bible many times to arrive with what we have today, being that they were biased toward their religion . . .”
Yea, you haven’t actually looked into where the Bible comes from. This is an exhaustive topic in itself. I will have to shorten it and say this: if you look at the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts that we have, going back as far as we have them, and looking at the different and separate areas these manuscripts come from, you’ll find that there are ZERO doctrinal changes from our Bible and those manuscripts. That is to say that, although there may be slight word and sentence structure differences, the meaning of a sentence or a phrase never changes. Let me say again, there are no differences in meaning from most ancient manuscripts to today.
Eric,
Thanks for the reply.
I’m going to quote myself, and take out the word “Bible” to replace it with a quote from you, and make the same point that I meant to make in the first place:
As I imagine scholors and theologians over the centuries translating thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, and pieces of manuscripts from thousands of sources (locations) over hundreds of years many times to arrive with what we have today, being that they were biased toward their religion, wouldn’t you think there would be some translation issues? That there is even the slightest possibility?
Of course this is digressing from the main point of whether we should take specific quotes from the Bible at face value or not, and in or out of context.
If you intend to show that the context of lines such as above:
…does not really mean that God wished harm, or that he maybe had a good reason for it, I will have to give a common reference from Sam Harris, that the religion Jainism would in no way, shape or form even hint at any sort of violence such as this.
There would never be any way to interperet that line to mean anything close to pure non-violence, and there would also never be any way to be justified in such an action.
SOmeone mentioned the whole idea of a god thing, and I think Douglas Adams had a great take on it: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/
Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let’s try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he’s begun to take a little charge of; he’s begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he’s made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage or whatever and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on. Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes which favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we’ll come and we’ll find that the animals have now got thicker coats. Early man, who’s a tool maker, doesn’t have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert – he even manages to live in New York for heaven’s sake – and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn’t have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says “I’ll have it off him”. Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day’s tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in – mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can’t get you; in front of him there’s the forest – it’s got nuts and berries and delicious food; there’s a stream going by, which is full of water – water’s delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here’s cousin Ug and he’s caught a mammoth – mammoth’s are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it’s fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, ‘well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in’ and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says ‘So who made this then?’ Who made this? – you can see why it’s a treacherous question. Early man thinks, ‘Well, because there’s only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he’s probably male’. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , ‘If he made it, what did he make it for?’ Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, ‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’ and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in – an interesting hole I find myself in – fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.
Eric Kemp,
Yes, that’s exactly what VorJack means; there are fundies walking around (within 30 feet of me RIGHT NOW) who think Obama is the Anti-Christ. The explanation given to me is because Obama is 1) Attractive, 2) well-spoken (can pronounce “nuclear”?), and 3) comes from the East (What? Hawaii is the East? Well, I guess it’s east of Jerusalem … sort of.).
They should be happy as clams because this is what they have all been waiting for. I suggest they give all their money to the poor or render it unto Caesar and follow Jesus Right Now because the End Is Nigh. I can hardly wait for the Rapture. It will be a blessed peace.
I can’t read all that. Stop having all the best arguments while I’m sleeping!
But I will say one thing. I’ve seen the word “context” a lot, so here’s a question for you.
What sort of context – and you only need one truly viable answer – could possibly lead to a merciful, all-powerful god choosing the one course that leads to genocide, incestual rape, and all the other myriad sins detailed in the Bible as having been ordered and sanctioned by god?
And if god did order these things, is god really merciful and loving?
Atheists don’t sleep, wazza.
We stay up sinning and planning our unethical conquests.
McBloggenstein
“As I imagine scholors and theologians over the centuries translating thousands of manuscripts, lectionaries, and pieces of manuscripts from thousands of sources (locations) over hundreds of years many times to arrive with what we have today, being that they were biased toward their religion, wouldn’t you think there would be some translation issues? That there is even the slightest possibility?”
The problem is that you ignored my argument that there are no doctrinal differences, no differences in meaning, from the ancient manuscripts to our current Bible.
“There would never be any way to interperet that line to mean anything close to pure non-violence, and there would also never be any way to be justified in such an action.”
But see, that’s the thing. You’re affirming that God did that act while ignoring WHY He did it and what makes Him able to do it without being “evil”. If you want me to elaborate… I will.
“Atheists don’t sleep, wazza.
We stay up sinning and planning our unethical conquests.”
*gasp* I KNEW IT!!!
Eric Kemp
@ Whateverman, I take issue with the sentence “Still, there’s a huge distinction between the notion of a God, and humanity’s attempts to describe him.”
The notion of a god = the idea of god.
Humanity’s attempts to describe [god] = ideas about god.
Can you see where I’m having trouble seeing any distinction? I don’t see any difference between the idea of god, and ideas about god, other than the plurality of the latter statement.
When I said that your logic was flawed, I specifically meant this sentence appearing internally contradictory.
Playing the anti-devils advocate;
You did mix both the old and new Testaments which most Christians would tell you are comprised of men relating to God in different ways.
The God of the old testament is always viewed as more legalistic and rule bound. In the New Testament, men have Jesus as an interceder or diplomat between men and God to smooth things out and make our relationship w/God more forgiving and flexible.
It’s called being under the time of the law(old Testament) and the time of grace (new Testament).
Just contributing a Christian perspective.
Personally my mind is still open and even as I’m writing this , I realize there are some glaring inconsistencies. Almost as if there are 2 different Gods.
Most Christians would say that Gods’ character is the same, that it’s Jesus who opened the way for a more merciful relationship with Him.
By the way the flooding the earth with water and destroying everybody (’cept Noah) was a one time deal. After that God was saddened and relented (God can change his mind too) and said He would never do that again and gave us the rainbow as a sign that He wouldn’t flood us out (globally) anymore.
The old Testament is mostly made up of the mistakes of the Jewish people in thier relationship to God so we learn not to do as they did. That’s why there’s so much immorality and evil in the old Testament.
@ Proto and Whateverman;
If there is an objective God outside of us, we could no more describe or comprehend Him than we can describe the way the way the universe really works.
Many of our descriptions of the physical universe are still “notions” or “ideas”.
Murrow: if the Flood was a one-time deal, and it made him sad afterwards, and he’s omniscient… why didn’t he save himself the sadness and never do it at all?
@ McBloggenstien
I agree that the genocidal passages in the old Testament are very disturbing and enough to disqualify it as a moral book.
This attitude exists in the Middle East even till today and when that will end is anyones guess.
@ Wazza
Apparently God showed His human side here i.e. anger.
He apparently went to plan B after this which Christians will tell you was Jesus.
Our seeing Jesus’ sacrificial act of love on the cross and, realizing our sinfullness, asking Him for forgiveness is supposed to purify us now so we don’t have to be wiped out by the wrath of God.
Fascinating eh?
again… he’s omnipotent. Why did the world turn out so badly in the first place, and why couldn’t he just fix it when it did?
Of course Jews practiced animal sacrifices for this same pupose until the advent of Jesus. The Jews still trust in thier sacrifices and Chritians trust in Christs’ sacrifice, thus the split, fork in the road, between the Judeo and Christian religions
@ Wazza
Here you have touched on the concept of mans’ autonomy.
In other words God didn’t create us as robots but gave us free will ( even to deny His existence). This,however, didn’t stop Him from getting mad and throwing a few plagues, pestilence and floods our way from time to time.
but it’s not evil to do that?
Most people think that if you get angry and kill someone, you’ve done a Bad Thing. Is God held up to a different standard?
@Eric Kemp:
This sounds like something from a Sunday School apologetics class, not something coming from scholarship. First of all, we don’t have anything near the original manuscripts, so we have no idea what we have now compares to the originals. We can only make guesses.
In fact, there are so many errors that the evangelical doctrine of infallibility is not that the Bible we have is infallible, it’s that it’s infallible in the original manuscripts. But we don’t have them, and we’ve never seen them, so that’s a leap in the dark.
I’ll give one, simple example of a difference in manuscripts that does matter. Take 1 John 5:7-8:
This passage was long used to support the Trinity, but now every modern bible translation has a footnote saying it shouldn’t really be in there. That’s an example everyone can agree upon — it’s such a shut case that even evangelicals agree. (Daniel Wallace, an evangelical scholar, discusses the issue here.)
Don’t you think that’s a pretty major difference in early manuscripts? Another example is Jesus and the woman in adultery, which shouldn’t be in the Bible either, as it was added much later by a scribe.
A simple overview of such differences is Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, which I recommend to you if you haven’t read it.
* * *
@murrowcronkite:
I’m not so sure I agree with you about “most Christians.” Many Catholics, for instance, are happy to say that the early OT was myth.
Even CS Lewis, the “famed Christian apologist” didn’t think that the OT was historical truth — he thought it was mythic truth. He admitted there were errors and knew they were not historical.
Evangelicals, however, insist it is historical truth and they divide into two main camps: dispensational and covenantal theology. The basic difference is this: Dispensationalists think that God acted different throughout the Bible’s “dispensations” and covenantal theologians think that God was consistent throughout the Bible.
Dispensationalism is more consistent with the reality that God acts much different in the OT than the NT, but the way they break things up into ages is absurd and hard to justify biblically. Covenantal theology is an admirable attempt to make the bible more cohesive, but the exegetical loopholes they jump through would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
So there is not much agreement there. There are also other systematic attempts to make sense of the jumble of texts called the Bible, but they are less popular.
* * *
As for the free will argument, you say:
This is the usual scapegoat for Arminian-leaning Christians (there is a large disagreement about whether free will exists between Calvinism and Arminianism — must be because the Bible is so clear!), but the easiest argument against biblical free will is this:
If God has to make us free to love him, what will happen in heaven? If we are not robots, we’ll have free will, which means we can sin — and if we can sin, heaven won’t be heaven.
Or, if God can make us not be robots in heaven, but still not sin, why didn’t he do that in the first place? If he could have, it was his choice and he is responsible, because he could have easily avoided it.
So waving the free will flag doesn’t solve anything — it just leads to more questions and circular reasoning.
Daniel
This is a good example reading what you want to read in order that you can argue against an argument.
You said: “First of all, we don’t have anything near the original manuscripts, so we have no idea what we have now compares to the originals. We can only make guesses.”
If you read my comment again, I was very careful, I never said that we have the original manuscripts. I used the word “ancient” for a reason. My point stands, there are no doctrinal differences.
“In fact, there are so many errors that the evangelical doctrine of infallibility is not that the Bible we have is infallible, it’s that it’s infallible in the original manuscripts.”
This is a case of selective scholarship. Perhaps you are reading from Fuller seminary? There is a theological debate in the academic community as to wether or not the Bible is infallible or inerrant. There is a difference but there is no point in discussing it here. Suffice to say that the vast majority of orthodox scholarship considers the Bible to inerrant and not merely infallible.
“This passage was long used to support the Trinity, but now every modern bible translation has a footnote saying it shouldn’t really be in there.”
Actually, as I understand it, the consensus is that there are later (Post 16th century, so MUCH later) Latin Vulgate manuscripts that ADD to 1 John 5:8 and the only modern translation that includes this addition is the NKJV. The NASB and the NIV all use what the earlier Greek manuscripts say and note the later additions but don’t include them.
Don’t you find it kind of weak to use an example of where comparative research of Greek manuscripts works and finds and excludes the later additions? Doesn’t this help prove my point that the thousands of Greek, Hebrew and Latin manuscripts actually help ensure we are reading an accurate Bible?
Can you give me chapter and verse on the Jesus and the woman in adultery so that I may look that up?
“This is the usual scapegoat for Arminian-leaning Christians (there is a large disagreement about whether free will exists between Calvinism and Arminianism — must be because the Bible is so clear!), but the easiest argument against biblical free will is this.”
Daniel, you’re a smart guy. But you seem to be selective in your scholarship. That isn’t to say that we all have to know everything, but, to put Christians into two camps, Arminianism and Calvinism, is to ignore the reality of theological thought on this issue. The reality is that Arminianism and Calvanism are extremes on either side of the spectrum. TULIP Calvinists say there is ZERO free will, while Arminianists say that there is ZERO divine influence. The vast majority of theologians fall somewhere in the middle. However, you aren’t even accurate to what this debate is about. The Calvinist vs. Arminianist debate is specifically and solely about the question of SALVATION. NO Calvinist will tell you that we don’t have free will in our every day choices.
You also continue to perpetrate the fallacy that because there are two opposing views, that therefore there is not a correct view. You also suppose that the Bible can’t support aspects of Arminianism AND Calvinism without contradicting itself. The truth is that the Bible supports both in a non-contradictory way (this explanation of this would be lengthy), but it is humans who prefer one way or another, and so focus on that.
“If God has to make us free to love him, what will happen in heaven? If we are not robots, we’ll have free will, which means we can sin — and if we can sin, heaven won’t be heaven.”
Here, you ignore the Biblical doctrine of the flesh. That is, Christians battle against our flesh and it is in, and because of, our flesh that we sin. When we are in heaven, we will no longer have this earthly flesh. Sin goes out the window.
@Eric:
I realized you didn’t say original manuscripts only after I wrote the response. So I agree that I responded to a point you didn’t make there.
I realize there are debates about inerrancy, infallibility, inerrancy, etc. I try and give broad summaries when possible, because most non-believers don’t care about all the funny squabbles in evangelism. In fact, I got sick of it sometimes even when I was evangelical.
As for Calvinism vs. Arminianism, I realize that many people don’t take one of the extremes (though I also think you oversimplify — I know 7 point Calvinists who believe in human freedom and semi-peligan Arminians who think there is divine influence). But most Christians usually lean towards one or the other.
For the Jesus and adulterous woman story, see John 8. In the ESV, for example, it’s in brackets. It shouldn’t be in there at all, even if it’s a nice story.
Your argument against free will is admirable, but it doesn’t answer the problem. Adam and Even didn’t have “the flesh” yet they sinned. We won’t have “the flesh” in heaven, but that means we can still sin, just like A & E.
Eric,
You said: “But see, that’s the thing. You’re affirming that God did that act while ignoring WHY He did it and what makes Him able to do it without being “evil”. ”
I’m not ignoring it, because I asked if you intend to show if lines such as those above do not really mean that God wished harm, or that he maybe had a good reason for it.
In other words, will you be able to show through context that he was justified in such acts?
I am not ignoring WHY he did anything. I am saying that there is no way that killing someone can EVER be justified if you are truly all loving and non-violent.
Therefore, God is NOT non-violent, NOT just, and NOT all loving, and I don’t think the idea of him deserves to be justified by any means.
Daniel
“I realized you didn’t say original manuscripts only after I wrote the response. So I agree that I responded to a point you didn’t make there.”
I figured as much.
“I realize there are debates about inerrancy, infallibility, inerrancy, etc. I try and give broad summaries when possible, because most non-believers don’t care about all the funny squabbles in evangelism.”
Believe me, I don’t care either. But I was responding to your suggestion that all (you didn’t say “all” but it was implied) evangelicals don’t even consider the current Bible to be infallible or inerrant. That’s just not the case. Even the more liberal seminaries still consider God’s word to be currently infallible.
“though I also think you oversimplify — I know 7 point Calvinists who believe in human freedom and semi-peligan Arminians who think there is divine influence.”
Right, falling somewhere in the middle.
“But most Christians usually lean towards one or the other.”
This is completely anecdotal, but most Christians I know fall somewhere in the middle. I do know a few TULIP Calvanists but I’ve never meant a full blown Arian.
However, you still are confusing the issue with a question of free will in general. The discussion is about influence of free will when it comes to Salvation and nothing more.
“For the Jesus and adulterous woman story, see John 8. In the ESV, for example, it’s in brackets. It shouldn’t be in there at all, even if it’s a nice story.”
You know, I’m going to bring out a book or two and get back to you on John 8 because a cursory review of the passage yielded no talk of a controversy over the passage. That isn’t to say that there aren’t some differences in the manuscripts regarding John 8, it’s that I couldn’t find any in the 10 min I just looked.
“Your argument against free will is admirable, but it doesn’t answer the problem. Adam and Even didn’t have “the flesh” yet they sinned. We won’t have “the flesh” in heaven, but that means we can still sin, just like A & E.”
Ah, but neither did Adam and Eve have the resurrected bodies that we will have in heaven. They still had bodies of flesh just like we have now not a body like Jesus did when He ascended. Sure, Adam’s body was without a sin nature because he hadn’t sinned yet, but it was still a fleshly body.
McBloggenstein
“I’m not ignoring it, because I asked if you intend to show if lines such as those above do not really mean that God wished harm, or that he maybe had a good reason for it.”
Let me get back to this.
“I am not ignoring WHY he did anything. I am saying that there is no way that killing someone can EVER be justified if you are truly all loving and non-violent.”
Whoa! When did anyone ever say that God was non-violent? Uh, I don’t think that was ever the case. Also, “all loving” doesn’t mean “all allowing”. That is to say that you cannot separate God’s love from his justice, righteousness and wrath. Just because God loves all, doesn’t mean he allows all to scorn His justice, righteousness and wrath. In fact, the opposite is true. Since He loves those that actually do follow Him, He must bring down his justice upon those who do not.
“Therefore, God is NOT non-violent, NOT just, and NOT all loving, and I don’t think the idea of him deserves to be justified by any means.”
Whoa, see now you’re putting YOUR ideas of justice and love upon God. Since there is no absolute morality (right?) who are you to put your morality on ANYONE, much less God? Also, in order to do this, you must flat out ignore the question of where your morality came from in the first place and why you treat your morality as universal as you’ve just done.
But to get back to your previous question. I cannot answer for every context of the OT in one sitting, so I will tackle one of them. In the case of Sodom and Gemorra (if that’s how you spell it), God gave them EVERY chance to repent. God explicitly told them what would happen if they did not. Moses pleaded on their account, that if Moses could find just 10 righteous people (it could have been less, I don’t remember) in the city of Sodom and Gemorra then God would spare them. Moses could not find even such a small number. They were liars, blasphemers, fornicators and sodomites. When God sent angels into the city, the people of the city wanted to rape the angels (you know, in the butt). These people were given every chance, and were told what would happen, they refused. God merely followed through with His word. Lot’s wife was told not to look back, but she did, disobeying what God told her to do, and she paid the consequences.
Anyway, that’s just one example. It is inconsistent to put your own morality upon God and to affirm the acts God comitted by not why He was Righteous in doing so (which is pretty much the point of the story).
-”who are you to put your morality on ANYONE, much less God?”
Who am I to put my morality on God?
You forget. I’m coming from the perspective of talking about God as an abstract concept that I believe to be false.
If I were speaking of him as a real being, of course it wouldn’t have the same meaning…
…and I’m trying to show why I think he doesn’t exist. Isn’t that what we’re all doing here talking?
-”When did anyone ever say that God was non-violent?”
I’m not saying anyone did say that. But the fact that he is violent makes the likelihood of his existence even less for me. That was the point of me saying he is not non-violent.
-”Also, “all loving” doesn’t mean “all allowing”. That is to say that you cannot separate God’s love from his justice, righteousness and wrath. Just because God loves all, doesn’t mean he allows all to scorn His justice, righteousness and wrath. In fact, the opposite is true. Since He loves those that actually do follow Him, He must bring down his justice upon those who do not.”
The idea that there’s someone up there “allowing” or “not allowing” humans to do or not do things because of reasons that you are trying to justify by telling me his love and his justice go together, is absolutely absurd to me.
Again, these are concepts to argue with another believer over who they believe god is, and why he does what he does.
I would like to save you a lot of trouble, breath, and typing in your life.
When addressing and justifying specific examples that an atheist brings up to show why they think God is not great, you need to remember that they are trying to show he is not great because they don’t believe in him. Responding by using logic to talk about God’s justice, righteousness and wrath does not prove truth. I think you should assume when debating with an atheist that the burden of proof is always there, and trying to debate justification for actions does not work when the person you’re debating with doesn’t even believe any of it is true.
Regarding the S & G story, it sounds like God was probably justified and righteous in what he did. I am admitting this solely on the basis that I read the S & G story as just that… a story. I still don’t subscribe to the idea that it’s ok for an omnipotant being to push HIS moral on us.
The problem is I don’t believe in God, therefore showing good justification for an action has no meaning for me. I can’t speak for all non-believers, but just because I tried to point out that I don’t think there can ever be good justification for a creator to kill his children, doesn’t mean I want someone to prove to me that he is justified. That argument does nothing to prove his existence, which is the basis for all arguments about God and religion between an atheist and a believer.
@Eric:
While I skipped a couple of comments to address this here:
“When you exhaustively pour over each manuscript, and compare them, mistranslations become a non-issue.”
Seriously, you gave me a belly laugh that had my boss poking her head over the cubicle wall.
I can’t begin to address the wrong of this one, so I decided on using an example: I copied 2 Kings 7:3, fed it into Babelfish, translated it into French, a language separated from English by a relatively thin wall, and in which I have some slight experience.
The translation comes out pretty well, if ungrammatical:
“Maintenant il y avait quatre lépreux, à entrer dedans de la porte : et ils ont dit un à l’autre : Quel moyen de rester ici jusqu’à nous mourons-nous ? 4 si nous entrerons dans la ville, nous mourrons avec la famine : et si nous resterons ici, nous devons également mourir : venez donc, et courons plus d’au camp des Syriens. S’ils nous épargnent, nous vivrons : mais s’ils nous tuent, nous mais mourir.”
Then I switched it back to English again:
“Now there were four leprous, to enter inside of the door: and they said to l’ other: Which means of remaining jusqu’ here; in do we die we? 4 if we will enter the city, we will die with the famine: and if we will remain here, we must also die: thus come, and run more d’ with the camp of the Syrians. S’ they save to us, we will live: but s’ they kill us, us but to die.”
That’s ONE iteration between two closely related languages. Now I’m sure the machines made mistakes you and I would not have made. But so would Medieval scholars translating ancient Aramaic and Greek interpretations of ancient Hebrew oral texts into Latin, then into English. Not to mention the number of individuals who worked on the texts from the authors to the modern printers.
Mistranslations are part and parcel of the Bible. And misinterpretation, even between English versions, is a natural consequence. Literal interpretationalism is a massive mental and linguistic failure.
Oh, and speaking of Biblical error–Who was it who pleaded for Sodom and Gomorrah again?
McBloggenstein
“You forget. I’m coming from the perspective of talking about God as an abstract concept that I believe to be false.
If I were speaking of him as a real being, of course it wouldn’t have the same meaning…
…and I’m trying to show why I think he doesn’t exist. Isn’t that what we’re all doing here talking?”
It doesn’t matter if you believe in God or if you are arguing God’s existence as a hypothetical (which I, of course, knew you were doing). That doesn’t absolve you of the fallacy of putting your morality upon Him. IF God exists, then He is a person just like us (but not subject to the restrictions of our experience of human persons).
And since you didn’t argue the point, I assume that you believe there is no absolute truth, and that you can’t put your morality upon ANYONE, especially of a different time and culture. Why is God the exception? Because you want Him to be? Because it allows you to deny His existence? Is any of that rational?
“I’m not saying anyone did say that. But the fact that he is violent makes the likelihood of his existence even less for me.”
So you’ve arbitrarily created your own criteria (which is probably modifiable at any time) for what God must be in order to exist, so if any god that is proposed to you doesn’t fit your definition, then that god doesn’t exist. That’s convenient. Perhaps I should try that with laws. I’ll create a criteria for laws and if a law doesn’t fit my criteria, then that law doesn’t exist to me. Hey, this could be fun! If this sounds farfetched, it’s not; this is exactly what criminals do.
The point is that creating your own criteria that God must fit in order for God to exist is irrational.
“The idea that there’s someone up there “allowing” or “not allowing” humans to do or not do things because of reasons that you are trying to justify by telling me his love and his justice go together, is absolutely absurd to me.”
Just because it’s absurd to you, doesn’t mean it’s can’t be true, or is unlikely to be true. In fact, it’s fairly simple. If God exists, then He has the power to create all things, if He has this power, then we could describe Him as all-powerful. If God is all-powerful, then He necessarily controls all things. Now, God has reliquished portions of this control because humans have the power to choose, but He still controls none-the-less.
But I’m honestly curious, could you explain to me why the idea of an all-powerful God is absurd to you?
“I think you should assume when debating with an atheist that the burden of proof is always there, and trying to debate justification for actions does not work when the person you’re debating with doesn’t even believe any of it is true.”
This brings up an interesting point that I’m glad we get to discuss. I should tell you that I’ve debated many atheists, and I understand what you are saying. However, what we are discussing here is wether or not that Christian God is evil. That is, are the actions laid out in the Bible that God has committed proof of an evil God, despite what Christians would like to say about Him?
So, you are choosing to hypothetically accept that God actually committed these acts while ignoring the attributes given to God in the Bible. Even on a hypothetical, “I actually don’t believe in God” basis, this is inconsistent. That is, if God exists as the Christians say He does, then He IS justified in His actions, due to his power, justice, righteousness, and wrath. In more blunt terms: Even on a hypothetical basis, who are you to judge the actions of an all-powerful God? Who are you to say what God does with His creation? To hide behind a hypothetical smokescreen is just to stick your head in the sand regarding the inconsistency of such a position.
Also, you are arguing from your no-God worldview, yet you would begrudge me arguing from my God worldview? Forgive me if I don’t comply. If you are unable to explain your belief that the Christian God is evil due to my explanation God’s attributes and your violation of relative morality; hiding behind a hypothetical smokescreen doesn’t make your belief any more rational.
Also, choosing to focus on the acts of God that you deem evil, doesn’t solve your problem, as an atheist, of being unable to explain several phenomena of human existence and experience. But I’ll wait to see if you challenge me on this to explain myself.
“I still don’t subscribe to the idea that it’s ok for an omnipotant being to push HIS moral on us.”
You probably have a higher view of yourself in comparison to an all-powerful God than you should. Perhaps that is the real reason why you find God absurd, because it would force you to re-examine how much control and power you have.
“The problem is I don’t believe in God, therefore showing good justification for an action has no meaning for me.”
This exactly like this conversation:
You: “I don’t believe in God because if He exists then He is evil.”
Me: “But, if God exists, then by His very definition of being God and His attributes, He was justified in His actions.”
You: “Well, then I just don’t believe in God.”
Me: “*sigh*”
Does this make sense to you?
“That argument does nothing to prove his existence . . .”
I could never prove to you that He exists, nor am I trying. I am only trying to show you the inconsistencies and irrationalities you must subscribe to in order to deny Him.
Eric,
Prove the existence of God.
Eric,
Holy crap. You say you debate with atheists a lot. I’d bet that you feel as though you win often, and it’s probably because of your extensive barrage of questions and assumptions.
I’m sorry if I didn’t respond to or address everything you said. It’s just that I don’t have the time to do so, or I didn’t think it was very relevant. So, just because I didn’t argue a point, you shouldn’t assume anything.
Regarding all of the talk about morality, I still think you are missing my point that whether I think he was justified or not doesn’t really matter, because I don’t believe in him.
Every person on this planet judges everyone around them based on their personal morals. Because I do not regard God as real, I subject the idea of God (as well as MY idea of God) to my morals, the same way I would judge any other human being.
If I were to have faith in an omnipotent god, then of course I could not put my morals on him.
-”So you’ve arbitrarily created your own criteria (which is probably modifiable at any time) for what God must be in order to exist, so if any god that is proposed to you doesn’t fit your definition, then that god doesn’t exist.”
I think you have it backwards. I am not creating any criteria for God whatsoever. I have not sat down and made a list of things that a god must be in order for me to believe in him. I merely judge things I learn about him as I learn them. What’s wrong with that? Remember, I am coming at this as a non-believer. People that spread the faith bring the ideas of God to me, and it is up to me as a skeptical and rational person to judge those ideas based on my idea of what this world means to me.
-”Just because it’s absurd to you, doesn’t mean it’s can’t be true, or is unlikely to be true.”
Again, because God is an idea to me, not a real person, the fact that it’s absurd to me DOES make it not true to me.
-”If God exists, then He has the power to create all things, if He has this power, then we could describe Him as all-powerful. If God is all-powerful, then He necessarily controls all things. Now, God has reliquished portions of this control because humans have the power to choose, but He still controls none-the-less.”
If this, if that… Do you not realize that these are grand assumptions, and that you are trying to use logic from the basis that he exists? I do not believe he exists, or that he has the power to create all things, or that he controls all things, or that he has reliquished some control to humans. These are all things that a non-believer is not able to assume when debating about truth.
-”But I’m honestly curious, could you explain to me why the idea of an all-powerful God is absurd to you?”
Are you serious? To make this easy… for every reason you’ve ever heard.
I would love to hear your reasons for why you think the idea is not absurd. And please remember, belief does not equal truth.
-”So, you are choosing to hypothetically accept that God actually committed these acts while ignoring the attributes given to God in the Bible. Even on a hypothetical, “I actually don’t believe in God” basis, this is inconsistent. That is, if God exists as the Christians say He does, then He IS justified in His actions, due to his power, justice, righteousness, and wrath.”
Good point.
-”To hide behind a hypothetical smokescreen is just to stick your head in the sand regarding the inconsistency of such a position.”
I don’t understand how my argument being inconsistant means I am hiding.
-”hiding behind a hypothetical smokescreen doesn’t make your belief any more rational.”
My belief? You forget, I don’t have a belief. You’re forgetting that God is hypothetical. Until he shows his his big bearded face to us, he will always be hypothetical.
-”You probably have a higher view of yourself in comparison to an all-powerful God than you should.”
In a believers mind, I’m sure I do.
-”Perhaps that is the real reason why you find God absurd, because it would force you to re-examine how much control and power you have.”
Why would I ever need to re-examine how much control I have over myself? I have never had any reason whatsoever to ever think that anything and everything I have ever done was not in my control. If in my mind I started to feel that things were out of my control, like the weather, then I could see myself starting to wonder if there was someone in the sky pushing the buttons.
Your pretend conversation between us was completely false and not at all what I would ever say.
-”I am only trying to show you the inconsistencies and irrationalities you must subscribe to in order to deny Him.”
You still don’t understand. I don’t need to deny him. Being without belief does not equal denial.
Denial would be if I were to assume that something is true but I still choose not to accept it.
Metro
” I copied 2 Kings 7:3, fed it into Babelfish, translated it into French, a language separated from English by a relatively thin wall, and in which I have some slight experience.”
This shows a complete lack of understanding on how Biblical translation is done. As you partially admitted, the machine is going to make mistakes that humans won’t. However, it’s so much more than that. As I’ve only researched the NIV and NASB translations, I can only speak to those. The NIV and NASB were both translated by hundreds of Greek and Hebrew scholars spanning all denominations and many nationalities (from all over the world is what I mean), both over period of ten years. These people’s lives are dedicated to correctly interpreting those languages. To say the machine won’t make the mistakes humans do is an understatement of monumental proportions when comparing the machine to the NIV and NASB. Even if there are disagreements between the scholars, that’s why there many of them present, to hash out the disagreements and come to a suitable agreement to what English word BEST fits the Greek in a particular passage. Notice that I said “best” and not “correct” because there are many words that could be used and still be accurate.
However, you’ve also completely missed my point. I never said there weren’t any differences in the manuscripts. I said there weren’t any DOCTRINAL differences. That is, not a single meaning was changed from the ancient manuscripts to our current Bible. For instance, in your 1 Kings example, did the meaning of the passage change?
“Oh, and speaking of Biblical error–Who was it who pleaded for Sodom and Gomorrah again?”
Shucks. Was it not Moses? I didn’t look up the story before I talked about it. Was it Aaron? Joshua? Oh well, the point doesn’t change. But do you see how easy it is for me to check my error? Same with the Bible and the ancient manuscripts. BAM! It all comes back around!
Roger
“Prove the existence of God”
Sure, just as soon as you prove to me the existence of physical matter
-”Sure, just as soon as you prove to me the existence of physical matter”
LOL!
Never mind the fact that physical matter can be seen, touched, smelled, and tasted.
In comparison, God is only felt through emotion.
Eric,
That’s not proof–that’s an idiotic dodge. Please try again.
McBloggenstein
“I’d bet that you feel as though you win often, and it’s probably because of your extensive barrage of questions and assumptions.”
If I was into debating to win then I would be sad individual.
“Regarding all of the talk about morality, I still think you are missing my point that whether I think he was justified or not doesn’t really matter, because I don’t believe in him.”
This in direct contradiction to . . .
“Your pretend conversation between us was completely false and not at all what I would ever say.”
My pretend conversation was more like a paraphrase of exactly what was said and what you just confirmed by that above quote. You said that the fact that IF God existed then He would be evil, so that strengthens your belief that He doesn’t exist. I said that IF God exists then He was justified in His actions. You came back with, “. . .whether I think he was justified or not doesn’t really matter, because I don’t believe in him.” I paraphrased you correctly.
But you’re right, the justifiability of His actions isn’t going to make God’s existence more likely to you, however, it DOES make your “If God exists He is evil” argument completely invalid.
” I have not sat down and made a list of things that a god must be in order for me to believe in him. I merely judge things I learn about him as I learn them. What’s wrong with that?”
I never said you sat down and made a list. But you exactly said that since God commits violence, therefore He doesn’t exists. This is an arbitrary criteria that you’ve manufactured. It makes it REAL easy for you to intellectually explain away your denial of God.
“Again, because God is an idea to me, not a real person, the fact that it’s absurd to me DOES make it not true to me.”
I think we’re getting into what your definition of “truth” is. Is there an objective truth or is it only what you decide it is?
“If this, if that… Do you not realize that these are grand assumptions, and that you are trying to use logic from the basis that he exists?”
It’s not that hard man. IF God exists then He is all-powerful by DEFINITION. I’m not arguing that you should believe these things. I’m arguing that your assertion that an all-powerful God that controls all things is absurd to you is a ridiculous position. If God exists then He, by definition, controls all things. It’s a real simple philosophical exercise.
I asked for why you think God’s existence is absurd, you said . . .
“Are you serious? To make this easy… for every reason you’ve ever heard.”
That isn’t an answer.
“I would love to hear your reasons for why you think the idea is not absurd.”
Ok, very simply, where did matter come from?
“And please remember, belief does not equal truth.”
That’s funny, because you’ve been equating your non-God position as truth through out this conversation.
“I don’t understand how my argument being inconsistant means I am hiding.”
You are displaying your beliefs about a hypothetical God and why you don’t believe in Him. I have shown some of these reason to be erroneous, to then turn and say “well it’s just hypothetical!” is to ignore the erroneous beliefs and ideas.
“My belief? You forget, I don’t have a belief.”
Yes, you have a belief that God doesn’t exist. That’s a belief. You have a belief that matter can come from nothing, and that life can come from non-life. These are beliefs you MUST necessarily have to believe that God doesn’t exist.
“I have never had any reason whatsoever to ever think that anything and everything I have ever done was not in my control.”
This is pure self-delusion. Let me explain it briefly. You are nothing but matter. . . right? That is, your brain is nothing but chemicals and electrical signals. . .right? Ok, so no matter what decision you make, it’s nothing more than the chemical reactions in your brain telling you how to respond to a particular stimulus. You don’t have control over the chemistry in your brain do you? So you have no control over your actions. For an atheist, free will is an illusion.
“You still don’t understand. I don’t need to deny him. Being without belief does not equal denial.”
I know that you believe this, but this is just false as well. As I briefly showed above, there are certain beliefs you MUST have once you deny God.
Roger and McBloggenstein
“Never mind the fact that physical matter can be seen, touched, smelled, and tasted.
In comparison, God is only felt through emotion.”
AND
“That’s not proof–that’s an idiotic dodge. Please try again.”
It’s not a dodge, and I’ll explain why. McBlog hit the nail on the head. Matter is MERELY seen, touched, smelled and tasted. That brings us to the question, what ARE the senses? Aren’t they just electrical impulses to the brain? Where exactly do these electrical impulses take place? In the brainstem. So, when you “feel” a table, all you’re REALLY doing is experiencing an electrical impulse in your brainstem. The only thing you can do is PROVE to YOURSELF (and no one else) that you are feeling an electrical impulse in your brain.
That the table is actually there could be an illusion. You have no way of knowing if it’s actually there. Any attempt to prove the tables existence to yourself only leads you back to electrical impulses in your brain. Any attempt to prove the table’s existence to anyone else begs the question to how you know it’s real to you, and how that person can know that YOU are real to them.
This may sound idiotic to both of you. However, all this proves is a complete lack of philosophical training on both of your parts. ANY phil 101 class will go through a similar exercise with you, and the above was an exteremely brief version. ANY study into ancient world religions will show that a large minority of them didn’t believe matter was real, and the Hindus STILL don’t. And here’s the kicker, you could NEVER prove them wrong.
Both of you are flat out assuming, a priori, that matter exists. You are also assuming that you can prove it does. So, go with your assumption. Roger, if my dodge is so idiotic, and McBloggenstein, if your senses can so easily prove to ME that matter exists, go for it…prove it to me.
And that’s the point, Roger, you want me to prove to you that God exists but you can’t even prove to me that matter exists. You can’t even prove to yourself that matter is anything more than electrical impulses in your brain. If you want me to give you a good argument for God’s existence, I’ve got several quick ones at my fingertips, so I will accept any rephrasing of your question to something that is more rational and conducive to discussion.
@Eric: Sorry to say this but your reply is one of the lamest I’ve seen for a long time in the great tradition of “you can’t prove anything absolutely therefore I can believe anything I want.” Honestly this is just FUD because you’re incapable of actaully answering the questions put to you. I mean at least most believers will at least admit that they it on faith.
Jabster
Whoa, I have no problem not being able to “prove” God exists. God, of course, takes faith to believe in, I have no problem admitting as much to anyone. However, to ask a believer to PROVE God when you can’t even prove matter exists is ridiculous and I won’t let people get away with it.
It’s the same as me saying to you, “Prove that God DOESN’T exist”. You can’t prove an absolute negative or positive. It’s an impossible request. And if I walk away going, “See, that dumb atheist couldn’t prove to me his position therefore I’m awesome”, it just shows my ignorance and my inability to actually carry on a rational discussion.
You’re right, we CAN’T prove anything. But that doesn’t make ANY belief correct, it just allows me to be honest and know that ANY belief, even the belief that that chair will hold me up when I sit in it, takes a certain amount of faith. How do I know it won’t break? Can I tell the future? Nope, but the vast majority of the time I’ve sit in chairs, it’s ended up ok, so my faith is justified. If you want to argue that faith is God is NOT justified, great, let’s get to it. But asking me to prove that God exists ignores that you CAN’T prove that He doesn’t, ignores that you can’t even prove matter exists.
@Eric: Nope sorry you still just trotting out the same stupid argument basically because you can’t answer the points put to you. I see you even did the “you have to have faith to sit in a chair” routine which is one of the daftest arguments going. Whatever next – it takes the same amount of faith to be an atheist as a believer? Unfortunately you started off well in this thread but have become rather desperate in you arguments which still boil down to you can’t absolutely prove anything so it’s valid to believe anything I want and more importantly they are all equally valid.
Can’t we just disagree to disagree? lol..
Sorry dude. This could go on forever. I’m done with that.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that we are less learned in philosophy just because we see something differently.
I will say one thing regarding proof of matter.
Of course you’re right, the only reason we know that anything is real is merely because of electrical impulses.
But that is all we have.
You might feel that you have more than that, and you can “feel” Him in your heart and all that good stuff… and that is fine!
I’m my mind, and I assume in many other atheists minds, I don’t walk around wondering if I’m going to bump into something that I for some reason can’t detect with one of my senses, so why would I suspect that there is a supreme being that I also can’t touch, see, hear, smell, or taste?
For me, reality is everything my senses can detect. I have never had any reason to believe that there is anything more than that.
One definition of proof is to provide evidence. If I can detect the table is there with my senses, then that is evidence. I understand that you can say that it is not real evidence, because you could hypothetically hook up a computer to my brain and tell it to “sense” a table, and I wouldn’t know the difference. But if we went through our lives questioning things like this, how is that a way to live? By that same way of thought, it is impossible to prove anything. To live our conscious lives in this universe, we have to assume a few things. There is no reason to assume that God exists in order to live our lives.
For us, the evidence that our 5 senses provide for us is enough to live a happy life. For theists it is not. This we don’t understand.
I really don’t wish to debate this. I just wanted to tell you how I would elaborate on my previous point.
I find it kind of amusing, Eric, that you have been talking about manuscripts and context like you were a biblical expert. But the fact is, you didn’t even know about the John 8 issue — that’s one error that evangelicals even fess up to. It’s 101 in manuscript history. If you had read anything on the history of the Bible, you would have known about it. It seems you didn’t do very much research about the book you believe to be inspired by God himself! I would seriously recommend you do some studying, starting with Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus as a simple intro to manuscript history.
Then, you didn’t seem to know that Sodom & Gomorrah story was told in Genesis, thousands of years before Moses, Aaron, Joshua, etc. And you’re suggesting that I don’t know the context and are going to “smack me down” with it? Talk about irony.
Don’t you see that undermines your credibility? You didn’t even take the time to look up the S&G story after you were called out, speculating that it might be Aaron or Joshua instead of Moses. Look it up, man! You’re the one who thinks the stories are inspired, but you’re getting the basics wrong?
I know it’s an easy enough mistake. I’m not trying to be a jerk. But can you see things from my perspective?
I agree with Jabster about your recent arguments. Speculating we can’t absolutely prove physical matter doesn’t have anything to do with believing in God or Jesus or the FSM. It’s just an epistemological distraction from the fact that you have no evidence for God.
Further, Eric, you resort to ad hominem attacks–as though you know what my philosophical training is and then attempt an end-run by saying that I haven’t proven to you the existence of matter (which is a far different claim than asking for proof of an unseen deity which is supposed to at least occasionally intersect with our plane of existence). The attack against the person is hardly proof of anything other than the insecurity of your own argument. You claim that asking you to prove the existence of God isn’t fair when we haven’t proven the existence of matter is utterly absurd. The existence of matter is absolutely evident; pinch a woman or man on the street–I guarantee you’ll know the existence of matter. Now, as to the existence of your deity; call it down and ask it to make itself absolutely evident to humanity (”faith” is not testable, repeatable, nor conclusive). Finally, it is never the task of the denier to prove the non-existence of anything (I could not ask you to prove the non-existence of Superman–if I believed in the existence of an actual person named Kal-El, it would be incumbent upon me to prove this person’s existence); if you cannot prove the existence of your deity and resort to an argument that chucks reason and objective proof to the side, you have failed.
So, I’ll pose the challenge again: provide incontrovertible evidence of the existence of your deity.
I’m sorry Eric, I’m in complete disagreement.
Speaks precisely to my point.
Each of those scholars saw the languages they were translating through the lens of the time they lived in. Fractal errors, which might initially have been unimportant by themselves, crept in. Add to that the psychological layer imposed by culture and the sense of mission, and you get an historic mishmash of epic proportions.
THEN you get to throw on top of that the various schisms churches have gone through, and what that political exigence has done to their translations. And following THAT you have to consider the selection and throwing-out of various bits of the canon.
But then you double-back, saying:
Which is it? I mean, I can use the “best” word to make sense in English of a phrase that would otherwise be nonsensical in English, or I can use the correct word, which preserves the sense but may not be literally what the author originally had in mind.
When I use the French word “tabarnouche” there is no direct English word that implies the same meaning. The “best” translation would probably be “holy crap!”. The accurate word would be something close to “tabernacle.” Needless to say, the literal English term makes little sense in English context, but the exclamation “holy crap,” with no literal meaning in English, conveys best the sense the speaker intends.
Well, I guess I have to take that as true. Tell you what though, will you look up something in The Infant Gospel of Thomas for me?
–But …
But …
But. You. Didn’t. And it was the work of roughly a half-second via Google.
If you could make that mistake, how many more could some drink-addled middle-ages monk who had to go to the codex, find the appropriate scroll, find the correct passage, interpret it in the best way possible (or else accurately), possibly with input from his Abbot, other prelate, local lord, or mother, and inscribe it by hand (always assuming that his writing was good) have made?
And once printing came in, how many editors and interpreters of prior editions made little corrections and mistakes?
–Yes, exactly.
Changing one word, “one jot, one tittle,” (so saith Paul, or someone. But who’s got time to look it up?) changes the text. Witness the Wicked Bible linked above.
The Bible, in its many translations, cannot be taken literally because it it is riddled with the judgements, translation errors, cultural prejudice, political and social motivation, and plain ignorance of its writers, translators, and editors.
As to your “You can’t prove reality is really really real,” argument. You’re right, sure: Matter is an illusion and we all dwell in the Matrix. But some of us have found the red pill. Or is it the blue one?
Jabster
Call my arguments stupid while not answering a single one of them (which should be easy because their so stupid), and repeating the “prove” fallacy after it’s been challenged. Very well done.
Eric Kemp
McBloggenstein
“Can’t we just disagree to disagree? lol..
Sorry dude. This could go on forever. I’m done with that.”
We can stop at any time.
“I don’t think it’s fair to say that we are less learned in philosophy just because we see something differently.”
My goal wasn’t to insult your education, or insult at all. I don’t even know you! My goal was to point out the ease at which the “prove” fallacy can be avoided. That is, at the most basic level of philosophical education you get smacked in the face with not being able to prove ANYTHING!
“For me, reality is everything my senses can detect. I have never had any reason to believe that there is anything more than that.”
Right, this is called a naturalistic assumption. You are admitting that you believe that matter is everything and the only things that are real is what you can touch with your senses. I stay away from assuming such things as I have no evidence that this is the case.
“One definition of proof is to provide evidence. If I can detect the table is there with my senses, then that is evidence.”
I completely agree with you.
“I understand that you can say that it is not real evidence, because you could hypothetically hook up a computer to my brain and tell it to “sense” a table, and I wouldn’t know the difference.”
And that is also a possibility. I would say the existence of the table is evidence of either.
“But if we went through our lives questioning things like this, how is that a way to live?”
Again, I agree.
“By that same way of thought, it is impossible to prove anything. To live our conscious lives in this universe, we have to assume a few things.”
Agreed. And it’s ok to do so as long as we recognize we are doing so. Roger is not that self-reflective, it’s refreshing that you are.
“There is no reason to assume that God exists in order to live our lives.”
Ah yes, but God allows to explain several things that you can’t. Like where matter came from, where life came from, and why we have order in the universe to name a few.
“For us, the evidence that our 5 senses provide for us is enough to live a happy life. For theists it is not. This we don’t understand.”
You think that Christianity is all about happiness? That we’re so weak that we can’t handle life without the “crutch” of God? Come now. If you want to ask me what Christianity is really about, and not what Skeptics Society tells you it’s about, I’ll tell you.
If you don’t want to debate any longer, that’s fine. I look forward to future word sparring with you, you are a worthy and cordial adversary.
Daniel
“I find it kind of amusing, Eric, that you have been talking about manuscripts and context like you were a biblical expert.”
Whoa! Back up the train. I am no where NEAR a biblical expert, nor have I ever claimed it, I’m not even Biblically trained, like in a classroom. I am theologically self-taught, as I’ve said a few times on my blog (not that you had any reason to see that). And the fact that you’ve caught me in a mistake of names in regards to an OT story does not surprise me at all.
“Then, you didn’t seem to know that Sodom & Gomorrah story was told in Genesis, thousands of years before Moses, Aaron, Joshua, etc. And you’re suggesting that I don’t know the context and are going to “smack me down” with it? Talk about irony.”
But the fact that you’re using my mistaken name choice to ignore my argument is your fallacy. I didn’t research the S&M story because the complete facts of the story is besides the point I was trying to make and you know it.
“I know it’s an easy enough mistake. I’m not trying to be a jerk. But can you see things from my perspective?”
Well, it IS kinda jerky, and I should have gotten it right. but I understand that your perspective is to smack down any Christian for any mistakes they make. Hey, it allows you to ignore their argument entirely AND make them look stupid at the same time. It’s a win win!
However, I disagree that I should look it up. If it had any relevance to my argument, to the point I was making, I would have made sure of my facts before I hit “send”. However, the names of the people involved had NOTHING to do with my argument, and that’s why I’m STILL not looking it up, (that and I’m at work right now).
“Speculating we can’t absolutely prove physical matter doesn’t have anything to do with believing in God or Jesus or the FSM.”
I never said it had anything to do with BELIEVING in God, I used it to merely show Roger that asking me to prove God’s existence, when he can’t prove the existence of matter is irrational and disengenous.
“It’s just an epistemological distraction from the fact that you have no evidence for God.”
If Roger had simply aske for EVIDENCE of God, I would have given him a direct answer. But that’s not what he asked for, so I didn’t talk about evidence.
“I am theologically self-taught.”
Sounds like arguing in an echo chamber to me.
He’s not making anyone look stupid, Eric. But you may be aiding and abetting.
Daniel has put forth a series of good arguments here and elsewhere. He’s consistently thoughtful, and actually clarifies or self-corrects when he’s caught in an actual mistake. You could learn from him.
As for ignoring your argument, when you agree that tables exist, or may be said to exist as near as makes no odds, then we can talk about your evidence for god. But if we can’t agree that “the real world” is bounded by a set of mutually-agreed-upon perceptions, be they actual or illusory, then how are we expected to unscrew the inscrutible?
The person ignoring reason and rational argument, old son, is not Daniel. It might be the person insisting that we can’t agree on the basic reality of the universe as we mutually hallucinate it.
Meanwhile, you’re not coming to dinner at my house. If your faith wavers, your plate may fall through.
Still, I’m curious. Do you have evidence pointing to a god that isn’t either appeal to emotion or tail-chasing sophistry?
And which god are we talking about, just to be clear?
Roger
“Further, Eric, you resort to ad hominem attacks–as though you know what my philosophical training is . . .”
I meant no insult, and I apologize if that’s how you took it. I was merely pointing out the fact that the “prove” fallacy is thoroughly debunked at the basic level of any philosophical training. The fact that you are using it, and sticking by it, speaks to your lack of self-reflectiveness and level of education on the subject.
“and then attempt an end-run by saying that I haven’t proven to you the existence of matter (which is a far different claim than asking for proof of an unseen deity which is supposed to at least occasionally intersect with our plane of existence).”
Proving the existence of matter should then be EASIER, right? So why can’t you do it? Is it because my you can’t get around my “table” philosophical exercise?
“The existence of matter is absolutely evident; pinch a woman or man on the street–I guarantee you’ll know the existence of matter.”
You just again begged the question of where the electrical impulses in your brain are coming from. Is it actually someone punching you in the face? Or are you in the Matrix? OR in a glass jar hooked up to a computer feeding you electrical impulses? You couldn’t prove it to me either way.
“Finally, it is never the task of the denier to prove the non-existence of anything . . .”
Are you kidding me? You can just deny it without being able prove why you are denying YET at the same time demand believers that they must prove their belief? You really think that’s rational?
“if you cannot prove the existence of your deity and resort to an argument that chucks reason and objective proof to the side, you have failed.”
I never set out to prove the existence of God. Never thought I could. However, you are 1. ignoring that you could never prove the NON-existence of God so right there you’re irrational and 2. ignoring that you’re unable to prove the existence of something as “obvious” as matter.
“So, I’ll pose the challenge again: provide incontrovertible evidence of the existence of your deity.”
Wait, now we’ve switched to “evidence”? And, I’m confused, “incontrovertible” to who?
But, you know what, I’ll bite. Here we go
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
And since we know matter can’t have always existed (The Singularity), and that matter can’t create itself, something immaterial must have created matter.
There you go.
Eric, you really should do some reading on these issues.
Start by studying the documentary hypothesis. Study the archeology of biblical lands in the relevant eras. Think on the nature of the belief in JHWH in those times. Think on the how great of a coincidence it is that Moses was a Midianite, and that there was a city there called JWH. Think about how one of the sources of the bible makes Moses the one doing things, while another source makes Aaron do things. Consider how those sources changed the story to suit their beliefs. There is ample evidence of stories being altered after the fact and editted to suit the political situations of the era. Who’s staff had the magic powers? Moses or Aaron? And why does the answer depend so much on which section of the bible you read, and why do those sections of text have such different word choice and describe their god as having different attributes and even use different names for him? Why do the Aaronite priests tell the stories as if it was Aaron who had the power in his staff, and Moses could only hear god? Why do the other priests make Moses the star and tell tales that belittle Aaron?
There are lots of things about the bible that you deserve to know. If you truly care about the holy book of your religion, then you aught to put some time into reading the actual history of the book and of the eras it was written compiled and editted in. Knowledge can only make you more effective at defending your position.
-”You are admitting that you believe that matter is everything and the only things that are real is what you can touch with your senses. I stay away from assuming such things as I have no evidence that this is the case.”
What a way to live life!
You must be either a scientist actively researching string theory, trying to prove the existence of more than 3 dimensions, or you’re religious. :)
-”Ah yes, but God allows to explain several things that you can’t. Like where matter came from, where life came from, and why we have order in the universe to name a few.”
The difference between using God to explain those things, and science, is that science is a system that is based on logical, rational, skeptical thinking that is always trying to prove itself wrong. Being within a scientific community, you are actually praised for proving others wrong, because the goal is always to discover truth. Knowledge of the physical world and how it works will never end with science.
With God, why would there ever be a need to find out how our world works, because there is an easy answer: God did it. I’m not satisfied with that answer.
I am not aware of the current status of sciences claim to the origin of matter or life, but because of the nature of it’s methods, I feel confident that they will be able to get a pretty good hold on it. But even if we can never know through science the tough questions like how matter or life came to be, I personally don’t think it is relavent to life as we know it whether we know the answer or not, and I especially don’t care to know the answer so much as to need to attribute it to an unreasonable source such as God.
Thanks for the discussion.
oh, Eric, the first cause argument? Really? Ok, I’ll bite: so what if something or some entity brought matter into existence. How would that make that entity “God”? Further, I’m sure you know that that argument has quite a flaw: what brought that entity into existence?
Oh, and don’t think for one picosecond that I buy your “apology”–especially since you immediately engage another ad hominem attack. Good try, though. Keep obfuscating your thin arguments with double-talk and nonsense.
@Eric: I would no more challenge your argument than I would the argument that the moon is made a cheese if that person just trots out the “you can’t absolutely prove anything therefore all views are equally valid” phrase every time. Of course this doesn’t mean the argument isn’t stupid just that it doesn’t warrant a discussion.
@Roger: It’s just another example of looking for “facts” to prove the truth. The Universe can’t have popped out of “nothing” so there must have been a creator always seems like a strange argument. Just ask the question of where the creator came from and the stock answer is he’s always existed … erm so why can’t have the Universe always existed but the creator can? Well that’s different as it doesn’t support the main argument so doesn’t count!
I have no real problem with believers who state their belief in a god is based in faith it’s just the ones that trying equate their level of faith to being an atheist, sitting on a chair, the existence of wind etc.
Aor
Can you give me some links or sources to research the claims you just made?
Thanks
Eric Kemp
McBloggenstein
“The difference between using God to explain those things, and science, is that science is a system . . .”
You misunderstand the question. The origin of life, the origin of the universe, and the reason for order in the universe are all things that, by definition, science CANNOT have any evidence for. The origins happened in the untestable, unobservable, unrecreatable past. That is outside the bounds of logical and rational science because it cannot be observed. The order of the universe is a metaphysical question, and science doesn’t deal with metaphysics (if you’re interested, I wrote an article on the order of the universe, a.k.a. the uniformity of nature in an article called “The Atheist is a Theif” on my blog).
“With God, why would there ever be a need to find out how our world works, because there is an easy answer: God did it.”
Science was founded by Bible believing, young earth Creationist Christians who weren’t satisfied with “God did it”. Descartes, Newton, Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, you know, the fathers of science. So please, don’t lump “all” Christians into this “God did it” category. As many Christians as you CAN lump into this, I can lump the atheists that go, “Naturalism did it” (abiogenesis anyone?).
“I am not aware of the current status of sciences claim to the origin of matter or life . . .”
I just posted an article on the subject. That short answer is that they have no idea, in fact, every observable, testable piece of evidence we have (the Law of Biogenesis for one) points to abiogenesis being impossible.
” I especially don’t care to know the answer so much as to need to attribute it to an unreasonable source such as God.”
If you want to go through life having no idea where life came from, believing blindly that somehow it created itself, and not caring enough to really discover if that position is absurd or not, I can’t stop you.
“Thanks for the discussion.”
The same to you, it was fun. If you respond again, I’ll let you have the last word.
Roger
“so what if something or some entity brought matter into existence. How would that make that entity “God”?”
You can call it what you want, but it means there is an all-powerful, immaterial creator out there. What else would you call this creator?
“Further, I’m sure you know that that argument has quite a flaw: what brought that entity into existence?”
Of course, I’ve heard this many times. The problem that any atheist that has said to me has had is this . . .in order to say, “yea, well what started your God?”, you have to first admit that the universe was started by God, are you doing this? If not, then you can’t make the argument.
“Oh, and don’t think for one picosecond that I buy your “apology”–especially since you immediately engage another ad hominem attack.”
Pointing out someone’s need for more self-reflectiveness and education about a subject is not “about the man”.
Also, it must frustrate you that you can’t prove matter
It’s ok Roger, Bertrand Russel knew he couldn’t prove anything but was still able to not believe in God. You’ll be ok.
Jabster
“I would no more challenge your argument than I would the argument that the moon is made a cheese if that person just trots out the “you can’t absolutely prove anything therefore all views are equally valid” phrase every time. Of course this doesn’t mean the argument isn’t stupid just that it doesn’t warrant a discussion.”
I agree, that IS a stupid argument. Good thing I never made it.
“why can’t have the Universe always existed but the creator can? Well that’s different as it doesn’t support the main argument so doesn’t count!”
We know that the Universe can’t have always existed because, think about it, the sun would have burned out infinitely long ago. We also know that the universe had a starting point called the Singularity because the universe is still expanding.
“I have no real problem with believers who state their belief in a god is based in faith it’s just the ones that trying equate their level of faith to being an atheist, sitting on a chair, the existence of wind etc.”
Jabster, just because you have no answer for the argument (none of you have even tried!) doesn’t mean the argument is invalid. In fact, your and Roger’s tactics seem to be to resort to incredulous sarcasm and mockery just so you can ignore the arguments!
Metro
““I am theologically self-taught.”
Sounds like arguing in an echo chamber to me.”
I should have clarified. What I mean by that is that I’ve never been in a seminary classroom in an official capacity. I HAVE, however, been taught by a Greek and Hebrew scholar or two but always on a personal basis. Plus, just reading the Bible is a pretty good education in itself.
“Daniel has put forth a series of good arguments here and elsewhere. He’s consistently thoughtful, and actually clarifies or self-corrects when he’s caught in an actual mistake. You could learn from him.”
I agree with you, Daniel is an intelligent and cordial fellow. If my mistake was at all relevant I would correct it to clarify my argument, and would have confirmed the fact in the first place. Since the name of an individual has nothing to do with the argument the only motivation to correct my mistake is for my own personal edification, which I will obviously look into.
“As for ignoring your argument, when you agree that tables exist, or may be said to exist as near as makes no odds, then we can talk about your evidence for god.”
If we were talking about “evidence” for God from the beginning, I would not have used the table exercise because that would be a distraction. However, I was asked to “prove” God. Pointing out that we can’t prove matter is entirely relevant in showing the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of the original question.
“But if we can’t agree that “the real world” is bounded by a set of mutually-agreed-upon perceptions, be they actual or illusory, then how are we expected to unscrew the inscrutible?”
I agree, we must assume it. But only after the Scientific Revolution has this assumption been commonplace and expected, it has not been so for the vast majority of human history.
“It might be the person insisting that we can’t agree on the basic reality of the universe as we mutually hallucinate it.”
I never said suggested such a thing. I merely want everyone to be self-reflective and admit the assumptions we do have to make. Like I said elsewhere in this thread, making the assumption is only bad if we ignore that we are making it.
“Still, I’m curious. Do you have evidence pointing to a god that isn’t either appeal to emotion or tail-chasing sophistry?”
Sure, what would accept as evidence?
“And which god are we talking about, just to be clear?”
Only the God of the Christian worldview makes any sense. And, yes, I’m serious about that and I can defend it.
@Eric:
“We know that the Universe can’t have always existed because, think about it, the sun would have burned out infinitely long ago. We also know that the universe had a starting point called the Singularity because the universe is still expanding.”
So therefore there must have been a creator who just so happens to be the god I believe in – excuse me while I start laughing at the most stupid logic I’ve seen demonstrated in a long, long time. I’m sorry but your ‘arguments’ are only worthy of sarcasm and mockery as they barely make it to even and semi-intelligent level – oh I don’t know maybe you decided what the answer was and then made an argument (however poor) around it? Some people come here and like to exchange ideas in a reasonable and well thought out fashion unfortunately you are not in the category.
Eric, I gave you the name of the concept. It is called the Documentary Hypothesis. You can type that into google and find out plenty.
I doubt you will bother though. You are clearly set in your ways and do not seem to willing to accept the flaws in your reasoning. Just know this: the experts, historians, archeologists and theologians have gone over the history of the bible and of the beliefs of the Israelites from the time before they were called jews. If you truly care about how the bible originated, what it was constructed from, when and by who, then you should be interested in the documentary hypothesis. If you want a reasonable summary, just use Wikipedia.
Jabster
You are apparently incapable of carrying on a rational conversation. You continue to berate and mock the strawmen you’ve made of my arguments. I show you how your position of an infinite universe is impossible and you first fake an argument I didn’t make and then laugh that fake argument away because you have no answer and sure as heck don’t want people to see your erroneous logic that was just debunked by a Christian. Well done.
Aor
I’m looking into the Document Hypothesis. Hopefully sooner rather than later I can do an article about it.
Thanks for the direction.
@Eric: What arguments? You’ve failed to post anything off any substance at all. Lets be honest here when you where asked to show some proof of your god you completely failed to answer the question all though strangely enough you have yet to post anything to back these claims up – I wonder why that is?
Oh and please don’t me me laugh with you arguments for why it had to be “god that done it” but no on seconds thoughts do please explain and remember to include why it must be a Christian god. I look forward to your interesting post!
Jabster
“Lets be honest here when you where asked to show some proof of your god you completely failed to answer the question . . . ”
I was asked to “Prove that God exists” which is COMPLETELY different than “show some proof . . .”, you’re attempting to twist what happened to suit your position.
As a counter-argument to “Prove that God exists” I showed quite clearly that you and Roger #1 Can’t prove that God DOESN’T exist and #2 can’t even prove that matter exists. Neither of you even attempted to argue either of those points. If you can’t prove something that you can see, you can’t rationally expect someone else to prove something that you can’t see. This invalidates the original question.
However, in a disguised retraction, Roger rephrased his question to include some evidence for God. In response I gave the kalam argument, if you want to read it again go ahead and scroll up. In response to the kalam argument, YOU said that the universe has always existed. I showed that the universe could NOT have always existed because the sun would have burned out infinitely long ago AND because we know there was a Singularity to this universe.
Your position of an infinite universe has been debunked, but instead of answering the kalam argument that is now a looming problem for you, you mock and berate with condescending sarcasm to avoid the problem. Answer the question, what caused the universe? Do you have any idea? Or any reason for why you KNOW it wasn’t God?
Aor
I only spent about an hour on the Document Hypothesis today, but I have some questions. JEPD only refers to the Pentatuch and has nothing to do with New Testament manuscript reliability which is what we were discussing. What was your point in bringing it up again? And how is it an argument against my position of no doctrinal differences in the ancient manuscripts and our current Bible? I’m just looking for some clarification on what JEPD does for you in this discussion. Please be as specific as possible so I know in what direction to research.
Thanks
Eric
Once you accept that the later books of the bible are based on the earlier books of the bible, which you inevitably must if you claim to be a christian, you will begin to understand why horrendous flaws in the first five books affect your beliefs greatly.
The entire book is based on falsehoods. Do you understand? If not, study more.
@Eric: Nope I never claimed that the Universe has always existed, I merely pointed out that logically if someone is happy to claim that the creator either has always existed or popped out of “nothingness” then this can equally apply to the Universe. This is the problem with your whole line of thought. You are happy to use “science” when it suits your pre-determined argument yet discard it when it does not.
Oh and where was this evidence you promised as fyou did not supply any in your post and indeed fell back on your “you can’t prove that matter exists” so I don’t have to prove that god exists argument. Well what you actaully said was that you had evidence so go on post it.
Jabster
“I merely pointed out that logically if someone is happy to claim that the creator either has always existed or popped out of “nothingness” then this can equally apply to the Universe.”
Nope, this doesn’t work. God, by the very definition of God, never began existing, He has always existed. If God began existing, then that means He needs a cause, and if He needs a cause then God is nothing more than a more powerful created being and we can no longer call Him God, because He no longer fits the definition. You can attempt to redefine God all you want to suit your argument, but God has always existed and isn’t bound by the laws of cause and effect of this universe, brcause he’s outside of it.
So, I’ll ask again since you keep dodging the question. What caused the universe? It seems that you are suggesting that you are ok with the idea that all of matter came from nothing; that nothing can create/begin everything all on it’s own. Is this the case?
Aor
I find it disengenous at best that you portray the Documentary Hypothesis as some indisputable factual position. JEPD is a very controversial position at best in the theological community, with more liberal scholars in support of and more fundamentalist scholars disagreeing. JEPD is a dissent from the traditional view of Mosiac authorship. But how do they do this? Well, one way is by claiming that there are four main different literary styles with the Pentatuch, this is evidence by style changes and word selection changes.
Word selection, style changes? Are these things an exact science? Are they concrete in ANY way? I’ve been arguing in defense of Christianity on the internet for about 8 months now, and have written thousands upon thousands of words upon a plethora of subjects with many different goals in mind during my writings. Do you really think that if you had 100 scholars read everything I’ve written on the internet over the past few months, that they would all agree it was the same person? By the JEPD logic, every single time my style and word choice changed I’ve become a new person. Also, my tone, focus and vocab have changed drastically since I first began (I’ve learned, grown and moved goalposts), so, by JEPD logic, my writings now compared to my writings then certainly can’t be from the same person since so much has changed in the last 8 months. Simple question: How long did Moses take to write the Pentatuch? I honestly don’t know the answer, but it must have been quite a while.
Can you tell me specifically, besides that it allows you to conveniently throw out the entire Bible, what it is that you find convincing about JEPD?
@Eric: So exactly who’s definition of god is this? You can’t just say the universe must have rule X apply to it but rule X doesn’t apply to god because I say so and besides it doesn’t fit in with my pre-determined answer.
Do I know where the Universe came from er no I don’t think I even know if it’s a valid question. You on the other hand have claimed you do yet your evidence to support this creator let only a Christian creator basically boils down to “it was god what done it ‘cus I say so.” and you then follow it up with “oh and no of the rules apply to god as he doesn’t have to follow them.” meaning you can claim anything you want to and I could claim that it was a different creator if I so wished and both points would be equally valid under your definitions.
Sorry try again with you evidence or have you decided what evidence means as well as what god means?
Eric,
I think it’s great you are thinking critically about these issues. But I’d like to suggest something radical: apply the same criticism to your own beliefs. You may think you have already done this, but it’s clear to me that you haven’t. You make an enormous amount of assumptions when you write about your faith. It’s hard to see it when you are steeped in it, though.
For instance, ask yourself why you believe in Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Perhaps it is because the Pentateuch claims it was written by Moses? No, there is no such claim. Is it because there is archeological evidence to back Mosaic authorship? No, no such evidence exists. Does it contain anything that could not have been written by Moses? Well, yes, actually. Here are two I know of off the top of my head (and I’m sure there are many, many more):
It once describes Moses as “the humblest man on the earth.” Now nobody is so vain to actually call themselves that — and by calling themselves that, it would make them a real jackass. But it’s obviously the kind of thing a scribe would say about their hero-leader, Moses. Do you really think Moses wrote that about himself?
And then there is the obvious problem: It ends with Moses’ death and burial. How exactly would he write about his own death and burial? It is written in the same style as the rest of the book. But of course a scribe wrote that, as, I hope, you would even admit. But it doesn’t end with Moses signature with a PS by a scribe — it’s just a normal part of the book.
And then you have to make sense of all the repetition. If it was written by one intelligent author, Moses, why does it seem like something scribes put together after some drinks? Why are the same stories repeated twice (like the creation story and Abraham passing his sister off as wife) with small details changed? Why are laws repeated? If it was written by one author, he must of purposely been trying to fool us.
So we have no evidence that Moses wrote it — it’s only Jewish tradition. And you would admit tradition can be fallible, right?
And don’t fool yourself that JEPD is some kind of controversial idea. No scholars believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch except for very conservative Christian and Jewish scholars. There is no evidence to support it, and it’s not claimed by the manuscripts themselves. There are things inside it that we know could not have been written by Moses and would have been absurd if he did write it. And the way there is consistent style differences that rotate seem to point to multiple authorship, later compiled into one account by scribes.
(As a sidenote, I think thoughtful conservative scholars admit that it was largely a compilation — but that Moses was the compiler. I sympathize with their longing for Mosaic authorship, but don’t understand why they cling to it in the absence of evidence. Oh, actually I remember now. There’s a NT reference Jesus makes to “Moses and the prophets,” and since they think Jesus is infallible, and the oral history passed down to eventually become the gospel is infallible, Moses must have written it. But of course, the writer / oral history had Jesus say that because that was the Tradition. But they can’t admit that, since their view of Scripture would crumble, so they must cling to Mosaic authorship, absurd as it is. Kinda sad.)
As I said, I wish you would turn your critical thinking skills to what you believe. I think for many things, you’ll find you believe because you want to and because that’s what you’ve been taught — not because of evidence and reason and logic.
“If you can’t prove something that you can see, you can’t rationally expect someone else to prove something that you can’t see. This invalidates the original question.”
That’s absolutely stupid. You’ve just attempted a straw-man argument. So we don’t respond to your inane request to prove matter exists and thus, you claim that you’ve “won” and have proven God’s existence by our refusal to play your game?
Eric, are you aware that your argument that it’s incumbent upon us to somehow prove that (a) God doesn’t exist is a logical fallacy? You cannot prove the non-existence of anything. Further, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. Where’s the proof of your claim that a supernatural deity exists? Also, your argument that we should somehow try to prove matter exists is both a false argument and rather tepid attempt to shift the question. But hey, nice try with the condescension and all. It’s a rhetorical move I’ve seen many a godbot make, to very little effect.
Jabster
“You can’t just say the universe must have rule X apply to it but rule X doesn’t apply to god because I say so and besides it doesn’t fit in with my pre-determined answer.”
The definition of God is something that has not been created, you can twist the definition all you want, but it just is. Any monotheistic religion will tell you the same thing. And that’s what we’re arguing about, monotheism.
“Do I know where the Universe came from er no I don’t think I even know if it’s a valid question.”
Nope, my argument is that the Universe had to have a cause. If you cant give me some sort of argument on what could cause the universe BESIDES God, then we can talk. You’re right, God is an easy answer because He’s an answer. If you won’t answer the question of what could cause a universe besides a deity, then I guess we have nothing else to talk about.
Daniel
“You make an enormous amount of assumptions when you write about your faith. It’s hard to see it when you are steeped in it, though.”
We all make assumptions. I will freely admit that I make assumptions about my faith. But at least I’m being honest about it. If you are attempting to say that the Document Hypothesis is assumption free, then perhaps you should be more self-reflective about the positions you subscribe to.
The questions you asked are all good questions. However, having no physical evidence to support a position (I’m not sure if this is true of Mosaic authorship because I just honestly haven’t studied the issue) doesn’t mean the position isn’t likely. This is evidenced by your belief in abiogenesis.
But I have a question along the same lines. The Jews, from the beginning, thousands of years ago, believed that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch. How did they get it so wrong? Where did they get the idea in the first place? More importantly, if four different sources wrote the Pentatuch, why didn’t the Jews just say so? What’s the big deal about claiming Moses wrote it if it wasn’t true?
“But it’s obviously the kind of thing a scribe would say about their hero-leader, Moses. Do you really think Moses wrote that about himself?”
So because you don’t think Moses would say this, he didn’t right the Pentateuch? Alittle weak don’t you think?
“It ends with Moses’ death and burial. How exactly would he write about his own death and burial? It is written in the same style as the rest of the book.”
I don’t wouldn’t think that a scribe adding in the death of the writer would be a problem for innerrancy. His death DID happen like the scribe said it did right?
” If it was written by one intelligent author, Moses, why does it seem like something scribes put together after some drinks?”
So because you don’t LIKE the style that he put it in, or that the ancient way of writing Hebrew sounds weird to modern western ears, therefore Moses didn’t right the Pentateuch? Really?
“So we have no evidence that Moses wrote it — it’s only Jewish tradition. And you would admit tradition can be fallible, right?”
Sure, but the evidence of Moses NOT writing it is a controversy STEEPED in the presuppositions of the arguers isn’t compelling for JEPD.
” No scholars believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch except for very conservative Christian and Jewish scholars.”
Right, and they don’t count for you so their opinion is discounted a priori.
“There is no evidence to support it, and it’s not claimed by the manuscripts themselves.”
An interesting statement coming from an atheist. The New Testament Manuscripts claim to be written by eyewitnesses who saw Jesus rise from the dead. Do you believe them because they claim it? Of course not, you’ve got all other kinds of reasons to deny them. So suggesting that you would believe in Mosaic authorship MORE if the text claimed it is disengenous at best.
“As I said, I wish you would turn your critical thinking skills to what you believe. I think for many things, you’ll find you believe because you want to and because that’s what you’ve been taught — not because of evidence and reason and logic.”
I honestly haven’t been taught anything about Mosaic authorship nor it’s importance to the Christian faith. This is the first time I’ve ever looked into the issue. And it’s going to take a good amount of time for me to get educated on it and, as I do, I promise you that I WILL be turning a critical eye upon everything I read. However, to be honest with you, I won’t be reconsidering wether or not Jesus is the Christ just because of JEPD and, if you were being honest, you would admit that your presupposition of non-inerrancy and infallibilty won’t be challenge even if Mosaic authorship was proved.
@Eric: Well now I’ve stopped laughing at your logic I think I’m ready to reply. So let me get this straight your evidence for a Christian god is that we don’t know how the Universe was created so you’re free to make up something that just created it with no explanation at all and that must be true. I mean is that really the best you could come up? Whatever next are you going to supply “evidence” for? That god created the Earth in six days several thousand years ago – go on I like a laugh so that would be good fun.
So then come on Eric you’ve said you have evidence that “it was a Christian god that done it” but so far you haven’t supplied any evidence at all so please try again. I’m really not trying to ridicule you and be sarcastic but you make it all to easy as even after repeat requests you haven’t posted any sort of evidence but instead have just try to deflect any questions away.
p.s. If you’re ever thinking of being a lawyer I would recommend you have a good think about it as you standard of evidence my be found to be a bit wanting.
@Roger: Nope apparently god exists because we don’t know how the Universe was created. I’m trying to decide if this is more stupid than not being able to prove matter exists as an argument.
Roger
“That’s absolutely stupid. You’ve just attempted a straw-man argument. So we don’t respond to your inane request to prove matter exists and thus, you claim that you’ve “won” and have proven God’s existence by our refusal to play your game?”
Claiming that something is stupid doesn’t make it so. You must show it. In fact, claiming fallacies without showing them just makes it look like your dodging, which is what you’ve been doing for the past few comments. You have strawmanned my argument at every turn, even after having the strawman explained to you (my “prove matter” position doesn’t prove God, it just shows that you can’t prove matter and so therefore can’t ask others to prove God). This is purposeful and shows that your tactic is to be as dishonest as possible in your dealings with Christians.
“Eric, are you aware that your argument that it’s incumbent upon us to somehow prove that (a) God doesn’t exist is a logical fallacy? You cannot prove the non-existence of anything.”
Exactly, just as I showed you can’t prove the EXISTENCE of anything (besides perhaps your own existence to yourself).
“Further, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.”
This is absolute rubbish. This position allows you to decide what is defined as “extraordinary” and what isn’t. For you, you must be claiming that matter creating itself out of nothing isn’t extraordinary.
“Also, your argument that we should somehow try to prove matter exists is both a false argument and rather tepid attempt to shift the question.”
Your refusal and inability to do so is evidence enough that you can no longer ask theists to “prove God” and be rational at the same time. But you will continue to insult and berate in order to deny the simplicity of it. Have fun.
@ Everyone
This discussion has been edifying and challenging. I appreciate those that engaged me in a rational and cordial manner (Daniel, McBloggenstein, Aor, and Metro) and I feel that we are at reasonable empasses in our particular discussions. I have been given challenges to research, and look forward to taking the time, when I have it, to doing so. If you guys want a new Creationist blog to harass, I’d be glad to have you and hope to post articles on our respective topics (JEPD, manuscript evidence, “prove God”) in the near future.
As I have obligations to my own blog and to other projects outside the blogosphere, I will now be taking my leave and let you all have the last word. But I have truly enjoyed my time here. Thanks especially to Daniel for being an intelligent and cordial host. I’m sure I’ll be back as Daniel continues his series on an evil God, I look forward to tackling some of that with you all.
Thanks again
Wow. Wow. Wow. Now you accuse me of doing exactly what you’ve done over the course of this debate. Your arguments are full of circular reasoning, half-witted attempts at question dodging, conclusion shifting and wizard-invoking (”see, the Universe exists becuz God said so and becuz God said so, clearly the Universe exists!! See! I win!!”) Replace “God” with “Gandalf the Grey” and the arguments make just about as much “sense” (at least, as much sense as invoking a celestial wizard ever could). Well played, god-bot; well played. I’m sure you think that you’ve accrued a heap of “win” and will trot off to your little god-bottery and claim that you’ve triumphed over the evil of the Intarwebs with your dazzling display of (non)logic.
I haven’t strawmanned you (you are aware of what a straw man fallacy is, aren’t you?); rather, you misconstrue a rather simple question that was put to you: Prove the existence of a supernatural deity that you call God. Instead of offer proof, you deflect with a nonsensical question (others and myself are now to prove to you matter exists; something that you, I and every other rational, capable entity on this freakin’ planet knows exists BECAUSE we have scientific evidence of its existence, and such evidence is testable, repeatable and logically deduced and explained) and engage in condescending bits of prattle. Perhaps you could invoke your Imaginary Sky Friend to prove to you that matter exists?
There was me looking forward to the evidence for the existence of a Christian god but it now looks as though I’m going to have to wait a bit longer – oh well.
@Eric
You have not proven, cited, justified or simply backed up a single assertion you’ve made here. You’ve done strawman, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, you’ve shucked, jinked and jived. And not one single time have you held out a shred of the so-called “evidence” you apparently have for the existence of a god.
You didn’t even address the issue of errata in the bible as I raised it. Your arguments, where they have existed, have been sloppy, and possibly dishonest.
Eric FAIL.
The biggest thing I notice is the transition from Old Testament to New Testament.
God in the O.T. has what I like to term as balls. Whereas in the N.T. he’s been emasculated a bit.
Not that I believe in any of it. I just find that part very interesting.
The bigots will harp on the Pentateuch. And Islam, it took the best parts of all to create what very well could be the worlds worst religion.
“@Eric
You have not proven, cited, justified or simply backed up a single assertion you’ve made here. You’ve done strawman, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, you’ve shucked, jinked and jived. And not one single time have you held out a shred of the so-called “evidence” you apparently have for the existence of a god.
You didn’t even address the issue of errata in the bible as I raised it. Your arguments, where they have existed, have been sloppy, and possibly dishonest.”
Eric is a YEC. If you take away the sloppy and dishonest arguments, what else does he have?
murrowcronkite on November 19, 2008 at 1:58 am wrote:
“….flooding the earth with water and destroying everybody (’cept Noah) was a one time deal. After that God was saddened and relented (God can change his mind too) and said He would never do that again and gave us the rainbow as a sign that He wouldn’t flood us out (globally) anymore.”
wazza notes at 2:19″
“Murrow: if the Flood was a one-time deal, and it made him sad afterwards, and he’s omniscient… why didn’t he save himself the sadness and never do it at all?”
to which I want to add:
Why did god do it again, just after Christmas 2004, in the
big tsunami?
http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake
“United Nations lists a total of 229,866 people lost, including 186,983 dead and 42,883 missing”
What did these people do to attract God’s wrath, even in New Testament times, presumably with a more forgiving god?
“And if you’re prayers don’t work…”
Should be “your”.
I said global flood (worldwide,all at once) . There is actually archaeological evidence for it.
I reread my post. I said earth.
These comments lack a phycisist or two and I’m not one, sorry, but…
Murrowcronkite
:) Er, no.
Eric Kemp
No! :)
Eric Kemp
Quantum fluctuations create matter all the time. Where does your implicit belief that “everything has to have a (material) cause” come from ?
murrowcronkite
“I said global flood (worldwide,all at once) . There is actually archaeological evidence for it.”
Where?
Once, when I pointed out that repeatedly reading the Bible only revealed questions and contradictions and often left me truly horrified, I was told that my “problem” was that I needed a “guide” to help me over the difficult bits.
Heh.
Eric:
Read Thomas Paine’s “the Age of Reason”, then come back.
Don’t worry… we’ll wait.
Seriously, do yourself a favor and READ IT. It will be the greatest gift you ever give yourself in this life.
Fierce Rabbit
I remember one of those specials on the history or Discover channel showing they found fish fossils 3/4 the way up Mt. Arrarat, the mountain that Noah is said to have landed on. I didn’t check the elevation of Mt. Arrarat but I believe it’s quite tall.
murrowcronkite
Nothing against you Murrow, really, but it’s a basic truth of geology that no mountain has always been there… Mount Ararat isn’t much older than 20 million years, while fish, er lemme check… 400 millions years or more.
Kemp makes the very same elementary mistake thinking the Sun is as old as the universe.
The general ignorance spread by the US education system is despairing – and then there’s hope : Good summaries of XXth century science are available on the Internet, or e.g. through the Discovery channel you mentionned – and as far as only basic notions are concerned, it’s not that much to learn.
I’ve followed the discussion on this post with interest and, increasingly, admiration and incredulity.
Incredulity, first of all, for Eric Kemp’s blind persistence in the face of irrefutable argument. Clearly he is an intelligent man, yet one utterly blinkered (as, to my shame, I once was also) to the nonsense he believes and parrots. His ability to ignore an argument and bounce back with yet more justifications for an indefensible position makes him one of the most pugnacious people I have ever encountered. He will see this as a sneer or an insult–but I genuinely pity him, and feel sad for the expense of intelligence, spirit, time and energy that could be used so much more constructively. Perhaps the greatest irony in his approach is that any thinking person struggling with the irrationality of their Christian beliefs can only be swayed further from them by the straw man arguments Eric puts up. I can’t conceive that a man as clever as Eric doesn’t have moments of utter bleakness as he contemplates yet again girding himself to defend the indefensible. Again, from my own experience, I believe that some of the most strident Christian apologists are often the ones in whom doubt burns most searingly.
My admiration is for the patience so many of you have in your attempts to reason with Eric’s unreason. You are more civil than I believe he deserves, and than I think I would be capable of being. I’d say ‘keep it up’ except that in Eric’s case I think you are wasting your time. It is as you said elsewhere Daniel–a Christian locked in the circular spiral of evangelical logic is armoured from anything. But then again, Eric keeps hanging around here and elsewhere shooting himself in the foot and coming back to shoot the other one. Maybe he really is a seeker after truth.
@GuLi
I don’t think the flood we are talking about occured 400 or even 20 million years ago. Try 8-10 thoudand years ago. Did you miss that or just to focused on my accused lack of education ?
“Try 8-10 thoudand years ago. Did you miss that or just to focused on my accused lack of education ?”
If you believe in a worldwide flood 8-10 years ago, your frightening lack of education has everything to do with it.
Murrowcronkite -
Let me first get that off the way : I started with “Nothing against you Murrow” and blamed the “general ignorance spread by the US education system” because I was afraid you’d take my comment personally. Which you did anyway.
I didn’t want to single you out in my reply, as I think your ignorance is more representative of your country than of anything else. Only barely-laic Turkey does a little worse among “western” nations, and they’re trying to do better,partly because they want to integrate the EU one day.
See there for instance (hope that links works. Damn no preview)
Er, yes, I missed that entirely, as I don’t think you mentioned any date. I can now see you’re coming from a pretty religious background, but while I read the bible too I’m just not used to assume it as a basis of real-life facts.
I simply explained why you find marine life fossils on about every mountain, not just Ararat.
Or do you mean the fish fossils they found there were expertised as dating from less than 10000 years? If so, could you please indicate a source of that fact? As an aside, it should strike you that, if the biblical flood really happened, one would find such (recent) fossils everywhere: the sensationalism of finding them ON MOUNT ARARAT is a bit funny.
I Googled worldwide flood and foud hundreds of articles on the subject. There were many religious but I have included only 2 that are commented on by scientists.
http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/81563-geological-evidence-world-wide-flood.html
http://www.helium.com/items/113430-scientific-evidence-of-a-worldwide-flood
No I’m not overly religious, I just mentioned there is scientific theory and evidence for such an event.
I draw inspiration from many things and sources,trying to keep an open mind.
The scientific community is often egotistical and resistant to change and have persecuted people with new and dfifering theories, even when there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
It is proper for scientists to follow protocols and stick to objective methods.
It is regrettable that more research money is not available to chase rabbits down the holes of myth and paranormal phenomena, as there are many secrets to find there.
All myth and paranormal can’t be attributed to mere superstition.
Acient peoples were scientists in thier own way and not insulated from the world and cosmos by civilization and it’s distractions.
Take the “iceman”, found on the Swiss Italian border a few years ago. He was carrying many many things including mushrooms which had antibiotic properties and a bronze spear that pushed back the advent of the bronze age by a few thousand years. Or the Mayans that had completely accurate calendars and accurate tracking of the planets and stars with no telescopes at all. Much knowledge has been lost.
Ego is the biggest weakness in the scientific community.
“I Googled worldwide flood and foud hundreds of articles on the subject. There were many religious but I have included only 2 that are commented on by scientists.”
Link 1: Tsunami != World Wide Flood.
Link 2: Isolated Ice Dam Melting != World Wide Flood.
FAIL!
Murrow:
China has had a continuous, literate civilisation stretching back well over 10,000 years. Somehow they managed not to think that them all being drowned in a global flood was worth writing down. Egytpian scribes similarly failed to notice that they’d all died. Doesn’t that strike you as odd?
Suggesting that a global flood depositing dead fish in situ is the only way fish fossils can have come to be on Mount Ararat (and thus are evidence for a global flood) is simply false. The fish corpses were laid down on the sea floor, they fossilised there, and over millions of years, plate tectonics pushed that section of sea floor into a mountain range. This not only explains the presence of the fossils, but also why they’re encased in rock and why they’re distorted as if the rock they’re in had been squashed and folded. And why radiometric dating suggests that they formed hundreds of millions of years ago.
Really, there’s no evidence for a global deluge, ever, and a lot of evidence that says it was impossible.
You said something at first, something about reading the Bible through the lenses of faith, which helped you believe. And after that, you went on talking about ilogical, and unreasonable , and not being able to believe because of too many contradictions. That logic can only be human and therefore flawed[in my opinion].
But I am not going to tell you ”You are wrong” because i am sure that deep down in your heart, having read the Bible, you know what is wrong and what is not . But i am going to say that belief in God is through the lenses of faith only. If you want to be reasonable you dont need faith for that, but if you want God to be a part of your life, you only need to have faith because God, is revealing Himself to the ones that truly want to see Him.
Hope my comment didnt upset you. If it bothers you, there is always the delete button , at your service :-)
“Hope my comment didnt upset you.”
It would only upset us if what you said made any sense.
wintermute/Sunny day
Would you accept “the known world” wide flood. I’m open to moderating my statement. The websites I included above do speak of evidence of some sort of water flooding event in the Middle East of antiquity.
Ok. And..believing that the complex world that we live in, has no Creator, makes sense .
Good one! :P
1 Kings 22:23 “Now therefore behold, Yahveh has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; Yahveh has spoken evil concerning you.”
Ezekiel 14:9 “And if the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I, Yahveh, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch my hand out against him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.”
Ezekiel 20:25 “Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am Yahveh.”
2 Thessolonians 2:11-12 “Therefore Yahveh sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
Christians claim that the Bible is the word of Yahveh, and the Bible says that Yahveh sometimes lies. This alone would convince me that the Bible is untrustworthy. It would further make me doubt that this Yahveh character was the real Creator of the Universe; lying is “ungodly behavior’”.
——————————————–
Besides lying, Yahveh commits many other ungodly acts. He often unnecessarily punishes the innocent for things they did not do. Exodus 34:6-7: “The Lord God, merciful and gracious … visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and fourth generation.” Consider the story of Passover, where Yahveh puts pressure on a recalcitrant king by plaguing and killing his subjects. Yahveh kills all the non-Hebrew first-born with his own hand; this would certainly have included children and babies, non-Hebrew slaves, and ordinary working stiffs who had no part in enslaving the Hebrews, and no influence to free them. Yahveh could just as easily have put the screws to Pharoah directly, perhaps by giving him a series of toothaches, forcing him to yank all of his own teeth out one by one until he relented. (According to the story, Yahveh “hardens the heart” of Pharoah, to make him refuse. What sense does this make? It gives him an excuse to torture the common folk of Egypt some more.)
Consider Numbers 31. Yahveh has helped the Israelites to triumph in battle over the Midianites, then supervises the disposition of the spoils, human and otherwise. Look what happens when we get to verses 17 and 18: 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
(From Doug Crews): “So, put yourself in the sandals of a victorious Israelite soldier on that day. You see before you a woman, the widow of a slain Midianite soldier, and her 3 year old son. She is begging for mercy, for her son if not for herself. The boy is frightened and crying and hiding behind his mother’s skirt. God Himself has told you that these noncombatant prisoners are to be killed. Do you kill the mother first, or do you force her to watch her child be killed? Is there a song in your heart as you push your spear into the little boy’s chest? Do you sleep well that night, knowing that you’ve done the Lord’s work, or does the face of that little boy haunt you? Do his cries ring in your ears as you put your foot on his chest to pull your spear out? Do you wonder to yourself why the Creator of the Universe needs you to do his dirty work?”
——————————————–
What’s Wrong with the Bible?
(1) Yahveh is evil.
Suppose Professor Rifkin of the University of Illinois decided that the human race was contemptible because they were violent with each other. He has a cult following of eight people. He cooks up a genetically-engineered supervirus with essentially 100% lethality, gives a vaccine to himself and his eight followers, and releases the virus with the intent of wiping out the human race. We would normally regard Professor Rifkin as an evil person, would we not?
Suppose the mayor of Blacksburg, Virginia organized the men of the town to go a few miles over to Radford, kill all the Radford-dwellers and take all their goods as plunder. This would normally be regarded as a horrendous crime, would it not?
According to the stories told in the Bible, Yahveh does things like this all the time. He is a mass killer, slave trader, bandit leader, baby killer, and he collects foreskins as trophies of war. (By contrast, according to the same book of stories, Satan never does anything that would get him arrested.)
Anyone who reads the Bible with the same eyes they would use to read any other book, has to conclude that it is a collection of stories from a barbaric time and place.
—————————————-
The above is an excerpt from a much longer letter, “Why I don’t believe in God”, the part that I think is relevant to this thread.
I just discovered this blog today, referred to by someone on an email list I frequent. Let me commend folks here on their patience. But I think you let Eric sidetrack you with off-topic arguments.
I’ve had this sort of argument before. One Christian I corresponded with made a serious, good-faith effort to explain why Numbers 31 was an example of God’s goodness and faithfulness(to previous promises he had made.) I was astonished at the pretzels this believer had managed to twist himself into. Most of them walk away from the argument much sooner. But I am convinced that a sufficiently determined believer can rationalize anything. The only hope we have is that if we make them work to justify their beliefs, eventually some of them will reconsider whether the prize is worth the effort.
“Ok. And..believing that the complex world that we live in, has no Creator, makes sense .
Good one! :P”
Ok. And..believing that the complex creator, has no Creator, makes sense .
Good one! :(
“The websites I included above do speak of evidence of some sort of water flooding event in the Middle East of antiquity.”
So we downgrade your “World Wide Flood” to “some sort of water flooding event”, this proves what exactly?
Aside from the commonality of all civilzations centered around plentiful water supplies (rivers that Flood).
hey, I remember first time I questioned the bible. I was with some fellas reading about that part when Jesus prays in Getsemani and when it said that all the disciples were asleep I said “well, if everyone was sleeping who wrote this?”
…
i got one answer “don’t think about weird stuff”
the I said, “come on, tell me, who did it?”
another short answer, “it was revealed afterwards”
and me “where is that stated?”
…
and then everyone “hey, you’re so funny, come on, don’t be an ass, let’s have a good time, stop joking”
Given that Egypt was part of the known world, I don’t think that’s any more supportable. Especially as we’re not talking about a single tidal wave (not that those are common in the Mediterranean, anyway) but floodwater that stood for a year and was deep enough to deposit fishes at the top of mount Ararat. Do you posit some kind of force field around the region that stopped the water from flooding the rest of the world?
And, besides, isn’t the point of the Noah story that everyone in the whole world was wicked and deserved to die? If the Chinese and Americans were all living sinless lives and weren’t going to be killed, what’s the point? Or was Jehovah just a local godling who didn’t have any influence over most of the world? Why would Noah need to save all the animals, if they’d be fine in the next valley over?
There have no doubt been many “water flooding events” in the Middle East during that well-defined period known as “antiquity”, but that’s hardly proof that any aspect of the Noah story is true.
”Ok. And..believing that the complex creator, has no Creator, makes sense .
Good one! :( ”
Oh, but it has a lot more sense than believing that we came to life out of nothingness. somebody was saying that you need more faith to be an atheist, and i agree. I somehow am amazed that so many people can live by believing they came from nowhere and that they are going nowhere. Well done you! Dont know if you’re right,but nevertheless, well done!
Anna:
“Oh, but it has a lot more sense than believing that we came to life out of nothingness”
Hmm, coming to live out of nothingness, or an even MORE complex super deity coming to life out of nothingness then Poofing us into existence.
Fail again.
Sunny Day, i am not trying to gain anything, honest. :- ) I am just saying what I BELIEVE in, based on what i see .
As for a complex deity coming to life out of nothingness, well, tough. We live in a world with supernatural powers. Supernatural can come out of nothingness, but science hasnt proved yet that we came out of the blue, with no influence from a supernatural ‘deity’.Not yet [and i doubt they will in the near future].
Have a… sunny day indeed. And a Happy Christmas! :)
Shorter Anna: Because I say so.
it is not enough im afraid, sunny day. :-)
Poor Anna doesn’t understand….
“Sunny Day, i am not trying to gain anything, honest. :- ) I am just saying what I BELIEVE in, based on what i see .
As for a complex deity coming to life out of nothingness, well, tough. We live in a world with supernatural powers. Supernatural can come out of nothingness, but science hasnt proved yet that we came out of the blue, with no influence from a supernatural ‘deity’.Not yet [and i doubt they will in the near future]. ”
Next time instead of typing out all that incredulus crappo you can just type the shorter phrase, “Because I say so!”
Theres less thinking, less typing and still sums up your point succinctly.
Jesus said, “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
-Luke 19:27
Ex 4:11 – “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?”
“C is for Cookie, thats good enough for me”
-Cookie Monster
@Anna
Believers make this mistake a lot. Just because I don’t believe that life was created by a creator IN NO WAY means that I believe that life came from nothing.
Why do people think that there are only two options here? While a discipline such as science may not definitively answer where life came from, I am confident that it can come up with some pretty good ideas. Most of which are a heck of a lot more reasonable to me than the easy idea that a supreme being just made it all happen. Not being able to understand the complexities of such things as chemistry and physics as they pertain to the origins should not make the answer of GOD more reasonable.
Besides all that, if we never truly know the answers to the origin questions, will it change how you put your pants on in the morning? Will it change how you drink your coffee? How you go to work? How you feel about your friends and family? No. I makes no difference.
You fail to understand that the fact that you (and many others) think that it is unreasonable to imagine that we do NOT have a creator, a purpose, or life after death, is purely a human made ego issue.
@Sunny Day
“C is for Christian, who gives nonsensical arguments.”
-McBloggenstein
“C is for Christian, who gives nonsensical arguments.”
-McBloggenstein
You Sir, Slander the great letter C with your truthful comments about some christians!
I hope you will take the time to review your harsh words and apologize to the letter C.
Defination of God (ALLAH) : -
When the polytheist asked Mohammed (PBUH) what is the defination of your god. So the following was revelaed to him (pbuh)
112.001 Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
112.002 Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
112.003 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
112.004 And there is none like unto Him.
Al-Qur’an, 112.001-004 (Al-Ikhlas [Sincerity])
Defination of God (ALLAH) : -
When the polytheist asked Mohammed (PBUH) what is the defination of your god. So the following was revelaed to him (pbuh)
112.001 Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; – Along with all the other Farie Tales
112.002 Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; – Just like all the other Farie Tales
112.003 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; – Sad because hes all alone :(
112.004 And there is none like unto Him. – He’s a unique mythological snowflake, just like all the other unique mythological snowflakes.
Al-Qur’an, 112.001-004 (Al-Ikhlas [Sincerity]) – The Big Book of Make-Believe.
Then explain Mr.Sunny Days your version of God. Or if donot belive in any God prove and enlighten me how the complex life in this world exist and live.
If you do belive in Darwin’s theory of evolution, he him self disclaims his theory in the Book of Orgin of Species where he describes the Difficulties of theories. And today its very easy to proove he made a total fool of him self by coming up with un sceintific, without any facts theories .
Today we can observe and look at things at a very microscopic level and nano level. 150 years ago that did not existed at Darwins time.
If you look at the fosils found which dates back millions of years(as per the sceintist) and compare them with todays living organisms you will not find any much difference.
You don’t think a humongous supersaurus is much different than any living species? Or perhaps an extinct giant aquatic lizard, or a bird with teeth?
I think you need an education.
Sunny Day: ”Next time instead of typing out all that incredulus crappo you can just type the shorter phrase, “Because I say so!”
Theres less thinking, less typing and still sums up your point succinctly.”
So, you are allowed to have a ”because i say so” opinion, naming everything i have said as crap, but i cannot explain my point of view to make it my own [even if it is not true] because …why? You’re just not bothered to read it all?
It is not uncommon to find people ridiculing your opinion when you have ridiculous opinions. In this case Anna, you believe that nothing can exist without a creator, and yet you claim that creator can exist without a creator. That is right up there on the scale of ridiculousness, and I am always disappointed when the people that make those statements can’t see the elementary flaw. On top of that is the nonsensical idea that this particular creator is not just any creator, but a very specific creator based on a very specific interpretation of a very specific bronze age cultic god.
If you can’t see why that opinion doesn’t earn you any respect then you simply have not thought things through.
Aor, i didnt invented this opinion, it existed before me and will keep exist without me as well. And besides this, i rather prefer the way you explained my point of view was crap, than sunny day’s. I am not very good with words, i admitt it, but i have the right to an opinion as much as everyone else.
Anyway, to get back to what i said, that Christians believe in a God , a creator who has no creator. It is the term self existent that is being used very often. And even more, the bible neither proves the existence of God nor it questions it. God was there and will be there. God is ‘eternal’ which doesnt necesarily means that He has no beggining and no end but that God has existed outside time [the time that we, mortal comprehend as something that has a start and an end].
Nevertheless, this is – i think-merely a reason not to believe in God. Just because we dont know the exact origin of God, doesnt mean he doesnt exist.
“In this case Anna, you believe that nothing can exist without a creator, and yet you claim that creator can exist without a creator. That is right up there on the scale of ridiculousness”
Exactly. Her creator doesn’t need a creator because she says so.
The universe needed a cause but her gawd didn’t because she says so.
“Aor, i didnt invented this opinion, it existed before me and will keep exist without me as well.”
The length of time your Bullshit has been around is no measure of its validity.
“Nevertheless, this is – i think-merely a reason not to believe in God. Just because we dont know the exact origin of God, doesnt mean he doesnt exist.”
The same for Dragons, Invisible Unicorns, Leprechauns, Pixies, Allah, Thoth, Virarocha, SuperMan and any number of Farie Tale Critters for which you want to have a presuppositional belief.
Yasser Mamood:
You mean chapters six and seven in which he lays out several objections that people might raise, and goes on to explain how his theory makes sense of them, after all? Maybe you ought to read them before you make this argument again…
Anna Condor:
Personally, I’ve never agreed with the idea that “I’m entitled to my opinion”. I mean, what if it’s my opinion that Dan Rather encodes secret messages into the news, telling me to go out and kill black people? Society has a very clear justification in preventing people from holding an opinion like that.
On a less harmful scale, what if my opinion is that 2+2=87? Should schoolteachers respect that opinion, or shoudl they try and overcome it?
I believe that everyone has the right to a reasonable opinion, and that unreasonable opinions should be quashed when possible. The idea that everything needs a creator, except for one thing which is excepted on an ad hoc basis is not a reasonable opinion. If God can exist without a creator, why can’t the universe?
@Aor
“In this case Anna, you believe that nothing can exist without a creator, and yet you claim that creator can exist without a creator. That is right up there on the scale of ridiculousness…”
@wintermute
“The idea that everything needs a creator, except for one thing which is excepted on an ad hoc basis is not a reasonable opinion.”
Near as I can tell, Anna is simply arguing an intelligent, known first cause instead of an arbitrary, unintelligent, unknown first cause for which you would argue. I fail to see how that makes her opinion ridiculous and worthy of ridicule. Oh, because you say so, I guess.
“If God can exist without a creator, why can’t the universe?”
Huh? So the universe has no creative first cause whatsoever? Not even the big bang? I dunno dude, that sounds a little outside the contemporary conventional thinking on the matter of origins…dare I say, unreasonable given our current understanding of the universe.
Which leads me to…
@McBloggenstein
“Believers make this mistake a lot. Just because I don’t believe that life was created by a creator IN NO WAY means that I believe that life came from nothing….Not being able to understand the complexities of such things as chemistry and physics as they pertain to the origins should not make the answer of GOD more reasonable.”
Why not? Because you say so? We’re not talking about how the first cell came to be AFTER the laws of physics and chemistry were already in place. We’re talking about first causes for the laws of chemistry and physics. In the absence of any proof, you can hardly blame the rational person for considering the idea of God as first cause. Oh I guess you can if you want but then you would commit the same error for which you and Sunny Day ridicule Anna. But you know this already.
So I don’t get it. A Christian comes to this thread and claims to believe in a first cause that is god basically because she has “…the right to an opinion as much as everyone else”. Ok, not very convincing I admit. However, those opposed to her beliefs make no attempt to present an alternative. Through some belittling hand-waving they dismiss her ideas as ridiculous because they say so. Good work guys.
First post 2009! YaY… happy new day… P.S. I think GoD exists therefore I must? …kidding, love the banter keep it up all…
My question is: Where can a guy find a reliable, well organized counter religious collective that is active in subverting the spread of the opportunistic disease religion?
(though I realise that with the advent of the information age it’ll be circling the drain for the next 500 years… let’s speed it up!)
Cheers all the best to you in 2009!
Jord
Jeff:
The Big Bang is a known cause, and hardly arbitrary, as there’s plenty of evidence that it existed. I’ll agree that it’s unintelligent, though.
However, I don’t believe that the Big Bang (and therefore the universe) had any cause, what with there not being any time, or cause and effect without the universe.
Assuming that there must be some cause, let alone an anthopomorhised, intelligent cause that gives a crap about a thin layer of organic slime on an unremarkable lump of rock is quite a leap, given the lack of evidence.
@Sunny Day
”The length of time your Bullshit has been around is no measure of its validity”
I think i’m done talking to you here. My bullshit is clealry too much for your brain to explore, so let’s leave it to that. I talk crap. At least i tried to have a reasonable converstion, even if in someone’s point of view i talk about similar things to dragons and fairytales.
@wintermute
”The Big Bang is a known cause, and hardly arbitrary, as there’s plenty of evidence that it existed. ”
Is there really? Can you show me the facts and evidence behind that,please? And i mean facts, not statements.
And maybe it does need a miracle to believe that a God made the universe. But to believe that out of NOTHING came what we are, a complex world, an inteligent design of an chaotic random act of ‘fate’ …that too needs a miracle to happen.
@Jeff
Thank you !
@Jeff/Anna
The reasoning is simple and clear. If a person claims that something needed a cause in order to occur, then in the same argument claims that something else does not need a cause in order to occur, then they are being ridiculous. Those two concepts are contradictory. No person who claims the universe needed a creator can simply turn around and claim that their creator in turn does not need a creator. It is ridiculous. Give your head a shake.
What it boils down to is the idea that we do not know all of the truth yet, but we are open and curious and damn well want to find out all of those answers. Contrast this with those who claim that the truth came out thousands of years ago and that truth is that one particular bronze age cultic god with his temple on a hill, like all the other cultic gods of that area of the world in that era, is the creator of everything. And his story changes a few times, but it was 100% true each and every time despite the changes.
Let me pose you a hypothetical question. Lets assume that you were interested finding out if Voodoo is real. What do you do? Do you go to a Voodoo priest, read only Voodoo writings, take only the information that supports Voodoo and then conclude that Voodoo is real and true? Or do you hold back, be skeptical, draw on information from both believers and non believers, take in any and all information the world has on Voodoo, and then make your decision on whether it was real?
If you are afraid to treat your beliefs skeptically, please be truthful and admit it.
@Jeff
No, I was talking about the origin of life on Earth.
Not just because I say so, because it just isn’t [reasonable to think God created life]. I’m not saying that God isn’t on the list of possibilities, because of course it is. I’m saying there’s no reason to believe it anymore than any other reason.
And in fact, in order to consider God as a reasonable possibility, you would have to acknowledge all that we know about the history of man, and his many tales of now dead gods that were once believed to explain countless questions that we now are intelligent enough to know the answer for. So, since all of those things that humans once attributed to their god have since been proven to have another explanation, wouldn’t that make God less reasonable on the list of explanations for things? Because “god” as an answer has failed so many times, wouldn’t that discredit it as a choice for future questions?
So, just because we don’t know the answer to something, there is no good reason to use God to fill in the gap anymore than any other possibility. I believe that given what we know, there is actually less of a reason to consider it.
Some bits of wisdom I have learned over the years…
1. You cannot reason with the religious. I grew up with a Mormon convert for a parent and now live with 2 fundamentalist Baptists. The only way to LIVE through these situations is to realize that there are some battles that are not worth fighting…
Trying to talk sense to a Christian, pagan, etc. is as good a past-time and ramming your head into a wall.
2. If a person does not believe in miracles, they will never see them.
Seriously think about that for a second. It should speak for itself. And it should tell you that no one will find the miracle of a God if they don’t believe there is a God to find.
3. Evidence is always biased.
I am not saying that the evidence PROVIDED is biased, but the interpretation will always be. Therefore, no matter how much evidence and reason a individual is given, if they do not think something can happen, that evidence will somehow be dis proven. For instance, Hitler believed in an Aran nation, and that all other races were inferior. Well, in the German Olympics while he was in power he denied Isreal entry. That sort of keeps them from proving anything some would say. And a black man won a German at both a race and a boxing match. What did Hitler do? Continued his final solution, of course.
What is my point?
That there is no point in arguing. People will believe only what they want to believe. You cannot make anyone see sense, they have to open their mind to it.
At least in the Bible, on thing was right. God gave humans free agency…. in my opinion if they don’t use it that is their loss.
@Aor
”If a person claims that something needed a cause in order to occur, then in the same argument claims that something else does not need a cause in order to occur, then they are being ridiculous. Those two concepts are contradictory. No person who claims the universe needed a creator can simply turn around and claim that their creator in turn does not need a creator”
It was said, or…i was more implying that something did need a creator to occur but that the creator’s origin is not known to us. They dont have to be contradictory as long as we talk of a world with supernatural powers… powers that we cannot understand inside our human form. Imagine this: ants would barely understand the concept of humans, let alone understand what is beyond that. In the same way, i think, we cannot understand completely the fullnes of God. We are not talking about history, or sport, or things that, in our knowledge or capabilities, happened long time ago…we talk of a God, of a Creator that is bigger than universe itself. How can one claim that they can understand God when they cant even understand the universe they live in?
**
@ McBloggenstein
”So, just because we don’t know the answer to something, there is no good reason to use God to fill in the gap anymore than any other possibility. I believe that given what we know, there is actually less of a reason to consider it.”
As i said earlier, you cannot understand God with your mind and reason. That is why christianity is based on faith[ believe in what we dont see ] and not on reasoning .Dont understand me wrong, i am not against reason, i am just saying that looking for answers sometimes takes away from seing the truth.
**
Darwin to the Mouse
Your post is interesting and your wisdom is …well very useful to those who truly want to see.
@Darwin to the Mouse
1) “What did Hitler do? Continued his final solution, of course.”
With all due respect, I think this is a very poor example. The belief in Aryan supremacy was based on little real evidence and a whole bunch of propaganda. Regardless, the Final Solution had nothing to do with Hitler’s beliefs about Aryan superiority and everything to do with German conspiratorial antisemitism.
2) “That there is no point in arguing. People will believe only what they want to believe. You cannot make anyone see sense, they have to open their mind to it.”
Quite a number of us in the online atheist community were swayed by arguments. Not, I suspect, by any one argument, but by the gradual accumulation of doubts and suspicions created by engaging in a number of arguments. While no one argument it likely to succeed, chances are better that the sum total of a number of arguments will break through.
Yes, indeed Anna. How can one claim to understand god when they can’t even understand the universe they live in. By your very reasoning, nobody in the entire history of the universe has ever understood god. Nobody. The words in the bible? The authors did not understand god, so those words are meaningless. Thanks for understanding that elementary point, and for volunteering it.
Your reasoning in this case a fallacy however, so you are off the hook and I don’t think you really mean to imply that the bible is based on the writings of people who did not understand god.
Look up the cosmological argument, that is what you are using at the moment. Then look up special pleading, which is the counter to it. You could also apply Occam’s razor, but lets just put it this way: better minds than ours have been over this issue for many centuries. If your position was logically convincing it would have been accepted for all those centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
“It was said, or…i was more implying that something did need a creator to occur but that the creator’s origin is not known to us.”
Then just take a step back and say the Universe’s orgin is not known to us. But no, you have to assume a god.
“They dont have to be contradictory as long as we talk of a world with supernatural powers… powers that we cannot understand inside our human form.”
Now you’re assuming the existence of supernatural powers.
If supernatural powers existed and they interacted with the physcal universe, we could detect them by the effects upon the universe.
“Imagine this: ants would barely understand the concept of humans, let alone understand what is beyond that. In the same way, i think, we cannot understand completely the fullnes of God.”
The difference being that the Ants can detect Humans Your god idea is invisible, untouchable and unknowable. Why even postulate that he exists except to “answer” the difficult questions you have and dont want to try to find out the answers.
“We are not talking about history, or sport, or things that, in our knowledge or capabilities, happened long time ago…we talk of a God, of a Creator that is bigger than universe itself. How can one claim that they can understand God when they cant even understand the universe they live in?”
Because you say so? Thats all your argument boils down to.
How can you claim that the Universe needed a god when you cant even explain why one is necessary?
“As i said earlier, you cannot understand God with your mind and reason. That is why christianity is based on faith[ believe in what we dont see ] and not on reasoning”
So then why dont you believe in Allah, or Yalwh, or Viranocha, or the Great Pumpkin?
“Dont understand me wrong, i am not against reason, i am just saying that looking for answers sometimes takes away from seing the truth.”
Truth without evidence is just making stuff up. The age of the belief or the number of worshipers is no measure of validity.
Anna,
I wonder why, then, believers have tried for centuries to spread their faith, attempting to get others to “know” God, when really there is no way that anyone can “know” God. If the response is that he can not be known through the mind, but only through the heart… then that is still a way to know him. And by the way, knowing something “through the heart” means nothing, zilch, nada. Name me something else, anything, that is only known through the heart. When someone says they have a feeling about something, a gut feeling, but are not sure why, it does not mean that it is not possible to determine an explanation for that feeling if rational thought is applied. They just are not able to explain it at the moment.
I said this on another post: If God can not be known through reason, then I don’t want to know him. As Daniel added.. actually we can’t know him without reason.
Looking for answers takes away from seeing the truth? In other words, if we stop looking, the truth will reveal itself to us? Again, tell me where this way of thinking is valid in any other aspect of our lives. In ANY other.
“Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the
rock!” (Psalms 137:9)
“The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled
against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to
the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” (Hosea 13:16)
“Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined
unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces
before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.”
(Isaiah 13:15,16)
“Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no
pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare
children.” (Isaiah 13:18)
Great metaphor, god hates kids.
A little more than 50 years ago, Edwin Hubble discovered that objects formerly thought to be nebulae (clouds of gas and dust within our galaxy) were actually distant galaxies. He did this by finding radio signals from those galaxies that looked exactly like the radio signals emitted from some stars in OUR galaxy (though much fainter of course). There was, however, a slight difference — for almost all these other galaxies, these signals were a slightly lower frequency than the signals emitted within our galaxy.
These differences could quite reasonably be explained by so-called “Doppler shifting,” which you experience any time you are passed by an emergency vehicle with the siren blasting. As the vehicle approaches, the sound is high-pitched. As it passes you (i.e. begins to move away from you), there is a sudden drop in the pitch. This is the Doppler effect.
When the measured frequency shift is used in the formula for the Doppler effect, one finds that these other galaxies are, for the most part, moving away from our galaxy very quickly. Further analysis shows that almost all of them are moving away from EACH OTHER very quickly. In other words, the universe is getting bigger and bigger. This agrees quite nicely with the General Theory of Relativity, the best theory of gravity at the time (and arguably still true today), which had caused something of a mystery before this finding as it implied that the universe should either be expanding or contracting, but not static (as people believed it was before Hubble’s discovery).
Since then, astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists have been able to measure the relative speed of galaxies and other large, distant bodies with much greater precision than Hubble. Furthermore, due to the finite speed of light and the fact that there are galaxies at many different distances from us, we can also measure how these speeds change over the life of the universe (when we look at an object 6 billion light years away, we see it as it was 6 billion years ago). The result is that cosmologists can reasonably conclude that about 12 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was so close together that molecules would be unable to form and the entire universe would be a giant fireball whose internal forces would push it apart. This is the big bang.
The earliest picture of the universe we have is the microwave background radiation. According to the theory, this would have been produced about 400,000 years after the big bang (a blink of an eye compared to the 12 billion years since then). Its structure and properties agree very well with modern theories about the big bang. While there is still much that is not understood about the big bang, this is one case where the theory and the information we DO have agree very well.
I see the claim “Everything must have a cause” made quite often by theists, but I never actually see them make an argument for it. There is actually no need, because this is a universal positive claim and can be disproved with one counterargument: the Casimir Effect. According to quantum mechanical theories, the difficulties in measuring very small masses lead to the admittedly counterintuitive conclusion that particle/anti-particle pairs randomly pop into existence in the presence of an electromagnetic field. The microwave background radiation is such a field, as is all the radiation emitted by the sun; in other words, there are electromagnetic fields just about everywhere, so one would expect to find these particle/anti-particle pairs everywhere.
Despite the fact that these pairs (also called quantum fluctuations) are a result of the difficulties in detecting small particles, they CAN be detected somewhat indirectly. When two reflective plates are placed very close together, only certain quantum fluctuations can appear between the plates. This is similar to the fact that when a certain fret on a guitar is pressed, the string can only vibrate at certain frequencies. As a result, one would expect that the energy density of the quantum fluctuations between the plates would be lower than the energy density of the fluctuations outside the plates. This experiment has been performed, and sure enough there is a net force pushing the plates together — the Casimir effect. It is incredibly good evidence for the quantum theoretical prediction of the random appearance of particle/anti-particle pairs. These appearances have no cause. They simply happen at random.
Here’s a freebie: all atoms have a lowest possible energy state, in which all the electrons in the atom are as “close” to the nucleus as possible. When an atom has an electron in a higher energy state, it can pass to the lower state by emitting a photon (light particle) that is the same energy as the energy difference between the two states. The amount of time between receiving the energy and re-emitting it as a photon is random, as is the direction in which it is emitted. In other words, the emission of a photon from an atom in an excited state has no specifiable cause.
Oh, another one: nuclear decay. Unstable atomic nuclei decay at a predictable rate on average, but for any given atom, it is completely unpredictable when the nucleus will decay.
So there are three events that don’t have a cause, but happen nonetheless. Does anyone care to defend the premise that “Everything must have a cause”?
@Jeff, @Anna,
By the way, the reason people are so “hostile” to your opinions is because they are uninformed opinions. For example, Anna seems to think there is not such great evidence for the big bang, but this is only because she has not done one lick of research on the subject. You could get most of what I put above by reading “A Brief History of Time,” which is a non-technical account of the state of modern physics by one of the greats, Stephen Hawking. If you truly wanted to understand the world or our arguments, you would do some independent reading. Instead, you seem to want to imply that you know more about the universe than people who dedicate their lives to studying the universe. This is arrogance, and can be very aggravating to people who know more about these subjects than you do. When talking about subjects (such as science) that you do not understand so well, you should approach the subject with some degree of humility, IMHO.
And Jeff, the claim that “A mind created the universe” (the religious claim) is a much stronger claim than “we don’t know what created the universe” (the scientific claim), especially since we don’t even know what a mind is. As for whether or not the atheist position requires a first cause, see post above for examples of events with no causes. And again, I would be happy to see your arguments as to why everything needs a cause.
I sometimes think that in Bible we see either good or evil acts but we do not dive into the some higher topics like
Who is God? How does He look like? Does He has his own likes and dislikes as we do? As Bible mentions that man is cast in the shape of God.
Who am I? Bible mentions about spirit but what is difference between my spirit and spirit of animals and plants? As the actions of humans and animals are same…So How is it that humans spirit is Holy and not the cats or dogs…What happens after the human/animal dies… Do humans go to heaven/hell based on their karma? What is Karma? Does it really hold ground? Why should I be moral or ethical if after this life i am finished?
What is my relationship with God? Can I have a relationship with God as I have with my Mother/Father/Friend/Wife/Son. I relish my relationships with all these people…So how more can i relish these relationships if i had the same with God..
Can anybody give me the answer to these questions… I cannot satisfactory answers in my church….
Sometimes I think of giving up chirstianity and head eastern countries in search of Absolute Truth.
Jayz,
First off…there is no ‘Absolute Truth’
Do you really believe there is a spirit in the sky watching over every person and sparrow on earth?
If He were real He would look like us because we are made in His image. Since we made Him up…he still looks like us.
I think He dislikes Pistachio ice-cream, and likes Barbequed beef.
The difference in Us vs. animals is we have opposable thumbs. We have self awareness, most animals probably don’t…but, nobody really knows.
Boy I hope to hell ‘Karma’ is true, cuz I know some people who are way overdue for payback.
There is no Hell…there is no Heaven. It’s all Hebrew myth, 2,500 year old superstition.
No you can’t really have a relationship with God unless you are schizophrenic. You mum and dad and siblings can actually talk to you and raise your spirits and help you out and so forth. ‘God’ won’t even talk to you…ever.
You know the ‘Golden Rule’ has been around longer than ‘Jesus,’ so we get our knowledge of right and wrong naturally…it doesn’t come from the Bible.
Remember there is no Absolute Truth, so I wouldn’t charge off to India or the Himalayas looking for something that’s not really there.
thewordofme,
It is good to know your thoughts…
It seems you do not believe in existence of God…or may be you think man created God rather than God created man…
Do you think that we are all born geniuses and all the people around and the people before and after us were fools and espeically the saints, wasted their whole life when they simply preached the Glories of Lord and pleaded with general mass to worship God with devotion and faith.
We see in every culture that ever existed on the face of earth had some conception of higher power..some sense of being looked upon…and rewarded or punished based on our activities… So all the people that existed have filled reams of literatures just describing how to develop devotion to God..
Were they all fools or schizophrenic
I do not think He is watching all from above…. but i think He is watching each of us … me and you and sparrow alike… from within… We have heard in childhood the story of “God is Everywhere”.
I firmly believe that God is present and He can show us the path from within our heart if we follow right teachings from a person who has unlimited devotion to Him…. I am looking for such a devout personality…
I know the teachings of Jesus but I feel it too much into whats right and wrong…the ten commandmants are simply that…but I cannot get real people following that, actually following word for word of real philosophy preached by Jesus and His apostles…
May be that is cause of our unfulfilment.
Man did create god.
You see, we have information on the origin of the religion that came to be called Judeism, which is holds the key to the origin of Christianity and Islam.
We know that the original books of the bible were put together from earlier works by an editor who merged separate ‘holy writings’ into one book. We know that one set of those writings came from Judea and the other came from Israel. We know that those two nations were sometimes at war with each other and supported different priesthoods, each priesthood having its own variation on the tales of their religions.
We know that one nation, whose priests claimed to originate with Aaron, chose to use Moses in its teachings, writing that Moses had powers given by god. We know that the other nation, their priests having originated with Elijah, chose to write that it was Elijah’s staff that had power and Moses had only the words of god. We know that at some point someone merged those two works together, and did a piss poor job of it. They repeated stories twice with greatly different explanations.
We know that the writers of the original works of the bible not only did not agree with each other but based their writings on the politics of the nations and priesthoods they were born into rather than on revelations.
We know that Elijah’s followers and Aaron’s followers highlighted different aspects of their beliefs, and we have some understanding of why they did so.. politics and support of power structures.
We know that Judeism sprung from an earlier Canaanite religion. We know much of their beliefs, and can see evidence of those beliefs in the artifacts that are dug out of the ground all over the region. We can see religious artifacts of Canaanite origin spread across the so-called holy land at a time when the bible claims that the land was monotheistic.
In other words, those who choose to actually learn about the true history of the land and time in question find that the origins of all the Abrahamic religions are based on mythologies of earlier cultures. Those who study religions in general find the same thing. There is no reason to assume that any religion has access to a divine truth. There is no evidence that the divine truth is possible.
The more you know, the less sense religion makes. Any religion.
Rather than study other religions, I recommend history. It helps us avoid the mistakes of the past, like believing in the supernatural.
When you get right down to it, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God … if he exists … can, logically speaking, only be malevolent in nature. No other conclusion is possible.
I know this sounds like an outrageous statement to make, but it’s true; see how, at http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/extras/theodicy.html
PsiCop,
Do you mean to say God exists but He is malevolent?
But you feel that God cannot be malevolent.. So He does not exists…
This logic seems similar to what daniel has put in his previous post. “hundreds-of-proofs-of-gods-existence”. the post is quiet funny and ridiculing.
Though God is neither malevolent nor evil, He may behave with us the same way if we approach Him with the same feelings. Just like in our case if a person has bad feelings or is envious of us, then surely we will not be lovingly disposed to that person. What to speak if he spends all his energy just in defying your efforts or defame you both in front of your face and in public….
The same is the case with God, If He is offended to that degree by somebody then He creates such situations that you will be miserable and with whatever effort you put to get happiness, you will still be miserable.
Then even if you blaspheme and shout to top of your lungs to challenge the authority of God. That will not help in getting happiness. It will only make a person frustrated.
Thinking that life has no purpose, it is created from matter, We become frustrated by life, and in that frustration we sometime at some point try to find truth in Life, Becuase we have not yet tasted what is internal satisfaction.
Then sometime in our life we may CRY with our heart for HELP… in utter helplessness … CRY out genuinely for GOD. Then GOD may send someone, some signal that will change the direction of life and will bring us closer to GOD.
GOD cannot be approched by rebels or people with envious or rebellious nature. As Jesus said “only meek and humble will reach the Kingdom of God”. With this humility we should try to approach authorotative literatures. One should never be blind faith in nature and always criticizing and questioning irrationally also will not help. But one should be open minded and try things as suggested in proper manner and see if it is helping him in any way and only then he can accept or reject.
@Aor
“The more you know, the less sense religion makes. Any religion.”
The statement that you made is very general still specfic to your encounter. To make such a statement you should have authority to say that you have studied all religions of the world.
But that is not the case.
What is purpose of religion? Pupose of religion is that we can come closer to God, develop Love for Him. If our religion is not doing this to us then there can be two things
1. We are not implementing the teachings of the religion of prophets or saints in the correct manner.
2. Even after doing step 1 if we do not get the satisfaction, internal happiness of being closer to God or Love for Him is not developed in heart then that religion is cheating religion.
This similar to Doctor specifying a medicine. If medicine does not work then either we did not follow proper steps of medication or the doctor is a quack. That does not mean that the medicine does not exist or the disease cannot be cured or there is no disease because there is no proper prescription.
We cannot consider that the diseased condition is healthy because the symptoms of disease come up again and again that is manifested by our sheer discontent and frustration.
When sometime we become humble in our life and ask for HELP from HIM. Then He can bestow His supreme mercy on all us. He can give directions from within our heart.
So let me be sure I read you correctly, Jayz.. you aren’t disputing anything else I said with regards to the origin of Christianity and the history of the middle east? I assume that if you disagreed with it in any way you would mention it. If you found a flaw, you would mention it. Since you have not I must assume that you are just wishing it away.
Face it. Christianity is based on Judeism, which is based on the Canaanite religion and others, which were based on yet earlier religions. All of which can be backed up by archeologists and historians. Since you don’t appear to disagree with any of this, please explain just how you decide at which point the religion went from being just another false religion (like the Canaanite religion) to one that is true and real. If you can do that, please please do.
I made a general statement, Jayz. You claim its specific. I couldn’t disagree more. History tells a great deal about religions in general and my conclusion is based on history. Not on fantasy. Not on one particular version of one particular bronze age cultic god, like yours. A broader interpretation, where all religions are treated equally and evaluated on how closely they match verifiable elements of history. I have just declared that your religion is at least partially based on lies, and you haven’t disagreed at all.
By the way, have you explored all possible alternative religions? Have you complete knowledge of all belief systems so that you could choose one from them in an informed manner? Yet you seem to believe that you are a follower of the one true religion, do you not? You deny the possibility of any other religion being true, don’t you? You do not believe in Thor, or Osiris do you? You do this with incomplete knowledge of other religions, right? Do you need to completely understand the old norse religion before you discount it as being simply another myth?
Of course you go off on a tangent, with purpose and love and the usual stuff. I’m afraid its not convincing. You see, since your religion is based on a story that we can prove false, your religion cannot be true. Jesus believed the Jewish mythology some of which can be shown to be false. Its that simple. You may wish it were not, but it is. You can verify this for yourself simply by reading. Even wikipedia would give you a good start.
I think you would do well to learn more of the history I mentioned earlier. If your beliefs are true then they will not contradict historical events.
Jayz,
How might I find out for sure that the Christian Yahweh, Elohim, etc. exists?
Can you prove Him? Could anyone down through history prove Him?
Could any of the genius’ or saints in our past history prove God? I posit to you that all of the ancient people that wasted their life on the myth of God were just making a living and enjoying the power that being a priest conveyed during the dark ages.
There have been many, many words written about God and Jesus, but never any real testable proofs.
Of course that why they call it faith.
I need empirical proofs, and the gods provide none…because they are not there.
thewordofme,
Yes to understand God some degree of faith is needed. Same is required even boarding a plane. Faith that plane will take us to required destination. Faith on Flight attendants, faith on the pilot,faith on government. Faith is required. You cannot board even a plane if you dont have faith.
What to speak of Spiritual subject matters…which certainly requires faith…
See our knowledge acquiring senses have a limited capacity, they are sometimes flawed. God is beyond these senses of touch, smell, vision thru these material senses made of flesh.
So to understand someone as great as GOD, We need to have faith.
Please be aware that when I speak faith means not blind faith but well grounded faith. Just as you have faith in pilot of the plane you board. You dont go and check the flying license of the pilot.
I cannot prove the existence of Christian Yahweh, Elohim, etc.
But I have firm faith on the teachings of Jesus.
What I am looking forward to is some eastern Bhakti culture which can give me deeper realizations of GOD.
Dear Aor,
You have some knowledge of History, that is good. Pls dont confine yourself to simply history.
You cannot understand religion without understanding something about GOD. You cannot understand GOD untill you ask yourself the question WHO AM I?? What is my idenntity?
Am I this hand?Am I this legs? Am I this head, brain or Heart?
Who is actually I?
Only with this question we can go further.
If we do not seek the answer to this question, I am sorry to say, what we remain is simply “two legged social animal”.
“Yes to understand God some degree of faith is needed. Same is required even boarding a plane. Faith that plane will take us to required destination. Faith on Flight attendants, faith on the pilot,faith on government. Faith is required. You cannot board even a plane if you dont have faith.”
Wrong and stupid.
You are mistaking conclusions based on past observed behavior (evidence) with faith.
Plane taking us to required destination. – You can watch other planes taking off, and see them land at their destinations. If that doesn’t happen you will be informed of the cause.
Flight attendants, Pilot, Govt…. no faith required. All are conclusions based on past evidence.
Jayz, why don’t you respond to the points I made about the origins of your faith? You just ignore them. Are you really going to pretend that the book of your faith (and those that gave rise to it) do not make claim things that can be proven false? This is not a complex question. Why not just give an answer?
All the questions you ask are metaphysical mumbo jumbo. You talk about seeking an answer, but really you have not sought one.. my guess is that you have taken up the one you were raised with and haven’t actually looked into the history of your own beliefs.
So, please Jayz.. respond to the points I raised. If your holy book makes claims that have been proven false (Herod the baby killer comes to mind) and is known to be an amalgam of often contradicting belief systems editted to suit the politics of the people in charge at the time, then how can one that sprung from it a few hundred years later somehow be true?
No avoiding, please. Answer. How can the truth be built on a foundation of lies?
Keep up the good work. I sincerely hope more people will wake up from their delusions like you have.
You’d think the people on here had lived many lifetimes. How does it feel to have lived anywhere between maybe 20 and 70 years on this ancient rock and have it all figured out?
Sure thing, evangelicals can put the blinders on; but how open is the vision of the smug folk who maybe passed science in college and now can tell you the whole story, alpha to omega?
This is the age of science and technology, just as there was the age of reason, and the golden age; but one day maybe more people will learn to integrate the observations made by people as human as ourselves who lived over the last thousands of years into the modest bit of knowledge we just learned in the last 2 centuries and love to puff our chests out with. In the modernist framework all of human experience is grounded in the natural and the material, and given the breadth of human experience, that might be a hasty conclusion.
As an example of eras building on other eras, DaVinci and Michelangelo took painting to new heights that were built on for the next few centuries. Impressionism discovered ways to depict light and pretty much ignored ideas of form and dimension that were developed in the centuries before them. The exceptional artists afterwards integrated Impressionism’s color and light concepts into the older exceptional traditions, understanding that as long as people live and breathe the book isn’t finished on any subject, and as a result they found something a little more complete while “true” french impressionism faded into a bit of a fad; but it still gave the world something substantial because a few people knew they shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. In other words, I tend to think that any idea that survives and thrives for a few generations has at least some element of truth, even if it’s mainly metaphorical.
There’s bits of truth in many places. Can’t help but think of the line (paraphrased) from Shakespeare: “There are more things in heaven and earth then are dreamt of in your philosophies.” Hamlet, (as I said, not exact.)
While we talk about an “evil god” perhaps that moral discussion might include the pitfalls of hubris.
I also like the (maybe overused) Eliot quote:
“And we shall not cease from our exploration
And the end of our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.”
Little Gidding, I think. Sorry I don’t feel like looking the quotes up.
It really is astounding how much people think they have it all figured out, especially when part of that knowledge is the millions of years that came before them. Of course people know Darwin has been mostly revised, even though he was a crucial starting point; but for that first 100 years or so people swore by it. The jury is still out on exactly what this whole world means, and I’d think that might be a little exciting; but exciting or not you’d think it should be obvious.
Oh, one other thing. We had some teenage girls come by years ago and hand us a “tract” after they told my wife she would go to hell if she wasn’t a Christian. Of course she wanted to slap them; but after a few years of exposure to fundamental Islam I think we should have invited them in for cookies.
Maybe it’s moral relativism, but as far as “oppressive” religions go in the 21st century, we have it pretty good here in the US, for now. I’d take the Bible belt over some parts of the middle east any day.
Maybe we should prioritize and condemn the religions that try to mess with our heads after we discuss the ones that want to cut them off. Of course, criticizing other cultures wouldn’t be very tolerant, would it. : )
Way back on Nov. 18 Christian apologist Eric Kemp wrote:
“To apply any kind of personal ideas or modern cultural understandings to the Bible is to start off on the wrong foot.”
The Protestant view (BTW I am not a Catholic) is that the Bible is supposed to be a fully self-contained cosmic policy and procedure manual, the be-all and end-all of what you need to know to get to heaven. This concept, known as “Sola Scriptura” (Scripture Alone), was formulated by Martin Luther and arose shortly after the invention of the printing press. A coincidence? I think not.
Prior to Gutenberg there are 1,400 years of Christian history wherein it was generally agreed that the Church did all of the interpreting of scripture. Unlike the concept of Sola Scriptura, the idea of Church authority is actually in the Bible where Paul calls the Church the “Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.” You will not find a passage in the Bible suggesting that scripture is THE “Pillar and Foundation of the Truth.”
So within the context of Christian history the Protestant paradigm is itself a “modern cultural understanding.”
http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola5.htm
God is a loving God, He loves you so much that He lets you choose weather or not to love Him. However, you will face the consequences of your actions both on earth and in heaven.
I am also against those preachers who purely preach the good because there is a lot to be read about the bad. You can’t just think Christianity is purely good, there is difficult things that have to be accepted.
I pray that you slide forward instead of back.
“jvid” commented (8:40pm): “God is a loving God, He loves you so much that He lets you choose weather or not to love Him. However, you will face the consequences of your actions both on earth and in heaven.”
Interesting. You’re saying God leaves us free to choose him, or not choose him. Yet … if we do not choose him, we must suffer for that choice.
Sorry but that’s not actually a “free” choice! It’s actually a choice made under threat of punishment. Here’s an example of a choice made under duress: A robber walks up to you, puts a gun to your head, and says, “Your money or your life!” You give him your money (not wanting to be shot). He leaves but is later caught by police and prosecuted for robbery. At trial he tells the court he can’t be guilty of robbery, however, since you “freely” gave him your money!
By the standard you gave above … i.e. it’s a “free choice” to choose God or choose punishment … the judge would have to let him go.
Have you any idea how preposterous that is?
Why would any sane, rational person actually want to worship a being who says, “Worship me or be punished!”? Such a being ought, by all that is moral, to be defied rather than worshiped.
A Christian is someone who professed belief in Jesus as Christ. I myself am a Christian, one who spent many years on the other side of the fence. I was against religion for so long. I studied many of the worlds religions, attended different worships, read many books and then became a student of the law of attraction and quantum physics.
Then out of nowhere, after having let go I absolutely fell in love with God and Jesus Christ. I still am not a fan of organized religion I believe it can be very deceptive serving a certain group. But if you truly read the words of Jesus Christ and you will see that Jesus did not come so that we might have religion. He came to set us free, show us how to live so that we may live in peace and abundance. And not the worldly peace that only comes when things are going your way. A true inner peace. he taught us to be compassionate to all people, especially those who we view as “bad” people. He taught us to give, and love others. He taught us that by doing so blessings will pour down on us. These are the same principles that are discussed with the LOA as well, and they work. Life is not about hoarding but about love and helping. Creating a better space for everyone. We truly do choose hell or heaven (on earth) by our everyday actions, the same as we choose happiness our bitterness.
Simply be thankful. And I pray that someday you come to realize that just because you turn your back on God he will never turn his back on you.
May you be blessed in this life.
Lol, that is so true! I read the bible when i was 17 just to see what the hell it was about and realize everything in there is up to your own interpretation. It’s not a source for ANYTHING, let alone moral values, which I think you should develop for yourself instead of learn it from other sources.
I have read through your website. The only thing I have taken from the site is the fact that your a very bitter person who has nothing positive to say. I am not a religious person so I won’t be praying for you. I just hope that you find something actually worth living for that will inspire you to some sort of happiness. The only shame in living is when a person dies in bitterness.
Your section on “The Bible Can Support Anything” is very misleading. Firstly you do not quote any verse in complete context, you do not provide the entire verse, you do not provide where the verse can be found, you obviously do not understand the seperation of the Old Testament between the New Testament, and you do not understand that the Bible was in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic therefore many current day words and their meanings do not hold the same for the original word before translation and not only that but the change in English words over time since it was first translated into English.
First all I’m a born again Christian. I will never believe anything else!
The Bible can be used to support anything at any given time for any given person when you pick it apart like that. As a matter of fact anything anybody writes can be interpreted to mean anything the reader wants it to mean. The Koran is a great example. Just because it’s confusing or people misuse it doesn’t make it untrue.
And of course no one can prove God. How silly is that. Then we wouldn’t be sitting here discussing this and everyone would KNOW God exists instead of BELIEVING which requires FAITH. Any idiot can KNOW something if proven to him, not everyone can BELIEVE something without tangible proof. And that’s because God is giving us a choice, duh.
And to Spencer D. above you’re totally right. Nothing is quoted in context. When you take five or six words from a sentence all you can do is guess what it means and therefore its easy to apply your own logic and come up with all sorts of interpretations.
family hatred (Jesus says, “[whoever] does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters … cannot be my disciple.”);
i would love to know where this piece of scripture comes from. I didn’t know that Jesus preached hate.
You are really making me laugh. One thing I don’t understand is if you don’t believe in God or his Word…then don’t believe. Nobody’s forcing you…certainly not God. But why must one devote one’s life to disproving something that is so (according to this post) ridiculously untrue…. I don’t see anybody running around trying to disprove the Koran or Judaism or Buddhism.
I’ll tell you why. What you don’t realize is by trying to disprove or prove God you are actually supporting the Bible, which says that there will be people who won’t understand and will try to use their own scientific and intellectual means to try to prove something much bigger than them.
This what you said in your post:
“It is the same with God. He is a forgiving God who “forgives iniquity, transgression and sin” and an unforgiving God who sends a flood to destroy everyone on earth and banishes anyone who does not believe in Jesus to everlasting torment in hell.”
One more thing: God is a forgiving God. That’s why he sent his son to die for our sins. So that we would be able to ask for his forgiveness when we sin.
The flood God sent back in Noah’s time, was sent to destroy all the evil in the world at that time. If you read the story, you would recall Noah actually went around warning people, giving them a chance to change, warning them about the flood. So God being who he is, was willing to forgive them. But they laughed at Noah and God. So he gave them a choice and they refused, knowing what would happen.
Why did God do this? There was no other way. The people, even though given a chance refused to change their ways and he had to start from scratch. He was determined to give people the oppurtunity to CHOSE to serve him, even though he new some would go the other way.
Don’t you think he could just wave his hand and make every body perfect? Sure he could.
But why would you want a gift from someone that you forced them to give you. That sucks. You want someone to willingly give you a gift.
Living by a bunch of rules is an extremely hard thing to do, and God knows that. That’s why he had to send Jesus, to die for our sins. God repeatedly says in the New Testament that you cannot get to Him by following a bunch of rules. Only by faith can you reach God.
Therefore the Bible is not some manual you sit down and study so you could be perfect. We cannot be. Only Jesus was that. The things written in the Bible are for us to see what God would like us to be and see how far we are from that and understand WHY he had to send Jesus.
He sent Jesus so we could se ourselves in the mirror and realize we need forgiveness. And he gave us a choice, to believe and ask for it.
Just like with Noah and the other people., God is giving us a choice. If YOU choose to believe in God and Jesus and realize we are sinners and need to repent then you will be saved. If YOU choose not to believe despite knowing the punishment is hell then that’s your problem.
But you’re wrong if you think GOD condemns anybody to hell. ONLY those who CHOOSE not to believe despite KNOWING the CONSEQUENCES go to hell. Therefore if you go to hell its your choice. ALL you have to do is have faith in God and you will be saved.
God is not SENDING anybody to hell. He’s SAVING those who believe from going there.
Just one more comment and I’ll leave you alone. I’m quoting the most simple verse ever:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
I wish I could edit my last post where in the second to last paragraph I used the word ” punishment”. I well I misspoke or miswrote…lol I meant consequence.
Everybody gets so caught up in the intricacies of th Bible they forget the main point of it as the verse states.
God is not punishing anybody. Hell is a punishment in and of itself. And everyone would inevitably go there because of the way in which we live. He is offering a way out of it. If you believe, of course. That is all.
Dear Daniel
I find it sad and disappointing to see that whichever Church you previously worshiped at has given you such an understanding of the Bible.
This is because you have in the above writings you have without regard for any kind of context whatsoever put 2 passages of scripture to form contradictions of your choosing. When you do things in this way, it is not surprising that the bible can say support Anything YOU want. Unfortunately, this concept is not new, its not even modern.
Psalm 29:18
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
Your present position would be disturbing if not for the fact that this has occurred many times in the past.
Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Perhaps you could read the bible again, this time with help from a Christian friend or with a commentary such as Matthew Henry’s
Proverbs 11 : 14
Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.
They way you might remember the conclusion in
Romans 10:11
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
or in Modern English,
Romans 10:11
For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in him will not be disappointed.”
This word here being the declarative “WILL”.
God Bless,
Daniel Tan
Everyone says these verses are out of context. Of course they are to some extent — I’m not going to take a page to explain each one here (though I will be putting many of them in context through this series). But if you think the meaning is different than what it seems like, then go ahead and explain them in context. Don’t just claim things like that — show me to be wrong.
@Lizzy: You say “I’m a born again Christian. I will never believe anything else!” yet you don’t even know your own Bible. How can you not know Jesus said people had to hate their family?
He says it in Luke 14:26. If you’re going to believe the damn thing, at least know what it says.
To Daniel,
I didn’t say the passage of scripture doesn’t exist, I’ve heard it before and I’ve probably read it before but as much as I am a believer I don’t learn off every single piece of scripture there is every time I read, okay. So I was genuinely asking where it was located because I certainly never interpreted it to mean “hate”.
Of course I don’t know everything in my Bible that’s why I read it. And not knowing something doesn’t make you less of a believer than someone who does. Christianity is not a talent competition and it’s not a performance. By stating that I’m a born again christian doesn’t mean I’m trying to make people feel like I’m some omniscient person.
Everyday I read my Bible I discover something new about God. But if I felt God was evil I could interpret anything in the Bible to back it up so that it suit my purposes. Just like politics or everyday life. If i want to dislike somebody I can find all sorts of ways to twist the things they say or do to make them look bad.
The fact of the matter is God doesn’t have to prove to YOU He is good or that He exists. Why are YOU so special?
You have obviously chosen to believe that He is not good, because if you had, instead of looking to and investing so much in other humans who might fail you, who might call themselves followers of Christ, for a model, you might look to the example Jesus provided.
Which is what the Bible is for.
It saddens me that you spend more time looking for bad stuff in the Bible than you actually spent trying to interpret it the way it was intended.
Yes I understand you would not put the entire scripture up here, but if you read the entire passage from vs 25 all the way to vs 33, you would see that Jesus very well explained himself as he usually does.
Who picks up a book, reads the first two lines and understands everything in it?
The verse says: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
What He’s saying is if you want to truly be his disciple:
1. your mother, your father, your brothers, your sisters, even your own life must not take precedence over me. I am number one in your life. (vs26)
2. Yes it will be hard, it will be a burden. Nobody said following me would be easy to do. It isn’t. If you aren’t willing to make a sacrifice then you don’t really want it.(vs27)
3. If you are going to follow me, knowing the cost, knowing how hard it will be, then check yourself first. Make sure you have what it takes to go to the end. Don’t jump in without understanding the cost. (vs28)
4. If you jump in without understanding what you’re getting into, how hard it will be, you will not be prepared, And when you fail in your endeavor to follow me, when you stumble…people will mock you and say, “Oh, look at you, saying you were following Jesus. How did that work out?” (vs. 29,30)
5. The next verse pretty much says the same. Make sure you are prepared. You don’t jump into a war withou knowing whether you have enough troops. (vs.31)
6. If you try and fail and you realize you were never prepared in the first place…you will have no choice but to bow out, maybe even make a few excuses for not making it. (vs 32)
7. Therefore if you cannot choose God over everything else…then know you are not my disciple. (vs 33)
Like I said I know the passsage of Scripture, but I’d never learned it off. So how you had presented it had made it only vaguely familiar.
When I was a kid going to sunday school, they would tell us sanitized versions of old testament stories. For example, the story of Jericho was all about trumpets and marching around a city until the walls fell. No one bothered to mention that the entire population of the city was slaughtered, including women, children, babies, and pregnant women.
What kind of sickos tell that kind of story to children?
Even worse, we’d sing songs like “I’m in the Lord’s army” at such sermons, basically institutionalizing genocide into young minds.
Thank god that I was given some intelligence so that later I could reject this CRAP!!!
RELIGION is DISGRACEFUL and DISGUSTING!!!!
Those of you defending the BIBLE, actually take the time to read it ALL. Read the old testament. Actually read it. You can’t tell me your god is a god of love when wars and genocide are the major themes of the old testament. Furthermore, you have ZERO understanding of the GREEK roots of the new testament, or else you’d recognize the pagan influence that ties the new testament together. Sorry to be insensitive, but I have spent years disentangling myself from a system that works very hard to rob people of their critical thinking skills.
Bible-based Christianity is built on the presupposition that language is trustworthy. Furthermore, most forms of Christianity are equally gnostic: unveiled truth revealed to those “lucky” enough or “chosen” to receive.” Furthermore, traditional Protestants accept the idea of Sola Scriptura despite that fact that what constitutes “scripture” was established by an extra-scriptural source (i.e. Jesus did not commission the New Testment and the New Testament did not self-generate a Table of Contents page).
One of the earliest errors of the magisterium was foisting upon us the belief that the story details of scripture are literal truth rather than symbolic expressions of deeper underlying truth. The magisterium eventually told us that all scripture is “God-breathed” (i.e. infallible) but that only the magisterium could determine for us which ancient writings actually qualified as scripture. How convenient for the magisterium.
God wants a direct relationship with us, as Father, as teacher, and as healer, so we can discover what Jesus came for. This relationship is “Direct” in this sense that it is beyond or aside from a relationship to an anthology of ancient writings known as the New Testament.
We want Freedom to enjoy the glorious story of Jesus, unadulterated from filters that oppress us. The original filter was written scripture which was not Jesus or the apostles preferred method of transmission. The next filter was the magisterium who decided that certain scriptures were the only scriptures and that those scriptures constituted a divine policy and procedure manual and literal record of what actually occurred back then. A 2,000 year old police report, if you will. (“Just the facts, ma’am.”)
One definition of myth is “an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.”
Notice the definition says “unproved” OR “false”. The gospel account can never be “proven” empirically (heck, we can’t even “prove” what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963). But just because something cannot be proven doesn’t make it false unless of course your whole bent is rationalistic/materialistic (i.e. Fundamentalist).
In God all narrative tensions and paradoxes are resolved – because God is Love, and, as every Hollywood director knows, only Love resolves the contradictions. This is Paul Tillich’s “ground of being”, Jung’s “Transcendental function”, Nietzsche’s “Dyonisian ecstacy”, Christ’s “kingdom of God spread out over the world but you can’t see it”. These are all different names for the same realm/state of consciousness. Consider that, without Satan, Jesus would be as useless as the Maytag repairman. Without Judas Christianity could not exist. The crucifixion image is a mandala (good thief/bad thief), an image of the human psyche with it’s two opposed poles neither of which we can ever escape but only acknowledge (bring to consciousness) and work with. This is the essence of forgiveness. How can I ask for forgiveness until I recognize my sin? And to what extent do I forgive others? To what extent do I understand that others are dealing with the same dark forces with which I contend?
What we are called to do, perpetually, is to de- and re- construct our personal and corporate narratives perpetually. We “de” and “re” construct through the forces of Eros and Logos. The dualities of Mythos/Eros/Chaos/Love/the Feminine on one side and Logos/Law/Order/Force/the Masculine on the other side. We eternally constellate between these two.
Here’s a myth for you. In the Garden of Eden are two trees, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. The Tree of Life is Eros. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is Logos, discernment of dualities. In our immaturity we constellate between these two but both are essential. In my conversations with religious fundamentalist I am often struck by how it is with them that everything has to be an “either/or” proposition. It can never be both. They can’t hold the paradox.
Daniel,
This is an interesting topic. Let me see if I’ve understood your reasoning properly. Are you arguing the following?
If you take any book or source, and demonstrate that it can be used to support anything, it must have been written by men, not God. Are you also trying to argue that such a source must be false?
Specifically, the source in question is the Bible, but I’m trying to get at the general claim.
Have I understood you correctly? If so, then how do you come to that conclusion? What’s the rationale for asserting that if humans can use a writing to support anything, then it must not be written by God or it must not be true?
Daniel claims:
“The Bible can support all these positions because it was written and changed by men throughout thousands of years.”
Will someone please show me the evidence to support the claim that it has been changed by men throughout thousands of years?
@Jesse: Read “Misquoting Jesus” by Ehrman for a introduction to the topic.
Re: comment by Jayz-
You asked, “Do you mean to say God exists but He is malevolent?”
No. I am not saying anything even close to that. What I am saying is that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God … IF he exists and has all the properties JCI tradition assigns to him and has done all the things JCI tradition claims about him … can ONLY be malevolent. Logic permits no other conclusion.
You also said, “But you feel that God cannot be malevolent.. So He does not exists…”
Again, no, that is NOT what I said. I said that the beliefs that JCI believers have about their God, ultimately lead to the conclusion that he is malevolent, and that means their belief that he is somehow benevolent, is not logically tenable.
You also said, “Then sometime in our life we may CRY with our heart for HELP… in utter helplessness … CRY out genuinely for GOD.”
So God will only show himself to those who come to him, slavering and groveling. If so, that can only be because he wishes it to be that way. In turn, one must ask, therefore, WHY he wants it that way. WHY would be only show himself to grovelers? What, precisely, does he get from grovelers that he does not get out of other types of people?
Do explain.
And you said, “GOD cannot be approched by rebels or people with envious or rebellious nature.”
He “cannot”? How? Who and whose army is going to stop anyone from doing so?
Let me finish by being clear. I do NOT believe the JCI God exists in the form that JCI tradition claims. JCI tradition claims he is benevolent, however, his behavior and all the other properties assigned to him by that same tradition, mean that he CANNOT be anything BUT malevolent.
Now, YOU may feel your JCI God exists, and YOU may want to worship a malevolent being like that … but no moral or ethical person should ever bow or scrape to a malevolent being willingly.
Really, though, the JCI God is a logical contradiction, an absurdity. It’s every bit as absurd and illogical as trying to show that 1+2=5. As an agnostic I acknowledge the possibility that some other sort of otherwise-undetectable deity might exist, but as I explained, the JCI God specifically cannot exist … and if he did he could ONLY be malevolent. So even if such an absurd and illogical being existed, I would be compelled — morally — to OPPOSE him at every step, and would NOT be able to worship him, or (as you seem to wish) to grovel before him. Malevolent beings don’t deserve worship, they deserve only scorn.
@Jesse
Ask yourself why one word (slave) is translated as both slave and maidservant/manservant. Ask yourself why one word is translated to mean either Church or Congregation, and which version is used depends on whether the people in charge of the translation wanted to support the pope (by translating it as church) or be protestants (by translating it as congregation).
Ask yourself why a known mistranslation (young woman/virgin) has led to the concept of the virgin Mary. Entirely based on a mistranslation, but you believe it it don’t you? Yet if you read the original greek, you would see that Mary was merely a young woman.
If you use the King James bible, perhaps you would be interested in its origins, particularly the political considerations. The translators were ordered to come up with a bible that supported the Church of England rather than the Catholic Church. Words were purposely mistranslated to suit this political consideration.
Have you heard of the Breeches Bible? Pre-KJV, it mentioned how Adam and Eve sewed breeches out of fig leaves. This was the bible of the Puritans, called the Geneva Bible. This bible was one of the sources of the KJV. This is the bible that the earliest American settlers used.
If you get the chance, study the origins of the various versions of the bible. The translation issues and the political decisions that lead to some of them are interesting reading.
Daniel,
Thanks for the response. Some day I’ll get around to reading Ehrman’s book. Can you summarize his argument? What do you think is the most compelling evidence he offers? Why should I trust this assessment of textual criticism rather than Ehrman’s earlier work in conjunction with Bruce Metzger?
Would you mind also responding to my previous post on the 29th at 12:41pm? I’d like to make sure I’ve understood your main argument.
Aor,
So the word we see as ‘virgin’ can be translated as either ‘virgin’ or ‘young woman’. Do you think Christians have never heard of this? Read the account in Matthew, cross out ‘virgin’, and replace it with ‘young woman’ and tell me if it changes the overall meaning at all.
And do you think I’ve never heard of translation problems in the KJV? That’s why I and many other Christians don’t use it.
Careful attention is paid in modern translations to match the ancient manuscripts, and we’re willing to adapt our translations if the early manuscripts do not contain what we once thought they did. We do not place our faith in one translation or another. That’s why at the end of Mark, my Bible has the note that some of the earliest manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20.
The discussion on this page seems to center around debating whether the Christian God exists. This seems rather unfair to generic theists, as it imposes on them not only the burden of proof for a Supreme Being but also a particular take on said Being.
Let us dispense, then, with Jehovah and his troubling child Jesus, saying for the sake of argument that they are fables. Let us also acknowledge that the question “is there a God?” has more possible answers than yes or no. There may be an Entity that is all-powerful but not good in the sense that we understand the word, a Heavenly Father who needs a parenting coach as it were. Alternatively, there may be a Being that is immensely powerful but not all-powerful, one that is, say, 90% of the Supreme Monarch of traditional theism, or a beefed up version of Zeus.
This spices the discussion up considerably, and opens the mind to all sorts of interesting speculation. For example, might humanity ultimately achieve a high enough level of technological sophistication to take upon its collective shoulders the role of Deity? How would atheist contributors to this blog react to the prospect of becoming the One they deny?
Jesse, aren’t you concerned that slavery is in the ten commandments? Aren’t you concerned that political leaders have influenced which way certain words get translated?
The entire concept of the virgin Mary is based on a mistranslation. If you are aware of it, then you must accept the Mary was not a virgin. Surely anyone who is aware that the concept of Mary being a virgin is entirely based on a mistranslation would not believe in it. If so, are you really a christian?
You asked for evidence that the bible has been changed. I told you that the word for Slave is deliberately mistranslated, that another word was translated two different ways based on whether the creators of that particular bible wanted to support the pope or not?
The evidence is there. Accept it.
PS. You speak of ‘we’ meaning, I assume, your particular sub-sect of christianity. Don’t presume to speak for all christians. That would be arrogant. I can’t think of a sect of christianity off the top of my head which does not believe that Mary was a virgin. Is your sect like that?
@Bill
A high level of technology does not a supernatural creator of the universe make, to coin a phrase. Your post sounds like half mumbo jumbo and half an attempt to troll.
Raises interesting questions:
1. Theologically, if there is a Creator and we are part of that creation then we would reflect something about that creator, but perhaps not everything, and it is just as likely that the creator is the most alien concept humans have to deal with, so addressing such as good or evil may really just be under-estimating what we are trying to talk about;
2. If the universe as it exists is due to a creator, we would expect that the phenomenal dynamics at play in creation is consistent and would be reflected in religion as any other aspect of life on this planet. Therefore, if religion is part of the substrate of existence, we might expect to see it obeying the laws of life. What are those laws and how can we judge? What is the difference between something created by God and something created by man? If laws of nature are equal to laws of God, then are there social laws of God that work in a similar fashion ie consequences for society in trying to flaunt them which becomes a rather hopeless enterprise because the system, even if perturbed, perambulates towards its ‘attractor’.
3. Historically, what then is the dynamical relationship between the evolution of human, the development of religion, the evolution of society and the social evolution of religion. In otherwords is there really a thing called religion seperate from a thing called not-religion in society.
4. Socially, from the above, if religion is part of the natural process , even if ‘revealed’ it would, like any other aspect of social life, be expected to evolve. Is there evidence for this? If so does this evidence mean there is no God or that, there is a God?
Of course christianity is only a subset of religion.
DAMN RIGHT! I DO WHAT I WANT!
Aor,
Does it bother you that the law in Exodus introduces the earliest protection of slaves, and considered them humans with rights? For instance a master was not to abuse a slave, and any serious injuries inflicted were grounds for freeing the slave. This simply was not a consideration in other ancient cultures.
As for the virgin birth, I do not think you have understood my argument. A case can be made from the New Testament for the virgin birth aside from the verses that come into question if we accept that the word translated as “virgin” can also mean “young woman”.
All you’ve asserted is that mistranslations have been made. But are there any substantial differences between the Bible on my shelf and the books that were circulated c. 100 A.D.?
Jesse said (at http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/11/17/an-evil-god-introduction/#comment-14406): “Does it bother you that the law in Exodus introduces the earliest protection of slaves, and considered them humans with rights?”
Woops. Exodus in no way represents the “earliest” protection of slaves. Hammurabi’s code (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/hammenu.asp) limited what could be done with slaves, and that was in the 18th century BCE. (It also provided legal remedies for the return of slaves, but that’s in addition to protections such as the freeing of debt-slaves after three years.) Exodus was not written until the middle of the last century BCE. Hammurabi lived over a thousand years before that.
You also said: “But are there any substantial differences between the Bible on my shelf and the books that were circulated c. 100 A.D.?” Maybe I’m leaping to conclusions but it sounds as though you believe the Bible texts (both New and Old Testaments) have not changed since 100 CE.
While many Christians believe that Bible texts have never changed, this belief is simply not true. There are many textual variations; they are well-known and have been investigated since at least the 19th century. (Arguably they were known before that, but the variations were chalked up to scribal errors and not seriously studied.) There are, in face, some distinct and identifiable “strains” of textual variation, such as the Alexandrine tradition.
Among the best-known variations is that, in the oldest-known manuscripts, the gospel of Mark ends at 16:8. Mark 16:9 and later do not appear until much later. In fact, its oldest appearance is not in any manuscript of Mark, but in a quotation by Irenaeus in the late 2nd century … manuscripts of Mark containing the later verses do not appear until the late 3rd century. Even some 3rd and 4th century Mark manuscripts still end at 16:8, so the addition of 16:9ff was not universal for some time.
Just because you may have been told … perhaps by someone you trust and presume should know it to be the case … that the Bible texts have remained unchanged since they were first written, be assured it is, nevertheless, not true — and it’s demonstrable.
PsiCop,
Thanks for pointing out Hammurabi. I stand corrected. I had no idea any other ancient culture had protections in place for slaves.
I don’t believe there have been _no_ changes in the Bible over time, though my initial post implied that untenable position. I should have thought through my question more carefully and the claim I implied.
I did acknowledge the long ending of Mark. My question is, does the insertion by a later copyist of the long ending at all change anything fundamental to the picture of Jesus that the gospels portray?
The same goes for the alleged mistranslation of the word ‘virgin’ that was pointed out. So what if that one word is a mistranslation? What does that really change?
Jesse, thanks for the gracious response. I was afraid I’d misinterpreted you and I guess I did!
The question of textual additions is a complex one in theology. There is actually a school of thought that the intended design (by God, I guess) was for scripture to be authored communally and over time, in an organic fashion. According to this sort of thinking, interpolations, redactions and amendments won’t actually change the texts’ spiritual veracity, since they’d been planned for, all along.
I can’t even begin to explain the support behind this argument, so I can’t defend it; I just know it exists and that some apologists have used it to dismiss textual criticism. I’m not even sure how seriously it’s taken among Christian denominations.
As for “virgin” in the scripture, that’s a complex question too. The Hebrew ‘almah was translated as parthenos in the Greek (Septuagint) and this in turn has come down to us as “virgin.” While ‘almah and parthenos both can include this meaning, there isn’t a direct correspondence. ‘Almah meant “marriageable young woman,” which could imply virginity, but did not necessarily do so. Greek parthenos had a similar meaning and was also sometimes used, in works outside of a Judeo-Christian context, to mean “chaste” or “pure.” Again, virginity could be implied, but is not required.
I’m not sure the problem here is of “mistranslation,” but rather, of nuancing. That is, one possible meaning among several was chosen.
I should point out that, in antiquity, among koine-Greek-speaking Christians who first read the New Testament books (and thus were not carrying centuries of tradition or, for lack of a better term, “baggage”), considered “parthenos” to have meant “virgin.” This is attested in the apostolic fathers’ writings and in other ante-Nicene church fathers. Perhaps this is a case of a generality being used as a circumlocution … in a manner similar to the Victorian-era substitution of “limb” for “leg,” because talking about “legs” was just too racy for civilized folk to do!
So, can the “virgin” interpretation be supported? Yes, that might be what was meant. But is it definite? No, because it could have meant something else.
@Jesse
I asked you if slavery in the ten commandments bothered you. I know you read the question, because of how you phrased your question to me. I think you should answer. When you avoid answering, people start to wonder why. If you are ashamed that your religion accepted slavery, had slavery built into its holy book, then admit it. I am not bothered that your religion accepted slavery, because it is not my religion and I am perfectly willing to say that it has silly and racist and bigotted beliefs built into it. Intellectually honest people are willing to admit those things. This is why I pointed it out to you, because I keep hoping to find believers who are willing to accept the obvious flaws in their own holy books. Accepting those flaws is a great first step toward improving themselves and their beliefs.
I mentioned before that the word for church/congregation was purposely mistranslated. This was done for political reasons, to support a hierarchy of priests free from the rule of the pope. I think that is a significant change to the bible, don’t you? It is at the heart of protestantism, after all. Before that mistranslation, the words of the bible reinforced the supremacy of the pope. The fact the so many versions of modern christianity do not believe this is largely due to this purposeful mistranslation. Without it, protestant bibles would be teaching them to be catholics.
@lizzyfied: “First all I’m a born again Christian. I will never believe anything else!”
If there was ever a mind there in the first place, it slammed shut.
@Jesse: “Will someone please show me the evidence to support the claim that it has been changed by men throughout thousands of years?”
COUNCIL OF NICEA
@Jesse: “But are there any substantial differences between the Bible on my shelf and the books that were circulated c. 100 A.D.?”
COUNCIL OF NICEA
@Jayz: “Then sometime in our life we may CRY with our heart for HELP… in utter helplessness … CRY out genuinely for GOD. Then GOD may send someone, some signal that will change the direction of life and will bring us closer to GOD.”
My Unacceptable Response: “You go through intensely painful doubts in your heart of hearts, you got through the dark night of the soul, you pray, ‘help my unbelief!’ and it doesn’t happen. You just know everyone but you is going to heaven and you are going to hell and you’re just not good enough, and the fear of hell and the shame burns inside you. So you grind your teeth and grunt and *force* yourself to believe, and attempt to convince yourself you’re right, and then you offer to pray for ME – to hide from the fact that it’s YOU who are in pain.”
Unless you have so few brain cells you don’t ever feel any doubt, which is always part of the structure of belief.
My Unacceptable Response: God is violent. (Eric said so!) And he’s so weak he needs illogical, disjointed, unreasoning rambling from Eric running to his defense!
@Jesse “The same goes for the alleged mistranslation of the word ‘virgin’ that was pointed out. So what if that one word is a mistranslation? What does that really change?”
mmm. maybe that she had sex to have a Jesus so that the holy ghost or some divine intervention was not the reason for her pregnancy…
i watched Zeitgeist. part 1 and 2. great series. im a Buddhist (mostly atheist coz i havent had the time to follow on any religion too much.) so im not very knowledgeable about ur faiths. so please excuse if it told something tot out. :)
Even in Buddhism, the mother of Gautama Buddha, queen Maya was said to have been impregnated through an divine or higher power. But the hardcore Buddhists do not believe in any higher powers and argue that this is a story to portray a legend.
And i saw how so many religious or such leaders had similar beginnings through Zeitgeist, that its just too good to be a coincidence.
later
Aor,
Pardon me for not answering directly. Before I do, may I ask, what’s your impression of this form of slavery you say is endorsed by the Bible? Could you give me a few specific passages to address? Do you get the impression the Bible endorses racial slavery (i.e. blacks are not human, rather they are property)? In other words, when the Bible speaks of the term ’slavery’, what do you think the authors intended?
Now I could be wrong here, that’s why I’m asking the above questions, but I don’t think the Bible endorses the kind of slavery that was abolished in the USA after the Civil War. But I’m open to examining my understanding of Scripture if you are.
Val,
What, specifically, happened at Nicea?
PsiCop,
Thank you for your gracious response! Courtesy is so rare in these forums, and I myself have been guilty of adding more heat than light to plenty of discussions. So I’m actively working on being more tactful and gracious.
My particular belief is that Scripture is inspired in its autographs (original writings). I’m not aware of any specific denominations that believe in an evolving Bible as you described, but I’m sure they exist. It seems a weaselly way out of textual criticism to me.
I think the debate about the translation of the word “virgin” is interesting, but I don’t understand the motivation. Why is it that some people think the virgin birth hinges entirely on the translation of one word? Is that really all there is in the Bible to indicate that Mary did not have sexual relations prior to her pregnancy with Jesus?
Aor, I’d like to ask another couple of questions if I may about this word for ‘church/congregation.’ Where, specifically, in the Bible is this found? How was it translated before the protestant reformation? Is the older translation reflected in present-day Catholic scriptures? Where in the Bible is this support for the supremacy of the Pope? Where does Jesus say his purpose was to establish an organization with one man, the Pope, as its head?
Jesse,
About the controversy over ‘almah and parthenos, I am, myself, a bit flummoxed.
As someone who was once a literalist-fundamentalist, I understand the importance of words to those who are, themselves, fundamentalists. When you consider that these folks assume each and every word in their Bibles to be particularly God-selected, you become awed by those words, and see a great deal of power in each and every one of them.
Thus, to a fundamentalist, seeing a word they think means “virgin” on those pages of God-written text, then that means “virgin,” no more and no less — because that’s what God wrote, and that’s just the way it is!!
For some others, that ‘almah or parthenos or whatever word could mean something other than “virgin,” is of grave importance. Perhaps they are using that to throw the principle of literalism back at those who espouse it. In other words, they are forcing literalists to squarely face the implications of their literalist-fundamentalism. This is, of course, quite fair. When you believe something, you should have to deal with the ramifications of that belief … all of them, even the ones you personally hadn’t thought of, or which may contradict what you’d prefer to think.
It rarely works, however, since literalism fosters a lot of legalistic and linguistic wrangling, which means that fundamentalists can usually cook up a rationale or two to get out of whatever ramifications they dislike. Ultimately, this means using a confrontational tactic like this rarely is effective. If anything it makes true fundamentalists dig their heels in deeper.
As I suggested earlier, it is clear the original words in the Biblical languages which are in question here, have a more generalized meaning than only “virgin.” But as I suggested — and which I believe to be the case here — we are looking at the use of euphemism in the original texts.
The example I used before (i.e. the Victorian-era use of “limb” instead of “leg”) is apt and a very close parallel. If I were to read in a Victorian book that someone had a birthmark on her “limb,” while this certainly could have meant “arm” since “limb” can mean an arm or a leg, it would be ludicrous — given the common usage of the time — to assume that the birthmark is anywhere other than the character’s “leg.” Granted, it IS still possible the Victorian author could have meant “arm” instead … but barring other information to the contrary, I would have to conclude that.
What this means is that we’re looking, here, at a tempest in a teapot. The point that parthenos/’almah could have meant something other than “virgin,” certainly has merit in the most technical sense, but in reality the case may not be that strong … and in any event, the people who need to understand it, simply are not going to accept that possibility, no matter what, because they have their beliefs and they’re sticking to ‘em.
Jesse, I’m not pardoning you. Honest people wouldn’t need to avoid the issue and try to change the topic. Please show some honesty and respond directly. Don’t play the game of redefining slavery to mean only racial slavery. Just don’t. The word has a meaning, use it. Redefining or selectively defining terms in order to get out of accepting that slavery is PART OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is an obvious attempt to deceive and distract. If your beliefs are consistent and true you will NEVER feel the need to lie and deceive others when discussing your beliefs. No squirming around, no more evasion and avoidance. Discuss it openly or admit that you lack the guts to take part in the discussion. Gamesmanship won’t impress anyone.
Where in the bible is the word ‘church’ found? Huh? You own one, go read it. Where in the bible is the word ‘congregation’ found? You own one, go read it. This is historical fact, Jesse. We know the names of the many of the translators. We know the king who gave the orders!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible
Some quotes from wikipedia:
Stop pretending you don’t know where the word ‘church’ is in your bible. This kind of behavior does you no credit. You should NEVER feel the need to deceive in these conversations. If you aren’t willing to discuss things honestly, don’t get involved in the discussions at all.
Aor,
It should be clear to anyone reading this conversation that I’m not trying to play word games here, and I apologize if that’s the impression I’m giving you. I’d just like to understand your specific objections before I respond.
As for churches/congregations in the Bible, is your attack specifically leveled against the King James translation? In this case I actually agree with you; I think it’s horrible they chose their wording to endorse a priestly structure rather than to convey the original meaning
Regarding slavery, I’m not trying to play stupid here; I’m giving you a chance to be specific in your charges. Are you referring to the verses that require Sabbath rest for everyone _including_ slaves (Exodus 20:10)? That seems rather gracious to slaves to me. Are you referring to the command about not coveting (Exodus 20:17)? Is it the wording there implying a slave is property of an owner? Is that what bothers you? I suppose it does trouble me that one human would be considered property of another human.
PsiCop,
You’re right, the word could be translated either way. And I agree with you that basing your beliefs on tenuous translations of a single word here and there is quite dangerous. I even think basing beliefs on single, isolated verses here and there is dangerous. It’s very popular for Christians to base entire teachings on verses taken out of context.
I once had a friend try to convince me not to take a lady out on a date based on Proverbs 6:12-13,
“A scoundrel and villain, who goes about with a corrupt mouth, who winks with his eye,signals with his feet and motions with his fingers,”
He claimed that clearly this verse teaches winking, playing footsie, and flirting (all of which may happen on a date) are just evil. But it doesn’t even take ten seconds to read the context of these verses to understand that’s clearly not what’s being discussed.
The remedy for this way of thinking, rather than throwing out the Bible (and anything else that could be misinterpreted) is to be careful in our reading and exercise some common sense. Greg Koukl has an excellent article on this principle, he calls it “Never Read a Bible Verse”
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5466
Jesse, it is a nice start to see you admit that slavery in the bible troubles you. This matter of racial slavery is entirely irrelevant. It is merely a specific kind of slavery, and I have no idea why you want to make that one specific kind of slavery somehow more important or demeaning than slavery in general. This strikes me as an attempt to move the goalposts in a pointless way. Race is not a part of the issue of slavery, so stop trying to make it so. If you want to discuss these things honestly then you should never feel the need to squirm around like that and weasel your way out of accepting that your religion supports slavery.
Slavery. I am referring to the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Slavery is in the ten commandments. Giving a day off to slaves is gracious? I suppose that raping a woman day after day for her entire life and giving her a plate of blueberry pancakes every seven days would be gracious too, by that definition. Feeding your slaves would be gracious. Giving them clothes would be gracious. NOT MAKING THEM SLAVES WOULD BE PRETTY DAMN GRACIOUS. I am astonished at the lack of humanity you exhibit if you think giving a slave a day off once in a while is ‘gracious’ in any way. Especially considering that if slaves didn’t get the day off then the free people would have to be there forcing them to work on that day, and the free ones weren’t allowed. Have you even thought about this, or are you just scrambling around for a way to make your religion not look horrible?
It is not ‘wording’ that implies a slave is property of their owner… it is the definition of SLAVERY. You suppose it does trouble you.. yeah, great. That says alot about you. You ’suppose’ that you do find removing a person’s rights and dehumanizing them troubling. I think you need to take a few steps back and think about how remarkably inhumane your words are. Or maybe you are simply afraid to stand up and say “damn right slavery is wrong and it should not be part of my religion!”
I have pointed out deliberate mistranslations to you. You asked for people to show you that there have been mistranslations over many years, I showed you. You have gone on to move the goalposts (surprise) by asking if those change were significant. As I said before, those changes are a huge part of the differences between the teachings of those who support the pope and those who do not. I think that is pretty damn significant, don’t you?
Despite your claims, I do think that you are playing word games. I don’t think you actually believe that making a person a slave and then giving them a day off occasionally is gracious at all, but you find yourself taking that position because there is no way you can actually defend the beliefs of your own religion.
When that happens, when you find that you are trying to defend the indefensible, give your head a shake. If your religion supports slavery, then you must accept the consequences of being a believer in that religion. Maybe you should make a change in your religion, or make your religion change.
Aor,
Is it fair for me to ask for you to be more explicit about your definition of slavery? You have in mind a particular definition of slavery, something along the lines of “removing a person’s rights and dehumanizing them.”
Is it possible this is not what is meant in the ten commandments? Have you studied at length the issue of slavery in the Old Testament? Perhaps I may benefit from what you have found.
To be honest, if I were convinced that the Bible endorsed the kind of kidnapping, chains and whips slavery (depicted in the movie Amistad, for example), then I would stop and consider that maybe this is not the word of a morally good, just God.
I’ll address your comments on Biblical changes in a moment; I’d like to try to be clear on the slavery issue first, if that’s all right with you.
Jesse, you said,
“It seems to me the gist of it is that you doubt whether Jesus even existed, is that correct?”
Not quite. The gist of my article is that we will never know whether or not a Historical Jesus existed. We can, however, be fairly sure that the supernaturally-empowered Gospel Jesus did not. He did too many things which were too remarkable not to have been noted elsewhere … but contemporaneous history is absolutely silent on it. That silence is deafening and cannot readily be dismissed.
You also asked,
“Now are you really telling me that a non-historian can not know the truth about a historical document?”
In a word … yes. If that sounds offensive or arrogant or something, I’m sorry, but that’s how it is. Only people educated in how to determine the historicity of things, are able to know the historicity of something or someone.
If I may be brutally honest here, being a believer in Jesus is not a credential entitling one to assert his historicity. It just isn’t.
You also asked:
“Does that hold for other fields of study as well?”
Of course! Isn’t it obvious that a field polices itself and establishes its own standards? Physicists determine what physics is. Chemists determine what chemistry is. Surveyors determine valid mappings for property. Lawyers determine the law. And on it goes.
I’m not sure how or why you would think otherwise, but there you are.
And you asked:
“Does this mean that no matter how much I study the arguments on both sides, if I don’t hold a degree in history, I can never really know who Jesus was or what he did?”
The person doing the believing, is not as important as the authority s/he relies on. If someone tells you something, but s/he is not credentialed in that field, then you do not have a good authority on it. One’s authority can go up a long chain, but at some point there has to be a good authority present.
When you learn in school, for example, that E=mc^2, the teacher who tells you may not have actually proven this formula, however, s/he learned it from someone who learned it from someone … etc. … up the line, with an originating authority in Einstein’s papers on relativity (where this formula was demonstrated) and in published experimental results elsewhere that have confirmed it.
When a theologian tells you the gospels are fully-accurate historiographically-valid and -verified documents, however, that person does not actually possess the authority to make that determination. Very likely he learned it from another theologian, who learned it from another theologian, etc. … going back centuries … but we never actually arrive at an ultimate authority with the credentials to have made that assessment.
As I said — and will repeat, since I find that it frequently needs to be said, since few people understand it — being a believer in Jesus is NOT a credential permitting one to assess his historicity. It takes more than that … much more.
This statement offends believers, I’ve found, but it is true.
Jesse, you may want to pretend that it wasn’t “real” slavery if it wasn’t based on race but that is simply false. We all know what slavery is and when you try to use weasel methods like that it is quite apparent.
Is it possible that thousands of years ago slavery was not too bad? No, it is not. I can’t believe anyone would choose to take that position. We are talking about recorded history.
I understand that it is difficult for you to admit that the bible endorses slavery. Sadly however it is the truth. Once you accept that your holy book endorses slavery, you must make a choice. Do you accept slavery? If not, then you have decided that the rules of modern society, the principle of human rights, trumps the so-called moral guide of the bible. This is a great first step toward becoming enlightened.
Aor, are you telling me that your interpretation of the Old Testament is absolutely correct, and that my view, that perhaps the term ’slave’ in the ten commandments might possibly mean something other than what you have in mind, is absolutely wrong?
Is it in principle possible you’re mistaken? I know it’s possible that I’m mistaken here, and I’m open to arguments to support your view. But I get the impression that you’re more concerned with beating me up verbally and making me look bad than with having an honest discussion about slavery in the Old Testament. I hope I’m wrong about that.
I am telling you that the word ’slave’ has a definite meaning and that you don’t have the right to weasel around and try to claim that slavery in that era wasn’t harsh. This is simply wrong. You do understand that this is recorded history right? Not mythology, but recorded history. If you want to claim slavery wasn’t bad two or three thousand years ago, then I expect you to put some effort into making that case. It would be astonishing. It would be a massive change to our interpretation of history. I don’t think you have the slightest idea of how absolutely outrageous your idea is. Maybe you don’t have a grasp of the simple fact that it is bad to steal women and force them to have your children, or to force people to work in salt mines and silver mines and forced labor in general. Whips, chains, slaves. Read some history.
I understand that accepting the reality of slavery makes your religion look horrible, but this is reality. We have records. History. Books. Writings. Evidence.
I am telling you that your view, that slavery in the era of the bible wasn’t a matter of whips and chains, is simply false. This is not the first time that your lack of historical knowledge has led you to defend a position that is indefensible. Mining! Lots of deaths in mining. Lots of deaths in salt mines, do you understand this? Slaves did those jobs. Slaves to row ships. Slaves to dig and do the harshest and most inhuman labor. Slaves, forced to have sex with their owners, forced to bear their children, do you understand? Historical facts, man. You can read about these things. Slaves were used for the harsh and horrible and high risk jobs, although I am sure there were easy jobs for slaves too. This does not excuse the practice.
Why is it difficult for you to simply say, yes slavery is bad. Slavery in all forms is bad. The bible is wrong to tolerate slavery, the bible is wrong to enshrine slavery in the ten commandments. Why is it hard to admit this simple fact? This does not make me think of you as an honest person.
As for having an honest discussion about slavery in the old testament, I am waiting for you to be honest and open. An honest person would have no trouble at all admitting that slavery is part of the bible. An honest person wouldn’t be squirming around trying to claim that slavery wasn’t so bad.
Remember, when your holy book says something that is offensive and horrible and disgusting, attacking those who point it out doesn’t make you look honest. Deal with the issue, deal with slavery in the bible, accept that it is there in black and white, accept that it was harsh and horrible, and admit that you don’t approve.
Believers rarely concede points. I hope you are better than most believers. I hope you have enough intellectual honesty to admit that slavery, harsh and horrible and dehumanizing, was part of the culture of that time and place and was at least tacitly endorsed in the bible.
PsiCop,
So you’re saying science is immune to the paycheck criticism because scientists are unbiased, indifferent, and self-correcting. Is that right? I do believe that to be true for empirical sciences, but I have my doubts for the forensic sciences. For instance Big Bang theory was met initially with opposition because it didn’t fit the status quo idea of a steady state universe. The term ‘Big Bang’ itself was coined by Fred Hoyle to ridicule the idea. Einstein made the biggest mistake of his career, introducing the cosmological constant, in order to avoid the conclusion that the universe had a singular beginning. For another example, look at the implications of quantum mechanics. Schroedinger’s cat was an example cooked up to show how ridiculous the ideas of quantum mechanics are. The quantum community looked at his example and said “yeah, that’s exactly how it works!” and now it’s a famous illustration.
Now to be fair, these resistances were corrected as the evidence came in. But my point is that scientists _do_ resist change. Once one builds a career on an idea or a line of research, there is resistance to the erosion of that foundation.
Let me be clear, I’m not saying that this in any way disproves evolution. My point is that even scientists are not without their biases.
If you don’t mind, I’d still like to hear your opinion on my last question: _why_ should an anti-supernatural bias be any better than leaving the possibility open of the supernatural?
Jesse, you said:
“So you’re saying science is immune to the paycheck criticism because scientists are unbiased, indifferent, and self-correcting. Is that right?”
Uh, no. What I said is that the objection you posed to science, presumes that science works in a way that it doesn’t. You presume it is a a body of knowledge to which its proponents are enslaved.
That’s just not what it is, no matter how much you think it’s so.
You’re right that the the acceleration of galaxies, relativity, and quantum mechanics were all resisted initially. However, that resistance was short-lived at best. The reason is that these innovations all answered questions that had been posed already and were known to scientists. Einstein’s relativity was offered partly as a solution to the then-unexplained perturbations in Mercury’s orbit. That relativity accomodated these, helped to overcome the resistance.
Religion, however, has a number of as-yet-unsolved problems, which its proponents not only cannot answer, they WILL NOT answer them. If you ask, say, an evangelical Christian why faith in God is necessary for salvation … i.e. what, exactly, does God get out of people having “faith” in him rather than knowing him directly … you will get a lot of hemming and hawing at best, angry retorts that God is not to be questioned at worst (cf Job 38:4 ff). But you will not get an answer, nor will you even get an acknowledgement that the question is valid.
You also said, “My point is that even scientists are not without their biases.”
Of course not, and I didn’t say they were invulnerable to bias. You’ll note I was the one who cited as a conflict of interest medical researchers whose work was tainted by the possibility they’d been influenced by companies they’d worked for. So I would be insane to suggest anything else.
What I said was that you are presuming science — overall — works in a way that it actually doesn’t. There is no direct incentive for any given scientist to rigorously enforce the “status quo.” There may be resistance to change at first, but to be honest, lots of scientists go into the field hoping they might someday be the next Einstein or Bohr who turns everything on its head. Scientists build reputations and careers on innovating, not on the “status quo.”
If science has any active bias, it’s in the drive to discover and refine, rather than to reinforce.
On the other hand, religion refuses to innovate — ever. If religious innovation does happen, it’s dismissed or fought off as “heresy” or “blasphemy” or some other label of that kind.
PsiCop,
Let me see if I can get back to the main point and sum it up, because I would like to understand where you’re coming from. You would not trust a Christian’s analysis of the historicity of the Gospels, even if he was an accomplished historian, because such a person would be enslaved to a particularly ideology which guarantees his conclusions before he even begins the investigation. Is this a fair way of putting it?
The Holy Bible is not a single book but a compilation of about 66 separate books (about 36 books/stories on Old Testament and 27 books on New Testament) which was handwritten by approximately “40 men” over the course of about 1,500 years.
Those stories started as oral stories that were passed on by way of “parent to children” and “person to person” in marketplace or fellowship. Until these were written down by unknown authors (called JPED) for the Old Testament. Likewise, the New Testament is about the life and teachings of Jesus but Jesus could be just a myth of the New Testament.
Many of us considered the Holy Bible as divine made by God that fall from heaven to the planet Earth in complete book with words readable by human and Jesus was a God (or son of God) who visited once the planet earth for salvation of humanity. But it is also unknown to many of us that there were HUNDREDS OF BOOKS AND GOSPELS THAT WERE EXCLUDED by the early church in the 4th century in the present Bible that we have today. The decision as to which one will be included and be excluded was decided by bishops (Irenaeus,Eusebius,Athanasius) and Council of Nicea guided not by theological reasons but by power struggles among the early churches.
In short, its all written and edited by ordinary human (mostly employee of Roman Emperor Constantine).
I read it objectively and i find it the worst book i ever read.
I agree that the Bible has a lot of inspirational stories, and it can be used as a good advice book. But to actually base how you live your life on a book that you think was written by a deity? Now, that’s crap. Not to mention stupid. To actually believe that a supernatural being wrote those pages? Well, that is extreme stupidity.
It’s amazing, though, how so many people, even the smartest ones, actually believe the myth. Oh well, I guess that it just goes to show how fear (of the unknown) can foster ignorance. And stupidity.
Oh yes, btw, I’m an atheist. (You couldn’t tell, right?) ;) I love this site!
Dear Mr. Florien,
I’m not a Christian. I am a Muslim who believes the Bible is only partially of Divine origin due to later corruptions by people in the original revelations. But I do observe that you look at the Bible too superficially.
Instead of trying to understand what it does say in totality, you are trying to pick errors in it. A science-illiterate person could read a scientific theory that is very well exposed and pick errors (which are errors according to that person’s ignorant self) in it very easily if he was unwise and audacious enough. No work of either humankind or God should be approached like that, that is, without any real attempt at understanding, without any wisdom. If you approach any work like that, you are the loser not that work.
And the words like “crap, stupid” etc., which are always indicators of a profound inability to converse intelligently, kindly and humanely, show how deep the atheists here are intellectually.
Look at this “magnificent” discovery of an error in the Bible (!):
The second quotation is not about blind faith at all. For instance, I can’t see or hear or smell or touch or feel with my tongue a gas called nitrogen and I have never made empirical, scientific experiments that prove its existence and its difference from other gases but I do believe in its existence and difference from other gases completely due to rational reasons. As can be seen, rationality oftentimes requires belief in things that you cannot see or even observe with any of your senses or even you cannot personally experiment upon. Likewise, rationality requires belief in a conscious creator of all conscious beings and rationally all the unconscious universe.
Regards,
Mehmed Mustafa Hamdi
Istanbul, Turkey
Not preaching here at all because 5 years ago I used to be in the state you are today. Check out “A case for faith” by Lee Strobel if ya like. May help.
Good Luck Brother
I think Christianity is in crisis and that Christian pastors do not address the bible properly. By choosing to ignore the intellectual conundrums that arise from inspecting the bible, Christians have shown themselves cowardly, ignorant and not up to the challenge that anyone with cognitive functioning ability inevitably faces when reading the bible or contemplating the Christian God. That said, I believe completely in Him, I am scared to death of Him and I really wish someone with some brains and education would look into the bible. Some of my own musings are at gigwriter.blogspot.com and I respect C.S. Lewis — but standard Christianity fails. This is why I don’t attend church.
YES.
Especially with such assumptions, poor reasoning and thinking to support it.
Do you think Christians are all motivated by fear of the unknown? What, specifically, does this motivate us to be ignorant of? Is fear what takes an otherwise rational person and causes them to turn to stupidity?
Yes.
Fear of hell. Fear of eternal punishment. Lasts longer than mere death. The whip that lashes you on. Take away the punishment and fear, and see how many people still believe it. Belief that people are born evil.
Yes. Fear is in the ancient, survival, lizard-brain. Fight-or-flight, survival. Cuts off the capacity to reason. No reason is needed, but it’s not possible with emotion running anyway. Keeps the church in business. And yes, with your higher reasoning capacity (or perhaps, judging by some of the lousy reasoning capacity of Christians seen here, your mediocre reasoning capacity) inoperable, you are literally, functionally, stupid.
Questioning this premise led me to the logical conclusion. Once I gained control of my senses, the magical thinking disappeared.
There is no evil god because there is NO god.
Need proof of God’s existance…here goes:
“You can’t get something from nothing”. So no matter how hard it is to comprehend “something” must always exist!
Matter, energy, inteligence, all of these must exist in thier highest form first. From there everything else cascades down to choas. Don’t believe me? The “second law” of thermo-dynamics (paraphrased) states that unless you have a controlled environment everything breaks down.
Unlike some laws of physics (Newtonian v. Quantum) this second law of thermo-dynamics works for everything.
Now whether or not you have a relationship with God, that’s another thing.
Also, God doesn’t punish “sinners” He just lets you choose “life or death” (according to Him) and you get what you choose. Like telling a little kid “don’t put you hand inthe fire”. If you get burned, it’s because you choose to get burned. Don’t blame God for you bad decisions!
First of all, I want to respond to that person who called me someone without a brain cell although it was he or she that actually was unable to get the message of his/her addressee.
That person thinks within certain intellectual boundaries which I will call cliches that prevented him from reading my post closely and thus understanding what I really mean in a much more subtle and important way. I don’t blame him for falling into that intellectual trap but I do have to consider him guilty of being impulsive, unrestrained and without a single trace of courtesy.
I very well know that the existence of nitrogen has been proved with empirical science. What I meant is much more subtle than that. (After all, I was a very successful science student at high school and gained admission to the math department of a top university here which American and European exchange students always come and usually love and whose science and humanities professors were mostly educated at the best universities of the world like Harvard and Johns Hopkins. Later I decided to be a historian instead, though, because I realized that I loved history and the humanities much more dearly than math and science. But I do have a background in science and am no idiot in that respect.)
Anyway, first I will correct my statement that I can’t feel nitrogen. What I actually meant is, as you will recognize as true if you look more closely at my above comment, that I can feel the nitrogen in the air but I don’t intuitively even know that it is a gas called nitrogen and that it has this and that physical and chemical properties which make it different from those and those other gases.
To know all that information about nitrogen including its existence and its properties that make it a unique element and a unique gas, I personally have to rely on the word and the testimonies of the scientists and the scientific accumulation and tradition that have made all those experiments and scientific observations about it. In other words, it can be empirically proven only to those scientists who did all this scientific work in relation to nitrogen that all of this information is indeed the observable truth.
But I and most other people on earth personally do not have and will never have the means and opportunities to observe those properties of nitrogen and its existence as a separate gas. Therefore, all that information is not empirical information to me and most of the people on earth. We hear about it in our textbooks and in some kinds of media and we rely on the word of those scientists who say they have empirically proven all that information. It is reliable hearsay that proves the existence and uniqueness of nitrogen to us. This information is, in the real practical sense, empirically proven scientific information only to those scientists that studied it extensively.
But although not empirical, that kind of information is rational to accept because all the people who deal with this stuff say that it is indeed the truth. As a rational rule of thumb, we know that if every sensible-looking people on the earth that deal with an issue agree on HAVING OBSERVED that issue in a certain way, it is practically impossible for them to “unite in the perpetration of an erroneous or untruthful observation”.
Of course, all this explanation was meant only to prove that not seeing something (like me not seeing or being able to scientifically observe nitrogen or another colorless, tasteless etc substance) does not mean that you are having blind faith when you believe in its existence. I do not mean that exactly as in the example above, everyone who deal with God and His angels etc have united in having seen or observed him and so it is the only rational choice to believe in God. But I do point out the fact that there well may be many rational reasons, the above rational rule of thumb being only one of them, for believing something that you do not and cannot see and observe with your senses.
Therefore, Jesus (peace be on him and all the other messengers of God who are his and our brethren or fathers) was not advocating blind faith when he called people to believe in God and in the Hereafter in the form of hell and paradise and other unobservable things such as the angels. He was calling people to reason and was assuring them that they would find that there is indeed a wonderful, Conscious and able God behind all of the beautiful existence that we see around us. Thus we would know God only through reason, but through undeniable reason, although we will never see or observe any or most of those “supernatural” phenomena that Jesus and the other prophets have been mentioning us, right until… right until the day we are taken out of the re-created new earth in which we will have been created anew with our spirits in our newly fashioned bodies again in the Day of Judgement, in the presence of God and His magnificent and numerous angels (though some Muslims and other monotheists believe that the resurrection on the day of judgement will only be with our spirits, which I do not think is a strongly-evidenced-from-monotheistic-scriptures view at all and not even a very reasonable one).
So, it may be asked what are those rational reasons that force us to believe not in the past eternity of and creation by the material universe as the materialist/naturalist people believe but in the past eternity of and creation by a powerful Conscious Being whom we of course call God. God willing, I will try to provide an answer to that question in relation to the last post by Mike, who I think was very right although I am not in complete agreement with some of what he wrote.
Also, I thank Jesse, who defended me in relation to the offensive remarks of that person. But I must add that he/she did not read my post closely enough to appreciate it either and started his/her post with the expression “regardless of the nitrogen example”.
Best regards for now in case I cannot complete my comment in relation to the last comments by Mike and LRA in a short time and have to go out.
Best regards,
Mehmed Mustafa Hamdi
Your brother in humanity
Istanbul, Turkey
Mike,
As I said at the end of my previous comment, I think that you are very right in the main sense. But I have to disagree only a little.
Both we monotheists and the materialists concur that the “magical” gods of the nature- or idol-worshipping polytheists such as the sun god etc do not exist, at least within this universe. Most of the different idols of the pagans have been demolished but they have never shown us that they really existed. And the idea of a god in the sun or in the moon is without any substance. Those are all unconscious material objects without any godly qualities.
The existence of only a one and single God instead of multiple pre-universe gods can be argued for more deeply than in the above paragraph and proven in a separate discussion. But now I will continue to focus on whether a God exists at all, after the good arguments proposed by Mike.
Yes, I think that what Mike said is a very good starting point. For all the other things in the universe (or maybe the universes, depending on what you understand of the term universe) to exist, there must have been a form of existence “in the beginning”. According to the materialists or naturalists or however we name them, this initial, primordial form of existence was nothing but the matter and energy of the empirically observable universe of ours –or an initial form of it that existed at the moment that the theorized but well-evidenced Big Bang started the universe that we live in.
According to us monotheists, the primordial, furthermore initial and eternal (in the future as well as the past sense of the word) form of existence that existed right in the beginning of the universe was a powerful and conscious being whom we call God, rather than the unconscious, senseless, purposeless, meaningless matter and energy that we can observe with our physical senses and our scientific experiments based on our physical senses.
I have already alluded to that rational proof of God’s existence and creatorhood that I am talking about. The unconscious, senseless, purposeless universe with its matter and energy and without any capability to see and show any meaningfulness to anyone can simply never give birth to the conscious beings who feel love, happiness, pain and a profound meaningfulness. Unconsciousness cannot create conscious beings. Meaninglessness cannot create the meaningfulness of the search for happiness and love. That’s just against basic human reasonableness, like the impossibility of being zero greater in size than one. That’s what our reason dictates us to know.
So, a question arises: How come has materialism and godlessness (or the Deistic belief in a rather bizarre god who chose not to care about us his weak creatures after he once set up the clocks of the universe and who thereafter left us all alone in this jungle of the universe) become the belief system of the intellectual elite of this great West European civilization –remember that North American civilization is actually a branch of the Western European Civilization and hence part of it?
Let me try to answer: As far as I know (and I am 99 per cent sure that I do know well), most people who ever lived until the so-called enligtenment and the following nineteenth century knew the proof of God that I told you above. They saw the nonsense of a belief in the non-existence or even in the possible non-existence of any conscious original being. But with the enlightenment, some people’s urge to be totally free from a morally imposing God overcame their senses and their ostentatiously much beloved power of reason more profoundly than the previous irreligious and excessively free sorts of people who rather believed in the existence of God (usually along with a plethora of other lesser and nearer gods) but imagined him as very distant to themselves and hence as not imposing on them any significant moral obligations regarding Himself and His creatures. With the profane, mundane and therefore rather superficial knowledge and benefits resulting from the tremendous development of the re-discovered empirical sciences (re-discovered mainly in the previous, that is 17th century), they felt themselves proud and knowledgeable enough to consider God as totally irrelevant, totally non-existent.
I believe that this was the subconscious and partially conscious reason that gave rise to the denial of the very obvious existence of God and to the traditional materialist belief-system of most of the intellectual elites of the Western European Civilization, which has spread all over the earth and influenced many other people because of the Western European colonialism and later post-colonial domination.
But intellectuals of the W. Euro. Civilization and the whole world must not be any longer as naive as the French philosophes who thought that humanity would soon be able to know everything that could be known in this universe. They were wrong even concerning the laws of physics and the nature of matter and energy. They were not right. The atom did not turn out to be simple. Actually it had a veritable world in it which we are still in the process of discovering by bits and pieces. Even the laws of physics were not as exact and clear-cut as the so-called laws of Newton. Those laws did not apply to the whole working of the universe and some of the laws that did apply seemed in some sense inexact and thus astonishing.
LRA, it is not only energy that accounts for the complexity of the life on earth. At least, no one has the intellectual and rational right to assert such a thing with such certainty. It is simply unproven. I would rather argue that it is information from a conscious and knowledgeable source that accounts for that complexity. The same conscious being, that is God, whose existence, as I have tried to explain above, is a certainty, a truth, a reality.
Best regards,
Mehmed Mustafa Hamdi
@Mehemed
I agree.
Science, laws, monarchy, government, books, paper etc, etc, etc, (ie people and all we create)=fallible.
Universal truths are not. It’s when you discover these truths, that make you re-evaluate what your understanding of proof is, what your understanding of faith is.
It is the individual’s perrogative to make that choice, but once they do their mind should open up to a world of possibilities, and not be closed one way or another.
I just wish both ends of the spectrum would hold themselves accountable for how closed-minded they can be.
What a great essay! You’re thoughtfulness and intelligence shine through your piece! I currently am wondering myself whether an evil God–who considers himself good, or least wants others to consider himself good–rules the universe.
One thing I have come to believe in is the law of karma, which I believe is a mechanism that works in this world, which either God directly causes to manifest, or else karma is simply a facet of a universe which he created–and then let run on its own.
However appealing the law of karma may seem at first examination, it requires at least the temporary departure of free will (or at least perfect free will) from the person who serves as the vehicle for karmic retribution. For example if Person A hurts Person B, Person C will later hurt Person A to meet Person A’s karmic debt. However, what happened to the free will of Person C? Did they temporarily become “possessed” so-to-speak by Person A’s karma and thus cease to have free will for a period of time? Also, since Person A may not have done anything to harm Person C, does Person C accumulate negative karma from hurting Person A in order to meet Person A’s karmic debt?
The Bible doesn’t inspire evil. People who use the words use them out of context and do not consider the larger message and truths. Anybody can take a verse or a passage and massage it to fit their own belief, system – ie Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc. Isogesis is the technical term for reading into a text what is not there/true. Exegesis takes out and explains the meaning that there. There are many tools needed to rightly divide the truth. A careful study of the OT actually shows more of a God of Grace than the wrathful God mostly depicted.
Religion is for the birds! Christianity is not a religion. You may classify it as such, but Jesus himself came to evict religion from the temple. He spoke more against the religious folk. Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus – moving far beyond adhering to a religion. It’s manifested in many people. However, not everyone who claims the name Christian is one…they’re known by their love – the early church in the book of Acts displays just that.
Inspiration, so you can have a relationshio with a long-dead man? You are like Sylvia Browne then! She has the delusion that she can communicate with the dead. And she is sane! Exesegis is eisogesis as Walter Kaufmann showed in ‘The Faith of a Heretic [ Read also his "Crituque of Philosopy and Religon and advance theologian Keith Ward affirrms as required for the ongoing of fruitful theology: Chrisitans have ever done so.].
LRA, that is Kenneth Miller’s god of the invisible- gaps without there being a question put! Jery Coyne criticizes Miller and Kal Giberson’s pareidolia- seeing God as the maker of designs when there are only patterns as one sees Yeshua in a tortilla. This is the naturalist [ positive atheist] argument from pareidolia [See Wikipedia article on pareidolia.
Dan, karma is a vacuous term like God. We ignostics find that theists cannot meaningfully speak about Him in that his attributes each in itself is nonsensical and contradict each other.
Science indeed shows eternal Existence as those quantum fluctuations are eternal in line with the law of conservation. I t is a matter of bud or bounce for bang after bang.
Now Ward accepts that but thinks that even so, Existence demands a sustainer; that is nescience [ ignorance] speaking.
Mehmed, God is not obvious [Pareidolia cannot instantate him!] and that is why the burden of proof is on theists. Against you and advanced theologian Alvin Platinga, then God is not basic like external reality and other minds. Wee see teleonomic patterns, not teleological designs.
The teleonomic [ atelic] argument is that as the weight of evidence shows no teleology [ no preconceived plaans or goals; no orthogenesis - direction], to posit God would to contradict the unplanning, anti-chance agency of Naaature – natural selection. Would one make the new Omphalos argument that God tweaks matters invinsibly, thereby deceiving us into thinking that selection works?
Jerry Coyne @ the New Republic shows up theistic evolution for the oxymoron it indeed is!
Logic is the bane of theists. Religiion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not that long-dead fanatic Galilean cult leader!
The divine protection racket blashphemes love!
And unlike other naturalists, I’ll never say God why didn’t you provided evidence as I’ll be as before my birth; I’ll die when my neurons die.
Christinsanity, Moses’s Folly, Mohammed’s Lunacy, the Hindu Illusion, Smith’s Fraud, Mary’s Chrisitan Nescience, White’s Black Magic, Jehovah’s Hallucinators, Buddha’s Wrong Path, the Dao No Way
hello.
i have been an atheist (well not really an atheist… but someone who never knew or cared about what their religion was), until one day i was lead -by a strange series of events- to read the bible.
some people came knocking on my door with a bible in hand and a survey and i was like ‘oh great… *laughs to self*”. but when they started reading some phrases to me, i was actually really shocked at how interesting it was to me.
so i went and decided to read/study it for myself… and the fact is, some of the ‘angry’ things that God said, are what made me like him. i was so confused, but i loved it. i thought the bible was always just full of stuff like ‘love your neighbour’…
but to hear it say things like “i came not to raise peace, but a sword” and all that… it just seemed very noble. i was always into philosophy, i loved plato, and i loved nietzsche. but i realised that in some sense the bible, or God, has both of these personalities. ok i’m not really making any sense.
but i realised God was the ultimate philosopher of all, and an artist. he gave us free will so that we can decide between good and evil… would there be any meaning in life if we did not have this choice? he created darkness so there could be light… and when i read “most people prefer to stay in darkness, because their deeds were evil” (excuse me if my quotes are wrong, this is off the top of my head)– i was like, that is extremely true.
after reading a lot of the bible to myself, i came to believe in God. after beforehand, for the 18 years i have been alive, laughing at his very name, and partaking in ‘blind faith Christian jokes’ etc. because i used to always hate blind faith, and i hate people who can’t critically think. (oops… i shouldn’t hate people. because i’m a christian. but this is how i used to be). and i realised that the Word of God was indeed ’sharper than any two-edged sword”… like kierkegaard said, it takes great courage to look at oneself, something that can only take place in the mirror of the Word.
i know that my argument is not very logical or rational and doesn’t make sense, but i felt like giving my two cents (as it comes from the heart), and because i understand an atheists’ skepticism.
i also think that that line in the bible, the one that goes “they didn’t believe, because it was made to be plain to them” or something… is true. it’s like people who have no light or hope in their hearts don’t want to believe in anything, they’re like the kind of people who couldn’t be uplifted by a beautiful dream (and i’m talking about a dream where you go to sleep and have one). and i also think, that people need to stop choosing to look at the bible in a way you read a science text book, looking for straight up facts and undeniable moral righteousness, i mean we’re mere humans- what on earth do we know? God himself said “my thoughts are higher than your thoughts”. people just want to be able to understand everything, and they can’t accept the mystery of the bible.
and it’s absolutely impossible to get someone to know what i’m talking about if they have got their heart set on “yeah man, i’m an atheist cuz i’m intellectual and not gonna be fooled”… (because God himself said “most people say unto me ‘Lord, Lord” etc… he’s criticizing christians too! and i would imagine quite a lot of them). instead of actually searching in their hearts for the truth, and letting go of their pride for thinking that something like a ‘big t’ truth may actually exist.
okay, i’ve finished ranting (discussing) now… sorry if that was really long. :) it’s good that you have a blog like this where people can express their opinions.
With that title, I was expecting to come across the thought experiment where instead of assuming an all-powerful, all-good god, an all-powerful, all-*evil* god is postulated. Turns out you can use all the same arguments, and it’s just as provable as the reverse! (or non-provable, depending on how you look at it).
I wish I could remember who wrote that article, now I’m going to have to try to find it online.
I know that what I have to say about my ‘use’(for it is a tool,a very useful artifact) of the bible is somewhat idiosyncratic,but it is mine.
Christ brought us a new covenant. A new dispensation that completed the law of the old testament. His is the clarion call to all who would become his willing ‘idiots’.
All the orthodoxies of any type perpetuate the emphasis upon the old books and worship worthy of the legal bench.
The new testament has been of far more interest to me in that it is revealing Christ ushering in a new age of personal responsibility for ones own thoughts, intentions, and actions, with the choice to come to know him, not by worship, certainly not by inducing others to be like me.
I thought I was a cowardly kid. I was scared shitless in several bullied situations.
I would be struck and I would not give the satisfaction of escalation for outcomes were foreseen and even at nine or ten the only place I saw a fight ending was with one or possibly both of us dead or the other guy getting a rat tail comb in the eye.
I didn’t know then about the concept of turning the other cheek and its message of the need to not respond to the humiliation of being backhanded with escalation in kind.
Before witnesses, offer the other side of your face …
Could I have marched under the lead of a Gandhi unarmed and elbows linked into the saps and brutal cudgels, into certain bloodshed
could I endure in a room, alone with a torturer
questions like this are at the extreme of what we must answer for within ourselves
and in Christ’s new world, personal communion with God in a way that bypassed the laws of the old testament that had become self serving legalities.
It has taken more than hundred generations to scrape together coherent information about this man and his message. Christ went to be tempted for 40 days.
I have been in my own wilderness. For 40 years I have known that full acceptance of Christ’s vision is necessarily an all or nothing proposition.
But He says he fashions an easy yoke and I believe it. It even seems to have a quick release mechanism, to use as one will.
I say Good God.
raybann
CosmosLaundry Journal
Whether you believe it or not, Christ is real. It doesn’t matter what you’re little brain thinks. I can have the most stubborn belief that planet earth is a cube, but guess what? That doesn’t change the fact that it is indeed a freakin’ sphere. This whole website is blasphemy and you know it. You are making a HUGE mistake with this.
Remember, whether or not you think gravity is fake or false, or whether or not you think Duracell makes batteries, doesn’t change the fact that they do. Gravity exists and Duracell makes batteries. End of discussion.
Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
I still want to reason with “God”, I know He is not tired.
daniel florien… in regards to the whole ‘argument’ thing… it doesn’t seem like you’d find any argument persuasive at all. if you’re trying to find ‘logic’ i don’t think you’re going to find it in an argument about God.
“The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God. As the Scriptures say,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
and discard the intelligence of the
intelligent”.
So where does this leave the philosophers and the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God and his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom (eh?), he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense.
But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans (eh?), and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.
Remember, dear brothers and sisters, few of you were wise in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthy when God called you. Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. As a result, no one can boast in the presence of God”. – 1 cor 1:18 (taken from new living translation because i like it in this verse)
and to get more to the point of this whole post (the notion of an ‘evil’ God)– would you be interested in a God who only said loving things, such as “love your neighbour”? i sure wouldn’t. i mean, it’d just be too good to be true.
You said, “The Bible Can Support Anything”.
Shakespeare said, “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”
(Merchant of Venice)
James 2:19 (NIV) states that even the demons believe that there is One God and shudder.
Pretty obvious there. Even the demons/evil/dark spirits know God exists and tremble relentlessly at His power.
I stumbled upon this website by happenstance (perhaps it was God’s doing–I don’t know) and before I leave it completely, I want to know for myself that I did my part as a Christ-follower (which is different from a Christian). The term ‘Christian’ has been so watered-down and claimed by almost every Oscar Award winner that gave a speech and has specific connotations to the Christianity religion. Religion can die, for all I care. It implies ’strings-attached’. It insinuates rules, bylaws, and a LOT of judgmental attitudes by other ‘christians’. When we get caught up in ‘religion’, we get tangled in the ’saved by works’ web and focus way too much on doing things right rather than living for God.
And Daniel, to be honest, I think you found religion rather than Christ. Because if you truly found Christ, this website would not exist because you would not have turned you back on Him. I think you should really reconsider this. Find Christ, not Christianity.
Not something you’d hear everyday but it may be the advice that changes your life.
This is just one huge vicious circle of opinions. That’s all this is. There is more evidence to prove the fact that there is a God rather than not. How do you explain everything? From the intensely precise designing of the human body (Google the protein molecule called ‘Laminin’) from the intricate laws of physics and and simple but effective cycles of nature–you’re saying that EVERYTHING happened by chance? Your saying that ‘chance’ is what keeps the sun rising and the other planets from smashing into earth? You’re willing to hang the balance of the entire universe on CHANCE?
Evolution. Okay, it happened gradually. Well who told that single cell to split? Who told that fish creature how to grow legs and where to find land? WHO? That’s right. No one did because it didn’t happen. Everything was designed by a Higher Power, and that Power is God Alone.
And for those who believe in more than the True God (Jesus Christ), thinking there are other ways to Heaven (which is probably very few on this site since you all are Athiests), on your way home from work tonight, try taking any road rather than the obvious choices. Choose randomly from one road to the next and see if you get home. Doubt it. Get the analogy on that one?
And Daniel, sir, please to not pretend to know me. You don’t have the slightest clue what my life consists of. Yes, I may go to church and I may read my Bible (and that may be probably all that you ever did, either–I don’t know) but there is more to knowing Christ than Easter Sundays and John 3:16.
And so, in response to my very first post, you had to mock me because you could not present a compelling argument and because you knew you were in the wrong? So you resort to mockery? That’s maturity. Nicely done.
And I could care less of Thor and the FSM because they are the ones who are going to save me. And besides, I wouldn’t want to live in eternity with something that I ate for dinner. Spaghetti sucks as a meal as it is–I don’t need to be around it for forever. Just my opinion.
I think, Janet, that you should research Christ before presenting ‘facts’ about Evolution–its quite beautiful how His Father created everything.
And He did it in only 6 days. You’re beliefs says it happened over millions of years. What took so long?
if that was a joke, I needs work because I’m not sure I get it.
it needs work, not I
I nede to spele cehck mroe.
Logically, an evil God simply cannot exist. If God was purely evil, then everything He made would be evil. The universal idea of goodness would not exist.
It is quite evident that goodness does indeed exist in this universe. Humans have the potential to do both good and evil; meaning they can perform both good and bad actions. What do you make of the existence of goodness?
“Logically, an evil God simply cannot exist. If God was purely evil, then everything He made would be evil. The universal idea of goodness would not exist.”
Please support this assertion.
Wow.
If you’re going to accuse the Bible of being hypocritical, get your facts straight. It seems more to me like you’ve chosen a selected view of what you would prefer to see of the Bible, not what it truly means.
You people have open minds, right? Truly? Then before you throw me out for being a typical, stupid, ignorant, deluded Christian, take a moment to study your own claims.
Let’s start at the top.
[i]It can be used to support pacifism (Jesus says “do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”) and war and genocide (God commands Saul to “strike Amalek and [destroy] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant…”).[/i]
Ok…Care to look it up in context?
You quoted Matthew 5:39. The entire BOOK you quoted from is dedicated to Jesus and His teachings. In context, Jesus was in the middle of teaching his disciples how to live their lives, right? Catch me if I’m wrong, guys.
And for goodness sake, to get your ‘contradiction,’ you decided to take a random passage CLEAR OUT of Samuel 15:3(note I’m read up on the Bible too, so don’t try to twist facts, please. Read on:) where God commands Saul to wipe out a people that had tormented Israel previously. Read the previous verse,
Samuel 15:2
[i] Thus says the Lord of Hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming out of Egypt.’
Refer to Exodus 17:8-16 (go look it up if you don’t believe me, I won’t quote all 8 verses here unless you ask), where Amalek fought against Israel coming up out of Egypt, and killed God’s people. Suppose you had children you had sent somewhere, and on the way, they were attacked by…someone? Anyone, really. Gunmen, kidnappers, etc. Wouldn’t you be KINDA ANGRY? Wouldn’t you deal with anyone who dared lay a hand on anyone you loved?
Jesus is not referring to [i] killing, murdering, and injury[/i] in the passage you quoted. Note, He’s talking about [i]slapping[/i]. Um, hello? Slapping! Personal insults! Not outright killing! Sure, if you take a personal insult, like Jesus is trying to say here, let it go, forget about it, don’t get mad over a slap or personal offense, for crying out loud. If someone tries to hurt you’re loved ones however, fight back!
Make sense now? Look back, and you’ll see you stripped BOTH way out of context! God’s not even TALKING TO YOU when He commands Saul in Samuel! You just literally took words from thousands of years apart and fit them together, throwing proper truth and context to the winds! Explain, please! Want me to take on every one of the above mentioned ‘fallacies in the Bible,’ one by one?
Ok, I would like to ask all of you…do you think a God exists? I know, perhaps everyone here has a different opinion. Perhaps He’s evil, twisted, a great enemy, a lunatic, whatever. But whatever your personal opinion of His character, do you think He honestly exists? Evil or no?
Please tell me, I’m listening.
No, the god of the Muslim religion cannot exist, for one major reason:
1. The Muslim god (Allah) provides no proof of his supernatural existence. If you pray to him, I assure you, nothing happens. There are so many instances of Christians being helped, even lives saved, by their God. Allah? The Qur’an demands Allah’s followers blow themselves up, take as many as they can with them. We BOTH know, Christian and atheist, that such is evil, and no good god would command such destroying of innocent lives. If he exists even as an evil god, I’ve yet to see any power he wields. If you’re going to claim any god exists, then you had better have some evidence.
Another note on your above Bible ‘fallacies.’ You mentioned the Bible both supports slavery and condemns it.
Firstly, the Bible does not support the forced servitude of man to man. Men were not made to serve their fellow men by force, only in love. Explanation?
Umm, wow. First of all, you mentioned in contradiction to slavery, a verse common throughout the Bible, but mostly known as Matthew 22:39. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Ok…what on earth does that have to do with slavery? : \ That passage refers to how a man is to treat his fellow men in kindness and in civility. The very word ‘slavery isn’t even mentioned! How in the world do you deduce ‘human rights’ from that?
The Bible does not have anything to do with slavery AFTER Jesus was born. Of course, throughout the Old Testament, slavery was quite common, even among Israel, but even then Israelites were strictly commanded to treat their slaves with decent respect. See Exodus 21:20, 21:26-27.
However, as Christianity arrived on the scene, slaves and masters were taught differently. Slaves, to obey humbly, and masters, to treats their slaves with respect and civility. Paul wrote these words in a culture that thrived on slavery, so that Christians in a slavery world knew how to act until slavery was at taken care of for the evil it was. You’ll find nowhere in the Bible does Jesus or any Christian support forced slavery.
BTW, that book I saw above, is that Richard Dawkins The God Delusion?
Richard Dawkins…wasn’t he the guy that got completely and publicly humiliated and embarrassed for his atheistic beliefs by Ben Stein?
I think that dearest “Master Amaras” replied to me when he wrote: “The Qur’an demands Allah’s followers blow themselves up, take as many as they can with them.”
For God’s sake, this statement is ridiculous. Neither the Qur’an says such a thing nor anything like that can be inferred from it or from the literature of the sayings of the Prophet (blessings and peace be on him). You must certainly check your sources about Islam which are misleading and (excuse me for having to say this) even deluding you.
Something brief and non-comprehensive but probably beneficial that I have just written concerning the position of the suicide attacks and indiscriminate violence in the religion of Islam is as below:
—
Most Muslim scholars point out that killing a non-combatant or a child or a woman even in a state of war is forbidden. Moreover, suicide is also strictly forbidden. Actually many scholars think that not only is suicide one of the most cardinal sins but it is also a statement of unbelief. For these reasons, most Muslim scholars condemn the suicide bombings altogether.
Only some Muslim scholars justify the suicide bombings by the Palestinian operatives in Israel and not anywhere else in the world. And most importantly, their justification is not based on the Qur’an and the sunnah (sunnah: the field of study examining the exemplary lifestyle and extra-Quranic teaching of the Prophet), but on the general human principles of necessity and self-defence.
The reasoning of these few scholars goes like this: “The Palestinians don’t have even one thousandth of the armed power of the Israelis. Because other pseudo-Muslim regimes in the world are sell-outs to the Western European- and North American-dominated oppressive world system, Palestinians cannot hope outside Muslim help either. Under these severe conditions, it is impossible for them to confront the Israeli army and defend Palestine and get back the occupied territories by conventional Islamic methods of military resistance. Therefore, out of the general principle of extreme necessity, it is permissible for them to use unconventional, asymmetrical methods of warfare and carry out suicide attacks.”
This is those scholars’ justification for their opinion of the permissibility of the suicide attacks. But to rehearse what I’ve already stated above, most Muslim scholars don’t agree with them and don’t find this justification legitimate in Islamic terms.
For your information, the American political science professor Robert Pape made a research about the suicide attacks a few years ago and found out that in contrast to what the western media coverage strongly suggests, most suicide attacks in the world are carried out by secular and especially socialist-atheist groups like the Tamil guerrillas in South Asia. 95 per cent of the attacks were made by secular groups and only a few per cent by Muslims or nominal Muslims. Since then, the occupation of Iraq by the American army caused an increase in the percentage of the suicide attacks by Muslim groups. However, secular terrorist groups are still the major ones in using this method. Unfortunately, the North-America- and West-Europe-dominated world media are bent on hiding the true situation and demonizing the Muslim world and the religion of Islam for ideological and political vested interests.
Professor Pape’s conclusion from this research of his is that suicide bombing has nothing to do with religion or a particular religion at all. All it has to do is with excessive frustration and lack of any alternative methods of warfare.
Hi,
I’m really interested in reading the rest of your blog and especially the rest of this series. I was also an evangelical Christian (for five years) until very recently, and when I read the phrase where you said, “Even though I had read the Bible many times, I could only see it through the lens of faith. If anything was confusing or seemed out of place, it only spoke of my unfaithfulness and ignorance — it couldn’t be anything wrong with the Bible itself” — it really struck a chord in me. I’m just so glad to know that there are others out there who feel the same way and I just wanted to say thanks.
If what you say is true, Mehmed Mustafa Hamdi, then you may have a point. I freely admit I am not educated in much Islam, but I do know that Muslims have a history of bloody killing and destruction. And even if most Muslims (I suppose well above 95%) do not attempt mass attacks on innocents, the few that do make it a dangerous religion enough.
On reading my comments above, I see I rather lost my temper a few times on his conclusions of the Bible, and for this, I feel I must apologize. I did come off as rather bad tempered. I spoke too quickly and rather hotly. Note, I still do not agree with anything mentioned above, and I still think that the vast majority of the above is wrong. Again I apologize.
Back to my point, I still cannot believe in the existence of Allah because I have yet to see him reveal himself in any way, to me or publicly. I have not seen any bit of his truth of power in any way, and I must have some proof/evidence to back up any claim.
Does anyone else believe in any god here? Am I right then in assuming that all here are for the most part Evolutionists? Again, is there a god or not?
Ah, above you mentioned the fact that you think the Bible contradicts on the subject of women’s equality. You mentioned Timothy 2:12 and Galatians 3:28. Again, I must disagree. This is no contradiction. Allow me to explain. (again :D)
Firstly, when the Bible mentions ‘I do not permit a woman to have authority or to teach,’ I hardly expect that yourselves will be able to understand that the Bible does not consider women inferior to men, though it does believe that man is somewhat more fit to teach Biblical doctrine than woman. Why? Well to understand it, you would have to at least believe the Bible. The Bible mentions, and thus we Christians believe, that woman is not lesser, but merely created for things other than teaching and leading. Christian women are (or should be) not to teach because man was created first, and woman was supposedly created to be man’s helper, not his superior. They are equal before God’s eyes as far as sin, atonement, and judgment. Women merely are not allowed to teach, that being a man’s job anyway. It’s all Biblical doctrine.
Obviously there’s no contradiction. In Galatians 3:28, woman’s equality isn’t even the issue! If you care to look, the discussion in Galatians 3 is about faith! In other words, since Christians believe we are justified by faith and faith alone, since we all believe the same, God does not show partiality to slave, lord, male or female.
Again, sorry to again start an argument, but you’ve stripped both verses completely out of context.
Being a Christian is different from being a biblical fundamentalist.
Michael, in what way? I suppose it seems different as in “new and improved” soap is supposed to be better than the original, but it still maintains enough of the original formula to continue carrying the brand name (ie Christian soap as opposed to Muslim soap, but it’s still all soap). And your point is what exactly, Michael? Perhaps you don’t like how Master Aramas parses scripture, but really- in the end, it’s just another person arguing that their god is the one true one, and yours, well, isn’t. Christian or otherwise.
I do have a question for Mehmed, if I may…something I’ve been concerned about for a very long while now, and perhaps it has been addressed in previous posts but I missed it. If most Muslims are peaceful people, with a peaceful religion, where, oh where, is the level of outcry we would expect from such a majority (peaceful Muslims) in the face of all that is happening in the world these days? Where is the united Muslim voice that says today’s Islamic terrorists are not us and do not represent us? I know of pockets here and there who say such things, but really, if suicide is against the Islamic way, than you got a whole bunch of folks who, um, ain’t read that part. Know what I mean?
We will never know WHY God made the earth, but since he did in fact do so, there are things you must understand. Sin is a part of man, no one is without it. Yes, God was cruel at times in the Bible. But what if God was not cruel? what if no one suffered and nobody was murdered, raped, etc. ………Well the mind set of everyone on earth would change. First of all, if there was no suffering, 1) there would be no sin that harmed another person. A human would be INCAPABLE of murder, correct? A human could not steal, could not persecute, etc. Thats just ridiculous. 2) if no one suffered then why would anyone strive to go to heaven!!! Not only is heaven something to look forward to and work toward, but god is a scapegoat from cruelty of the world, being social with other christians going thru similar trials. 3) If no one died, then everyone would think to their selves “there is no hurry, everything is fine. I have plenty of time for God because i am guaranteed 80 years because there is no suffering or early deaths. yay!!!”.. 4) No one would even try to go heaven because earth would be so great!!! Heaven would be just another earth. Thats why there is suffering on earth Daniel. Suffering is just another incentive to work hard to achieve everlasting life in heaven. God has to set rules, he has to have some good people die and suffer to let everyone know that they dont have all the time in the world. They must convert and repent as soon as possible because in this world, you never know when your last day will be. Even good people can die, thats why just because you are a good person, its not enough, you have to believe in God. Does that make sense? If there was no suffering, we would not want to go to heaven, and there would be no rush at all to come to god, and there would be no such thing as sin against another human. How would you motivate people to come to you if you were God, would make everything great, so that they would love the world, or would you let them know that bad things will not go unpunished and that you cant go thru your life doing whatever you want with no consequence. God works in mysterious ways, but this one is pretty obvious.
Wha? Joe, Joe, Joe. mmm.mmm.mmm. Do you hear yourself, man? So, God makes the earth (that’s something you start off with as a given when it’s not) and basically allows humans to go at it in order to create an environment that is so messed up that it causes us to want to go to heaven? Is that what you are saying?
This is just so wrong on so many levels (even theologically) that I don’t know where to start and can already sense it wouldn’t matter anyway.
But just for fun, try this analogy which is kinda what you are trying to sell:
So, a husband and his wife decide they want to have kids. Lots of them. They plan, they work, and together they set up a wonderful nursery/playroom downstairs with everything the kids could need or want. and the babies start coming. Lots of them. But after they get a bit grown, mom and dad disappear to their upstairs living area and just let the kids fend for themselves. Figure it’d be better for the kids and also will help mom and dad to see if the kids really love them or not. The kids that do love their parents will try and find them (they aren’t allowed upstairs though) by calling to them, and the ones that don’t, well they just don’t. But these kids. My oh my, what a mess they make of things. They steal from each other. They hurt each other. The big kids stomp on the little kids and get away with it. They waste all the good stuff that’s downstairs and some can often be heard crying out for mom or dad to please come back and help them. Save them from each other. This breaks mom and dad’s hearts, but it’s just not the part of what they call the “Work in Mysterious Ways Plan”. Mom and dad look at each other and simply say, “it’s a horrible situation all right, but you know what, the worse it gets downstairs, the better it will seem when they finally get up here, so let’s just let it go and see what happens.”
Great plan. Good parenting too by the way- very loving, very empowering, very compassionate. And the best part- when the kids finally do make it upstairs (the ones that do cuz most don’t) they can live happily ever after with mom and dad. Ahhhh. I love a story with a good ending.
reformedfred,
Being a Christian is choosing to become a follower of Christ.
Now I can’t be sure how many people that claim the label of Christian actually follow His teachings & practices.
To use an analogy (story, parable, etc.): Just because all the doctors you have met are ineffective and ignorant, and people still get sick doesn’t mean that good health doesn’t exist.
Daniel,
You wrote: “The Bible Can Support Anything”
Absolutely true, but not everything that it is used to support follows the teachings and practices of Christ.
And: “It is not, as Christians often claim, a cohesive, peaceful, loving, perfect, God-written treatise.”
Following the teachings and practices of Christ takes us to a much different place than trying to justify any action that God may have taken. Those claiming the label of Christian may not actually be following Christ.
Any action God may have taken? What ever action God takes, Jesus takes. “I and the Father are one”. I’ve met more Hindus and Bhuddists who more closely resemble Christ than Christians, but I’m still not following you.
You are basically saying that we are judging Christ/Christians by other Christians? Or condmening Christianity because we’ve only met the bad apple Christians along the way?
Not so grasshoppa Michael. Not so at all.
Name calling? Grasshoppa? Really? That offends you? Face-palm. Ok, I’ll try and be, um, nicer.
Michael, first, I use scripture because I am familiar with it, and it matters not if I believe it, I use it because you believe it.
Secondly, while you think I used the verse (John 10:30) out of context, I think you are using the entire Bible out of context. Are you familiar with the concept of the Trinity at all?
Now, as far as Jesus changing the relationship with “Evil God”, Christ himself said that he came not to abolish the law (OT, where we see most of Evil God’s actions) but to fulfill it. Which sounds sorta like “you all only got one side of God in the OT, and I’m not here to take away from any of that, but to round things out a bit and put the finishing touches on what God is really like”.
Biblical theology teaches that OT God represents the “standard/law”which all men in their sinfulness cannot attain (although I could argue that easily) and Jesus is the bridge for humanity to come to God by his having taken on our sin at Calvary and thus rendering us now acceptable to God. A new covenant, a new way of God interacting with his people through Jesus, later the Holy Spirit, etc. Do you see that I get it? I get, we all get, how it’s supposed to work.
But then that pesky trinity thing just won’t go away. Jesus is God, God is Jesus. See John 1:1 as well as Genesis 1:1 (familiarize yourself with the Hebrew word, “Elohim”). So anything God has done, does, will do, is not separate from Jesus. Not in the Old Testament, the New Testament, or any other Christian revelation.
And, just to be clear Michael, I want you to know that understanding how a particular doctrine/religion works does not necessarily mean one has to believe in it. If you want to debate a Mormon, than you best be familiar with what they believe. Same for a JW, a Catholic, a Wiccan, whatever.
Lastly, when I said I don’t follow you, and you responded with you are not asking me to follow you, I meant that I wasn’t following your logic. Not you personally.
Your ball.
You are impossible to understand with your lost fingers and toes analogies. I am not only familiar with scripture, I had a life time of believing the Bible and basing my entire being on it as the infallibe Word of God. And, I lost a helluva lot more than an apendage because of it, believe me.
I am not confused with the 3=1 thing, you are. I stated clearly that God is Jesus, Jesus is God (despite their roles) and so you cannot separate one’s actions from the other. If you believe in the trinity (which is essential to basic Christianity) you cannot say “oh that was God, not Jesus”. Same as you cannot say to your child, “oh that was my mother’s son who hit your mom, not me” Different roles of each part of the god-head, I buy, different accountability for any actions taken, I do not.
And I did not use John 10:30 out of context any more than I used John 1:1 or Genesis 1:1 out of place. I am just giving you multiple examples of where the triune nature of God is addressed in scripture and have more where that came from if necessary.
So, Michael, my “so” is this, as it was the first time I replied: you cannot separate Evil God from Nice Jesus and stay true to scripture. Which is what I guess you must’ve meant about not being a biblical fundamentalist. Seems you prefer to cherry pick the teachings of Christ by pulling out the parts you like and tossing the rest that doesn’t fit your paradigm. Careful- in the Christian world that’s called “heresy”.
I think the more you come to know about what Christianity really is, the more you will have to either bend your mind into a pretzel in order for things to make sense, or do what most of the folks on this blog have done and break the shackles of cognitive dissonance by admitting the whole thing just doesn’t add up.
While I’m not completely sure that I can dismiss the entire idea of Christianity, I find your writings to be extremely intelligent. A very interesting journey indeed.
If you can’t understand a simple analogy, should you even be questioning people about things that involve having an intellectual discussion?
I’m sorry for whatever has left you hurt. (”I lost a helluva lot more than an apendage because of it, believe me”) I would bet that’s got a lot more to do with your disbelief than anything else.
The concept of a triune God is a difficult concept and I wasn’t attempting a full explanation. Your simplistic approach doesn’t even remotely cover it.
Actually, “basic Christianity” would be following the teachings and practices of Christ. That’s the reason it’s not called Trinitianity or Biblianity.
You say: “Different roles of each part of the god-head, I buy, different accountability for any actions taken, I do not.” Different roles mean they function differently. Jesus asked God why He abandoned Him on the cross. Does that sound like the same accountability? Jesus said he was leaving but he would send a helper, again not the same accountability. Is it even possible to hold a true god accountable?
“Nice Jesus” did separate himself with a new way to live our lives and that is “true to scripture.” You are the one who is choosing to “cherry pick” scripture, not me.
You used 3 different singular scripture verses to try to make point. Each of those verses came from a different context: written at different times, by different authors, for different readers. That is not using scripture properly.
As far as “tossing the rest that doesn’t fit [my] paradigm,” I certainly haven’t done that. You are the one making up connections.
I have these same conversations with people in “the Christian world” who don’t actually follow His teachings and practices. It’s not “heresy” because what I have sought, found, and share makes sense.
I was far away from any kind of faith for a long time. I have come to follow Christ with my eyes & mind wide open. “What Christianity really is” a pretty small set of practices and beliefs. Organized religion has screwed that up quite a bit and I would guess that is what you have experienced so far.
You don’t have to “bend your mind into a pretzel,” “break the shackles of cognitive dissonance,” or try to make the whole thing “add up.” The bible as a whole is not an instruction manual, though there are some clear instructions given.
Even if it were an instruction manual, would it sense to read a small part of Step #1, Step #863, & Step #1121 and expect anything to come out right?
“Even if it were an instruction manual, would it sense to read a small part of Step #1, Step #863, & Step #1121 and expect anything to come out right?”
That’s what you are doing Michael. The Bible is not just the 4 Gospels.
So before I go much further, do you believe Jesus is God?
“The Bible is not just the 4 Gospels”
But as a Christian, that’s where you start.
I’m a follower of Christ, not a Bibleian.
“Do you believe Jesus is God?”
Yup.
The only reason Paul had anything to write about was because people either weren’t around Jesus himself or they didn’t continue to follow Jesus teachings after they did hear them.
Do you think that Jesus didn’t have the meat? Who else would have it? I’m not a Paulian either.
I’m not really concerned with your warnings about my faith. You don’t have a horse in this race, at least that you’ll admit. You actually sound like you still want to believe. That’s good. You can work with that. Desire is a good first step back.
“You believe Jesus is God? But based on what?”
What do you want here, my personal testimony?
I had stepped far away from faith, had some friends get interested in helping me back, I took some small steps toward faith and things started changing for me. The more I invested, the better it got. I still have doubts. I think anyone that is honest about their faith will understand that the doubts are just as important as the faith.
What sent you away from faith?
I’m not letting you off the hook here Michael. Why do you think Jesus is God? And do you think the Bible is the Word of God, or a word ABOUT God?
Your life got better when you started to track with Jesus? Mine got better when I started exercising, but I sure don’t think I found God thru Gold’s Gym.
You aren’t a Biblian, a Paulian, a Tri-inian, etc. for sure. Nor do you have a good handle on theology, history, divinity, or any other piece essential to your “chirstian” beliefs. What you seem to profess is a narrow minded view of who Christ was, what the history surrounding him was, what the Biblical prophesies of him were, and any other pertinent information.
You have created God in your own image, wanting it all to look like your understanding of who that is (and quite limited too, if you are going to only stick with the gospels).
BTW- Paul’s writings are believed to be a predescessor of the gospels.
And- you want my testimony? I’ve already posted it, pal. Go to the Christian Cliches thread and scroll on down- it’s all there, transparent, and honest.
Ciao~
Here’s faith:
belief because of proof.
belief because of evidence.
belief because of reason.
You find yourself here (a body? a soul? a spirit? a dream?). You decide to get some ideas. So you get some ideas of proof, evidence and reason. You believe them all. Your beliefs offer great comfort, even though they fail to answer the fundamental existential question, which you ignore. Because your existence is beyond reason, you can’t prove it is happening, and the evidence appears to be an illusion.
What is a fellow to do? Get a grip man! Just take a position and make it so! And with that “poof!” you are once again comfortable.
onecae~
You talking to me, or are you talking to Michael, or just sayin’?
I find it very interesting that so many of the arguments here seem to come from people that were formally very invested in faith.
To put it in some very logical terminology:
- You people are failures at faith.
- In failing you have decided that it faith is impossible, therefore you do not have a position from which to judge.
- If someone has a question of faith, should they ask a failure at it or someone who has found it to be a positive part of their life?
I have similar feelings about simple-minded, unquestioning followers of dogma. The blog on Christian cliches is an ugly, all-too-accurate picture of why people lose faith.
If you decide to pick up label Christian, then get your ass behind the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ and go to work.
If you tried it and failed, wipe your eyes, put on your big kid pants, and find someone that knows WTF they are doing.
I’m going to go ahead and apologize for the harshness of that last post of mine.
Regardless of that, the points are valid.
Michael, stop. This isn’t some “if at first you don’t succeed” kind of game. How f*#@ing arrogant of you. We’re talking about truth here, man. You are like a kindergartner trying to tell a bunch of college seniors how they just don’t understand how Santa works.
We aren’t “failures at faith”! Well, yeah, we are, if you read that as we are “failures” at believing a pack of bogus lies! No Michael, we are people who finally (speaking for those of us who once swore allegience to Jesus Christ, our Lord) came to know the truth, and it did indeed set us free.
You wanna keep believing in your Jolly God/Nice Jesus, makes-Michael-feel-oh-so-good load, go right ahead. And when you’re done sipping the kool aid, perhaps you’ll find out that no matter how you dilute your theology into edible bites, it’s a bunch of shit, and you’ve been eating it.
These points are valid, and I DON’T apologize for them.
reformedfred,
Here’s what may have happened to you:
(in a general way this will fit many who read this blog; there are plenty of individual variables and I am not making light of anyone’s personal struggles, but if you are honest, much of this will be applicable):
Your experience in church was that of a passive follower.
You were given easy questions and easy answers.
You might have had some doubts but didn’t let them bother you too much.
You behaved yourself on the surface but broke whatever rules you wanted when you thought you could get away with it.
You gained favor and respect of the elders.
You learned how to manipulate the policies and dogma of your church or denomination (that were flawed before you ever got there).
A pretty major trauma occurred in your life.
People in your church didn’t react the way you wanted them to,
OR,
since you had never found true faith, your errant system fell apart.
In trying to work through your problem, you reassessed many things in your life and since your flawed system had failed you, you threw it out.
This being the first time you really thought about these kinds of matters, you explored many philosophies, settling on the easiest, believing in nothing.
Though you claim to have found peace in your reason and logic, your easy anger toward those who speak of faith betray you.
I’ll challenge you to this:
Instead of making a big deal about what doesn’t match, talk to me about what does.
@Michael
Your summaries are as immature as your beliefs.. Your analyses and general assessments of atheists and how they came to be so, are condescending and smack of a level of pride and superiority that are not in alignment with the Christ you claim to follow. Your arguments, Michael, are beginning to show signs that they are wearing down by your trotting out the same tired rhetoric we atheists get to hear every single time believers enter the fray. It always begins with how we don’t know Jesus like you do and we never did. We were taught wrong. We were hurt. We were unable to handle the hard questions and took the easy way out. And lastly, we are just being, as you say, “rebellious”. Ho- hum. Yawns.
As for the checklist you formatted for me, let me see…
Passive? Not. Active beyond the space this forum has room to list.
Easy questions and easy answers? only ’til I was maybe 9. I’ve asked you harder questions than I was contending with as a child.
Didn’t doubt? Sure did and did the searching to alleviate those doubts and found God to have the answers.
Behavior? Consistent with my beliefs, inside and out.
Gained favor of the heirarchy? Yes. This is how it is supposed to be as one grows and matures.
Manipulate the dogma? Pshaw. The dogma manipulates the believer.
Major trauma? Not.
Church reacting unfavorably? They all do after awhile if you don’t get over whatever ails you, but that was hardly enough to make an atheist of me.
And lastly, my favorite from you and your ilk: Never had “true faith” to begin with?Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. My faith was ever bit as real and true as yours is right now Michael.
And lastly, I am not angry nor am I unhappy. Your responses have been every bit as “snippy” as mine, so if you think I’ve been responding in anger, than I propose you have as well.
Back atcha~
“Humans – We are unique in the animal kingdom. No other creature displays the capacities that we possess. ”
The mere fact that these ‘capacities that we possess’ seems just a few steps more than, say, a chimpanzee’s capacities, doesn’t make you stop and think?
“Creation – We are products of a unique process.”
Really? I don’t know how you were born, but I’m pretty sure that the rest of us went through a fairly natural incubation/birth period.
“Love – This unique capacity of ours does not follow logic.”
I suggest you read up about these awesome pets called ‘dogs’ that love their owners even when they’re beaten and treated horribly.
“Now you can play around with various viewpoints and come up with all kinds of alternate explanations for these 3 items, but together they provide the elements for a system that is beyond our understanding.”
I’m fairly sure that a mix of biology and psychology can get a lot closer than, ‘god did it,’ for understanding such things. Have you not heard the good news? They DO have explanations about such things.
“There are very few true atheists.
There is a pattern of circumstance in atheists who were previously involved in organized religion.
Generally speaking, their position is less of an adoption of a chosen philosophy and more of an indictment of the weakness of their previous belief system.
Essentially they are simply being rebellious.”
Your ability to set aside your dignity to make such a claim is astounding. Every story I’ve heard of people making the move from xtianity to atheism is wrought with silly things like, ‘thinking for themselves’, ‘church friends and pastors acting like zealots when earnestly questioned’, ‘reading books with a non-xtian agenda’, and finally, ‘believing what is true at the cost of shaking the foundation of everything they thought they knew in life’. These people were almost unfailingly shunned by family, and friends when they began thinking for themselves.
“Proving the existence of any deity is unlikely.
There are a several things that do exist that can point us to toward something that is beyond ourselves: ”
Some of us don’t need things that can’t be proven to point us in the right direction. What is it you NEED from your god? If you can’t be bothered to prove his existence, then will you continue to argue from your emotions?
reformedfred,
Again: What sent you away from faith or as you put it “make an atheist out of” you?
In the Christian Cliches blog there are many valid points made about how wrong many supposed Christians can be, but I didn’t find any details on what made you actually walk away from what you have repeatedly asserted that you were heavily invested in and faithfully followed for most of your life.
Also, if you were so sure you were right for most of your life and discovered you were wrong, how could you possibly trust your judgment now?
(It sounds as though you have found a new community of believers that are welcoming and supportive, very similar to your previous Christian experience)
MH,
Here’s what may have happened to you:
You grew up in a small xtian town, with xtian parents, you were close to your xtian preacher
You were told what to believe from day 1
You never doubted your parents or preacher
You behaved because if you didn’t, god would toss you away into hell
You gained favor and your elders eyed you hungrily
You learned how to argue with atheists
You decided to actually argue with atheists
You lost
You are now attempting to secure your place in heaven because you lost, and god likes winners
You believe anyway that you probably won’t make it into heaven because of the doubts you have
In trying to buy your way into heaven, you try to honor your god by making ignorant assumptions about people you know nothing about.
The arrogance with which you’ve written this can only come from a misplaced superiority complex from a man who can’t seem do anything right in his life – ever.
You believe what others tell you to so they continue to accept you. You wouldn’t take that brave step into the unknown that many here have done. You wouldn’t DREAM of reading something that isn’t tailored to your own personal flavor of belief. You wouldn’t have the courage to think for yourself, and stand up for your own beliefs. You wouldn’t have the audacity to question those around you.
You’d rather sit back and use offensive assumptions and cliched arguments to try and convert those with more courage than yourself to believe in your god.
You are as lazy as you are cowardly.
MH,
It’s not really THAT difficult to find reformedfred’s story, is it?
You really are lazy.
“In the Christian Cliches blog there are many valid points made about how wrong many supposed Christians can be”
There you are again, making arrogant assumptions. Calling your brethren ’supposed’ xtians. You just don’t care to have an ounce of honor or dignity to your name, do you?
“Also, if you were so sure you were right for most of your life and discovered you were wrong, how could you possibly trust your judgment now?”
If you’ve been right all your life, how can you know for sure that you aren’t wrong?
“(It sounds as though you have found a new community of believers that are welcoming and supportive, very similar to your previous Christian experience)”
We’re not asking what ‘jeebus’ did or didn’t do in reformedfred’s life. We’re not asking for money. We’re not making hollow statements that we ourselves don’t truly believe. We’re not close-minded religious bigots. We’re not toting the banner of, ‘this book of lies is truth’. We all think for ourselves and research things we don’t understand.
“You aren’t really in a position to judge whether I “have a good handle on theology, history, divinity” etc. because you came to your understanding in a flawed manner.”
That entire post was invalidated by this response.
“You don’t judge me, I judge you”
Does anyone else see this?
boomSLANG, LRA, & Nzo,
It is this very unique combination of biology & psychology (our humanity, our creation or evolution, our ability to love) that sets us apart from the rest of what exists.
There is a big difference between behaviorism and the consciousness we possess. Even if you think that we are simply clever animals, the fact that you had that thought denies the plausibility of that argument.
If you choose to compare what you feel for your spouse or partner, children, or parents to the reactions of your dog, you may not have fully explored the dynamics of human interaction.
That was a lot of writing for not saying much.
You’re merely saying you believe the two to be different. If I believe them to be one-and-the-same, I am wrong.
“you may not have fully explored the dynamics of human interaction.”
Says a man who cannot argue for his god without offending his target audience. You have no room to speak about ‘dynamics of human interaction’ to me.
The “I am following Christ” … “You should have followed Christ”… “Try following Christ”…”The others weren’t following Christ”…”Start from scratch and follow Christ” mantra of yours makes you sound like a programmed robot incapable of rational, sequential, and logical argument. Your assumptions that I am bitter (why? Because I throw out a zinger here and there? If you knew the company you were in here you would see I’ve been pretty tame) and am waiting for someone to hand me evidence of God is once again proof of your condescension and smug attitude. I’ve done my homework here Michael. You have not. You won’t even accept the possibility that you could be wrong. For a follower of Christ you surely lack the humility he espoused not to mention a few other attributes.
LRA
I don’t believe you’ll find even one time that linking something to one of these zealots will help. They’re either too lazy to follow it, or unwilling to acquiesce to the implied request from an atheist on principle. There might be another good reason for it, but I can’t think of one.
Still replying to the easy ones MH?
I suppose if you were to ask, I’d be most interested in your explanation of you not taking reformedfred seriously for not being an xtian.
You see, in that comment alone you dismissed everyone else as completely invalid.
You wanted this to be a ‘discussion’ and yet you refuse to allow such discourse because you absolutely refuse to take what anyone says seriously. This is called an ‘argument’.
You’ve proved nothing, gained no ground, and retreated to answering those posts that are easier to snake your way out of.
The ONLY part of what we were talking about before that you’ve responded to is the one where you tried to be ‘funny’ laughing at canine incest and butt-sniffing. The last comment being less of a decent argument and more of the ashamed excuse a child would still give after being punished.
You’re in danger of becoming that nagging voice on the outside of the real conversations here. If your posts have no relevance to the main topics at hand, they will become less visible, and less relevant, to those on the forefront of this discussion. It is also true that ignoring those posts that are inconvenient to you will produce the same results.
I’ve noticed that a couple of your posts have been concessions. I wonder if you’re merely trying to ‘buddy up’ to us, in an attempt to appeal to our better nature, or if you’re really taking some of this to heart and realizing that we atheists have our reasons for doing things, and we’re definitely not the morons xtians expect to encounter.
The former is more likely, I have hope for the latter.
Good luck.
can’t wait for more of your posts , they are very interesting :)
*eagerly awats MH’s new ammo from zombiejeebus morning service*
Did you, by any chance, tell your friends about this thread? Did you ask any advice?
I think Christianity would have died out a long time ago if it weren’t for the music. It’s got to be the most manipulative tool in the whole church arsenal. During my ministry years I worked along side the worship leader for years, and it was truly a work of art how she’d set it all up from start to finish. Every service began with the upbeat, celebratory songs- people clapping, guitars and drums banging away, the crowd all worked up. Within 10 minutes though, the songs would get progressively more demure, softer, heart-string pulling kind of stuff. But the best was always at the end of the sermon: everyone’s got their heads bowed and eyes closed while the worship team would sneak back up on stage and oh so softly begin to play the most beautiful, wooing music you’ve ever heard. The altar would fill up with sinners crying their eyes out, the ministry teams would come flocking to put their arms around all the cry babies, and the pastor just kept it going until everyone was spent. Week after week, service after service, another successful Sunday, and whew- wasn’t the presence of the Lord strong this morning?!?!
Simple emotional manipulation. Works for any theatrical show, and really works for filling not only the altar, but the offering plate as well.
I wonder if MH had the same experience today?
I wonder if that happens in all churches – like, ‘how to manipulate your flock using music -101′
I would have never thought of that had you not mentioned it, even though I’ve studied the same principles in theatre and movies.
Thank you reformedfred!
Oh yeah- films make incredible use of music to guide the viewer along emotionally. I can be in an entirely separate room of the house, hear the music from a tv show, and know what type of scene is underway.
The interesting thing with working behind the curtains in ministry is how like a stage production the services are. Our senior pastor had strict rules that there was to be no “down” time on the platform. It all had to flow without a hitch. Everything from where the flowers were situated, the drum sets, the “order of service” (Chistianeze for preset agenda that is not to be deviated from unless the spirit says, and the spirit only says to those in charge) etc. Add multiple services and it gets really interesting… my lord, he cried at the exact same moment in the previous message- amazing!
Carnival show for the sunday crowd. And just think- they’re all warm and fuzzy this afternoon, full of ham, feet propped up, resting comfy in the high of the allelujias and He Is Risen Indeed afterglow. Ahhhhhhh. Meanwhile I bet 90 % of the pastors and their staffs are going, “thank God that’s done for another year!” (but not outloud of course)
…Yep, that’s all Christians are, isn’t it? Blind, stupid, hypnotized dorks. Incapable of thinking, reasoning, or even arguing logically.
You might wanna be careful, Reformedfred.
Cough cough, how about one solid, infallible block of proof that Christians can be fairly competent with their minds?
Umm, Michael’s still managing to block everything you’ve thrown at him. And no one yet has replied to my posts. No one’s going to disagree with my stance of the Bible as grossly stripped of context above? No one?
Daniel, if you’re going to bring up such ‘mistakes’ in the Bible, you’re gonna need more than the above.
Furthermore, I’ve got more solid proof that God exists. Quite a few, actually. Two, in fact, I can lay down right now. Tell me what you think, please.
1. SOME kind of Higher Power has to exist, because, quite frankly, without a god, there’s no such thing as right, wrong, morals, immorals, etc. Like Michael above suggested, if we literally ‘evolved’ from apes, why aren’t we all, well animals? Literally. I mean, you thought WE believed hilarious, foolish beliefs?
For instance, if we evolved from apes, why is it wrong for me to blow up somebody else, cheat somebody out of millions, assassinate the president? Who’s gonna stop me? Quite frankly, by denying the existence of God, you’re telling me that there’s nothing higher than human beings, am I right? Well then, I (and we) can make the rules, right? After all, there’s no one greater to stop us.
We all know that murder is wrong. You can’t just run out on the street and shot somebody. Why? WHY is it wrong? Who says? But strangely enough, when confronted with the question, people look at you like you were insane! Nobody is stupid enough to believe murder can be RIGHT.
But, looky here, in the Bible it says, ‘Thou shalt not Murder.’ In fact, all the morals and just standards to be found in the world are listed in the Bible. Atheists and Christians agree that killing innocents is wrong, but why? Well, you’re setting a standard of right and wrong. Where did that come from, if we’re all evolved animals? Why don’t we act like apes? Humans don’t live by what animals do, the fact that ‘might makes right,’ and ’survival of the fittest.’ After all, as Evolution claims, only the toughest and best survive, right? In that case, let’s kill off the elderly, the weak, and the handicapped. In fact, let’s just start blowing up nursing homes for the fun of it because hey, if humans are at the top, we set the moral rules, right?
You see? If you say there’s no God, you’re saying that humans are the all-powerful beings. And that’s just downright dangerous. If we can start murdering, raping, stealing, evil evil etc., and not have to worry about God’s Holy Judgment, then why wait? Let’s get started! Without God, I can set my own rules? And what’s the worst you can do to me? Kill me to stop me? Doesn’t do much good to me, actually. By that time, the damage is done, and if the worst that can happen to me is death, then why not have fun while I’m alive anyway, and enjoy myself with killing and raping?
No God, no moral standards, nothing to stop humans from truly being ‘animals.’ Hell on earth. Without God.
Any thoughts?
(Will post tomorrow [or in the next few days at most] on part 2.)
Be careful of what exactly, Master A? You need to quickly explain yourself, as, unless that means you are wanting to go at it by means of debate, that sounds rather, um, threatening.
And, as far as your proofs, part 1 is already ripe for the picking, but like you, I got better things to do this evening, and unfortunately, have to work tomorrow, but will definitely make the time to “chat” about what you’ve written as soon as I can.
Meanwhile, let’s see… I just counted the number of posts backwards on this particular thread for your last posting. 120 comments since your last comment, Master A!!! I mean, Jeez- you coulda popped in any time along the way- what’s stopping you?!? If you’re gonna be part of an on-going discussion, you might want to chime in more than once a week. Yeesh.
Master_Amaras, I do not find fault in any of the truths that you have stated.
reformedfred, if you had time to actively participate in this “thread” and make the previous comment, then surely you will have no problem explaining what you find wrong with Master Amaras’s comment.
Let’s not make this a vicious discussion.
and where have you been in all this KYU? Coming to the party a bit late aren’t you?
reformedfred, why are you choosing to NOT correct Master_Amaras? Is it truth, or is it not? We all want to discover the absolute truth. You will help everyone by doing this.
What standard states that I cannot reply to this “thread”? You? You are not the standard of right and wrong.
I did not visit this website for a while. Tell me what I have done wrong.
It is not truth. I’ll explain my position as soon as I can.
KYU, no one said you couldn’t reply- the question was simple- where have you been? No right/wrong. Just asking. But methinks you are a bit defensive for just starting out here…
“SOME kind of Higher Power has to exist, because, quite frankly, without a god, there’s no such thing as right, wrong, morals, immorals, etc. Like Michael above suggested, if we literally ‘evolved’ from apes, why aren’t we all, well animals?”
Argument of opinion. Nothing more. We do not require an imaginary friend to give us morals. The evolving society has kept a general set of guidelines as to what is good, what is not.
Morals? Your book is pro-genocide, pro-rape, pro-sacrifice, and pro-slavery. I suppose if you get your morals from there, it is my duty to tell you that we atheists don’t believe in those things.
We are all animals. We just happen to be the smartest of them. At one point we weren’t any smarter than a chimpanzee. Read MH’s beloved canine incest line above for the rest of this argument. It’s been beat to death.
“For instance, if we evolved from apes, why is it wrong for me to blow up somebody else, cheat somebody out of millions, assassinate the president? Who’s gonna stop me? Quite frankly, by denying the existence of God, you’re telling me that there’s nothing higher than human beings, am I right? Well then, I (and we) can make the rules, right? After all, there’s no one greater to stop us.”
Maybe for immoral xtians like yourself. Or maybe for those ‘islamic’ extremists that you now sound like. Thanks, we atheists will go on with our lives, knowing that we don’t have some ’second life in jeebusland’.
Humans DO make their own rules. The ruling powers, be they elected or otherwise, create laws, determine the things that will be punished and those that will not.
“We all know that murder is wrong.”
Your bible does not preach that. If god spoke to you and told you to kill your neighbor, you’d do it.
Then you would be taken to jail, tried, found to be either insane or a danger to society, and you’d be locked away.
“WHY is it wrong? Who says?”
The laws of your country. We hope. If not, go for it.
“But strangely enough, when confronted with the question, people look at you like you were insane! Nobody is stupid enough to believe murder can be RIGHT.”
~Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)~
~Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)~
~A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)~
~They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)~
Do I need to delve any further than this? nope. The really sad thing is, you probably agree with at least one of those. The interesting thing, however, is that not a single atheist would agree with any of them.
“But, looky here, in the Bible it says, ‘Thou shalt not Murder.’ In fact, all the morals and just standards to be found in the world are listed in the Bible.”
Really? *looks up* Nope, they must be pulling your leg. Definitely supposed to murder people for silly things. If you aren’t, you’re ignoring more parts of the bible than you’re paying attention to.
Morals and standards in the world listed in the bible?
“Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)”
“Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)”
What world do you live on?
~~~~~~~
Really though, I don’t need to go through and answer the rest of your poorly-thought-out second-hand-knowledge, do I?
…the great 2word division in the 4river/4water/nauatl
language, mentioned in the bible as the signpost for eden,
are tlapa(N) and tlaca(N). tlapa gives such words as trap,
tramp, aplu(Etrruscan)=apollo, apple, and means, tlalli/earth
pai(n)t/pa, to paint ball an animal. these are the hunter-
gatherers, the wheaters, e.g., tlapana(N)= laf/loaf(E)/hleb(russ), and, pan(sp)=bread. abel is one of them: in astronomy,
he is the sun which has to die every day(old belief)in order for
life to go on. the other is tlaca, ca(N)=being/life, which in
peruvian= in ca(N)=the being/ca, and this would be ca/in,
who slays tlapa/abel. we get the words, thank/track/lack/
da(n)ce out of it, and, tlacatl(N)=body, many animals, e.g.,
(t)la(r)k=lark, are from this word, also the word, cane(E/plant),
and, as tlapa/la(m)p(from animal fat) are hunters, the tlaca
are fishers, reed people. this may not be the case with cain
and able but they are fixed in astronomy. however the fisher
folk had an advantage over the hunters, they got iodine for
healthy brains and nervous systems. where cain went for
his wife after the event was probably the russian riverine.
murder and planetary survival are linked in this story,
which is not to say it is condoned, but inevitable. that seems
to be bourne out(pun) by our abysmal record civilian and
military on the blue planet.
“You see? If you say there’s no God, you’re saying that humans are the all-powerful beings. And that’s just downright dangerous. If we can start murdering, raping, stealing, evil evil etc., and not have to worry about God’s Holy Judgment, then why wait? Let’s get started! Without God, I can set my own rules? And what’s the worst you can do to me? Kill me to stop me? Doesn’t do much good to me, actually. By that time, the damage is done, and if the worst that can happen to me is death, then why not have fun while I’m alive anyway, and enjoy myself with killing and raping?”
First, since Nzo has already made many of the counter points that I would have, I won’t tie up time by repeating those objections.
I would like to ask though what the hell is up with all this “murder, raping, stealing” stuff that xtians seem to think is on the mind of everyone who denies God’s existence? Is God really the only thing stopping you from doing that stuff?!? Than you’re sicker than my god-denying ass on any day of the week.
M.A.- morals and laws evolve as societies and cultures evolve. Things that seemed expedient to a clan or tribe at one time, to ensure survival, are now seen as barbaric and utter nonsense (see Old Testament for many such examples). Even in these modern times there exists people groups who, in their ignorance, perform horrible acts and deeds they deem necessary for the good of the group. They are, still evolving. For example, there is a tribe in one of the African nations that will abandon any baby in the desert if its top teeth come in before the bottom teeth. This is right to them as they think top teeth first will bring a curse on the whole village. I think it’s outrageous and incredibly cruel- because I’m privileged to live in a place and time that’s developed a higher moral code. My great grand children will, I hope, live in a time w/an even higher standard of what is right and wrong.
Where do atheists get their morals without a god to direct them? Same place as everyone else. We all learn our morals (or lack thereof) by way of our parents first, our extended families, our teachers, communities, etc. Rules at home and rules in our nation are there for the good of the group. That which benefits the group is seen as what is right. Murder, stealing, and raping (your big 3) are what hurts the group and so must be discouraged and punished.
Either way MA, the LAST place to go looking for morals, as Nzo has already pointed out, is in the Bible! That’s what Daniel was trying to point out with the title to this thread (Evil God).
And, nice try, but NONE of what you wrote is proof of anything. Proof consists of a wee bit more than *golly gee if there wasn’t a God, we’d all be shooting and raping, and since we’re not, that means there’s a God*. That’s so juvenile on every level that I’m not sure it merits much more of my time until you go back and gain an understanding about the basics of empirical science, what consitutes proof, and what the word “evidence” means.
I’m not trying to argue what you, Nzo and reformedfred, have just stated about the Bible. I have not looked into enough of the Old Testament to make any educated arguments. I do not base my faith on solely the Bible. Surely the Bible contains truth, but truth is that which is in accordance with reality. Therefore, I can find what to follow and what is true in reality. I don’t think you should call me out on being an immoral, brainwashed Christian either, because we have to start off somewhere :)
I’m not sure where you can find a perfect Christian because all human beings are flawed! Do not take this statement too literally, because there are MANY people who call themselves Christian, but do not act Christ-like.
—–
reformedfred and Nzo, what do you make of the universal idea of standards such as morality (the standard of right and wrong)? Theoretically, a standard should be perfect and unchanging, so that we can all strive to achieve it and conform to it. As we know, perfection does not exist in humans. We are all striving towards perfection. So then, a human cannot be a standard.
If everyone had their own standard/morality, there would be chaos. I think rape is good, you think rape is bad… so who is the judge?
Also, if a standard was not unchanging, then we would never know what is good or bad. This also leads to chaos!
But then, where can I find a standard? Is the standard an alien on Jupiter? A volcano on earth? It is something immaterial!
Perfect, unchanging, immaterial… God?
“Humans DO make their own rules. The ruling powers, be they elected or otherwise, create laws, determine the things that will be punished and those that will not.”
Humans are imperfect. You would trust an imperfect human to make your rules?
How about when abortion is trying to be made legal in some countries? So now, it is wrong in a country where it is not legal, and suddenly when some papers get signed and some people talk, abortion is made legal, and therefore it is good and right?
Feel free to ask questions, heh… it’s a little difficult to explain in its entirety. :)
@KYU
“I do not base my faith on solely the Bible”
Then the rest is completely made up in your head, or in the heads of those around you that you listen to.
“there are MANY people who call themselves Christian, but do not act Christ-like”
Comment beat-to-death above. EVERY xtian says this. The only way you could be right about this is if you met jeebus himself. Seeing as how your knowledge of the bible is severely lacking, the rest you have to go on is, once again, all in your head.
“universal idea of standards such as morality”
There is no universal standard of morality, and to think there is one is naive and arrogant.
Cultures all over the world have their own set of morals and standards. Saying that one particular book can tell every society in the world what is right and wrong is ignorance at its best.
“Theoretically, a standard should be perfect and unchanging, so that we can all strive to achieve it and conform to it.”
I fail to see how anything about that book is perfect. Did you read my last post?
Morals are never going to be perfect or unchanging. As people and societies evolve, so will the morals that dictate what is right and wrong.
Since when has conformity been a good thing?
“If everyone had their own standard/morality, there would be chaos.”
Opinion. You have no proof of this, which means you’re pulling assumptions out of your nether regions.
“I think rape is good, you think rape is bad… so who is the judge?”
The laws of your society/governments. I’m not surprised to hear that an xtian thinks rape is good, since it’s sanctioned in your holy book.
“Also, if a standard was not unchanging, then we would never know what is good or bad. This also leads to chaos!”
Repeating yourself does not make you right.
“But then, where can I find a standard? Is the standard an alien on Jupiter? A volcano on earth? It is something immaterial!
Perfect, unchanging, immaterial… God?”
Not funny, nor is it intelligent discourse. I’m reluctant to waste any more time with your juvenile arguments.
“Humans are imperfect. You would trust an imperfect human to make your rules?”
Over a genocidal, child-raping, figment of your imagination?
ABSOLUTELY.
“How about when abortion is trying to be made legal in some countries? So now, it is wrong in a country where it is not legal, and suddenly when some papers get signed and some people talk, abortion is made legal, and therefore it is good and right?”
I’d say you have no room to speak about abortion if you believe in a book that condones slavery and child rape.
NZO, there is no point in arguing with you because you seem to believe that Christians are supposed to base their faith 100% on the Bible. You read the Bible LITERALLY, which is why you have the wrong perception of the truths stated in it.
Not a personal attack, but I would also say that your knowledge of the Bible is severely lacking.
Before the Bible was written, people still had morals. Therefore, the Bible isn’t the only thing that states morals, nor did people “make everything up”. Christians are so illogical, right? They have no brains.
“There is no universal standard of morality, and to think there is one is naive and arrogant. ”
Okay, so you know that slavery and child rape is wrong. Are slavery and child rape going to be right in the future, when we “evolve”?
What standard says that slavery and child rape is wrong? The law, right? Let me repeat myself, because you did not seem to understand what I had stated prior.
Hey, slavery was once legal in the US! It was right back then, right? Hmm.. why did the laws change? Haha, humans must have just randomly evolved.
KYU
“NZO, there is no point in arguing with you because you seem to believe that Christians are supposed to base their faith 100% on the Bible. You read the Bible LITERALLY, which is why you have the wrong perception of the truths stated in it.”
Please educate me on this ‘perception of the truths’ that makes you right about the bible. I’ve asked this of many xtians, and not one has given me an answer.
What you must understand is that your entire religion is based off that book. If you don’t take it literally, how can you expect anyone to take it seriously?
“Not a personal attack, but I would also say that your knowledge of the Bible is severely lacking.”
I’d disagree with you on that point, I’d wager if we were each sat down and tested, I’d score higher on my knowledge of that book.
“Before the Bible was written, people still had morals.”
Correct
“Therefore, the Bible isn’t the only thing that states morals, nor did people “make everything up”.”
What exactly are you saying here? I thought you were arguing that the bible was the only source of morals?
“Christians are so illogical, right? They have no brains.”
While I agree with you, this in no way helps your argument, nor has anything you’ve said helped your cause.
“Okay, so you know that slavery and child rape is wrong. Are slavery and child rape going to be right in the future, when we “evolve”?”
I don’t claim to know the future. Slavery and child rape still exist. It’s condoned in your holy book.
“What standard says that slavery and child rape is wrong? The law, right? Let me repeat myself, because you did not seem to understand what I had stated prior.
Hey, slavery was once legal in the US! It was right back then, right? Hmm.. why did the laws change? Haha, humans must have just randomly evolved.”
Once again, repeating yourself does not make you right, nor does your sarcasm and juvenile wit. I contend that it is you who either does not read, or does not understand, my posts.
In America, slavery is wrong. It is against the law. This was not always so, and many landowners in the South owned slaves. Their morals and laws were not against slavery.
What’s really interesting is that the areas where slavery was most prominent, were the areas where xtianity was most deeply entrenched.
~~~
Good posts are well thought out. They have structure and clearly separate the different thoughts in paragraphs. Observations and opinions have some kind of foundation that is difficult to argue. Humor can be a wonderful tool, but if misused, can ruin an entire argument.
Your posts are poorly thought out. The structure of your posts garble your ideas. Your opinions, observations, and beliefs have little foundation. Your flavor of humor wouldn’t be found on a Laffy Taffy wrapper.
Sure, the Bible contains all the truths of Christianity, however, as you have acknowledged prior, I do not have much knowledge about the Bible itself. I am not claiming that I do, either.
However, there is nothing wrong with using reason and logic. In my opinion, using logic and reason allows non-Christians to understand truth better than simply preaching what is stated in the Bible.
I, definitely, was not saying that the Bible is the only source of morals. If all the Bibles in the world were burned, morals would still exist.
Morals/Morality does not exist, physically, on earth.
—–
Your failure to understand my satire stems from failing to understand the truth of reality.
—–
“Humans DO make their own rules. The ruling powers, be they elected or otherwise, create laws, determine the things that will be punished and those that will not.”
“There is no universal standard of morality, and to think there is one is naive and arrogant.”
“In America, slavery is wrong. It is against the law. This was not always so, and many landowners in the South owned slaves. Their morals and laws were not against slavery.”
Nzo, if I’m not mistaken, you are a moral relativist. I am judging from the statements quoted above. If you are not, please correct me.
Beginning by defining the terms, a moral relativist believes that morality is relative to all people. And you believe that humans create morals. Thus, the existence of morals is contingent upon humans. Humans dictate what is wrong and what is right.
If humans are the ultimate determiners of right and wrong, are we also the ultimate determiners of what is true and not true? Is truth subjective and relative, just like morals?
Also, if I am misreading your arguments, please be more clear.
@KYU
“I do not have much knowledge about the Bible itself. I am not claiming that I do, either.”
Yes, actually… you did claim that.
“In my opinion, using logic and reason allows non-Christians to understand truth better than simply preaching what is stated in the Bible.”
Opinions, once again, coupled with a completely nonsensical statement. Your definition of truth is, if not archaic, completely incorrect. You’ve used very little, if any, reason or logic.
“I, definitely, was not saying that the Bible is the only source of morals.”
Yes, you were.
If you weren’t, why are we having this conversation?
“Morals/Morality does not exist, physically, on earth.”
Equating morals with your imaginary friend?
“Your failure to understand my satire stems from failing to understand the truth of reality.”
Your ability to use satire is lacking. I shouldn’t have to be an xtian to understand any humor you try to use in an atheist forum.
“If humans are the ultimate determiners of right and wrong, are we also the ultimate determiners of what is true and not true? Is truth subjective and relative, just like morals?”
I would answer this if I didn’t think it was completely irrelevant to the argument. You’re completely forgetting that you’re arguing FOR your universal bible-morals.
Was there something here you really needed from me? Is your goal now to dissect what I think?
The whole idea here is your god is imaginary, and your book is the most immoral collection of stories ever put together.
“Also, if I am misreading your arguments, please be more clear.”
I’m having difficulty believing that you aren’t misreading your own arguments, much less mine. You’re contradicting yourself, hurting your own arguments, and failing to keep up with your own obscure points. I’d wager anyone would have difficulty not going cross-eyed trying to figure out what your point really is.
Indeed, though I wanted to give the poor sap a chance to redeem himself. I suppose it is getting old though.
He didn’t even argue for his god or book in the last post. Everything he said seemed to be a knock against it. Even his attempt to redefine everything to be meaningless was, unbeknownst to him, anti-xtianity.
Nzo, I have decided to not argue with you any further because you are not coming here with an open mind (I should make it clear that I am not telling you to accept everything that I state). If you see this as a failure on my part, I do as well.
You continuously attack Christian beliefs, without even attempting to understand Christian viewpoints by referring to God as simply an imaginary friend.
You criticize me for being unable to comprehend your arguments (which I do, but none of them make any sense logically), meanwhile, you fail to understand that I am not saying that all morals stem from the Bible. Remember, humans had morals before the Bible was written? (Oh yeah, repeating myself doesn’t make me right.)
Well maybe if I repeat myself, you will actually begin to understand that completely destroys my supposed argument.
Destroying my own argument is completely illogical, except that I am not arguing about what you think I am arguing about (try to comprehend that sentence!). Clearly, this is not working and I am wasting my time.
—-
I have a question for all the moral relativists (or anyone who believes there is no absolute truth) out there who believe truth is subjective.
Is it true that there is no absolute truth?
What indignant frustration!
How comical.
You’re done arguing with me because you can’t state your arguments clearly.
Somehow this translates to me not understanding.
My mind is fairly open to good argument points, facts, documentation, and straightforward presentation.
It’s obvious to me that you were offended that I didn’t take your apologist trap bait about truth being subjective.
The problem with that argument of yours is, before we started it, you’d have to state the definitions of the words you are using.
This creates another problem.
If I require you to do so, you’ll realize you can’t obscure the argument by making the various definitions work for you. You won’t like this, so you’ll throw another law-speak argument out there, or you’ll just give up anyway.
I’ll take your giving up on arguing with me as my win. I deserve it, and you deserve to lose the argument.
Let me know when you decide to clearly state your arguments. I’ll gladly debate you then.
If God created all things and sees all things and is all powerful. Does everything happen according to God’s plan? Can things happend outside God’s plan?
I understand the favorite xtian fallback of freewill when confronted with unexplained evil and natural desiasters. But if God is all knowing, he knows everything from beginning to end before it even happens, then nothing should surprise him. He knows the guy will choose to get drunk and get behind the wheel and plow into a family of six even before the guy takes his first shot. God knows how each one of us will exercise our “freewill”, he knows our decisions before we are even presented with the choices. He must know that Adolf Hitler would choose to murder 6 million Jews before He even created him. He must know the 19 hijackers would choose to fly their planes into buildings and kill 3000 even before they were born because God knows all things.
Then all of these things must happened according to some secret plan he has for us. And if all things, good or bad, happen according to God’s plan, then who are we to say the evil things are not part of God’s plan?
God planned Hilter and the concentration camps, God planned Stalin’s gulags, God planned the 911 attacks, God planned every single event that killed millions of humans all because he loves us.
And maybe God planned this website so he can see how strongly his flock will defend him. But then again, if he know all things, then he already knows how we will act then why test us at all? Is he expecting a surprise?
Nzo, the reason why I didn’t ask you the question directly is because you would have thrown some completely illogical argument at me that has me at a loss for words.
This does not change the fact that you are a moral relativist, and the question I just proposed would shatter your arguments as well.
Why would I define my terms if it only destroys my arguments? I simply wanted to ensure that we had the same definition of what we were talking about, so that there would be no confusion. I don’t think I’m the one being illogical.
Good night! :)
@KYU
So you’re not done with me yet…
The reason you didn’t ask me the question directly is because you really didn’t want me to answer it in the first place.
The reason you were at a loss for words, is because I’m correct.
You’re confused about the definition of illogical as well, which doesn’t really surprise me.
It’s great that you believe that the question you proposed would shatter my argument. I have to at least respect the fact that you know it would shatter yours.
You are incorrect, however.
The key points of the argument would be the definitions of the terms ‘truth’, ‘morality’, ‘right and wrong’, and ‘knowledge’, ‘reality’, etc.
Just one example:
~~Knowledge – acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation
Every time you tried to make an argument on ‘knowledge’ you’d have to have to present those things that you ‘know’.
Every time you do, you have no choice but to reference the only thing an xtian can ‘know’ about his/her religion, the bible.
Every time you do, you take the bible literally.
Dammit- I knew being back to work would get me behind in keeping up with this thread, but one has got to earn a livin’ I suppose.
I’ll get on here asap, probably in the morning- hopefully the thread won’t be 200 posts beyond where I last left off.
“An unborn baby is already part of Humanity, going through part of his/her Creation/Evolution process, hopefully born into a situation where Love is instilled”
Evasion.
So the answer is yes?
From Nzo to KYU: “I’m having difficulty believing that you aren’t misreading your own arguments, much less mine. You’re contradicting yourself, hurting your own arguments, and failing to keep up with your own obscure points. I’d wager anyone would have difficulty not going cross-eyed trying to figure out what your point really is.”
yeah, cross-eyed- that’d be me all right. What is the current point on the table? Absolute truth existing? Moral relativism?
KYU, it’s been clearly demonstrated to you that morality and ethos do evolve. Everything is relative to the time and culture within which a person finds themself. You, along with Master Aramas are wanting some type of “final authority” on this right/wrong business, because it would seem that you are way too uncomfortable with morality being a subjective thing.
Lest you forget, this current argument began with Master Aramas saying he had “solid proof” that God existed because ___________ (see his Proof #1 from earlier) and you agreed with him KYU. Master Aramas has, for whatever reason, chosen not to defend his “proof”, and you KYU, are making a muddle of it (well, it was pretty muddled to begin with, but I still think Master A should be putting in his 2 cents worth and not letting KYU do all his talking).
BTW, Master Aramas, since Proof #1 was so incredibly “solid”, I can’t wait to hear about #2. “Number two” is exactly what I’m expecting it’ll be.
…Wow. This thread explodes by the hour. ;D
Um, reformedfred, maybe you have all the time in the world to sit there and argue, but I do not. I am interested in reading your comments (everyone’s), and in the various opinions suggested in each, but if you get on back because I don’t post enough for your liking, you’ll just have to get over it. I’ve got a life to live as much as you.
Also, and before you accuse me of not posting enough, please at least answer my own questions before saying I don’t speak up.
SECONDLY, I noted the comments of Nzo above as he replied first to my theory.
“Argument of opinion. Nothing more. We do not require an imaginary friend to give us morals. The evolving society has kept a general set of guidelines as to what is good, what is not.
Morals? Your book is pro-genocide, pro-rape, pro-sacrifice, and pro-slavery. I suppose if you get your morals from there, it is my duty to tell you that we atheists don’t believe in those things.
We are all animals. We just happen to be the smartest of them. At one point we weren’t any smarter than a chimpanzee. Read MH’s beloved canine incest line above for the rest of this argument. It’s been beat to death.
“For instance, if we evolved from apes, why is it wrong for me to blow up somebody else, cheat somebody out of millions, assassinate the president? Who’s gonna stop me? Quite frankly, by denying the existence of God, you’re telling me that there’s nothing higher than human beings, am I right? Well then, I (and we) can make the rules, right? After all, there’s no one greater to stop us.”
Maybe for immoral xtians like yourself. Or maybe for those ‘islamic’ extremists that you now sound like. Thanks, we atheists will go on with our lives, knowing that we don’t have some ’second life in jeebusland’.
Humans DO make their own rules. The ruling powers, be they elected or otherwise, create laws, determine the things that will be punished and those that will not.”
Firstly, I think we can both agree that TRUTH, no matter which side it is on, atheist or otherwise, is EVER a, ‘matter of opinion.’ The evolving society? So are we saying here that perhaps in the future, murder, rape, stealing, and all that evil will be quite acceptable? And if this is something that society teaches us, evolving or not, if we wanted to couldn’t we just change it at our leisure then? After all, society isn’t law, right? We could all go to some desert island and make our OWN idea of society, they way we wanted it, rape and murder galore. Morals don’t work that way, I’m sorry.
The BIBLE? Support slavery? Murder? Rape? HUH!? Please, where is that found? Give me one good example.
Go look up this: Exodus 20:13-16,
” YOU SHALL NOT MURDER.
YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.
YOU SHALL NOT STEAL.
YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR.”
You also said,
“Maybe for immoral xtians like yourself. Or maybe for those ‘islamic’ extremists that you now sound like. Thanks, we atheists will go on with our lives, knowing that we don’t have some ’second life in jeebusland’.
Humans DO make their own rules. The ruling powers, be they elected or otherwise, create laws, determine the things that will be punished and those that will not.”
Maybe? What kind of truth-seeking argument is maybe? Maybe? Maybe not? And how can you possibly call somebody who believes in the above mentioned verses, ‘immoral?’ If anything, Christians, who are against homosexuality and abortion, have a stricter moral code than anyone! You missed my point. If there’s no God, why can’t I make up what’s right and wrong on my own then?
The Bible does teach murder is wrong. Explained above. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. However, do you consider all killing to be murder? Example, if someone was to break into your house and aim a gun at your wife or children, wouldn’t you shoot him on sight? There’s a difference between murder innocents, those unworthy of death, and defending yourself or your loved ones. The reason wars rage throughout the Old Testament is due to evil, and the wars when God’s people rise up to defend themselves against it, if you care to look. Killing in defense of yourself is permitted in the Bible, not absolutely NOWHERE (find me a verse, if you disagree) is raping or stealing supported. That’s why we have things called SOLDIERS, ARMIES, WEAPONS. They’re aren’t to murder, but to protect and defend ourselves if needs be.
Again, you said,
“The laws of your country. We hope. If not, go for it.”
If it’s its only our government that tells us what’s right and wrong, then can other nations’ governing powers make up their own code, such as, ‘In our country you CAN rape and murder,’ and it would be morally right? Is it right then for someone to get to power, and then use nuclear weapons to blow Americans off the map? Moral?
Umm again, you listed several verses that explain the occasional need for killing in defense, not outright murder of innocents.
“Really? *looks up* Nope, they must be pulling your leg. Definitely supposed to murder people for silly things. If you aren’t, you’re ignoring more parts of the bible than you’re paying attention to.”
Um, yeah. Listed above. Shall I show you more passages? And yes, the Bible supports punishing people for crimes they are guilty of, and for defending yourself(don’t we all believe that?).
On TOP of that, all those passages you just quoted came out of the Old Testament, which was the law written to the Jews, NOT Christians. It wasn’t even written by God to apply to Christians AFTER Jesus’ death and life.
You mentioned Judges 21:10-24 NLT as a passage that supports rape, murder, and evil.
Um, again, no. If you care to read the entire story instead of the part you like to hear, you’ll find that the people of Jabesh-gilead had become so morally corrupt, that is was THEY who were doing the raping. Judges 19:22-30. Thus, the just punishment for the men of that city was to kill them all, and thus insure that such evil would never happen again. Secondly, I think you’re reference to raping was the part at Judges 21:14-16.
“And Benjamin returned at that time, and they gave them the women whom they had kept alive from the women of Jabesh-gilead, yet they were not enough for them.”
Verse 16,
“Then the elders of the congregation said, “What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?”
Um, these women were married, not raped. MARRIED. (sigh) Wow.
And lastly,
“Really though, I don’t need to go through and answer the rest of your poorly-thought-out second-hand-knowledge, do I?”
I think you do. You still haven’t given me one good reason for why God doesn’t decide morals, and not anything human. And thus, if right and wrong exist, some God must.
Nzo,
I reckon you would not have any arguments if you did not have your inaccurate perceptions of the Bible to attack.
How in the hell did you ever give yourself the moniker of “Master” of anything? You don’t even know your own bible, let alone reductive reasoning. …”if right and wrong exist, some God must”. WTF???!!! If 2 + 2 equals 4, than there is for sure 70 virgins awaiting any man who dies. Yeah- I get the correlation…
Where does one begin to debate with you, MA? You make no sense whatsoever.
In fact, MA, you are quickly showing yourself to be someone not worthy of our time in that you have no abiltiy to understand, let alone appreciate, a logical and sequential argument!
Nzo has painstakingly taken the time to use your “language” (ie the Bible- your Word of God) to communicate with you the disparity (that’s a big word that means incongruous ideas) (incongruos is a big word that means doesn’t add up) betwen the plumb-line you’d like us to use for morality and what the bible actually says. You are like a little kid, covering his ears, and repeating “lalalalalala, can’t hear you!” What can you hear, except that which you have already deemed truth?
Go away MA. This forum seems to be for people who can at least begin with a thoughtful (read: educated) postulate, state their argument (clearly) and entertain viewpoints of others. You have none of this going for you. If you want things black and white, there are plenty of web-sites that will gratify your childish thinking. In fact you may come across as the hero with those folks. You know what they say about a one-eyed man in the village of the blind, don’t ya?
Either way- you annoy me. I applaud anyone who wants to try and talk some sense into you, but I’ve deemed you and your “proofs” as both ignorant ramblings of one who cannot see because he will not see, and a mere fly in the ointment of an otherwise interesting discussion.
I think it’s about time to get back to the basics.
The arguments are starting to become reliant on the definition of words, much like a court case file.
Let’s start with the easy part.
Atheists
- reject the notion that there is a supernatural being, of any sort, based on lack of evidence and evidence to the contrary.
- reject the validity of the bible based on many facts that point to the contrary.
- must have concrete evidence, documentation, and logic to be convinced otherwise.
Xtians
- believe that the bible is literally true.
- believe god and jeebus exist.
- reject concrete evidence, documentation, and logic that proves differently than the above points.
~~~~
A note to those xtians who don’t take the bible literally, who have the ‘relationship’ ideas, or the ‘not all of the bible, just these parts’ ideas, or the ‘hierarchy of what to believe’ ideas.
~
The ‘relationship’ argument is nothing more than a child’s belief in an imaginary friend. Nothing, anywhere, that wasn’t written recently, says anything about having a ‘relationship’ with jeebus and god. This is a new idea that you tote around as being ‘truth’, or ‘true xtianity’.
Because of the lack of bible-period documentation of this belief system, there is very little about it that can be effectively argued. The result will ALWAYS be, “It’s what I believe, you have no right to tell me I’m wrong”. Of course, this is assuming that one has no right to tell a child his imaginary friend doesn’t exist. (Please don’t insult us by saying it’s any different because it is god. You have no more proof that god exists than Christopher Robin has for Pooh. The ONLY documentation you have to work with is the bible you have to half-reject to believe this anyway.)
~
The ‘not all of the bible, just these parts’ invites the dismissal of the entire book in and of itself.
You can’t take an ancient text, cut out the parts you don’t like, and make a belief system out of it that anyone will take seriously. One part of the bible can be no more true than the rest of it. Why? There is no documentation that the bible is true in the first place. If you’re going to take an ancient text as a belief system, you just believe it. There’s no logical way to pick and choose.
~
The ‘hierarchy of what to believe’ idea is a new one on me. It must be VERY new in the xtian scene.
I’d like to see even recent documentation of this hierarchy. What comes behind what jeebus taught? Is it jeebus, david, saul, moses, gabriel, abraham? I’d hardly call it a hierarchy without more than two levels.
The main issues with this belief system are the same as the pick-and-choosers above.
Is there any part of the bible that invites this hierarchy? Any documentation written in bible times on ‘how to read and interpret the bible’?
~~
The whole idea here is that, if you do not take that which you base your beliefs on literally, then there is no set documentation or belief system that you are able to argue for. You’re saying, ‘believe what I believe, because I believe I’m right,’ nothing more.
~~~~
Back to the ‘basics’.
Because xtians reject science, logic, and evidence on principle, the only way for an atheist to argue with one is to use the bible.
(e.g. “this set of data suggests your bible is incorrect” – “bible is correct because it is the word of god” will never work)
Because atheists reject the bible, an xtian must try to use science, logic, and evidence, to argue with one.
(e.g. “god exists because the bible says so” – “i don’t believe in the bible” will never work)
Not all atheists or xtians are interested in arguing their side, those that are would be well advised to really do some in-depth research into the playing field for their arguments.
What is seen here, is many atheists who are, often, more familiar with the bible than the xtians defending it, and many xtians using flawed logic, false science, and ’spiritual’ evidence to support their claims.
~~~~
The issue with an xtian trying to argue directly against the beliefs of an atheist is that the xtian will never accomplish his/her goal unless there is some reason for the atheist to believe the bible, or in god and jeebus. If this is not accomplished, and the atheist is convinced that his/her ideas are flawed, he/she will merely shift to another atheistic set of beliefs.
Therefore, the xtian must first establish his/her argument FOR xtianity, THEN move on to the argument that the atheist is wrong in their beliefs.
For an example of this error, see KYU’s ‘moral relativism’ argument.
~~~~
The problem with an xtian claiming that he/she is a ‘real xtian’ and the others are not, is the fact that EVERY xtian beliefs they are a ‘real xtian’. Which begs the question.
WHO IS A REAL XTIAN AND WHY? <— needs to be answered by many of you. Preferably with documentation supporting your argument, because otherwise it’s a childish claim like, ‘my daddy can beat up your daddy’.
Second to last paragraph above, “beliefs” -> “believes”.
My apologies to those like me who go cross-eyed when they read something like that.
>.< I’m slipping in my old age.
“I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.” — Mark Twain
Screw basics, let’s talk about something that will push our minds further:
This exchange brought together some ideas that have been rolling around in discussions & my head:
Nzo: I’d like to see even recent documentation of this hierarchy. What comes behind what jeebus taught? Is it jeebus, david, saul, moses, gabriel, abraham? I’d hardly call it a hierarchy without more than two levels.
MH: A way of explaining that is by asking “What’s more important, writings that describe the teachings and practices of the leader of a movement or those of one of his followers or a follower of a follower.” Now the original people Jesus chose and then Paul, Titus, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley and just about everyone else involved in the Christian faith has encountered specific issues with different groups while growing the faith that Jesus did not encounter in founding the faith. That means the way we handle our faith changes as our societies change. Really big changes were various Councils that sought to consolidate various Christian theologies, the Great Schism which marked a major split in theologies, the Reformation which sought to correct but spurred the variety of denominations we see today, and what is now being looked at as the Emergence which seems to re-connect the many theologies that have developed.
What if we applied the principles of evolution theory of evolution to the way people approach their faith?
We see that life forms, adapts, and changes to fill whatever niche it can thrive in.
Perhaps the various systems of faith and belief follow a similar pattern of development.
The ideas of faith started very small and naturally.
As they were shared they grew and changed.
Variations took off in different directions.
Some got refined, others died out.
I’ll just begin with one thing here so as not to get too mired down with all I could say and want to say…
MH~ I want to begin with your statement:
“Does not believe” & “reject the notion” are very different things. To believe is to take ownership, to reject only opposes what someone else believes, which actually reinforces it. Try again.
Ok, so humor me here… Michael Honza does not believe in Santa Claus. He rejects the notion that a benevolent man, with special powers, visits children all over the world on Dec. 24th, bringing them toys or coal depending on their behavior.
But wait! These are two different things. To believe in Santa, is to take ownership, but to reject Santa only opposes those who believe in Santa, which actually reinforces the belief in Santa.
Good grief (ya like that better than when this atheist says good god?)! You are so incredibly twisted in your thinking here, Michael! You are saying that to reject an idea is to give credence that the idea exists in the first place, and thus is a support of that idea. Are you insane!?!? Do you apply this logic of yours anywhere else other than your bad is good, up is down, world?
Michael’s people: Uh- I reject the notion that people evolved from apes. Oh no, wait, I can’t. If I say I reject that idea, it means it really is an idea, andthat I am reinforcing that idea, so I, um, I um…
Here’s a thought: Take any ideology out there that you do not subscribe to, and apply your “rejection = reinforcement” crapola and then check back with us.
Back to basics? How can anyone try and carry on a decent conversation with you? You are wasting your time in ministry and ought to get into becoming a public defender.
“You are wasting your time in ministry and ought to get into becoming a public defender.”
I liked this.
Cshaw!
Oh, Nzo. You have brought me great delight…
MH: “Why am I here?,” perhaps even more basic would be “Why am I thinking?” I’m not a big fan of religion but there is at least a philosophical component to our lives.
Nzo: Both questions can be answered, scientifically, without the need for a god. Or, if you choose to continue asking ‘why?’, you merely have one more step before ‘I don’t know’ than I do. Your god.
I’ll take that and give you a hearty “Amen!”
That one was WAY up there.
I do hope you understand that scientific theories and non-scientific theories are two very different things.
I’m curious as to what the criteria is to have a ‘faith theory that holds up without having to suspend any known science’.
It looks like another ‘god of the gaps’ thing. Where he only exists where science can only hypothesize.
Because their pastors say what they want to hear, and I don’t. They’re all for saying AMEN to out-of-context stuff when it fits with their theology, but love to shout OUT OF CONTENT/ISOGESIS/ETC as soon as it disagrees.
David, Daniel,
Taking scripture out of context can create problems and misunderstandings regardless of who is doing it.
It comes down to your desire.
Is a person trying to stay true to the intention of the writer and the purpose for the writing or trying to reach a conclusion that was not the original intent?
Scripture, in or out of context, is hardly plausible as a man-made book(s), let alone “God inspired”. Original intent, context, what have you, doesn’t matter, I wouldn’t go staking the farm on it.
Why are you so interested in the intention of the writer of a ~2k year old book? Who cares what his purpose was? It was written so long ago that any hidden meaning, or intention behind it could not possibly have survived to this day.
refromedfred, Nzo,
Intention and context is what gives any writing it’s meaning.
What readers do with it then is to either stay true to that intention or not.
MH
You’re telling me you know the intentions of one of the writers of some of the stories in the bible?
I call MASSIVE BS. I’m afraid that’s something you’ll have to prove.
Again with the ‘documentation’ aspect of the discussion. Please, provide something that shows that you’re not just pulling all your beliefs out of your nether regions.
SRY for the spam, but you said the exact same thing above and it somehow was posted up there.
At any rate, I’d imagine PsiCop has already answered any more… arguments you may have for your ‘intention’ idea.
Sorry for any double posts, my responses have been ending up in strange places.
Nzo,
This is a weak arguement, as is this entire series.
You are projecting your own lack of faith into a system of faith. The bible has always been a book about faith.
You and others here are asking for scientific documentation and proof for the writings of a system of faith. You all might as well be asking someone how they “feel” about gravity.
MH,
What exactly is your purpose on this forum? To tell other xtians they aren’t real xtians? To tell atheists that there’s no way to argue against you because there’s no more proof for what you believe than there is for an imaginary friend, or voices in your head?
My arguments have been spot-on. I’ve gone much further in depth in my arguments than anything you’ve said has deserved.
You, MH, are projecting your faith into a forum of no faith. This forum has always been about unreasonable faith.
You and others here are here to be proven wrong.
Heh, you DO know there’s plenty of scientific documentation about gravity, correct?
Tell you what, I’ll pick up a coin, and let go of it. I’ll do this 150 times. YOU do the same, but ask your god to make it float… or fly around the room, whatever.
After this little experiment, why don’t we tell each other how we ‘feel’ about gravity.
Yes, that was going to be my second point. Who will be the authority on what the writer meant, how do you know that, and even if you are spot on, is it the word of God or a word about God?? And yes, does it even matter? God really ought to update his material. My favorite comedian does…
refromedfred, Nzo,
Intention and context is what gives any writing it’s meaning.
What readers do with it then is to either stay true to that intention or not.
~ ~Qualifying Creative Quality~
O how I wish there was a real good God
Helping us survive Earths bacterial sod
Ministering to all through sweet dreams
With an encouraging morality that gleams
Supplying a mortal frame that will not rot
Having hemoglobin that will not brain clot
Bones that bend rather than break in a fall
A body that can endure any reality all in all
This God won’t condone bacteria’s & viruses
He would be with us through any bad crises
The great God would not allow religious wars
He will not accept humans dying by the scores
Crime and corruption is not his mental making
Persons would be real in heart without faking
A real God needs not churches, clergy & prayer
If he did it right, we would treat each other fair
Using truth, beauty, goodness and loving service
A visible God can keep folks from being nervous
He must have a working universe administration
To detour big Meteorites from Earths devastation
His celestial workers could regulate the Suns heat
And stop the worlds wobble, keeping the orbit neat
I’m just a puny fragile skin & bones evolving mortal
And have the commonsense in seeing a better portal
Boiling reality down to a usable tangible conception
We’re that freewill choice person called God in action
Reality goes at the speed of choice, that be understood
Quality thoughts will evolve this world into the good
Shit I wish there was a really good God from everyone
Helping each other survive by tilling Earths sod for fun
We could actualize our sweet dreams through ministry
Our moral code would express a higher creative dynasty
Happiness and contentment would exemplify good health
Religions no longer create the poor, we would have wealth
Fear gossips, deity myths, and stupid superstition expelled
We Earthlings can enjoy life from good thoughts propelled
Want bliss? Think about this
~~~commonsensekid~~~
MH
You’re telling me you know the intentions of one of the writers of some of the stories in the bible?
I call MASSIVE BS. I’m afraid that’s something you’ll have to prove.
Again with the ‘documentation’ aspect of the discussion. Please, provide something that shows that you’re not just pulling all your beliefs out of your nether regions.
If you cannot defend your beliefs, you’re in the wrong area. Look for forums of those who believe things without proof. Maybe another religious forum somewhere.
As it stands now, it seems like you’re merely jumping behind one seemingly defensible position after another. You had ‘context’ and ‘intent’… what do you have now? Imaginary friends.
I really don’t have to say much more than Jabster here, but I’m more or less on the same page as him.
I personally have a serious issue allowing adults, who talk to ghosts and believe what cattle-sacrificing primitives believed, to roam freely and unchecked by society. Your beliefs have nothing to do with the real world, therefore your actions, and the way you live your life, have little or nothing to do with the real world.
Your religion is an excuse. An excuse to look down on others, to say what you believe as if it were fact, to defend it as fact when you have no evidence, to sweep any dissenting opinion under the rug as ’satan’ or ‘heathen’-talk, to hate, lie, cheat, steal, and kill.
You haven’t once explained a single incorrect conclusion. If you’ve tried, you haven’t given us any more proof than… you yourself telling us we’re wrong. Do you get where I’m coming from here? We’re not wrong just because you say so. Theist/Atheist arguments don’t exactly work that way. But that seems to be where you’re going with all of this. I’d suggest you move right along to plan T, or whatever letter you’d be at if you’d planned your posts from the beginning.
I really don’t have to say much more than Jabster here, but I’m more or less on the same page as him.
I personally have a serious issue allowing adults, who talk to ghosts and believe what cattle-sacrificing primitives believed, to roam freely and unchecked by society. Your beliefs have nothing to do with the real world, therefore your actions, and the way you live your life, have little or nothing to do with the real world.
Your religion is an excuse. An excuse to look down on others, to say what you believe as if it were fact, to defend it as fact when you have no evidence, to sweep any dissenting opinion under the rug as ’satan’ or ‘heathen’-talk, to hate, lie, cheat, steal, and kill.
You haven’t once explained a single incorrect conclusion. If you’ve tried, you haven’t given us any more proof than… you yourself telling us we’re wrong. Do you get where I’m coming from here? We’re not wrong just because you say so. Theist/Atheist arguments don’t exactly work that way. But that seems to be where you’re going with all of this. I’d suggest you move right along to plan T, or whatever letter you’d be at if you’d planned your posts from the beginning.
***My posts keep showing up midway up the thread. I’ll post on the comments thread if you don’t read this Daniel, but it’s happened a couple times now… seems to be happening to others too!
MH,
You have not explained WHY we are errant. You’re still being childish and just saying ‘you’re wrong, but I won’t tell you why”.
Faith, the type you’re talking about, is a character defect. It’s a belief system that weak-minded people hide behind when they don’t want to have to think about the real world.
There is no ‘way faith works’. You couldn’t put two people who have faith in something together and EVER find the same definition of the way faith works.
Based on what you’ve written, you’re completely delusional, NOT a christian in any real sense of the word, and completely unable to even remotely explain your beliefs to someone who doesn’t believe what you do.
Maybe you don’t believe in a ‘magic god’, MH, but you seem to believe in your magic ability to know the intentions of a ~2k year old book writer.
Tell me MH. Tell me why my conclusion that there is no god is errant. This is something you’ll really have to back up. This is the real purpose you’re here in this heathen forum.
But you’ve argued for this before, correct? You’ve basically said that we’d already have to believe what you believe… to believe what you believe.
Absolutely amazing.
sorry, instead of “10″ it was intended to say “1 distinct from 0″
“10″ means here “1 distinct from 0″, sorry
“MH: Would you feel better if said I follow the alleged teachings of Christ?
I’m still a Christian, you’re still an atheist.”
Why would you say so?
” It comes down to when you choose to give up asking questions”
You don’t have to answer.
“MH: His public teachings in all four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) would be the best place to begin. If that doesn’t do anything for you, nothing else I can say would matter.”
Perhaps we are speaking past each other. Let me try again.
You said further up thread that certain cited examples were bad because the people referenced weren’t really christian. I’m asking what it is in your mind that qualifies someone as truly christian. This isn’t a question of whether it “does anything for me” but me trying to understand what your criteria for the true christiandom are.
What is it that makes someone as true christian as opposed to a false one?
Daniel – This could be operator error, but the new format seems to be randomly dropping comments in strange places. I just tried to comment at the end of a thread and it dumped the comments somewhere in the middle.
Bill, Daniel has answered this,
The older posts (this one) are going to have these kinds of bugs. He has been unable to fix this problem, and I wouldn’t blame him if he didn’t look. We’ll just have to move on to newer threads.
Thanks – not trying to be critical – just trying to figure it out.
Yeah sorry guys, I looked into this more today but still haven’t found a fix. I guess I’ll have to pray…
Not if you want a useful answer at any point in time.
Someone trying to find the answer to whatever you’re asking ‘why?’ to would have to forgo the presupposition of god to find any useful answers.
I’m almost speechless here. Rationalization is all you’ve done here, MH. You haven’t once given a reasonable answer as to why you believe what you do.
You’re freely admitting that your definition of ‘christian’ is one you came up with all on your own.
History must support and convey the teachings of jesus? This is ‘reason’?
Wouldn’t it have sucked if no one ever found anything I would consider useful because they presupposed a god?
Every technological advancement made wouldn’t have been made if they thought like you. No one would have tried to understand anything that god did.
But, I suppose ‘useful’ is just one of those words you like to argue about.
I’ll bow to the master of taking things out of context.
Though I’d have to disagree with you that any bomber would believe he wasn’t actually doing harm. Maybe he doesn’t care, or maybe he wants to. But I seriously doubt he thinks about rainbows and ponies when he drops his payload.
Repeating yourself. The latter sounded better, but my definition could easily be used for that. Why not just admit it?
If your understanding of ‘useful’ leads you to believe that saying ‘god did it’ is useful, then your personal definition includes that evasion of truth. Works with ‘christian’ too.
I doubt you have the expertise to do this yourself. Also, I doubt your chosen critic had anything but a christian agenda. But I’m sure that it wouldn’t matter to you anyway. Either way, It’s not YOUR reason you’re speaking of. You’re allowing someone else to figure it all out for you.
You can attribute that to me not presupposing the existence of a god.
Me too! But just think if those guys thinking up new ideas presupposed god! We wouldn’t have any of this nice stuff!
Fortunately, my reasoning isn’t subject to just anything I’m exposed to. I wouldn’t see a house fire and think a dragon did it because I saw Trogdor burninating the countryside.
Being original and having a good reason for thinking a certain way are two different things.
My point was that you yourself have no qualifications to be a textual critic of the bible. If you had the experience, and education to do so, your viewpoint is already compromised by your faith. Your viewpoint is that of someone else who has done the work for you, which in-and-of itself is not a bad thing. Unfortunately for you, this person has an agenda to fulfill.
You like the matthew and mark gospels, right?
Have you concluded yet that the most plausible explanation for the relationship of the synoptic gospels is that mark is the original, and luke and matthew used mark and another (unknown) common source?
I realize that the developing of the structure and content were independently orchestrated, but I wonder if your studies led you to that information.
An interesting conversation —-
* Srila Prabhupad – refers to a Indian saint, well versed with all the vedic scriptures and reliogious leader.
This helped me…may be helpful to all in the group…God Bless…
———————————————————————————————————————-
Life on Other Planets
Srila Prabhupada. Even on the sun and moon there are living entities.
What is the opinion of the scientists?
Dr. Singh. They say there is no life there.
Srila Prabhupada. That is nonsense. There is life there.
Dr. Singh. They say that there is no life on the moon because they did
not find any there.
Srila Prabhupada. Why do they believe that? The moon planet is covered
with dust, but within that dust the living entities can live. Every
atmosphere is suitable for life–any atmosphere. Therefore the Vedas[1]
describe the living entities as sarva-gatah, which means “existing in
all circumstances.” The living entity is not material. Although encaged
in a material body, he is not material. But when we speak of different
atmospheres, we refer to different material conditions.
Karandhara. They say that the moon’s atmosphere is unsuitable for life,
but all they can legitimately say is that it is unsuitable for life as
they know it.
Srila Prabhupada. The Vedas say that the living entity has no connection
with material things. He cannot be burned, cut, dried up or moistened.
This is discussed in Bhagavad-gita.[2]
Dr. Singh. Scientists extend their knowledge about life on this planet,
thinking that it must apply to life on other planets also.
Srila Prabhupada. Yes. They are thinking foremost of their own selves.
They are thinking limitedly, in terms of their own circumstances. This
is what we call “Dr. Frog’s philosophy. [Laughter.]
Once there was a frog in a well, and when a friend informed him of
the existence of the Atlantic Ocean, he asked the friend, “Oh, what is
this Atlantic Ocean?”
“It is a vast body of water,” his friend replied.
“How vast? Is it twice the size of this well?”
“Oh, no–much, much larger,” his friend replied.
“How much larger? Ten times the size?” In this way, the frog went
on calculating. But what is the possibility or ever understanding the
vastness of the great ocean in this way? Our faculties, our experience,
and our powers of speculation are always limited. The speculations of
the scientists only give rise to such frog philosophy.
Karandhara. The basis of what they call “scientific integrity” is that
they talk only about what they can directly experience.
Srila Prabhupada. You may talk about your experience, and I may talk
about my experience. But why should I accept your experience? You may be
a fool, so why should I also become a fool? You may be a frog, but
suppose I am a whale. Why should I take your well as all in all? You
have your method of acquiring scientific knowledge, and I have mine.
Dr. Singh. Because the scientists haven’t detected any water on the
surface of the moon, they’ve concluded that no life could survive there.
Srila Prabhupada. They haven’t seen the whole surface of the moon.
Suppose someone were to come here from another planet, drop into the
Arabian Desert and then return home. Could he come to a complete
conclusion about the nature of the whole earth? His knowledge would not
be complete.
Karandhara. They have a device that senses water. They say they’ve had
it orbit the moon, and they’ve concluded that the moon has no water and
therefore no life.
Srila Prabhupada. Even if, as on the sun, there is apparently no water,
still there are living entities there. How does a cactus grow in the
desert, apparently without water?
Karandhara. It gets water from the atmosphere.
Srila Prabhupada. Yes, because the atmosphere contains all the elements
needed to sustain life: earth, water, fire, air and ether. In anything
material, all these elements are present. For example, in my body there
is water, although you cannot see it. Similarly, you don’t see fire in
my body, yet my body is warm. Where does this warmth come from? You
don’t see any fire. Do you see any fire burning in my body? Then where
does the warmth come from? What is the answer?
The Universe in the Atom
Srila Prabhupada. All matter is a combination of five gross elements
(earth, water, fire, air and ether) and three subtle elements (mind,
intelligence and false ego).
Karandhara. According to the Vedic science, material energy begins with
the false ego and then develops into the intelligence, then the mind and
then the gross elements–ether, air, fire and so on. So the same basic
ingredients are present in all matter. Is this right?
Srila Prabhupada. Yes. The creation of the material universe is like the
growth of a great banyan tree[3] from a tiny seed. No one can see the
tree within the seed, but all the necessary ingredients for the tree are
there, including the required intelligence. Actually, everyone’s body is
simply a sample universe. Your body and my body are different universes,
small universes. Therefore, all eight material elements are present
within our bodies, just as they are within the whole universe.
Similarly, an insect’s body is another universe.
Karandhara. How about the atom?
Srila Prabhupada. The same formula applies: all these constituents are
within the atom. Anor aniyan mahato mahiyan (Katha Upanisad 1.2.20).
This means that whether something is extremely large or infinitesimal,
it is still made of the same basic elements. This is true everywhere in
the material world. Just as a woman’s small watch has all the requisite
machinery for its smooth functioning, so an ant has all the necessary
brain substance to manage its affairs nicely. How is this possible? To
answer this properly, you must minutely examine the brain tissues in the
ant. But this you cannot do. Moreover, there are innumerable insects
smaller than the ant. So there must be a mechanical arrangement for all
this detailed activity, but scientists cannot discover it.
Relativity and Knowledge
Srila Prabhupada. All living entities possess the required intelligence
to execute four principles: eating, sleeping, sexual intercourse and
defense. These four principles exist even in the atom. The only
difference in the human being is that he has the extra intelligence with
which to understand God. This is the difference. Ahara-nidra-bhayamaithunam
ca samanam etat pasu-bhir naranam. Eating, sleeping, sex life
and defense are to be found everywhere. You have seen trees growing.
Wherever there is a knot, the bark does not go this way; it goes that
way. [Srila Prabhupada gestures to show that a tree's bark grows not
over a knot, but around it.] The tree has intelligence: “If I go this
way, I will be blocked, so I will go that way.” But where are its eyes?
How can it see? It has intelligence. That intelligence may not be as
good as yours, but it is intelligence. Similarly, a child also has
intelligence, though not as developed as his father’s. In due course of
time, when the child gets a body like that of his father, the child’s
intelligence will be fully developed and exhibited.
Dr. Singh. Then intelligence is relative.
Srila Prabhupada. Yes. Everything is relative. You have your body, your
duration of life, and your intelligence, and the ant has his. Both we
and the ant live for one hundred years, but the length of our hundredyear
life-span is relative to our bodies. Even Brahma, the longestliving
entity in this universe, lives for one hundred years. To us the
ant’s life-span may seem only a few days. In the same way, on other
planets with atmospheres different from the earth’s, there are lifeforms
suited to those conditions. But the scientists try to view
everything according to the relative conditions of planet earth. This is
nonsense. Why are they doing that? If the whole cosmic manifestation
follows the law of relativity, how can the scientist say that the
conditions of this planet must apply to life on other planets? The Vedas
instruct us that knowledge must always be considered in terms of desakala-
patra. Desa means “circumstances,” kala means “time,” and patra
means “the object.” We must understand everything by taking these three
elements into consideration. For example, a fish is living very
comfortably in the water, and we are shivering on the shore of the sea.
This is because my desa-kala-patra and the fish’s desa-kala-Patra are
different. But if we conclude that the sea gulls will also shiver in the
water, that is nonsense; their desa-kala-patra is again different. There
are 8,400,000 different species of life in the material cosmic
manifestation, and each species must adjust to circumstances
differently. Even on this planet, you cannot go live comfortably in
Alaska, although it is America. Similarly, the living entities enjoying
life in Alaska do not come here.
Karandhara. Relativity, then, is based upon our individual situation.
Srila Prabhupada. Yes. Therefore it is said that what is food for one is
poison for another.
Brahmananda Swami. Because scientists cannot survive on the moon, they
think no one else can.
The 8.6-Billion-Year Day
Dr. Singh. The problem with the world is that practically everyone is
thinking only in terms of his own circumstances–and that is nonsense.
Student. Someone who has never gone out of his village thinks that his
village is the whole world.
Srila Prabhupada. Yes. The frog is always thinking in terms relative to
his well. He has no power to think otherwise. The ocean is great, but he
is thinking of the ocean’s greatness in terms relative to his own
greatness. Similarly, God is great, but we are thinking of God in terms
of relative greatness, greatness relative to our own. There are certain
insects that are born at night, and they grow, bear offspring and die–
all before daybreak. They never see the morning. So if they conclude
that there is no morning, that is nonsense. In the same way, as soon as
we hear from the sastras [revealed scriptures] that Brahma’s duration of
life is equivalent to millions of our years, we do not believe it. We
say, “How can it be?” But Bhagavad-gita (8.17) says, sahasra-yugaparyantam
ahar yad brahmano viduh: “Four billion three hundred million
earth years equal Brahma’s twelve hours.” Even a leading Indian
politician who was known as a great scholar of the Gita could not accept
this information. He said it is mental speculation. Such a rascal! Yet
he is passing as an important scholar. This is the problem. Rascals and
fools are passing as scholars, scientists and philosophers, and
therefore the whole world is being misguided.
TLDR
Dear all,
A very nice conversation that helped me understand things better…May also help you all.
Srila Prabhupad – refers to a Indian saint who came to west to preach Krishna Conciousness…please read the below conversation…you will get another perspective from other cultures and that can help us understand Bible in clear picture.
God Bless….
———————————————————————————————————
The Invisible Pilot
Srila Prabhupada. Almost everyone in the world is under the false
impression that life is born from matter. We cannot allow this
nonsensical theory to go unchallenged. Life does not come from matter.
Matter is generated from life. This is not theory; it is fact. Science
is based on an incorrect theory; therefore all its calculations and
conclusions are wrong, and people are suffering because of this. When
all these mistaken modern scientific theories are corrected, people will
become happy. So we must challenge the scientists and defeat them;
otherwise they will mislead the entire society. Matter changes in six
phases: birth, growth, maintenance, production of by-products, dwindling
and death. But the life within matter, the spirit soul, is eternal; it
goes through no such changes. Life appears to be developing and
decaying, but actually it is simply passing through each of these six
phases until the material body can no longer be maintained. Then the old
body dies, and the soul enters a new body. When our clothing is old and
worn, we change it. Similarly, one day our bodies become old and
useless, and we pass on to a new body.
As Krsna says in the Bhagavad-gita (2.13), dehino ’smin yatha dehe
kaumaram yauvanam jara/ tatha dehantara-praptih: “As the embodied soul
continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the
soul similarly passes into another body at death.” And a little later
(2.18): antavanta ime deha nityasyok-tah saririnah. This means that only
the material body of the indestructible and eternal living entity is
subject to destruction. The material body is perishable, but the life
within the body is nitya, eternal.
Everything works on the basis of this living force. This is the
Pacific Ocean, and these high waves are being manipulated by living
force. This airplane [Srila Prabhupada gestures toward a passing
aircraft] is flying, but is it flying undirected?
Dr. Singh. Someone is directing it.
Srila Prabhupada. Yes. Everything is working under someone’s direction.
Why do the rascal scientists deny this? The airplane is a big machine,
but it is flying under the direction of a small spiritual spark, the
pilot. Scientists cannot prove that this big 747 airplane could fly
without the small spiritual spark. So, as the small spiritual spark can
direct a large plane, the big spiritual spark directs the whole cosmic
manifestation.
Setting the Real Problems Aside
Srila Prabhupada. The Svetasvatara Upanisadsays:
kesagra-sata-bhagasya
satamsah sadrsatmakah
jivah suksma-svarupo ‘yam
sankhyatito hi cit-kanah
According to this verse, the measurement of the soul, the
proprietor of the body, is one ten-thousandth part of the tip of a hair.
This is very small–atomic. But because of that atomic spiritual energy,
my body is working. That atomic spiritual energy is within the body, and
therefore the body works, and the airplane flies. Is it so difficult to
understand?
Suppose a man thinks himself very stout and strong. Why is he stout
and strong? It is only because within him there exists a spiritual
spark. As soon as the small spiritual spark is gone, his strength and
vigor disappear, and the vultures come and eat his body. If scientists
say that matter is the cause and origin of life, then let us ask them to
bring back to life just one dead man, one great man like Professor
Einstein. Let them inject some chemicals so that just one dead man may
come back to life and work again. But this they cannot do. There are so
many things they do not know, but still they are called scientists.
Dr. Singh. Sometimes when a problem is too dreadfully serious, we tend
to take it lightly.
Srila Prabhupada. Yes. When a monkey confronts a tiger, the monkey
closes its eyes, and the tiger immediately attacks. Similarly, if
scientists cannot solve a problem, they may think, “All right, let it go
on.” This is actually what they are doing, because our real problem is
death. No one wants to die, but scientists cannot stop death. They speak
superficially about death because they cannot give any relief from it.
We do not wish to die, we do not wish to become old, and we do not wish
to become diseased. But what help can the scientists offer? They cannot
do anything about it. They have set aside the major problems.
President Jackal
Srila Prabhupada. In Bengal there is a story called jangal-ki raja,
concerning a jackal who became king of the forest. Jackals are known for
their cunning. One day this jackal came into a village and fell into a
tub of blue dye. He fled to the forest, but he had become blue. So all
the animals said, “What is this? What is this? Who is this animal?” Even
the lion was surprised: “We have never seen you before, sir. So who are
you?” The jackal replied, “I have been sent by God.” So they began to
worship him as God. But then one night some other jackals began to cry:
“Wa, wa, wa!” And since jackals cannot restrain themselves from
returning the call of their own kind, this blue jackal also began to
cry, “Wa, wa, wa!” And thus he exposed himself before all the other
animals as being nothing more than a jackal. Many jackals have been
arrested and have resigned from your government.
Brahmananda Swami. The Watergate affair. It is called the Watergate
scandal.
Srila Prabhupada. Practically speaking, at the present moment no honest
man can become a government official. This is true everywhere. Unless
one is a rogue, a dishonest person, one cannot maintain his governmental
position. Therefore no noble man goes into the government. But what can
you do?
Dr. Singh. Politicians are the greatest cheaters.
Srila Prabhupada. Yes, they are scoundrels. One philosopher said that
politics is the last resort of scoundrels.
Science Should Stop Death
Brahmananda Swami. Do scientists know the cause of cancer?
Dr. Singh. They have several theories.
Srila Prabhupada. Suppose you know the cause of cancer. What is the
benefit? Even if you could stop cancer, you could not make a man live
forever. That is not possible. Cancer or no cancer, a man has to die. He
cannot stop death. Death may be caused, if not by cancer, simply by an
accident. Real scientific research should aim at stopping death. That is
real science, and that is Krsna consciousness. Simply to discover some
medicine to cure disease is not a triumph. The real triumph is to stop
all disease. Bhagavad-gita (8.16) asserts that the real trouble is
birth, death, old age and disease. Abrahma-bhuvanal lokah punar avartino
‘rjuna: “From the highest planet in the material world down to the
lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take
place.” The solution to the problem of repeated birth and death is Krsna
consciousness, which we are practicing and offering to everyone. The
perfect result of this practice is that after the present body becomes
useless and dies, one is no longer forced to accept a material body
subject to birth, death, disease and old age. This is real science.
Again, being original and having a good reason for thinking a certain way are two different things. An artist can be original, but that doesn’t mean that his original ideas are worth anything.
Let’s go ahead and substitute ’system of beliefs’.
My ’system of beliefs’, like science, moves with the evidence presented from the study.
A christian would have a vested interest in it being true, and would find some way to make it true.
A person of another religion would have a vested interest in it being false, and would find some way to make sure it was false.
A secular person would only care to find the truth.
Somewhat like peer review in science. There might be a scientist desperate to prove something he/she KNOWS is true, and would ‘cook the books’ to say what they wanted.
A scientist who wants to prove a different theory would probably try their best to make the experiment/information point to HIS/HER theory.
A scientist who has no agenda either way would be the best source of truthful information.
So, while I may be unqualified for in-depth textual criticism, I have a better chance of being an honest critic of your book than anyone with your faith. Hence why I’ve asked if your particular critic is qualified to be a critic.
Of course, all you’d be able to find out is what parts of the current book were garbled by scribes, or changed by people after the fact. It’s still a book of fairy tales for ancient people.
You mean finding out that any supernatural part of that book was %100 false leads you away from christianity. Self-centeredness has nothing to do with finding out the truth.
No, you have the answer to both to a certain point. How or why something works will be answered the same whether you are secular or religious. The religious merely say ‘god did it’ rather than ‘I don’t know’. Insuring that any child honestly curious about the ‘how’ or ‘why’ will not pursue the matter and try find out the truth.
I would imagine it has something to do with string theory and quantum mechanics, but we do not have an answer yet. But since this is after science, you place god here.
It’s funny that you still don’t see that your critic of choice could be completely dishonest about his/her faith and still fool every last one of you into honestly believing he or she was being honest. Let me break that down for you.
-critic lies to further his/her christian agenda
-critic tells you he/she did not lie
-you believe critic
-you believe a lie
Of course I’m speaking about a hypothetical situation. It’s true he would gain an interest as soon as you hired him to do the research. He’d have been paid to research and report the facts, he wouldn’t just develop a bias to cook the books.
Just the fact that you’d WANT as much bias as possible in the mix means you don’t really want the best environment for factual information.
I believe this was taken care of above, but of course I have the desire to learn about something I find interesting.
christian absolutes. I don’t need a ‘completed’ position. If I had all the answers I would find everything to be incredibly dull. My position is the only one suited for one who seeks truths and factual information. Yours seems to be the one for those who feel the need to be ‘complete’.
Even if I did feel the need to have an answer to everything, your god isn’t but one in many thousands of gods that could be real, and could have my answers.
Nope, the FSM touched me with his noodly appendage and told me so.
RAmen
MH I read your latest posting about the debate you’ve been having with us over there on your church’s web-site (www.woodwayfumc.org) and have included a quote from that posting here:
“I had entered the overall debate by correcting some errors in the use of scripture, writing “There is a big difference between being a follower of Christ and a literal biblical fundamentalist. The took considerable exchanges to sort out, but has resulted in some actual conversations between a few individuals. One conversation finally came around to what I actually believed or based my individual faith upon. I replied: “Chapters 5, 6, 7 of the gospel of Matthew and Mark 12:28-34 are a good place to begin.” When asked if that was all there was to it I followed up with His public teachings in all four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) would be the best place to begin. If that doesn’t do anything for you, nothing else I can say would matter.”
I guess what I have learned in this exchange is that we should not expect someone to come to faith by losing an argument. We must find a way to show in the way we live our lives that our faith makes a difference and should be worth looking at.
Perhaps it is only a desire to follow that begins the real process of faith.
Be Blessed!
Michael”
yeah- I think you are beginning to see the light. It is, indeed, the “desire to follow” that is faith’s foundation. The desire to be a sheep, ignoring everything around you, in order to hold onto a precious fairy tale that somebody on high loves you and has a plan for your life. Follow it ’til the cows come home if that makes you happy, but don’t think for one second that you’ve made any progress here selling your faith as “worth looking at”. You believe it all because you want to, because it fits with how you want to see things, evidence/facts/proof be damned.
JayZ,
That has got to be the most irritating copypaste I’ve ever seen. Your laziness in copying and pasting another’s arguments is only exceeded by the laziness of ensuring no one reads it by not separating the different speakers.
If you yourself have nothing to say, don’t post. Everything about you becomes an absolute waste of time.
I swore I’d never come back to this thread due to the posting issues, however…
JayZ,
That has got to be the most irritating copypaste I’ve ever seen. Your laziness in posting another’s arguments is only exceeded by the laziness of ensuring no one reads it by not separating the different speakers.
If you yourself have nothing to say, don’t post.
…the mistake people make about books b(r)ook=b(r)ach(OE)=bach(ger)=paca(N)=wash,
the words, b(l)ack/ b(l)anco(sp)=white, so books are black and white. the black is print/tint,
in a more elemental(for our purpose)language than english= hollin(sp)= h/th/t/tzotl/tzollin=
sod, soil, sot, besotted, why, it’s dirt/soot! quite different from, ollin(N)=holy, move, (r)oll,
which i take to be the living word, through the air, not the eye. one can’t say that the bible,
the torah, the koran is the living word when it is entombed in soot/tzotl/tzoloa(N)=compressed.
this is the danger of the written word, it can pose as holy for those who don’t understand
word and its origin, but it really comes from hollin/soot, the result of fire=tletl t/l/red/t/l,
the old god, not the new. a gossip/ cotoni cipactli(N)=cutsip= c/gos/t sip/actli in early
language had a religious function to cut the umbilical cord, e.g., cipactli=cipapu(hopi)=
hole of origin/ceppuku(Jap)=cutting the navel(ritual suicide), from, cipactli(N)=the scribe
of the quetzalcoatl expedition who made an inkwell of the metl/maguey plant to start
high-plains agriculture(no malaria in the mts) thereby producing a nutritive beverage
(more vitamines than wine, first metl/medicine/metl tzintli), so jap ritual suicide is
vegetable suicide, and a proof that they, the japanese, were here in amerindia,
as seppuku comes out of the metis/metl tradition. in any case it’s time to recognize
the gossip inherent in sacred books, any books, their ashen nature, and cut out
our harmful connexions to them, i.e., the knots that lead to erroneous and conflicting
beliefs that require strife. we’re one people on this earth. tks.
You can’t reply to threads for some reason, sorry about that. Haven’t been able to fix it.
“also if we have love and are created by God then God is love”
Hey! Why it only works for “love”?
If we have greed and are created by God then god is greed.
“else love would be an evloutinary emotion, from a survival of the fittest, organisms and even that could be defined as a God trait”
I prefer that explanation, as we have more evidence for it. Anyway… check what you know about evolution, now it is not more explained as “survival of the fittest” but “differential reproduction”.
I agree that evolution doesn’t disprove God. Still waiting for proofs supporting God, tough.
The God who created this wonderful world and human beings is TRUE, but, the God created by human beings (through all religions) is FALSE. You just only can recognize God by YOURSELF in the EXACT SECOND THAT YOU’RE LIVING IN, NEITHER BEFORE NOR AFTER…
Bible is above any human being or experience.God wrote it for humans knowing what they do.It is God’s ways to explain to his children what he wants to say.God pardons even the greatest sinner then why should he not address that sinner in his book? God at the same time loves good people then why should he not address them too? Human perspective to understand Bible is too small.We can’t be ‘that’ forgiving as God is yet we should try to be if we want to understand what God says in Bible.
Just found your site. Nicely done. I think your introduction to the ‘truth’ about the bible is spot-on.
If I may add a bit to Greg Koukl’s advice … I don’t even think reading the Bible in paragraphs is enough. Truly understanding what the Bible authors meant to write, at the time they wrote it, requires an intimate knowledge of their history and language. It requires knowing other literature and rhetoric from the same region and period. It requires making an effort to understand the writers and their world, genuinely and not anachronistically. It requires not merely knowing the context of a quotation of the Bible, but the ENTIRE CONTEXT in which each and every Bible book was originally written.
Even reading a paragraph at a time, will not do this. Not even close.
I have my degree in history and have studied the ancient period; although I have arrived at a number of conclusions of my own about various parts of the Bible, I can’t say that this has given me anywhere near enough expertise to presume to understand each and every Bible passage as intimately as that.
This, of course, is the problem. We have a lot of people who have beliefs about the Bible, and furthermore they assume — by virtue of being “Bible-believers” — that they know enough about it to understand what its authors meant … but let’s be honest, aside from maybe a couple hundred PhD historians and ancient linguists worldwide, not one of these folks has anywhere near the expertise to support that conclusion.
The natural conclusion of this line of thinking is that the common perception of the Bible as containing some kind of eternal message which is universal to all humanity and which stands firm for all time, is basically insupportable and absurd. Sure, as ancient literature, some of it does resonate with people today, or in any other time period. Art of any kind is like that; any work of art will always have an appeal that bridges time and place. But clearly not all of the Bible is relevant to us, e.g. the provisions about selling one’s daughter into slavery.
We could, of course, concentrate only on those select pieces of the Bible which DO have a timeless quality … but this leads to the question of whether or not these pieces are enough to build a religion upon? Also, once one decides that only parts of the Bible are timeless, this means that others are not. One must then ask, which ones? How does one know?
It’s a can of worms with few clear answers, if you ask me. It pretty much throws the whole thing into doubt.
Literalist-fundamentalists avoid dealing with this can of worms by insisting that it does not exist, that ALL of the Bible is timeless, and that they are entitled to read any portion of it as anachronistically as they wish, because of that presumption of timelessness.
Just look at the mess they’ve made of Revelation, a book which was originally written allegorically to introduce early believers to various symbols and principles of the religion, and to convey the seriousness of diverging from God’s path, as shown in Jesus’ dictated letters to the churches of Asia and in the divine retribution visited on humanity later in the book. They have made Revelation into some kind of perverse “future history”; merely because they can imagine it that way, they assume it must have been written that way.
What a joke.
PsiCop, you’re in a unique position, as a historian, to evaluate religious claims. Have you ever read anything by Bruce Metzger, Craig Blomberg, or Gary Habermas? I’m reading through Blomberg’s Historical Reliability of the Gospels, but I don’t have the background to evaluate his sources and references.
Jesse,
None of the three fellows you mentioned is or was credentialed as a historian. (Metzger comes closest since he was something of a historical linguist, but this isn’t exactly the same.) This means their opinions on the gospels, as history, cannot really reflect “history” as such.
I wrote an article some time ago on the historicity of Jesus, which you may be interested in (see http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/historicity.html). The bottom line is that the gospels are not “biographies” in a modern, even journalistic sense, and cannot be construed as historiographical in nature.
If one reads the gospels and chooses to believe Jesus exists, that’s one thing … but the gospels are not “evidence” of the life and deeds of a Jesus, any more than Le Morte d’Arthur (http://www.answers.com/topic/le-morte-d-arthur) is “evidence” that a King Arthur ruled over a united Britain in the 5th century and assembled a large, loyal cadre of knights whose adventures are recorded accurately therein.
You may also want to read the works of New Testament scholar Burton L. Mack and another scholar, a protege of Metzger in fact, Bart Ehrman.
Thanks for the link to your article; I’ll have to take time to read through it thoroughly. It seems to me the gist of it is that you doubt whether Jesus even existed, is that correct? By the way I do appreciate your honest assessment of the Jesus Seminar as guesswork.
Now are you really telling me that a non-historian can not know the truth about a historical document? Does that hold for other fields of study as well? Does this mean that no matter how much I study the arguments on both sides, if I don’t hold a degree in history, I can never really know who Jesus was or what he did?
PsyCop,
I’ll respond later, but I’d like to thank you for your straightforward and polite responses to my questions. I realize I may have worded them in such a way as to be abrasive, and for that I apologize. But you answered my questions, giving me the benefit of the doubt that I’m actually interested in your answers. Thank you.
PsiCop (this time I have the spelling correct),
You have made it abundantly clear, and I agree, that being a believer in Jesus does not somehow grant one the credentials to determine the historicity of an ancient document.
Does it then follow that being a follower of Jesus somehow discredits someone from discovering the truth about the matter? In particular, what disqualifies Craig Blomberg from having a say in the matter? Why should I trust Bart Ehrman instead of Bruce Metzger?
I didn’t say you should believe any of these guys over the others you mentioned, since none of the folks we’re talking about are historians per se. However, Ehrman and Mack both have pretty much the same credentials and background as Metzger did. The specific problem with Blomberg is that he is on the payroll of an explicitly-religious organization — the Denver Seminary — so his views are not unbiased.
The conflict of interest inherent in religious scholars propounding religious views while on the payroll of religious organizations is another of those things I have to point out — although I should not have to! — because while we’re able to identify conflicts of interest in other areas of life, we give religion a more-or-less free pass on the matter. We should not.
(For an example of a controversial conflict of interest which has been noted in another field, see http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/06/09/harvard-psychiatrists-under-fire-for-drug-company-funding/ If you can see what the problem is in that article, then you can understand why believers who make a living asserting the veracity of their own religions are simply not credible authorities).
One of the things I’ve found studying Christian history and looking into textual criticism, is that the majority of that work has been done by believers, who have a firm, dedicated, personal, and often vested financial interest in claiming Jesus existed. Moreover, there are a number of institutions — religious groups, orders of clergy, denominations, Bible colleges, seminaries, theology schools, etc. — who are actively and vocally advocating on their behalf of this view. On the other hand, contradicting voices are fewer and have little or no active backing.
This leads many people, believers and otherwise, to conclude there is no other possibility than that Jesus existed and that the gospels are irrefutable proof of that. It is neither as simple nor as obvious as that.
You can read folks like Mack or Ehrman, or not. For that matter you could read the famous and devout theologian, physician and philanthropist Albert Schweitzer, whose famous book on the subject throws Jesus’ divinity into doubt even though he does not dispute that Jesus existed.
But you do yourself a disservice by listening only to believers because they are believers.
Early in our discussion I asked for a definition from you of slavery, and I think your recent post describes it in detail. Let me see if I’ve read you properly; feel free to correct my understanding because as you say, the term ’slavery’ has a very particular meaning. It’s not subject to our opinion what qualifies as ’slavery,’ rather objective fact.
Slavery is:
1) Forced labor. The slave has no choice in the matter.
2) Involves the master physically abusing the slave.
3) Often, but not necessarily, involves physically dangerous labor, often ending in death of the slave.
4) Lack of adequate compensation for work.
5) Sexual abuse is permitted within slavery.
Is this correct?
I agree that we shouldn’t give religion a free pass when it comes to conflict of interests, and certainly a Christian shouldn’t listen to only believers on historical matters.
As a side note, that’s why Gary Habermas’ PhD dissertation particularly interests me, where he argues for the resurrection,
“he was told specifically [by his committee] that he could not use the New Testament as evidence, unless the individual passages could be affirmed by ordinary critical standards, apart from faith”
(http://www.garyhabermas.com/vitainnuce.htm)
Getting back on topic, is it fair to say this is a good summary of your beliefs? “…believers who make a living asserting the veracity of their own religions are simply not credible authorities.”
So does this apply to any field? For instance, what about evolution? (Let’s be careful to stay on topic here, because I don’t want to open the entire can of worms.) Aren’t the most credible scientists arguing in favor of evolution getting paid to perform research to validate the credibility of evolution? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the I.D. folks are not susceptible to conflict of interest either. But what makes these scientists immune to the same criticism you raised against Blomberg?
Furthermore, what about those who have a bias against the supernatural? What makes their bias any more valid than those who start off as theists?
If you want a definition, get a dictionary. We all know what slavery is, what kind of game are you playing that you can’t just admit it is part of the bible and you don’t like that?
Rather than admit that slavery real and horrible during biblical times, you are trying to.. what? Redefine it to be not so bad, or to claim that if it differs in the slightest from the way slavery was practiced in one particular part of the world a couple hundred years ago then it isn’t ‘real’ slavery? These are deceptive methods. Why can’t you just say, slavery was horrible then, horrible now, and horrible all times in between! Honest people can admit these things.
Why are you ashamed to admit that your holy book tacitly endorses slavery? I know you aren’t happy that it is in the bible, but why try to squirm around? Why not just admit it? I have asked you these questions. What is the explanation for your reluctance to face reality?
Are you denying that people were kept as slaves? No. Are you denying it was often harsh and horrible? I don’t see any denial. If you aren’t denying that, why are you playing games with definitions?
Like I said, honest people don’t need to play those games. Honest people can stand up and say that they don’t like slavery regardless of what their holy book tells them. Please be honest with yourself, if not with me.
Aor, if you’re interested in hearing reasons why I think the Bible does not endorse slavery as you understand it, then I’d be glad to continue this conversation.
On the other hand, if you’re going to continue accusing me of believing something I don’t, I have no interest in wasting my time or yours.
Jesse, you asked:
“So does this apply to any field? For instance, what about evolution? (Let’s be careful to stay on topic here, because I don’t want to open the entire can of worms.) Aren’t the most credible scientists arguing in favor of evolution getting paid to perform research to validate the credibility of evolution?”
Actually when scientists “get paid to do research,” what they are doing is coming up with hypotheses and testing them. The process of doing the testing is more important than whatever the result of the experiment is.
Science is more concerned with making discoveries than with endlessly confirming the status quo. If that had been true in the 19th century, the evolution model would have been dismissed out of hand. So too would relativity, quantum mechanics, and many other scientific innovations.
Also if you think about it, science is something of a competition. The means by which academic scientists make their living is by publishing results that stand up to peer review. Every scientist would love to make an earth-shattering discovery that overturns what had been decided already. This goes for any and every aspect of science, evolution included.
The idea that science somehow resists innovation is just absurd. If anything, it’s self-correcting in ways that religion never will be. Moreover, I suspect you know it.
You can do better than this, in your effort to rationalize your beliefs and dismiss anything to the contrary.
PsiCop, May I ask for another point of clarification? It seems to me you’re arguing that a scholar’s opinion should not be trusted they would resist anything that might change their opinion. Is this correct, or have I strayed from your main point?
Thank you again for your reply. I’ll respond later in more detail, but let me just say, for the record, I think that asking why is faith in God necessary for salvation is a perfectly valid question. It’s a separate issue from what we’re discussion now, but I’d be happy at a later point to articulate my understanding. It certainly deserves a more polite response than you’ve received in the past, and for that I’m sorry.
Jesse, you said: “You would not trust a Christian’s analysis of the historicity of the Gospels, even if he was an accomplished historian, because such a person would be enslaved to a particularly ideology which guarantees his conclusions before he even begins the investigation. Is this a fair way of putting it?”
No. You cited a number of scholars, and I said they were not historians so their claims about the historicity of Jesus, or the historigraphical nature of the gospels, are suspect by definition.
I then had to explain the nature of “credentials,” which led down a long road to your misunderstanding of the nature of science and beyond. At various points you have done your best to misstate what I have said, and you did it again just now.
This is fruitless. Clearly you are trying very hard to rationalize your beliefs; nothing I say matters to you because you always read it in some unintended way that reinforces your suppositions rather than exposing them. You are, of course, entitled to rationalize all you want. But I see no reason to waste my time or yours playing games with me while you do so.
All right, well I see I’ve worn thin your patience. Thanks for the discussion!
PsiCop,
I know a lot of religious folk do play word games to wrestle their opponents into admitting something they don’t actually believe. Well even non-religious people do that, but that’s beside the point. I myself have been guilty of doing just that. It’s not useful, and it’s not productive, so I apologize if I’ve even given the appearance of doing such a thing.
Personally I’m practicing seeking clarity and understanding _before_ agreement, and that’s why I’m asking so many questions. If I’ve mis-stated your opinion, it’s because I’ve not understood your argument, not because I’m trying to manipulate your words.
But my old habits of twisting words around are dying hard, and it’s shown by the fact that I’ve caused you so much frustration, so regardless of whether this conversation continues, please forgive me.
Well, perhaps, may I have one more chance to see if I’ve got your point? Are you saying that if an author is not a historian, his analysis of the historicity of the Gospels is likely to be false?
If I’ve completely missed it again, you are in no way obliged to keep up this discussion. You’ve taken the time to write a fine website which would go a long ways to helping me understand your particular line of reasoning; maybe I should spend my time studying what you’ve already written before asking any more questions of you.
Jesse,
It isn’t just that you’re playing “word games” with me. Once again you poorly restate the issue. You are NOT merely playing “word games.” You are VERY PURPOSELY misinterpreting everything I said.
Case in point: Near the start of this discussion, you mentioned three scholars in particular (Metzger, Blomberg, & Habermas). I pointed out that none of them are historians trained in determining what is historiographical and what isn’t. The topic moved around some after that.
You tried to return to the initial topic by asking, “you would not trust a Christian’s analysis of the historicity of the Gospels, even if he was an accomplished historian?”. But the beginning of our topic … which you pretended to be returning to … was, however, NOT about “a” Christian’s analysis (meaning any Christian), but the 3 scholars initially under discussion.
You took what I said, initially, about 3 specific scholars whom you named, then made it appear I had said that about ALL. Woops, wrong … it’s not what I said.
And what’s worse, you KNOW it.
Why should I continue wasting my time with you?
And perhaps more to the point for your own salvation, how Christian is it of you to engage in this sort of apologetic dishonesty? Would Jesus approve of it?
So you’re not making any general statements at all.
You go no further than saying that three authors in particular, Metzger, Blomberg, and Habermas are not trained in determining the historicity of ancient documents, therefore their analysis of the historicity of the Gospels is not worth taking the time to consider.
Is this correct?
What’s so stupid about it? Is it stupid to believe in God? Is it stupid to believe that God could have written something? Or is it stupid to believe that the Bible, in particular, was written by God?
Do you think Christians are all motivated by fear of the unknown? What, specifically, does this motivate us to be ignorant of? Is fear what takes an otherwise rational person and causes them to turn to stupidity?
Thanks. I’ve read Strobel as well as many others. They are not convincing to me.
Heath, what was it that eventually changed your mind?
Well. He sure showed you, Daniel. Now, thanks to his utterly vapid example of nitrogen (which can and has been proven through empirical science and can be googled by anybody with two brain cells to rub together), you have NO choice but to believe in an imaginary sky-friend!
So what, particularly, is stupid about belief in God? Which assumptions do you think are unreasonable?
Why would someone who fears what happens when we die invent a God who punishes sin? It seems to me that if you’re motivated by a fear of the unknown, you might have reasons to come up with something a little more comforting.
Regardless of the Nitrogen example, I think he has a point. Most of the content here echoes the theme: “Christians and all religious folk are just plain stupid idiots!” At least that’s how it comes across to me.
Now that may be the case, but as a Christian visiting this site looking to engage with those who disagree with me, and find out their reasons for believing what they do, the general attitude turns me off to considering any arguments against my religious views.
“I did acknowledge the long ending of Mark. My question is, does the insertion by a later copyist of the long ending at all change anything fundamental to the picture of Jesus that the gospels portray?
The same goes for the alleged mistranslation of the word ‘virgin’ that was pointed out. So what if that one word is a mistranslation? What does that really change?”
Jesse,
I haven’t gotten to the end of the comments yet, so if someone else commented on this never mind.
So – those are examples of a few of the changes THAT WE KNOW ABOUT. I don’t think they are trivial – Adding whole verses and a mistranslated word that started a whole theology (From my daughter’s Marion Award – Catholic Girl Scout Award – text: “Catholics believe Mary remained a virgin throughout her life.”) The argument of Bible theists is that the Bible is the accurate and unchanged word of God. Evidence that ANY of it is inaccurate really calls the whole thing into question. Knowing that some is untrue, how can you say for sure that any particular part is true?
And the funny thing is that it is all true and is all important, unless someone proves part could not be true. Then that part was a metaphor, or wasn’t that important anyway. To those of us who are not people of faith all that backpedaling looks so odd – if you have a ground, stand on it.
“Matter, energy, inteligence, all of these must exist in thier highest form first.”
Huh? What highest form? Are you referring to an eidos (a Platonic form)? Yeah, cuz those only exist in Plato’s heaven.
BTW everything is breaking down. Eventually the universe will experince the big rip. If you’re referring to life on earth, then you’ve misunderstood the second law. We are in a closed system with the sun. It’s energy is what allows for increasing complexity, that is… as the sun breaks down.
Mehmed,
I believe in God, but I can’t prove God’s existence with any certainty. If there is a God (and I hope there is), then perhaps he/she/it controls the universe on a quantum level (ie that God takes advantage of the uncertainty principles). I don’t know. But I take serious issue with religion. People do horrible things in the name of their particular religion. I would prefer that people act according to logic and that morals develop pragmatically within the larger context of society, but that’s just me.
Wish you the best.
@Jesse *applauds*
It would have to be a very careful study indeed.
I’m pretty sure it involves keeping your eyes closed.
We will never know WHY God made the earth, but since he did in fact do so, there are things you must understand. Sin is a part of man, no one is without it. Yes, God was cruel at times in the Bible. But what if God was not cruel? what if no one suffered and nobody was murdered, raped, etc. ………Well the mind set of everyone on earth would change. First of all, if there was no suffering, 1) there would be no sin that harmed another person. A human would be INCAPABLE of murder, correct? A human could not steal, could not persecute, etc. Thats just ridiculous. 2) if no one suffered then why would anyone strive to go to heaven!!! Not only is heaven something to look forward to and work toward, but god is a scapegoat from cruelty of the world, being social with other christians going thru similar trials. 3) If no one died, then everyone would think to their selves “there is no hurry, everything is fine. I have plenty of time for God because i am guaranteed 80 years because there is no suffering or early deaths. yay!!!”.. 4) No one would even try to go heaven because earth would be so great!!! Heaven would be just another earth. Thats why there is suffering on earth Daniel. Suffering is just another incentive to work hard to achieve everlasting life in heaven. God has to set rules, he has to have some good people die and suffer to let everyone know that they dont have all the time in the world. They must convert and repent as soon as possible because in this world, you never know when your last day will be. Even good people can die, thats why just because you are a good person, its not enough, you have to believe in God. Does that make sense? If there was no suffering, we would not want to go to heaven, and there would be no rush at all to come to god, and there would be no such thing as sin against another human. How would you motivate people to come to you if you were God, would make everything great, so that they would love the world, or would you let them know that bad things will not go unpunished and that you cant go thru your life doing whatever you want with no consequence. God works in mysterious ways, but this one is pretty obvious.,,
Blasphemy – it’s a victimless crime :)
It doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not, Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. It doesn’t matter what your tiny brain thinks.
Your whole comment is blasphemy and you know it. You are making a HUGE mistake with it.
Remember, whether you believe in gravity or not, it still exists. Just like Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
End of discussion.
So, do YOU find that argument persuasive? No? Then why should we? That’s the way we hear you.
Dude, you seem pretty easy going and harmless, so I have no desire to offend you, but most of the time I have no idea what you are talking about.
You know, someone in my old religion used this “you can disbelieve in gravity, but if you jump off a building you will still fall” thing on me. Firstly, love the implied threat in it. But secondly, how on earth does anyone think this is a compelling argument?
I mean, I can pick up a rock and drop it one million times, and the result will always be the same. The rock will fall to the ground. Pretty compelling evidence in favor of gravity.
What is the Jesus analog to that?
tiredOFthis
@eurotrip91 – I know what it feels like to be in your place. I grew up fundy christian – evangelical pastor’s daughter. Very conservative – bible literalists. Every time my parents weren’t home, I was terrified the rapture had come and I had been left behind. In fact, I lived in fear pretty much all the time until my early 30’s. I always assumed christianity to be absolutely true, just thought I was “backslidden”. I knew that I would go to hell if I died becauase I wasn’t actively living a christian life as an adult (I tried very, very hard as a child & teenager).
Then, because religion didn’t “work” for me, I started reading. And reading and reading. And talking to people. And thinking. I read Celia Dunn Murray, John Shelby Spong, Greta Vosper, Hawkins, Christopher Hitchens & sam Harris. These writers, in that order, I credit with actually saving my life.
One day I woke up and realized that I KNEW the whole thing was a scam! A terrible hoax. I had been brainwashed, and it took me YEARS to de-convert. Now I am FREE from that fear. Now the world makes sense! Love is no longer violence. God’s “unconditional love” will not send me to hell. I will not be punished for my “sins”. I make mistakes because I am human, not because I am sinful. None of us know what happens after we die, and anyone who says we do is lying to themselves and everyone else. I used to be very depressed; I was on anti-depressants, got hooked on cocaine. When I rejected christianity as fairy tales, no more true or important than Sleeping Beauty, I started to get healthy.
Your point being?
tireofthis – this is exactly what christians say all the time. My dad, a pastor, kept saying that christianity is alive – it’s truth, not a religion. It’s christ living within you. Most of the atheists on this site were indoctrinated the same way you are. Personally, I think I was brainwashed as many others are. I’m glad you expose yourself to “outside” influences like this site – keep on doing that and challenging your faith. Maybe this will be the advice that changes your life. It certainly did for me.
Actually, I get this “advice” almost every day. And I never cease to find it amusing. If you don’t think you are in a religion, you are very confused. Don’t buy the propaganda of the “relationship/religon” crap. You go to church, read your bible, witness to others, etc. You are in a religion.
What I want to know is… why do demons get empirical proof of God’s existence and not me? Don’t you think I deserve the same opportunities as demons and Satan to KNOW there is a god?
Even the people in Hades believe that Zeus is real, therefore He is!
It’s so obvious, isn’t it?
“Because if you truly found Christ, this website would not exist because you would not have turned you back on Him.”
If I did find him, I’d be sure to let you know. A lot of people have been wanting to know if he really did exist…I’ll get back to you on that if I find anything out. I’ll put up some posters or something.
MISSING: Jesus Christ.
Where is Christ without Christianity? How does that distinction even make sense?
Hey, me first!!!!
Teleprompter – Jesus is missing because apparently he is residing inside of John C, who is (unfortunately) leaving this site.
Tireofthis – Evolution is an “opinion” in the same way that the law of gravity is an “opinion”. In other words, it is fact. I suggest you research natural selection before you present these questions. It’s quite beautiful how evolution works.
tireof this – I’m sorry, but you believe the genesis story LITERALLY? I’m not sure what to say to that, other than that I’ve got some great beach front property in Florida – now if you could just wire me $100,000…..
tireofthis – sorry, didn’t mean to poke fun at you. It’s just hard for me to believe that you believe that the earth was created in 6 days. Obviously, you also believe in a “young earth”. I don’t talk to many christians who still believe this – science has proven the age of the earth and how we got here.
1. What law requires that an evil god to create only evil?
2. Evil exists in the world.
3. If a “good” god (which I assume you believe in, tell me if I’m wrong), is the creator of all (which I also assume you believe – apologies if I’m wrong) he also created evil.
3. If a good god can create evil, why is it illogical for and evil god to create good?
Seriously?
I don’t think any god(s) exist.
Do you think Allah exists? Why so? Please explain why you believe in Bible god and not the god of the Qu’ran.
Evil is defined as the lack of good.
You must have something in order to give it. I have apples, I can give you apples. I cannot give you oranges.
A good God cannot create evil because He only has good. Everything, by its existence, is good. A rock is good. A lentil is good. Find me an evil rock or evil lentil…
Humans are also good by their existence. Evil exists in human beings because we have free will; we can choose to do something that is good or not good. All evil comes from humans.
Animals cannot perform an evil act. They act purely upon instinct and do not make moral decisions. Even if a lion bites off a child’s head, it is not an evil act because the lion did not choose to do it. It was in it’s nature to do it. It is not in a human being’s nature to be evil. All humans are inclined to do good and avoid evil.
Why would all humans be inclined to do good and avoid evil if our God was evil? God is perfection. You want to be like your Creator. So if God was evil, all humans would be inclined to do evil.
Evil does not bring upon happiness; the ultimate goal of all humans is to achieve eternal happiness.
Explain your idea that “all humans be inclined to do good and avoid evil” — I mean, I’m a peace-and-love kind of gal, and even I don’t buy that idea.
KYU,
So if God creates everything, and God is all good, then where does evil come from?
KYU,
If God is all good, and God created everything, then where did evil come from?
“Humans are also good by their existence. Evil exists in human beings because we have free will; we can choose to do something that is good or not good. All evil comes from humans.”
OK – I will play.
Who gave man free will?
“I mean, I’m a peace-and-love kind of gal”
You just proved it yourself…
KYU,
I don’t think she did prove it.
For example, why did males have to be so relatively aggressive and violent? If God is directly responsible for that, yet also “perfect”, then your definition of “perfect” no longer makes sense.
I’m sorry, what?
Because some humans (really, you’re basing this theory on random internet people?) are inclined to do good and avoid evil, that means that all humans are?
That seems like suspect logic to me. And I use the term “logic” loosely.
I am not basing this “theory” on random internet people. I did not come up with this “theory”. It is truth.
What gets you toward real happiness? If it’s evil, then you would not find anything wrong with murder or rape.
Everyone (who is sane) knows that murder is evil and wrong. All sane people avoid murdering other people. Why? We are inclined to do good and avoid evil.
Teleprompter,
Just because males are naturally more aggressive does not make them evil.
“All sane people avoid murdering other people” unless, of course, God encourages them to murder, i.e., oh, every Bible hero in the OT, and also Paul when he sicced bears on children for teasing him about his baldness. Add to that list the Crusaders, murdering Muslims for God, and you’ve got a tough argument to back up. Murder is evil and wrong unless God okays it, eh?
Of course, when you start talking about God and murder, you have to face the fact that the God described in the Old Testament (and, presumably, the New Testament as well, unless you’re a Marcionite) murdered millions gleefully and was praised for it.
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/02/16/god-loves-to-kill-his-children/
Sarah, I suggest you do some research before you make such assumptions.
I cannot even begin to argue the plethora of ignorance you have just regurgitated.
First, try to spell names correctly when you’re replying to someone. It’s rude and frankly makes you seem ignorant when you misspell a name that’s two inches away from you.
Second, while you get a gold star for using “plethora” and “regurgitated,” you get that gold star taken away for saying absolutely nothing useful with them.
Let’s see…why on earth would you not correct what you consider ignorance? Why? Oh, that’s right — it’s not ignorance. It’s inconvenient, but not ignorant.
Name an OT hero who didn’t kill somebody — there are a few, I’ll admit, but not many. As for Paul and the bears, I will admit — I messed that up. It was Elijah. Sad face — doesn’t change what happened. Paul, on the other hand, happily espoused slavery and the subjugation of women, so, potato-potato.
Want to know my favorite Kill ‘Cause God Likes It verse?
“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
Sara:
I agree with you.
KYU:
What about the people who committed genocide en masse in Bosnia and Rwanda? Were those people ALL insane? Your hypothesis fails to hold up to the evidence.
Also, if males were less aggressive, would they not be less likely to do things that are considered “evil”? That was my point earlier.
Teleprompter, are you implying that a person can achieve real happiness from committing acts of murder? If so, then your definition or idea of “happiness” is distorted, and thus, you do not have the correct perception of reality. This is not a matter of “different strokes for different folks, whatever makes you happy is different from what makes me happy”. This is all a matter of simple logic.
Essentially, we are both humans. We have the same essence. What makes us the same? Our existence and our striving towards happiness and perfection.
Find me a person who says, “I do not want to be happy.” Surely you can find one, but he will not be in his right mind. He will have some sort of psychiatric disorder.
At this very moment, would you be willing to murder your mother/father/best friend? I assume your answer is no because I assume you are sane. Killing a loved one would not bring you happiness.
——–
Assuming males are more prone to violence, that does not make a difference. Every human being on this planet is a moral being. Morality is the standard of right and wrong.
We have free will because he have a Natural Law which states that humans are inclined to do good and avoid evil. However, we can break this law because of free will. This provides humans with freedom; having the ability to do what you ought to do. However, every decision that a human makes is a moral decision, because it is either right or wrong.
Males who are more aggressive still have freedom. They can make choices. They are not conditioned to only perform evil acts. Aggressive males can do good. This also applies to females. There are some females who are more aggressive than others.
Sara, while I do apologize for spelling your name incorrectly, that also does not change much about my statements of truth.
You are reading the Bible LITERALLY. The Bible should be read contextually.
Refer to Master_Amaras’s comment.
Take the Book of Genesis for example. The universe was not created in 7 days. That is completely illogical, and scientific methods even prove that it took longer than that. Since humans were not around back then, how would one know what the idea of time was? Who knew that a day was 24 on hours earth? How about other planets? 12 earth years is 1 year on Jupiter.
Logically, we would ask the author of the Book of Genesis, “7 days according to what standard?”
What standard of time is it referring to? Earth days? Jupiter days? Mercury days?
You are reading the Bible LITERALLY. The Bible should be read contextually.
So then the hundreds of verses throughout the Bible detailing God’s many gleeful orders to His chosen people to slaughter, rape, and enslave other people because…uh…God said so; those verses are what, metaphors? God is, in fact, a pacifist masquerading as a warmonger?
Your statement + Genesis example — cute, but irrelevant to a discussion of our original point. I know you’ve probably forgotten it by now, so allow me the indulgence:
Explain your idea that “all humans be inclined to do good and avoid evil”.
I am doing my best to address all your concerns on an online website. There is no need to be hostile.
You were interpreting the concepts of the Bible incorrectly.