I simply love this video. It’s almost ten minutes long, so don’t say I didn’t warn you. 
Atheist Atrocities
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://leftback92.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/atheist-atrocities/trackback/
Everything Under the Sun (From a Christian Perspective)
“For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 8:37-39 (ESV)
-
Recent Comments
liawayday on On Choosing Salvation yeahright on World Peace leftback92 on Atheist Atrocities harebell on Atheist Atrocities leftback92 on Atheist Atrocities
[...] on April 29, 2008 by Dan (Fitness) LeftBack92 links approvingly to a faulty video attacking atheists for [...]
Hi wow awesome collection of fallacies there:
Please explain how the Catholic Church are not christian? History has it that the church was set up by apostles, you know the dudes that were supposedly with the man who kicked it all off. (If he existed at all.)\
So saying they’re not real xtians = not a real Scotsman fallacy.
Conflating a tag (atheist) with a faith (xtian, moslem, communist etc) is the next one. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc all did what they did to opponents of their regime because those opponents threatened their dogmatic adherence to the party line. (Even atheists ran afoul of Stalin – Lysenkoism)
Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, little red book etc. Dogma and its adherents cause inhuman behaviour. This dogmatic approach is what caused the catholic church with it’s holy Roman emperor and it’s holy armies to commit it’s atrocities. It’s dogma was called the bible, just like the moslem’s have theirs the koran.
All the various communists also had a perfect leader, so did the nazis and so do the xtians and moslems.
Atheists have what?
No dogma and no perfect leader.
So now you see the problem you have, your faith has so much more in common with the other dogmatists than atheism does.
Nobody kills anybody because they are an atheist because killings somebody is not required to define an atheist.
People kill other people out of a wide variety of reasons, but genocide is usually committed because it is excused by the infallible leader or the unimpeachable dogma.
Do you not read the books you base your moral code on.
So another fallacy exposed, conflation of terms.
I’ll leave it there and let you reflect on how you will come to terms with espousing untruths, your loving god has some special treatment put aside for just those people doesn’t he.
“Please explain how the Catholic Church are not christian?”
Okay, I’ll do this, but this’ll be in another post, because there is quite alot.
“Conflating a tag (atheist) with a faith (xtian, moslem, communist etc) is the next one.”
Okay. So you’re saying that atheism isn’t a faith, correct? Let’s go into it. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, right? Well, you have to believe (in other words, have faith) that there is no god. So, that in and of itself makes atheism a type of faith.
And I must say, none of that sounded very impressive. Why? Because it was filled with contempt. Try learning a pretty decent lesson. Respect.
smooth … not
so a lack of belief is faith. So what you are saying is that not collecting stamps is a hobby.Next you’ll be saying bald is a hair style.
As thor doesn’t exist the fact that you believe he doesn’t means you must have faith in that fact. The fact that I don’t think monsters live under my bed is not faith, it is based on experience, that is not faith it’s common sense.
So the God hypothesis needs positive proof, until then it is not necessary. Stating that is not faith, it is reasonable.
Of course it didn’t sound impressive, rational statements rarely sound as sexy as random statements that cannot be tested, especially to the indoctrinated.
As for respect, wow, the amount of liberties and outright untruths that you love in that video means you have not earned it.
yes, harebell. that’s exactly right. you must have belief in the fact that there is no God, correct? you believe there is no God. thus, you have a belief (i. e., a faith.)
no, your hobby and hairstyle examples don’t work because…that’s not what leftback is saying. he never said anything about hobbies and hairstyles. belief is something not solid. hobbies are. hairstyles are.
“As thor doesn’t exist the fact that you believe he doesn’t means you must have faith in that fact.”
Exactly right! we have faith that thor doesn’t exist, because we have faith in God. very insightful of you to note this.
“As for respect, wow, the amount of liberties and outright untruths that you love in that video means you have not earned it.”
Oh good grief. that’s what every evolutionist and atheist say. “You obviously don’t know anything, so you don’t deserve respect!” that’s ridiculous. every human being deserves at least a modicum of respect. isn’t that what the first amendment guarantees? freedom of speech? yes…even freedom of unintelligent speech (which is not the case her, by the way.)
I just had to say something. “As thor doesn’t exist the fact that you believe he doesn’t means you must have faith in that fact. The fact that I don’t think monsters live under my bed is not faith, it is based on experience, that is not faith it’s common sense.
So the God hypothesis needs positive proof, until then it is not necessary.”
Thor (who I do not believe in) is an old Norse god, one of the Viking gods. God (whom I believe in) is…well, God. So how is it that you have to have faith if you believe in Thor, but you have to have more than faith to believe in God? That really doesn’t make any sense.
squigs
everybody deserves some unearned respect you are right, but when they open their mouths or perform actions the level of earned respect can either eat into or add to that existing respect. By their actions shall ye know them. What their actions have no consequences on how I view people?
The use of fallacies and untruths in arguments detracts from the level of respect I hold you in, as it should.
leftback
I didn’t say you needed more faith, in fact you need exactly the same faith to believe in thor and god.
I used thor and monsters under the bed to illustrate that the non-existence of god was in fact the starting point and required no belief.
Also how do you decide between all these invisible, intangible entities? I mean why god why not thor?
squigs
I do not “believe there is no god”
I lack the belief that there is a god.
huge difference
Dear harebell:
“squigs
I do not “believe there is no god”
I lack the belief that there is a god.
huge difference”
Can you explain the differnce for me? I really don’t understand it.
“I didn’t say you needed more faith, in fact you need exactly the same faith to believe in thor and god.”
What I meant was that you’re saying that I only need faith if I believe in Thor. But if I believe in God, well I need more than faith alone. I’m not talking about the amount of faith. I’m saying that you’re saying (oh boy) that I have to have more than just faith if I want to believe in God. Why? You still didn’t answer the question. Also, you haven’t touched my argument that atheism really is a faith.
“Also how do you decide between all these invisible, intangible entities? I mean why god why not thor?”
Well, God has revealed Himself to me in the Scriptures. Also, God actually loves me. Thor doesn’t love those who believe in him. Do you think that Thor would send his son (this is actually assuming that he is real, which I don’t believe he is) to die for you? No, he wouldn’t. Why? Because he could care less about you. This is totally opposite of God. God loves you more than anything else on the planet can love you; He loves you perfectly.
“What their actions have no consequences on how I view people?”
Uh, what? this statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. not to mention that you mispell things and you use incorecct grammar, quite often. by these statements, you open your mouth and perform an action that detracts from the respect i hold for you. thus, according to your logic, i could begin calling you plenty of names that make you sound uneducated. but, as i am a Christian, i very much respect you, so i won’t. the point is, harebell, respect is due despite nonsensical words or uneducated speak. you might try using a little respect.
“Also how do you decide between all these invisible, intangible entities? I mean why god why not thor?”
let’s see…we roll a die? no, that’s not it…we spin a wheel! no…not it either…wait! it had something to do with a book!… right! The Good Book! since we are Christians, harebell, we follow the teachings of God’s Holy Word: the Bible. this is how we choose which invisible, intangible entity. because there no other ones beside God. Simple.
“squigs
I do not “believe there is no god”
I lack the belief that there is a god.
huge difference”
so, let’s see…would you call knowledge belief? you know something, thus, you believe in it, correct? you know you were born, so you believe that you were born. you know that there is no god, so you believe that there is no god. any way you look at it, you believe something. if you want it this way, you believe that you lack the belief that there is a god. you just can’t get away from it, harebell. sooner or later, you will have to admit that you believe something about there not being a god.
harebell Said: ”
squigs
I do not “believe there is no god”
I lack the belief that there is a god.
huge difference”
The difference is that of agnosticism and atheism. Agnostics I at least have some respect. I was agnostic before I became a Christian. The idea that one could accept as fact that there is no God when it couldn’t be proven and was such an important question always seemed completely irrational to me.
Still does.
Agnostics at least admit “I dunno”. That at least seems rational and honest. I can converse with agnostics on the issue and have a civil and productive conversation. Atheists I have found…you’re pretty much dealing with an irrational person from the start.
Of course, I’m assuming you’re saying your an agnostic here and not just distancing yourself from “believe there is no god” because that’s an indefensible position.
Dear Mary Contrary:
“Of course, I’m assuming you’re saying your an agnostic here and not just distancing yourself from “believe there is no god” because that’s an indefensible position.”
Thank’s for making that statement.
“Agnostics at least admit “I dunno”. That at least seems rational and honest.”
That’s not really what harebell is saying though, if you analyze. She’s not saying that “I don’t know if there is a god or not.” She said “I lack the belief in a god.” There is no difference between this statement (“I lack the belief in a god”) and this statement (“I believe there is no god”). In the first, you are saying that you don’t (lack) believe in the existence of any gods. In the second, you are saying that you don’t believe in the existence of any gods.
Absolutely there is a difference (and your first post asking for clarification is exposed by your assumption in the above post):
The null position is to not think something exists with out a really good reason.
The religious state that something intangible exists, that is a belief. I lack that belief.
Why should I be tagged with a belief of unbelief when the onus is on those making the statement of belief to furnish the evidence?
I am not saying there is no god, I am saying I lack the belief that you have.
I also lack the belief that zeus and thor ever existed too.
Squigs
apart from the miss-reading of my sentence, no if I know something I don’t believe it I know it.
The religious commonly conflate the word believe. Newton believed his theories to be true based on evidence and the reproducibility of his experiments. Einstein and Darwin also held up their theories to the cold light of day and experimental replication and/or falsifiability.
Believing that faeries live at the bottom of the garden is a different use of the word and the two cannot even be compared. The word theory is another commonly conflated term.
And left back, a book edited by the early church to reflect it’s views is not reasonable evidence. How you managed to read that collect ion of bronze age sadistic wet dreams and see a god of love is beyond me. The creature depicted in the bible is a vicious individual who acts more like a petulant child with an ant farm than a caring all powerful being.
You tell me how an all knowing being can set his “chosen” creatures up to fail and then knowingly create his son, who he knows will have to die, to make up for the failures he, himself planned right from the get go can in any way be called loving?
Dear harebell:
“The creature depicted in the bible is a vicious individual who acts more like a petulant child with an ant farm than a caring all powerful being.”
This simply shows your lack of knowledge of the Bible. This statement is simply and utterly false. Yes, God is a God of justice, but He is also, and more so, a God of love. Verses such as John 3:16 come to mind. Or Romans 5:8 (“But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us’). God is extremely just in punishing sin. Let me explain as I answer the next question.
“You tell me how an all knowing being can set his “chosen” creatures up to fail and then knowingly create his son, who he knows will have to die, to make up for the failures he, himself planned right from the get go can in any way be called loving?”
This answer, to put it bluntly, is very simple. God created the world and everything in it for His own glory. I have actually written a post on this, if you would like to check it out.
So how can God be loving if He has set His creatures up to fail, failures that were planned by Himself, and then create His son to take away those failures? You, yourself just answered that question, in the question. Through Jesus! That is how God is loving! God offers mercy, offers hope, offers forgiveness. You must understand, sin isn’t to God as a little child stealing a cookie is to a mother. Sin is atrocious in God’s sight. Why? Because God is perfectly holy, without blemish. There is no trace of evil in God. And since God is the God of the Universe, the supreme Judge of the Universe, He must punish sin in the same fashion that the judicial sentence works. The difference is that to God, all sins are equal to one another. Why is this? Because all sins, big or little, are committed against God, in direct rebellion of God. They all have the same affect, they offend God. This is why hell is necessary. Sin must be punished. It’s not as if God wants to send anyone to hell. If He had wanted to, why would He send Jesus Christ to warn us of hell and provide a means of forgiveness to escape hell? This is why God is loving. Even to last day, the day when God will finally judge every single human being, God offers forgiveness of sins.
Dear harebell:
“I am not saying there is no god, I am saying I lack the belief that you have.
I also lack the belief that zeus and thor ever existed too.”
Okay… I believe that God exists. You lack the belief that God exists. Doesn’t this mean that you don’t believe that God exists? You say that you lack the belief that Zeus and Thor existed. Does that mean that you don’t believe that they exist?
Not really
you have a belief, I lack your belief.
if you were to believe that a cartasian space destroyer was orbiting alpha centuri with a view to destroying the said star, my lack of belief in your assertion would not be the same as me saying I didn`t believe in the existence a cartasian space destroyer that was orbiting alpha centuri.
Your belief is so without substance that I am ok in not joining in your belief.
In other words I guess it comes down to evidence. Faith in it it`s real definition is belief without evidence, whereas belief (realistic belief) requires reproducible evidence.
As for the bible reading
please don`t patronise me.
At the moment of creation god knew everything, so set us up to fail in the full knowledge that he would allow his son to be butchered to satisfy his blood lust. He knew all that would happen yet did nothing to prevent it.
The old testament is god too, the new testament is the account of a victim to the old man`s blood lust. I mean what kind of father knowingly gives life to somebody he must know is going to be executed in order to reverse something that the same father knew was going to happenÉ
harebell: i find you rather funny. but also i find it sad. you really don’t read the Bible, do you? you’ve just gone and found what other atheists have said about God and taken those words beyond where they were supposed to be. let’s see:
“you have a belief, I lack your belief.”
i don’t care if you cuss me out. i don’t care what you do. but you, harebell, simply cannot ever get away from the fact that you believe something. so maybe you lack our belief in God. ok, then you believe that you lack our belief. i don’t care if you want to believe this or not, but if you use reason, if you claim to be a logical person, THEN YOU MUST EVENTUALLY ADMIT THAT YOU BELIEVE. not in God, but in your lack of belief. you simply cannot escape it.
“In other words I guess it comes down to evidence. Faith in it it`s real definition is belief without evidence, whereas belief (realistic belief) requires reproducible evidence.”
do you believe in love? show me evidence of love. real, hard, solid evidence. do you believe in hate? show me real, hard, solid evidence of hate. do you believe in trust? show me real, hard, solid evidence of trust. do you believe in honesty? show me real, hard, solid evidence of honesty. these are ideas. these aren’t solid things. if you tell me that “i feel them,” and give me that as evidence, i won’t believe you, because i feel the Holy Spirit. feeling isn’t evidence. so what then? have you any evidence for these things?
“At the moment of creation god knew everything, so set us up to fail in the full knowledge that he would allow his son to be butchered to satisfy his blood lust. He knew all that would happen yet did nothing to prevent it.”
yes, God knew everything. He didn;t set us up; he preordained it. humans fail all the time. and His son wasn’t butchered to satisfy His bloodlust. He has no bloodlust.
“I mean what kind of father knowingly gives life to somebody he must know is going to be executed in order to reverse something that the same father knew was going to happenÉ”
the same kind of father that wants to save His people. if you knew that the human race was going to be absolutely destroyed by muated virus, but if you also knew that the you could save them if you fathered a son and this son would have the cure in his blood, would you do the same thing? or would you simply not father the son because you knew that his blood would be taken out anyway? would you simply let the entire race of human die out because you didn;t want to have a son that would be killed?
Squigs
wow where to begin
I’ll ignore the first paragraph it wasn’t really coherent.
Clearly you don’t follow advances in the philosophy of the mind or even neuroscience which are finding more and more compelling evidence and arguments for the physical basis of thought, the Churchlands, Dennett etc. The concrete evidence for my love is 17 years of marriage and I still experience the same emotions etc. Lump in trust and attraction and there is love, a result of a combination of memories neuronal activity and chemical releases.
“He didn’t set us up he pre-ordained it,” please how ever you phrase it, it was his wish and his plan and his to set up however he wished too. Building in errors so that the only cure was stapling his son to the wood isn’t not a caring start.
As for your last paragraph, at least you didn’t argue against my premise you just tried to justify your deity’s intolerable nastiness. Your justification would possibly have worked if we were talking about a fallible human being, but your god created the virus in the full knowledge that he would be sacrificing his son for the cure.
Is your god just a powerful but fallible being or is he the all powerful creature that the religious make him out to be?
“Squigs
wow where to begin
I’ll ignore the first paragraph it wasn’t really coherent.”
whoa. i’ll admit that i didn;t write in the most eloquent tones, but the fact that you “believe it isn;t coherent” means that you want to drop the issue. i’ll drop it then
“The concrete evidence for my love is 17 years of marriage and I still experience the same emotions etc. Lump in trust and attraction and there is love, a result of a combination of memories neuronal activity and chemical releases.”
hm. chemical releases. yes, i know about those…but can you actually put love in a beaker and look at it? your marriage shows simply that you were married to the same person for 17 years. (i do not doubt at all that you love your spouse, don’t get me wrong) but until you can bottle love up and actually touch it and look at it, then you can ask me for proof of my God. you say marriage proves love, i say that the world proves God. it’s that simple. love is an intangible thing, but you can tell it’s there by looking at marriages. God is an intangible thing, but i can tell he’s there by looking at the beautiful skies, trees, and so forth.
you just don’t get it. God doesn;t have a blood lust. read the Bible some and you’ll see it. and you also didn;t answer my questions.
Scans of neuronal activity during emotions such as hate, lust, love etc certainly indicate a physical component to these so called intangible qualities.
Years ago disease was put down to possession by daemons that needed to be driven from the body. People of that era also regarded these ailments as non-physical forms that couldn’t be touched or bottled up and sought supernatural explanations for them and their cures.
Now dealing with epileptics and some mental illnesses is well understood via a scientific framework. As illustrated above do you really think that science won’t eventually unravel some more of the mysteries of the mind and pull back the veil of our ignorance?
Emotions are not intangible, they can be altered by drugs and situations to name a few variables, how can something that is not physical in nature be affected by things that are wholly physical in nature? They can’t so emotions must have a physical component and as such will eventually be measurable and recordable.(This is the problem of interaction usually found in discussions of the soul/body interaction.)
As for the parent thing, I thought I had answered your question. As a human I make mistakes and if called upon to make moral decisions regarding the sacrificing of a loved one for millions of others I can’t say how I would respond. My first thought is that if I truly loved the individual then I probably wouldn’t sacrifice them, but that’s human nature for you.
God however cannot be given the benefit of the doubt on such issues. He is not human he is an all-perfect architect of everything, so why is he having to make up for errors in his design? This indicates he didn’t get it right the first time, hardly an endorsement of perfection.
Dear harebell:
“God however cannot be given the benefit of the doubt on such issues. He is not human he is an all-perfect architect of everything, so why is he having to make up for errors in his design? This indicates he didn’t get it right the first time, hardly an endorsement of perfection.”
Fundamentally, you’re wrong. God didn’t screw up, Man did. God said “You shall not eat of the fruit of tree, or you will surely die.” Adam and Eve at of the tree (that’s human nature for you). So guess what? They died. God made the rules. Man didn’t follow said rules. Therefore, God didn’t screw up, Man did.
“Emotions are not intangible, they can be altered by drugs and situations to name a few variables, how can something that is not physical in nature be affected by things that are wholly physical in nature? They can’t so emotions must have a physical component and as such will eventually be measurable and recordable.(This is the problem of interaction usually found in discussions of the soul/body interaction.)”
Okay, so let’s take that kind of logic somewhere else. Let’s use solids and gases. Are solids affected by gases? Yes, they are. Does that make them gases? Well, no it doesn’t. Are gases affected by solids? Yes, they are. Does that make them solids? Well, no it doesn’t.
“Scans of neuronal activity during emotions such as hate, lust, love etc certainly indicate a physical component to these so called intangible qualities.”
Please be more specific. It’s called adrenaline. When your heart begins racing and all such things. That can explain those neuronal activities. But why does your heart begin to flutter (talking about love)? Can science explain that? Explain it to me, because I don’t believe science can explain emotion.
“As illustrated above do you really think that science won’t eventually unravel some more of the mysteries of the mind and pull back the veil of our ignorance?”
Some, probably. All? Most definitely not.
You said
“Fundamentally, you’re wrong. God didn’t screw up, Man did. God said “You shall not eat of the fruit of tree, or you will surely die.” Adam and Eve at of the tree (that’s human nature for you). So guess what? They died. God made the rules. Man didn’t follow said rules. Therefore, God didn’t screw up, Man did.“
But god knows everything, what was, what is and what will be. So he said don`t eat from the tree knowing full well that we would. Who made us and made us capable of doing the deed, well god did. So god made prohibitions, knowing full well that he had made us in such a way that we would ignore the prohibitions.
you said
“Okay, so let’s take that kind of logic somewhere else. Let’s use solids and gases. Are solids affected by gases? Yes, they are. Does that make them gases? Well, no it doesn’t. Are gases affected by solids? Yes, they are. Does that make them solids? Well, no it doesn’t.“
Gases are physical, they are less dense than liquids and liquids are less dense than solids. My tent was blown down by the wind today, why because the wind although gaseous has the property of being physical. It is composed of N,O and CO2 and moves due to differences in atmospheric pressure.
The immaterial is not a gas, the immaterial consists of nothing. So does something that has no physical properties and this means it can have no effect on something that has physical properties. I mean how could something with no physical aspect to it interact with something that is physical.
You said:
“Please be more specific. It’s called adrenaline. When your heart begins racing and all such things. That can explain those neuronal activities. But why does your heart begin to flutter (talking about love)? Can science explain that? Explain it to me, because I don’t believe science can explain emotion.“
It`s not adrenaline alone, that certainly pumps up the heart as part of the fight or flight response, but the scans I referred to are maps of activity in the CNS and indicate the activity of neurons. This is the brain using memories and new data to formulate actions that certainly could result in the release of hormones. The fact that certain areas of the brain are associated not only with certain body parts but also with certain stimuli and responses means that a person`s response to stimuli is a physical property, means that your emotions (sensations caused by chemical and neuronal activity) are activated by physical causes. How we act and the effect of the hormones on us is what we call our feelings.
Language developed before the science and I guess we are still trying to explain stuff using an inadequate vocabulary. This is why it is so easy to conflate terms like theory and belief, we use the same word to cover a multitude of situations.
You said:
“Some, probably. All? Most definitely not.“
Brave statement. We cannot know a-priori what science will not explain so in all honesty we cannot rule out anything from scientific investigation. As long as we truly keep looking we will continue to gain knowledge.
this quite interesting. let’s take your first statement.
“But god knows everything, what was, what is and what will be. So he said don`t eat from the tree knowing full well that we would. Who made us and made us capable of doing the deed, well god did. So god made prohibitions, knowing full well that he had made us in such a way that we would ignore the prohibitions.”
allow me to use an example. say i have a son and a daughter. physically, i made them. we know how that works. before they were born, i knew full well that children disobey. thus, i knew that my children wouldn’t be any different. i knew that they would disobey what i told them to do. so now they’re both three. i tell the son, “Don’t hit your sister.” What does he do but hits his sister. so am i the one that screwed up? no, i knew very well that he would disobey me. he is the one that screwed up. i made the son and made him capable of doing the deed. and i made prohibitions (not hitting the sister) knowing full well that the son would ignore the prohibitions. so is anything my fault? no, as a matter of fact this is what i want, so that i can discipline my son and teach him that it is not ok to hit people.
harebell, you continue insisting that emotions have physical properties. your wind example doesn;t help you out. wind is air, something that has weight and volume to it. so thus, it is physical, and it can interact with other physical things. you can only see the effects of love and hate, you can’t actually see it. yes, you can see the stimulus and so on and so forth, but you cannot pull them out and hold them. emotions do not have physical properties. you can only see scans of neuronal ACTIVITY. there’s another immaterial thing. you can;t touch it, you can’t hold it. you cannot calculate the mathematical equation that will produce love.
“Brave statement. We cannot know a-priori what science will not explain so in all honesty we cannot rule out anything from scientific investigation. As long as we truly keep looking we will continue to gain knowledge.”
you are most definitely the first person i’ve met that believes the impossible: science will answer all of our questions. science is a study of theory. the only thing you can do with science is test and study, and by doing those things, find out what is false. science can only falsify. no one, not even the greatest scientist in the world and all of history, can find truth from science. sure, you can have a lot of false things in science, but you cannot ever use science to determine what is true. “Archaeology is the study of fact, not truth….” to quote Indiana Jones. science will never, never answer all of the facts about life.
Stimuli and activity are physical.
If they weren’t we couldn’t measure them.
The neuronal activity is caused by changes in electric potential with in the cell and the release of neurotransmitters, all physical and all very much measurable.
My comments on the wind example were in response to yours in the previous example.
As for scientific progress, I don’t believe I said anything about the fact that science doesn’t work through falsifiability. All science when done correctly puts itself out there to be shown to be wrong. If every study conducted backs up the original finding by confirming and not disproving it, it is accepted as a good theory and used as a basis for establishing further lines of inquiry.
What I said was that science has provided a lot of explanations in the past and I saw no reason to doubt that it would continue to provide explanations in the future. I also added that we couldn’t rule out anything from scientific investigation a priori, because we don’t know now what we will know in the future.
AS for science not providing us with the truth, “the earth orbits the sun” seems pretty truthful to me and was found to be so a fair while back. Science has refined the statement to include “an elliptical path” etc but the original statement is true.
Medicine has determined that diseases like epilepsy are not caused by daemons, biology has found that life does not spontaneously spring into being in a closed flask etc all true statements.
Science works via falsifiability but does yield truths. I hate to accuse Dr Jones of uttering a truism, but I think I have to here.
As for the child metaphor again you are attributing human characteristics and qualities to a being that is perfect. God is only a “parent” in a metaphorical sense. In doctrine, god is the creator of everything including morals and the concept of right and wrong. He knew that when he created us we would cross his line in the sand. He knew this before he created us.
He decided what was right and wrong
He decided to create us
He decided to make sure that we did wrong
He warned us not to do the wrong that he had made sure we would do
He then punished us for something he had made sure would happen from the beginning.
He set us up to fail his standards by “pre-ordaining” that we could not do otherwise.
He is not supposed to be a fallible being.
He must be evil or not really care about his creations
OR
He is fallible and makes errors that he needs to correct.
“He decided what was right and wrong
He decided to create us
He decided to make sure that we did wrong
He warned us not to do the wrong that he had made sure we would do
He then punished us for something he had made sure would happen from the beginning.
He set us up to fail his standards by “pre-ordaining” that we could not do otherwise.
He is not supposed to be a fallible being.
He must be evil or not really care about his creations
OR
He is fallible and makes errors that he needs to correct.”
Unfortunately, again, you are wrong from the start. Yes, God knew that we would sin, but no, He didn’t decide to make us sin. It’s pretty complicated. God created us. God set up the rules, namely the rule “If you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will die.” Now, He knew that we would sin. Does this then mean that He made us sin? Of course not. To use a human example, say you create a car. Now upon creating said car, you knew this car was going to break down at some point. Does this mean you decide to cause the car to break down? Of course not! It would be silly to say so.
This takes away from the building block of your argument, that God caused us to sin, thus it shouldn’t be our fault, thus we shouldn’t be punished. But this is the glory of the Cross: While we were and are rebelling against God, blaspheming Him, criticizing Him, etc., He sent His only son, Jesus Christ, to provide a sacrifice for this sin. After dying on the Cross, God raised up His son from the dead, to prove His power over death. Through this resurrection, those who believe in the name of the only Son of God recieve eternal life in the presence of God and His son.
It’s not complicated at all.
Before your god created anything there was just him.
Everything was created by god.
God created not only the concept of sin but also the sinful actions, because god created everything.
God could have created a world where no sin existed.
God chose not to.
God could have created a world where nobody sinned even though the concept existed.
God chose not to.
If god created everything then he created sin and also ensured that we were going to sin.
Sin is purely god’s creation as are we and god programmed sin into us and ensured we would sin from day one. He then forbade us from sinning and then pre-ordained (Your phrase) that we would.
He then ensured that somebody would die to make up for this error.. nice guy.
So harebell, your problem with God is that He had to kill someone because of sin (which He allowed into the world), right?
Let’s start with a little history. Before the world was made, Satan (the devil) was actually an angel named Lucifer. Now this Lucifer grew discontented and led a rebellion against God. Thus, sin was begun. So God created the angel, but not the sin; the sin came fromt the angels own heart. True, it was pre-ordained that this would happen, but I’ll explain why later.
As for God having to kill someone, so what? People die all the time because of things they’ve done. Think about drunk driving. People die all the time because they’re idiotic enough to get drunk and go for a cruise. The judicial system does it too. What do you think the death penalty is? Killing someone because of something they’ve done.
So was it God’s mistake? Of course not. Do we blame the government for mistakes that individual citizens make? No, so why is this any different. True, God could have created a world without sin, but He didn’t. The finite cannot understand the infinite. However, there is an answer to your question.
God allowed sin into the world (and thus death and all these things) for His glory. Allow me to explain. God’s glory is His highest priority, making sure His name is known and praised, etc. etc. Now, this may seem selfish, but when you think about it, it isn’t. God is the highest, most glorious being in the entire universe. Nothing is above Him. So really, there isn’t anything else for His creation to praise/glorify.
But how does sin glorify God? In two main ways. The first is through the judgement of sin. This judgement proves the justice and power of God. This is the simplest way sin glorifies God. The other is through salvation. When Christ died on the cross, He died for the sins of the world. But this death did so much more than just forgive sin. It showed the mercy and forgiveness of God; that all who believed in the name of the Son of God would have eternal life, shared with Him. So God allowed sin into the world to glorify Himself through judgement and mercy.
God’s reason for creating he earth and everything else, including satan/lucifer, is so that he can hear his creations praise his name.
According to you, he also ensured that we would all have the chance to mess up so we could experience the wonder that is god’s mercy. To me that sound like moral masturbation.
He loves to hear us praise him and he created us solely for that purpose. He also allowed us to suffer horrendously so that we would praise him even more.
Why would an all powerful being do that?
Maybe he is insecure? Or maybe god is a child with an ant farm. He is no more worthy of our praise or admiration than a spoiled child.
This is not a god as we would envision it, this is a bronze age idea of what a god would be. Life then was brutal and short and the kings would be regarded as gods.
Now we are more sophisticated and try and define a god for the current time while sticking to the bronze age doctrine. It isn’t going to happen. Their god was a product of their times and any attempt to transfer their god to the increased knowledge we have today is doomed.
God is a creation of society and god is getting less and less powerful. Trying to stick to the doctrine of how semi-literate, bronze age shepherds interpreted the world is also doomed to failure because they didn’t know what we know now. The earth isn’t the centre of the universe and is millions of years old.
Your very idea of god is one of a complete spoiled infant who stomps his feet because his pet doesn’t kiss his ring… A tantrum thrower if you like.
An all powerful infant but ridiculous none the less.
“Why would an all powerful being do that?”
Because He wanted to. I know that sounds really corny, but really. If God wants to do something, who are we (His creation) to question Him? Does the pot question the potter? And besides that, if God had wanted it a different way, you wouldn’t even be here right now.
And God is acting like an infant? That concept is even more ridiculous that what you’re trying to make God sound like! What infant do you know that could create the world? And to say that God is throwing a tantrum is simply ridiculous. God isn’t “stamping his feet because his pet doesn’t kiss his ring.” God is never pictured as stomping His feet. God is pictured as a mighty king with a great sword ready to wage war with any who oppose Him. And because He’s all-powerful, God will always win.
Just for the record though, Christ was around during the Iron Age.
Point taken about jesus and the iron age, but most of your holy book was based on events prior to that.
You say god is all powerful yet he has those who oppose him. If folk oppose him he created that opposition, because he created everything. So why is he wrathful if he created the opposition he is now annoyed by.
Your version of god is one that you have been told about in the kirk. That version is the one of blow-hard preachers who haven’t thought things through, but expect respect regardless of their intellectual poverty.
Love your argument about how god is pictured by mankind, its inventor. I judge someone on their actions as well as their words. The petulant actions of the Abrahamic god leads me to my conclusion, renaissance paintings while spiffy to look at are only commissions by those who think they can buy their way into a fictitious afterlife.
As for who are we to question, well why would he give us the facility to question if he didn’t want us to use it?
Squigs reflected and argued well with adaptation to the changing environment. You seem to dislike addressing the difficult part of building your faith. New arguments require adaptation.
Hey there! After a wek and a half hiatus from the blogosphere I’ve decided it’s time to get moving again. so, let’s talk.
You say god is all powerful yet he has those who oppose him. If folk oppose him he created that opposition, because he created everything. So why is he wrathful if he created the opposition he is now annoyed by.”
God is all-powerful. But He isn;t “all-manipulating” or something like that. It would be the easiest thing for Him to snap His fingers and kill us all, or to change our minds outright. but He doesn’t do that. He shows Himself to us through events and occurences. that’s why He has those that oppose Him.
“The petulant actions of the Abrahamic god leads me to my conclusion, renaissance paintings while spiffy to look at are only commissions by those who think they can buy their way into a fictitious afterlife.”
ok, uh, wow. not entirely sure what it is you are trying to say here. first of all, God’s actions aren’t petulant. destroying a tribe of people to make way for His tribe isn;t petulant. that’s simply common sense. how do you come to a conclusion about renaissance paintings after observing God’s actions?
one thing that i really don’t get is this: if you are an atheist, why do you strive to make us “understand” and “see” the “truth?” we Christians are fighting for the salvation of the lost. since you have no god, what are you fighting for? you don’t believe in a deity or anything like that, so why do talk about one? why do you talk to us the way we talk to you? what are you trying to get us to understand? that our way is wrong? what’s the point of that? what do you get out of it?
“Destroying a tribe”
please listen to yourself. Who created the tribe? Who made sure that they would fight against those who “were chosen”?
Answer the same god who chose the chosen.
Your last paragraph is precious. In a world where the religious constantly try and tell others what is right and wrong, where they try and tell others that they have the inside track on what is morally correct and what is not; and where they point to the bible, koran and some other ancient scribbled “wisdom” as the source of their information, it is incumbent upon those outside the cult to point out the inadequacies of their sources.
you god invents a tribe to attack his tribe and kills them for it.
wow what a basis for a moral code.
What do I get about this interaction?
You started at the very top of this post by saying all the ills of the world were down to non-belief. You also inferred that if we only opened our heart to the genocidal invisible faerie that you hold so dear then all our problems would be solved.
We then entered into a dialogue on how Stalin, Hitler and their ilk might have more in common with the religious dogmatists than athiests.
You took exception to this along with your friend and tried the “unknowable” angle. Now you have grown weary with me answering your questions you wish to retreat into your “leave us alone” argument.
When those in power cease to invoke religious doctrine to support their laws, then you will not be questioned, as long as you think we should all bend our knee to your vicious interpretation of a loving overlord I will question you.
You want to believe in invisible supermen fine, you insist that I should believe too, then we will have issues.
um, no, actually i have never stated “leave us alone” or made an allusion to the fact i want you to leave us alone. you haven’t answered all my questions fully either, or to satisfaction.
Ask away.
But remember the original statement blaming non believers for all the worst things that have happened especially in recent times is your starting point not mine.
Atheists may have committed atrocities but atheism does not command that they do so.
The doctrines that demand obedience and lead to the atrocities illustrated in the above video are indistinguishable from religious doctrines and practices.
The “j’accuse” was made by you and your colleague first.
Dear harebell:
“Atheists may have committed atrocities but atheism does not command that they do so.”
True, the doctrine does not command that atheists do these things, but the doctrines do allow them to take place. Take, for instance, Marx’s idea of getting rid of “the state.” When there is no state, each man does what is best for himself, whether that means killing, robbing, torturing, whatever. And without a judicial system, who is to say what is right or what is wrong? A dictator? Who gives him the authority to decide? I’ve made a post that shows how communism can’t work out, if you want to read it.
“The “j’accuse” was made by you and your colleague first.”
Something very, very important to remember is that I’m not blaming you. I’m blaming communism (and other forms of atheistic governments). All of those states (which is what they were, but I talk about that in the before-mentioned post) had that one thing in common: their governments were atheistic in origin.
No they weren`t atheistic as a common factor.
The real common factor between all the perpetrators of genocide and unspeakable atrocities has been a strict adherence to dogma.
Dogmatism led the early church into its crusades, Dogmatism led to nazi Germany
Dogmatism led to the various communist regimes.
When you have an unerring leader and an unquestionable text that is a recipe for the disasters that litter history.
Blind obedience to an unquestionable authority is at the root of all the evils listed in that video.
“Marx`s idea of getting rid of the state“… Maybe Marx didn`t want the state that existed but he certainly proposed the existence of a state. Because he proposed common ownership. Libertarianism and possibly anarchy propose something like that, but replacing any state with a dictatorship is in fact maintaining a state system.
A dictatorship compares well with the various religious dictatorships like the catholic church and the IR of Iran and until latterly the taliban. Then the likes of the millenarian christian groups and the fundamentalist evangelical groups who practice `follow the leader` cult like behaviour too.
Once more the effect of dogmatic adherence comes to the fore.
Dear harebell:
“No they weren`t atheistic as a common factor.”
Could you please explain this please?
“When you have an unerring leader and an unquestionable text that is a recipe for the disasters that litter history.
Blind obedience to an unquestionable authority is at the root of all the evils listed in that video.”
That’s true. But tell me, what do all the dictatorships on the planet right now (such as Myanmar, which is currently in the news, or North Korea, or Cuba, or a myriad of other countries) have in common? The fact that their governments were somehow communistic in origin. Even Nazism was communistic, and we all know who that produced.
But something else that you haven’t answered for me, is why is it that all of the people persecuted in this video were/are Christians?
Every single example given in that video was not linked by being atheist. The early church and the totalitarian regimes illustrated were really only linked by their strict adherence to dogmatism.
This illustrates that organised religion has much more in common with communism and nazism than atheism does. If you wish to question this show me atheism’s dogmatic text.
I’m not defending communism, please do not read that into my posts and I’m sorry if that was the impression. Communism is as abhorrent to me as nazism and all the other forms of dogmatic belief.
I guess that prior to the Russian revolution most societies were imperial, royalist and extremely religious in nature. The pendulum swung the other way in 1917 and while Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, the juntas in Greece and Argentina and a whole host of other anti communist dictators arose to combat the threat of communism (sponsored by those nations in which conservative christian politics remained in power) huge tracts of the world swung with the pendulum to the opposite extreme.
Your illustration of the situation in Burma illustrates that you have not recognised that that regime has more in common with the highly conservative and religious military juntas in Greece, Argentina and Chile than in most of the communist states where the military is an arm of the state and not the state in itself.
Nazism was not communistic in nature. It did share some of communisms characteristics though, a perfect dogma, an unimpeachable dogma and a largely unquestioning populace (by force or desire) who thought they were being patriotic. Also anybody who spoke out against the dogma/leader were dealt with severely. Both these political codes share all of these characteristics with the Abrahamic religions.
So now I have returned to the first point above.
“This illustrates that organised religion has much more in common with communism and nazism than atheism does. If you wish to question this show me atheism’s dogmatic text.”
Really this is the only thing that organized religion with communism and nazism. It’s unfair to us to pin anything else on Christianity, simply because we ARE organized, and there are always going to be people that don’t like a certain way of organization. Which is why you have all the other denominations. Also, if you atheism isn’t SOMEHOW organized, doesn;t SOMEHOW have a dogma, then how do atheists all argue the same thing? how do they even know what to argue, if it isn;t organized?
“Also anybody who spoke out against the dogma/leader were dealt with severely. Both these political codes share all of these characteristics with the Abrahamic religions.”
If I were the same kind of person as a girl I’ve been talking to on another site, I would say “How can you say such hateful things? How can you be so full of hate?” But, I understand that it’s not a hateful thing to say, it’s just misguided. Nowhere, in the history of the world, has our religion (which is grouped with the Abrahamic religions) killed those that speak out against us and our leaders. Nowhere. Show me one example where Christianity has done that. And don’t use the Salem burnings or Crusades, because those don’t apply nor are they what we’re talking about.
Atheism is not defined by atheists
It is defined by theists.
Anybody who doesn’t believe in a supernatural supreme being has been defined by the majority group as being atheist (theist and anti-theist).
So if I don’t believe that god exists, then the in-group has a name for me along with infidel, barbarian, heretic etc. Philosophers have other names that are less insulting, materialist, realist etc.
I didn’t say that the similarity rested on organisation. It rested, for me, on the unbending obedience of its adherence to dogma and a charismatic leader.
As for examples, how about the wholesale slaughter of those who interpreted the gospels differently in the early days of the church. The heresies. Catharism resulted in the wiping out of those who believe in France.
Then look at the Protestant schism and the resulting wars in Europe. Queen Elizabeth and Mary, Irish conflict.
As for Islam, Sunni-Shia slaughters. Just a few examples of the religions of the book protecting their market share from competition.
I am not full of hate, I am a happy person but evidence is evidence and when people attempt to conflate issues to prove a point, I speak up.
“all evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing.” To paraphrase a wise person.
Dear harebell:
“Atheism is not defined by atheists
It is defined by theists.”
Okay…this doesn’t make any sense at all. Atheists may not have called themselves atheists…but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t ‘atheists.’ I mean, all atheists have at least one thing in common: they don’t believe in gods/supernatural beings. We theists just put a common label on that belief.
“I didn’t say that the similarity rested on organisation. It rested, for me, on the unbending obedience of its adherence to dogma and a charismatic leader.”
Okay…well, you have an unbending adherence to dogma. Though it may not be a widely accepted dogma, it is still dogma. You hold to your set of beliefs. You set of beliefs can be classified by others as dogma, which is what you have done to me. So, as for the charismatic leader, you are your own. You define your own beliefs, your own dogma.
So, how about examples of charismatic athiest leaders? Stalin, who killed millions in the Great Purge. Fidel Castro along with hundreds of other communistic dictators, including China this very day.
But I’m not trying to say that “You killed more than us, so that makes us right.” I’m saying that all religious killings are wrong. Whether you kill people who are atheists because they’re atheists, or Christians because they’re Christians.
I used this video for a different purpose than that which it was made for. I wanted to point out that Christians are being killed, tortured, and imprisoned today, in hundreds of countries across the world, including China, Indonesia, Burma, and Laos, just to name a few.
you said
“Okay…well, you have an unbending adherence to dogma. Though it may not be a widely accepted dogma, it is still dogma. You hold to your set of beliefs. You set of beliefs can be classified by others as dogma, which is what you have done to me. So, as for the charismatic leader, you are your own. You define your own beliefs, your own dogma.”
I do have a set of beliefs. They are not unbending as I will change my beliefs as a result of new evidence. Nothing in my belief structure is inviolable. Each and every one of the tenets by which I live my life is up for revision, should sufficient evidence point that way.
That isn’t dogmatic.
As for using the video to highlight atrocities against christians, the title is “atheist atrocities” when a more suitable titles would have been:
“When dogma collides” or “my book is better than yours”
Dear harebell:
“As for using the video to highlight atrocities against christians, the title is “atheist atrocities” when a more suitable titles would have been:
“When dogma collides” or “my book is better than yours””
Yes, the title is atheist atrocities. That is because all of these occurances were led by atheistic governments. Governments like the U.S.S.R’s and China’s (not to mention Cuba, North Korea, and many others). This isn’t about whether or not “my book is better than yours,” as you say. It’s about people killing Christians.
In the beginning of the video the authors quickly covered atrocities carried out in the name of the christian god, and then compared them with those committed by political dogmatists.
They then declared the reason for these political atrocities as being atheism. In doing this they totally ignored the reason behind religious extremism.
I went one step further and stated that the reason for the christian AND political atrocities was in fact a dogmatic approach to life and a belief in an infallible leader.
While they claim to have found a tenuous link between some political regimes, I think I have identified a link between all genocidal systems that have and do exist. Namely the belief that they are totally correct and an unwillingness to change regardless of new discoveries. Examples: Lysenkoism, Creationism etc. AND a willingness to lie and kill to ensure that change doesn’t happen.
Dear harebell:
The thing that I would like to point out to you, that the connection between all genocidal systems, whether carried out in the name of the Church or not, really stems from godlessness. God does not endorse murder. God does not endorse deceit. Lack of true belief in God is the true source of genocide, not an adherence to dogma.
Wow dude
You are the christian, I believe that jesus said that he held all the lessons of the OT to be true.
Have you read the Old Testament, god is a vindictive evil piece of work. Genocide means nothing to that guy.
You’re argument sounds like the “not a true Scotsman” argument and as such is a logical fallacy.
Dogmatism is the root of all evil and extremist political systems and religious systems fit the bill.
Be honest and stop making excuses. If you don’t accept new evidence you are a dogmatist and as such are living a lie.
Dear harebell:
“You are the christian, I believe that jesus said that he held all the lessons of the OT to be true.”
Unfortunately, this is a very common misconception. Jesus did not hold to all the lessons of the Old Testament. In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus radically changed all the laws of the Old Testament by saying that sin was not only the act of disobediance (for example, murder), but thoughts and motives behind the actions (such as anger, revenge, etc.).
“Have you read the Old Testament, god is a vindictive evil piece of work. Genocide means nothing to that guy.”
Well, I know that I have read the Old Testament (at least parts,
), and nowhere does God committ genocide. He wages war through Israel (and against Israel, when they disobey and refuse to repent). But war is not genocide.
“You’re argument sounds like the “not a true Scotsman” argument and as such is a logical fallacy.”
My argument is that even though someone calls themselves a Christian, that doesn’t make them a Christian. I could call myself a king, that doesn’t make me one. Actions are what define the person, not titles.
“Be honest and stop making excuses.”
I’m making excuses, I’m explaining myself. And I am not living a lie.
“Dogmatism is the root of all evil”
Dogmatism is not the root of all evil. Lust for power and money is the root of all evil.
Is it war when the fighting is over to tell your soldiers to kill every living thing?
Is it war when the fighting is over to command that all non-virgin females be kept for your own use, all the others are to be slain?
You make a lot of excuses for the god of the old testament, the actual words of the book expose your excuses as obfuscation at best.
The holy catholic church are a really big christian organisation with wealth and property.
The mega churches in the USA get tax breaks as a christian organisation and bilk the poor out of their meager funds to buy limos and mansions
The episcopalian church is world wide owns a swack of property.
Orthodox church men fight others in one of your most holy sites.
If these aren’t christian, have you thought that you might not be defining “christian church” correctly?
I’m still going with dogmatism as the common link between all evil regimes, jewels and slaves are trappings of evil not the causes.
Dear harebell:
I really do apologize for the delay, I’ve been fairly busy with some other things that I’m working on and I haven’t made time for my blog. I know that it’s not a good excuse, but I’m not using it for one!
“Is it war when the fighting is over to tell your soldiers to kill every living thing?
Is it war when the fighting is over to command that all non-virgin females be kept for your own use, all the others are to be slain?”
If you wouldn’t mind, could you provide with the references that you’re using, just so that I can defend my position more accurately. Thanks!
“You make a lot of excuses for the god of the old testament, the actual words of the book expose your excuses as obfuscation at best.”
I don’t have to make excuses for my God, who remains the same throughout eternity. I was talking to a guy at a fair Wednesday night, and he said something to the effect of “Well it seems like God sort of made a big change between the Old Testament and the New Testament, don’t ya think?” My reply was that no, I don’t think God has changed at all. While there are accounts of God’s wrath is displayed in the Old Testament perhaps more frequently than in the New Testament, there are also very vivid accounts of His grace and His mercy. Take, for example, God’s rescuing the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt. There are also countless examples of God saving individuals in their time of need. And in the New Testament, we can clearly see that God is still the same God of Judgement through the book of Revelation. I’m getting ready to post on the eighth and ninth chapters, and there are very detailed accounts of just how deadly God’s wrath is. This is all to say that God hasn’t changed through all eternity, and especially not between the New Testament and the Old Testament.
But back to the point. I don’t have to make excuses for God. When He judges the world at the end of the world (so the speak), He will send all sinners (who were not saved by the blood of the Lamb) into Hell, the second death, where there “will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” This will happen regardless of race, gender, age, whatever. There is war waging right now, right as you read this. Satan, who rebelled against God, is now waging a hopeless war against the King of the Universe. God will have absolute victory, He will perfectly judge every single sinner who is not found washed by the blood of the Lamb. This is war, and it’s being waged all around us and in us.
“The holy catholic church are a really big christian organisation with wealth and property.
The mega churches in the USA get tax breaks as a christian organisation and bilk the poor out of their meager funds to buy limos and mansions
The episcopalian church is world wide owns a swack of property.
Orthodox church men fight others in one of your most holy sites.
If these aren’t christian, have you thought that you might not be defining “christian church” correctly?”
“Size matters not,” to use a Yoda quote (I really can’t believe I actually used Yoda on my blog, lol.
). The size of the church doesn’t matter. And I do know that I am defining “christian church” correctly because I’m defining it Biblically. The true church of Jesus Christ is only defined by their imitation of Jesus Christ, meaning that they do as Jesus did, they think as Jesus did, they do what Jesus wants them to do, including the Great Commission.
“I’m still going with dogmatism as the common link between all evil regimes, jewels and slaves are trappings of evil not the causes.”
You’re right, evil regimes (which can’t really be the cause of evil, only the result), jewels, and slaves aren’t the cause of evil. It is lust of power, whether through evil regimes, jewels, slaves, or even untrue dogma, that is the root of evil.
the quotes are:
Rape
Judges 21:10-24 NLT:
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, “How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God’s curse.”
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.’” So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
Murder
Joshua 6:20-21 NLT
When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything.
To name a few.
Biblical quotes are many and they do not make nice reading. The OT god is a vicious and terrible apparition and could only be the invention of man.
Size might not matter to you, but if the majority of christians belong to one of my named sects then it is you who is the outsider, not them.
Moving the goalposts does not help.
The silence of the real christians speaks volumes.
I mean shi’ites claim that suni are not muslem, but they are. You are the person who needs to speak out against these false christians but you don’t. Why? because they hold power and you like the thought of being in the majority… you know having power.
Dear harbell:
“You are the person who needs to speak out against these false christians but you don’t. Why? because they hold power and you like the thought of being in the majority… you know having power.”
That’s exactly what I’m doing. I’m telling you what Paul told the Galatians, that “even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” I’m preaching the ONLY TRUE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. Jesus lived a perfectly life, died a sacrificial, cursed death, and rose again to bring glory to God. This act was the act of salvation for God’s elect. While it is true that in a sense Jesus loves everyone, those not found in the Lamb when God judges the world will be thrown into the fiery hell. I am speaking out against those who preached a gospel contrary to the true gospel.
For the Judges passage:
The first thing I would like to point out is: look at the following verse, verse 25. It says (NASB) “In those days there was no King in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” This verse implies that the actions taken by the Israelites to sustain the tribe of Benjamin were not right. “…in his own eyes.” In man’s own eyes, in man’s fallen, sinful eyes. What may seem right to us may not be the right thing.
The next thing that I would like to point out is that there is no mention of God commanding the Israelites to do this. This passage does not help your argument at all; it just saying that Israel destroyed Jabesh-gilead and that the tribe of Bejamin took wives from the daughters of Shiloh.
For the Joshua passage:
This isn’t murder. This is war. It’s not any different from what America and England and Germany and Japan and Russia did in WW2, the carpet bombing of non-military targets. It’s war. You have to eliminate the enemy so that they cannot fight you any longer. It’s the philosophy of kill or be killed, which is what it’s like in war.
But there is an amazing story of salvation here too. Look at the rest of the passage. Joshua spared Rahab because she had sheltered the spies that Joshua sent into Jericho. “So the young men who were spies went in and brought out Rahab and her father and her mother and her brothers and all she had; they also brought out all her relatives and placed them outside the camp of Israel.” But you know what the most amazing thing is? Rahab not only sheltered the spies of Israel, but she was a harlot. A sinner. A sinner who was spared, who was brought out of destruction and into life. “However, Rahab the harlot and her father’s household and all she had, Joshua spared; and she has lived in the midst of Israel to this day, for she hid the messengers whom Joshua sent out to spy out Jericho.”
This is the gospel. All of us are sinners, cursed by God and doomed to an eternity in hell. But by the blood of Jesus Christ, God has offered salvation to His elect, whom only He knows, that we might glorify Him for all eternity.
see that is where you and me differ over the definition of god.
you equate the actions of men with that of god and try to explain god’s actions by using an analogy with men’s deeds.
God is not a man and should be held to higher standards than man. Our actions (which are by definition flawed) cannot be used to excuse the actions of a perfect being.
As for no mention of god commanding the israelites to do what they did, please it was included as scripture in your holy book. Also god is all powerful and has punished folk who transgress his will in repeated instances. Did god condemn these actions?
as for your last paragraph. The only reason we are all sinners is because god has made sure that we are. Child with an ant farm is so much much more relevant an analogy now.
Dear harebell:
“see that is where you and me differ over the definition of god.”
There is only one, true definition of God, and that is through the Scriptures. If there is any other definition of God, it is wrong.
“you equate the actions of men with that of god and try to explain god’s actions by using an analogy with men’s deeds.”
…Would you please explain a bit more for me. I’m not using an analogy of man’s deeds to explain the actions of God. And I’m definitely not equating the actions of man to the actions of God.
“God is not a man and should be held to higher standards than man. Our actions (which are by definition flawed) cannot be used to excuse the actions of a perfect being.”
Well, if God is God of the Universe, what higher standard is there? If the king of the universe decrees something, who are we the creation to question it?
“As for no mention of god commanding the israelites to do what they did, please it was included as scripture in your holy book. Also god is all powerful and has punished folk who transgress his will in repeated instances. Did god condemn these actions?”
Yes, God did condemn these actions. He may not have killed the transgressors on the spot, but neither does He kill you on the spot. And just because it is in the Bible doesn’t mean that it’s automatically a command.
Leftback
Religion and the trinity are defined not in the bible but by the nicene creed. You know that which you recite at the start of each service. ” I believe etc..”
Scripture does not support the nicene creed. Scripture paints the picture of a christ who is subordinate to god, not equivalent to god. Scripture also does not even discuss the position of the holy ghost in the trinity. The nicene creed and all its contents were invented by man nearly 400 years after christ died. The emperor of the holy roman empire got annoyed with the endless debate and disturbances and said what christianity was. Those on the winning side enforced his edict.
Please Leftback do not assume I am an atheist without reason. The history of the christian church is littered with lies, expediency and bitterness. Now I guess you’ll tell me that Augustine, the bishops of Constantinople and Rome and Theodosius weren’t christians either.
Dear harebell:
“Scripture paints the picture of a christ who is subordinate to god, not equivalent to god. Scripture also does not even discuss the position of the holy ghost in the trinity.”
This is actually not true. Take, for example, John 3:5-8. In this passage, Jesus tells us that the Spirit plays an intricate role in salvation. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” And nowhere does the Bible teach that Jesus (or the Spirit, for that matter) are subordinate to the Father; rather, they teach that Jesus is God, that He holds the same authority of the Father. All three persons of the Trinity are equal.
“Now I guess you’ll tell me that Augustine, the bishops of Constantinople and Rome and Theodosius weren’t christians either.”
No, I won’t tell you that because I don’t know there heart. Christians are those who follow Jesus Christ, worship Jesus Christ, and preach the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ, that God created the world, that He created all things. Man sinned against the creator of the Universe, a crime worthy of death and an eternity in hell. But God, in His love, sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, who lived a perfectly sinless life, to die on a wooden cross for our sins. When Christ rose from the dead, He proved that God accepted this sacrifice. The Bible calls for each of us to repent of our sins and follow and beleive Jesus.
I have a couple of questions for you, if you don’t mind.
1. Do you believe in right and wrong?
2. Do you believe in absolute right and absolute wrong?
Do I believe in right and wrong?
Yes, I am open to argument because I never assume that I am right or know what is right though.
Do I believe in absolute right and wrong?
I do not know about absolute right, but I do believe that somethings can never be right so must be wrong. One of these would be rape, another would be to lie in order to incriminate someone knowingly.
As for the subordinate nature of christ:
Proverbs 8:22 – God created me, wisdom, at the beginning of time (God came first Jesus afterwards)
Even the words of christ himself suggest a lack of godly knowledge:
Mark 13:32 – Of that day and hour knoweth no man, neither the angel in heaven, nor the son, but only the father. (Indicates that god has knowledge he didn’t)
Mark 27:46 – My god My god why hast thou forsaken me? (calling to someone greater than himself)
John 14:28 – The father is greater than I (from the horse’s mouth)
Acts 2:36 – God has made him both lord and christ, this Jesus whom you crucify.(definitely a subordinate position)
The other problem you have if you disagree to the subordinate nature of Jesus is how can his suffering have saved us if he is god? I mean how can a god suffer?
Also what about the Nicene Creed?
Do you say it in Service?
Do you believe it?
Dear harebell:
“The other problem you have if you disagree to the subordinate nature of Jesus is how can his suffering have saved us if he is god? I mean how can a god suffer?”
Jesus was fully God, and at the same time, He was fully man, meaning He could be tempted, persecuted, and killed.
As for Christ’s apparent lack of godly knowledge:
Well, I’m sure that you know things that I don’t know. Does that make me subordinate to you? Of course not, it simply means that you know things that I don’t. But apart from that, almost none of your arguments stand up. Take for example Mark 27:46. Just because Jesus is crying out to God does not mean that He is subordinate to God. As for John 14:28 – You have to use the Bible in context. Christ is talking about His return; He had previously told the disciples that He would give them peace and that the Holy Spirit would be sent by the Father in His (Christ’s) name (another example of the Trinity). What this passage is saying is that if the disciples (and His followers, for the sake of application) truly loved Him, they would “be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” This refers to the glory of God (who is in Heaven) compared to the glory of Christ in His earthly state. When Christ returns, He will come with the full glory of heaven. As for the Nicene Creed: No, I don’t say it in service. Yes, I believe what the creed says, that there is one God and three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit.
Dear harebell:
“Do I believe in absolute right and wrong?
I do not know about absolute right, but I do believe that somethings can never be right so must be wrong. One of these would be rape, another would be to lie in order to incriminate someone knowingly.”
Why is that absolutely wrong? Or, why do you believe in absolute wrong?
How can God be human and still be god?
I understand the acquiring human form bit, no problems, but how can god give up being god.
It’s a bit like me dressing up in a fancy dress and saying it’s not me anymore, or I cannot do the things I did before I put on the Zorro mask. Only more so with god in the equation because he knows all and that would require an abdication of some serious powers. It’s illogical.
As for crying out to god, why would Jesus cry out to god if he is god? This indicates a very human urge to appeal to authority.
The father is greater than I is pretty clear cut even if you factor in geography, god was pulling the strings and Jesus was his puppet, this really only serves to reinforce the subordinate nature of Jesus. If god is Jesus and the holy spirit then they are all equal, why was Jesus the one who had to leave heaven if there wasn’t a pecking order?
The context argument is interesting, but a bit of a red herring, Jesus is still admitting to god knowing more than him. This leads nicely on to the next point.
You are right that I don’t know some things that you do and yes that does make me subordinate to you on that topic, on other topics you could be subordinate to me. It stings most people to admit this but egos aside why should it be surprising that you are better than me in some things and vice versa? It shouldn’t be, but we like to think we are totally independent, in fact a lot of current political dialogue feeds on this manifestation of pride. It’s like owning up to your mistakes, we err but as long as we own them and learn from them there should be not big deal.
Why is it absolutely wrong?
Can you give me one instance where rape isn’t wrong?
Dear harebell:
“How can God be human and still be god?
I understand the acquiring human form bit, no problems, but how can god give up being god.
It’s a bit like me dressing up in a fancy dress and saying it’s not me anymore, or I cannot do the things I did before I put on the Zorro mask. Only more so with god in the equation because he knows all and that would require an abdication of some serious powers. It’s illogical.”
God (in Jesus Christ) does not give up being God. He simply manifests Himself in human form (through Jesus). That’s why He is still fully God and still fully man.
“Why is it absolutely wrong?
Can you give me one instance where rape isn’t wrong?”
That’s not exactly what I meant. How do you know that rape is wrong?
So if god does not give up being god, how can god suffer on the cross? If there is no suffering how can that atone for our sins?
The whole equality of the trinity is fraught with a lack of consistency. Did the whole of god become Jesus or did god break a bit of himself off?
It goes back to early church history where the founders tried to elevate Jesus beyond that of previous prophets and leaders who only assumed god status after their deaths. They claimed that their messiah was in fact a god all along.
The problem is was Jesus god all along or did he have godly moments. If he was god all along he couldn’t have suffered on the cross. If he had godly moments how do we know when and where?
The reason I know rape is wrong is because nobody can give me one instance when it is a correct course of action. When you compare it to stealing you can see what I mean. If your family is starving is it acceptable to take a loaf of bread from the shelf at closing time if the last date it can be sold is today? Most folk would say probably.
Now lieing, is it okay to not tell some one the truth if nothing would change and the truth would just add to their suffering? Ye it is.
A reasonable test of an absolute rule. Of course most ethical decisions are not that easy but this is one case of an absolute wrong.
Dear harebell:
Jesus is fully God and fully man. This means that He has the authority of God (He calls Himself by God’s own name [I AM]) and the mortality of humanity. Jesus Christ lived as a real man, with real temptation, real sorrow, real joy. He also died on the cross. During this same life, He performed miracles such as walking on water, changing water to wine, and a myriad of other miracles. An imperfect example that helps me understand it is a person suffering from multi-personality disorder (of course, as I said, this is a vastly imperfect example, but it does help). Now, let’s say this person suffers with two personalities. Well, he’s fully one person (for a time, which is only one reason why this is an imperfect example) and he’s fully another person. Jesus is always God and Jesus is always man. At the same time and in the same relationship.
And you’re not answering my question (that or I’m not being clear [which is probably the more likely, lol]). I’m not asking you whether or not one particular action is wrong, I’m asking how do you know what the difference is between right and wrong?
Sounds like you want your cake and eat it.
Jesus if he is god cannot experience suffering, because if he can he is not god.
If he flits between god and Jesus how can a mere mortal tell which is which, unless we let our bias’ (hopes) do so. Any attempt by any religion to explain this is doomed to failure. Even the bible is ambiguous on this. I understand why because the authors wanted the best of all possible worlds. However the contradictions and explanations do not pan out and are really insufficient.
The best any person of faith can say is it is a matter of faith. If that is so proof is not something you should even look for, because faith is the enemy of reason and evidence.
Your last paragraph is a fine one.
My answers are many and include
Would I like it done to me or a loved one. (Golden rule)
Another is very Kantian; would I be happy if every one adopted the same idea as a rule.
And finally the Utopian principle of Mills, does it increase the total happiness of existence?
As a human being and a non-infallible deity I would take them in that order and accept that sometimes stuff falls between the cracks…BUT that said I think it would not be a bad list of criteria to live by.
Dear harebell:
I apologize in advance; I’m going to be away from my blog for a little more than a week. I’m going to a little village in Brazil for a mission trip, so I’m not going have much access to the Internet.
I will ask you some more questions, if you don’t mind.
How do you know what increases total happiness of existence? If that is part of your criteria (total happiness of existence), why does it matter what other people do?
That’s a good utilitarian question.
Happiness ranges from the now to seeing your grand kids do well on the positive side of the definition to reducing disease and suffering on the more negative side. Preventing hunger and child death is a pretty obvious way to increase happiness.
Why does it matter what others do?
Well if someone continuously steals from you or rapes your children that is an obvious reduction in happiness for a greater number of folk than the increase in in happiness for one person. Issues of trust and reliance are very unquantifiable, yet extremely important.
PS hope the trip increased the villages happiness
Okay, I definitely understand that. I have some more questions though!
“Happiness ranges from the now to seeing your grand kids do well on the positive side of the definition to reducing disease and suffering on the more negative side. Preventing hunger and child death is a pretty obvious way to increase happiness.”
These are all very relative. I mean, think about all the dictators and such who find happiness in causeing hunger and child death and such things. To you, yes, these things cause happiness. But why do these things cause happiness?
“Well if someone continuously steals from you or rapes your children that is an obvious reduction in happiness for a greater number of folk than the increase in in happiness for one person. Issues of trust and reliance are very unquantifiable, yet extremely important.”
So when someone does something that reduces the happiness of “a greater number of folk,” then the majority becomes more important than the person? If the person finds happiness in stealing but the state (just for example) finds that the person’s actions reduces the happiness of the majority, then the happiness of the state becomes more important than the happiness of the person?
while you focused on increasing happiness, you kind of neglected reducing unhappiness.
Your question about the dictator’s happiness could be likened to the example of the permanent thief. While undoubtedly the thief and dictator gain some happiness through their actions, a lot of people’s unhappiness is reduced.
Also in a lot of arguments about utilitarian calculus people forget that society means a group of people or communities. Society becomes a faceless organisation that acts as an excuse for abusing it. Look at people’s definitions of victimless crimes for example.
But I know where you are going and the “tyranny of the majority” is a real problem for utilitarians. Which is why when you asked me about how I determine what is right or wrong I included it as third on my list:
“Your last paragraph is a fine one.
My answers are many and include
Would I like it done to me or a loved one. (Golden rule)
Another is very Kantian; would I be happy if every one adopted the same idea as a rule.
And finally the Utopian principle of Mills, does it increase the total happiness of existence?
As a human being and a non-infallible deity I would take them in that order and accept that sometimes stuff falls between the cracks…BUT that said I think it would not be a bad list of criteria to live by.”
Dear harebell:
Does that mean that your happiness depends on the total happiness of existence?
Also, is that how define right and wrong? If it makes you happy and it increases the total happiness of existence. Well, how do you define happiness? Is it like the Greek or late Roman lifestyle (which is what America is really like), where it’s hedonistic, if it feels good, do it?
I would be telling a lie if I said that others suffering made me happy. Any time I hear of a natural disaster I feel bad for those involved. So to a fair degree I would find it hard to be happy if all around me were suffering. So to a fair degree the total happiness/lack of suffering does affect my happiness.
With respect to the second half of the question: not really. Hedonism isn’t everybody’s cup of tea in all situations. I mean in a professional situation happiness can mean all sorts of things. In a family situation another and in a personal sporting situation something else.
Example
A lawyer who wins a case might not be happy if the client is guilty, however they can offset that against the fact that they have done their professional duty against a sloppy and ill prepared opponent. Due diligence and an attention to detail are a virtue after all.
Then the lawyer heads home and realises that their income helps support and educate a family.
Then although the game the lawyer plays hurts at the time, the good it does them in terms of anaerobic and aerobic fitness outweighs this immediate distress. Also the team spirit and togetherness adds to it.
Utilitarianism has really had a bad rap from simplistic straw men in the past. I believe that most folk have taken a naive attitude towards this subject and have dismissed it because it requires an honest inspection of “ones self”.
Actions and results speak louder than wishful thinking in utilitarian calculus, unfortunately only a caricature of utilitarianism is ever offered by its opponents.
Dear harebell:
“I would be telling a lie if I said that others suffering made me happy. Any time I hear of a natural disaster I feel bad for those involved. So to a fair degree I would find it hard to be happy if all around me were suffering. So to a fair degree the total happiness/lack of suffering does affect my happiness.”
That’s not exactly what I asked. While the total happiness of existence affects your happiness, does your happiness depend upon the total happiness of existence?
And based upon your example, doing what is right (professional duty, putting away a criminal, which is what I’m assuming you meant) becomes more important than happiness of the moment? What is right, then? How do you define right and wrong? By the measure of happiness it produces or takes away, respectively?
Back to the main point:
“If he flits between god and Jesus how can a mere mortal tell which is which, unless we let our bias’ (hopes) do so.”
Jesus never flitted between God and man. He was fully God and fully Man at the exact same time. Not half and half. That’s why I said that the analogy of multi-personality disorder is imperfect, because only one personality can take possessions at a time. This is why redemption works. Because Jesus lived an absolutely perfect life, He earned heaven, He earned the blessing of God. (An important note to make is that He is the only perfect man who ever has, does, or will live because He was fully God and fully man) By His death, He gave what He earned (heaven) to us sinners and took what we deserved (hell). He didn’t do this because we earned it. Like He said, only the sick need a doctor, healthy people don’t need a doctor.
You said
“While the total happiness of existence affects your happiness, does your happiness depend upon the total happiness of existence?”
It was actually acquitting the guilty that could detract from total happiness, but is compensated by knowing that you did what you ethically were sworn to do. It was a balance of conflicting emotions and feelings, but knowing that on the whole serving justice would be a worthwhile occupation and would make society a happier place.
1: the total happiness of existence affects my happiness, then
2: my happiness must by definition depend on the total happiness of existence.
I can’t see how logically it couldn’t, given the first premise.
The main point
That’s a tautology. It’s like saying I want to have my cake and eat it. Both cannot happen.
If Jesus is man and god, then he is god, because he cannot relinquish that divine nature. Unless you are saying the god bit was turned off every now and then to allow him to be man.(Which you deny.)
If he was always god, even though he had the outward appearance of a man, he is still divine. Therefore he could not have suffered for us on the cross because how does a truly all powerful god suffer?
The argument you present makes no logical sense to me because it requires to competing ideas to exist at the same time. A contradiction.
God = divine
Man = not divine
Jesus is divine and Jesus is not divine at the same time.
Dear harebell:
I’m working on a post to explain in detail how Jesus is fully God and fully man, so if you’ll bear with me, I’ll get that up as soon as I can. I’m doing this mostly because it’ll be easier for both of us; I’ll be able to get it all out there and then you can ask me more questions as you feel the need.
“It was actually acquitting the guilty that could detract from total happiness, but is compensated by knowing that you did what you ethically were sworn to do. It was a balance of conflicting emotions and feelings, but knowing that on the whole serving justice would be a worthwhile occupation and would make society a happier place.”
Okay, so let me see if I understand this. You’re pretty much saying that perhaps what you should do may not feel as comfortable/happy for you personally, but it’s more important than what you want to do? If I punish someone for doing something wrong, and I don’t like punishing them, I should still punish this person because it would make society happier?
Again, let me ask: What is right, then? How do you define right and wrong? By the measure of happiness it produces or takes away, respectively?
Yes, sometimes we should do what makes us unhappy.
Because that unhappiness is not really unhappiness, it is not wishing to do what is right because we are embarrassed, dislike confrontation, are bound by ethics/laws etc.
Remember though this question of total happiness was the third in a list of qualifications for happiness, so as for your last question, my definition of a correct action would be:
1: Would I like it done to me or a loved one. (Golden rule)
eg would I like to be lied to?
2: Would I be happy if every one adopted the same idea as a rule.(Kant)
eg Would I be happy if lieing was acceptable always?
3: And finally the Utopian principle of Mills, does it increase the total happiness of existence?
eg Would lieing be a great source of happiness for society.
If something passes all three tests it is probably right. If it doesn’t it is likely to be wrong.
Dear harebell:
So, basically, if you don’t mind someone doing it to you, you would be happy if every adopted the idea, and it increases the total happiness of existence, it’s right?
That’s very relative. You several varying factors, such as culture differences, age difference (it’s a stat that most people under…twenty, I think it is, are more liberal than people over…around thirty, I think), and a ton of others.
Take, for instance, abortion. Today’s American culture says that it is okay (or not wrong, thus right) for a woman (or girl) to have an abortion. Some people say that it increases the happiness of American society because there are no longer any unwanted children. These people would also say that they would be happy if every adopted this rule. They also say that they, obviously, wouldn’t mind if themselves or a loved one had an abortion. Does that make abortion right?
I don’t think so. Because then you have people like me who say that abortion is a device of Satan himself. I do not believe that abortion is right. So then comes the question, does right vary from person to person?
An individual’s view of what is right must vary from person to person. You are different from me and our different experiences and cultural indoctrination mean that we must differ in how we view right and wrong.
However on the big topics we probably do agree because to not agree on them would lead to societal turmoil. Where there are differences it is probably because the issue doesn’t have huge ramifications on the workings of society.
The Kantian question is: “would I wish everyone to have an abortion?” That would be silly, because the effect on all societies and cultures would be devastating. So no this would not be a general rule adoption scenario.
Where we start hitting the grey areas is if you say: “would you wish everyone to have the option of having an abortion?” Now if you believe in free will, then the answer to this must be yes because we can be responsible for our own choices only if we are able to make a choice.
You believe it is a device of satan, some believe the same of drink, drugs, dancing and sex, but unless people are able to chose to do all the options available how can they ever be held responsible for their actions? In your case god would hold folk accountable when they come before him, would you presume to pre-judge on behalf of your deity?
As for the question of the “relative nature” of my decision making process. Religious people the world over can’t make up their mind about what god says. Within the christian church alone there are so many schisms that contradict each other all the time and all of them think they know what god thinks. And all of this certainty and difference comes out of the same source. Add to that the moslem, jewish, buddhist etc. texts and wow what to take as “the truth”.
My way is open to argument and refinement when ever an objection is raised with substance. The religionist’s way is to ignore new developments and try and reinterpret the dogma so it fits. Apologetics is the name for this effort and it is the greatest display of hand waving and outright deception that I have seen in a long time.
My way is as “relative” as the scientific method in that I know I don’t know the answer, but I do know that if I don’t work steadily and rationally towards the answer I’ll never stand a chance of finding it.
The religionist says don’t bother thinking because you’ll never know, just accept god did it.
Dear harebell:
“The religionist says don’t bother thinking because you’ll never know, just accept god did it.”
That’s not at all what I’m saying! Think for yourself, that’s the only way to survive in this liberally controlled world! Think, that’s the whole reason God gave you a brain to think with! I encourage you to read/listen to some of R.C. Sproul, he’s an advocate for Christians to use logic.
“As for the question of the “relative nature” of my decision making process. Religious people the world over can’t make up their mind about what god says. Within the christian church alone there are so many schisms that contradict each other all the time and all of them think they know what god thinks. And all of this certainty and difference comes out of the same source. Add to that the moslem, jewish, buddhist etc. texts and wow what to take as “the truth”.”
The apostle Paul wrote “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary from what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” That’s what I’m saying right now. If anyone is telling you that Christianity is anything other than Jesus Christ’s perfect life, death, and resurrection, and repent and believe, then let that person be accursed! The Muslims are wrong, the Jews don’t have it right, the Buddhists most assuredly are wrong. The only way to find salvation is through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
“You believe it is a device of satan, some believe the same of drink, drugs, dancing and sex, but unless people are able to chose to do all the options available how can they ever be held responsible for their actions? In your case god would hold folk accountable when they come before him, would you presume to pre-judge on behalf of your deity?”
In a sense, I do pre-judge. However, I never say that one cannot repent and believe. I’m assuming that you don’t believe in God, yes? Then I am making a judgement that you are a sinner. I’m a sinner too. The difference is that, as of now, I am a sinner saved by the grace of God. I’m telling you of the miracle that God has given me. I’m not telling you that you are going to hell no matter what. I am saying that you are going to hell unless you repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior. In a sense, I’m using my judgement to beg to you to repent! I pray daily that God would open your eyes and soften your heart to His Gospel! I don’t want you to go to hell! But the only way for you to be saved is through the grace of God and the blood of Christ!
Interesting response
You were quick to cut the jews and moslems no slack, but never really addressed the differences within xtianity.
Is it catholicism, lutheran, 7th day adventists, one of the many baptists etc? I mean who has the correct message? This is important as members of these various sects have murdered and been martyred because of these differences.
As for liberally controlled world. Really? Most of the world is in the grip of dictatorships, small and large ranging from the communists in China to warlords the world over. If not dictatorships then pseudo democracies like Russia and Indonesia where although elections might occur free and fair doesn’t come into it. Add to that that N America has christian conseratives at the helm as well as the role the catholic church and moslem religion plays in government policy in the Middle East and S America. And I think that you’ll find that the influence of Liberals is in fact very limited on a world wide basis.
Dogmatic adherence to the “text” plays a greater role in world governance than any Liberal perspective.
Keep it up harebell, you’ll make an atheist of him yet.
It is hard work to get born-again Christians to think for themselves though.
First of all, I want to touch on J’s comment:
“Keep it up harebell, you’ll make an atheist of him yet.
It is hard work to get born-again Christians to think for themselves though.”
I won’t become an atheist. Also, why is it that you think that I’m not thinking for myself?
Dear harebell:
“You were quick to cut the jews and moslems no slack, but never really addressed the differences within xtianity.
Is it catholicism, lutheran, 7th day adventists, one of the many baptists etc? I mean who has the correct message? This is important as members of these various sects have murdered and been martyred because of these differences.”
You’re right, this important to address. I’m not telling you that any one denomination is correct. What matters is the gospel that they preach. If a Southern Baptist chuch doesn’t preach the true Gospel, then they are just as wrong as the Muslims. The same goes for all the other denominations. (I used Southern Baptists only because that’s my denomination). The question then becomes, what is the true Gospel? God created the univers out of nothing. He made everything, including you and I. Man sinned against God. Because of this sin, God punished man with death, eternal death. However, God, being rich in mercy, has offered His Son, who lived a perfect life, died a perfect death, and rose from the dead, as a sacrifice for sins. But the message doesn’t end there, nor does it end with “Believe and you will be saved.” The end of the message is “Repent and Believe!” You have to turn away from your sins, live your life fully devoted to God, believing in Jesus’s righteousness to save you!
I do believe that the world is controlled by liberals. That doesn’t mean that all of the countries on earth are controlled by liberals of course. It simply means that the countries that control the world are controlled by liberalism. As for North America being controlled by conservative Christians? Really? When abortion and homosexual marriage are even being discussed is enough evidence that America (the nation that controls N. America). Add to that Barack Obama running for president and it gets even worse. Just because a country claims that it is ruled by religion, doesn’t mean it’s true. Unfortunately, America is a prime example. I encourage you to look at my other blog. It’s primarily devoted to politics.
J
I am impressed that somebody else would follow this rather narrow thread for so long. Any criticism of my logic would be welcome.
Leftback
You said
The question then becomes, what is the true Gospel?
You never told me who got it right, you just shot off on a tangent and hand waved a bit. Who has the right version?
As for discussion. Discussion is at the root of all knowledge, how are you to determine who has a good idea and whose ideas are lacking without weighing all the evidence? The USA consistently responds in the high 80% – 90% with a belief in god (usually the god of the bible). What am I to think?
Your arguments sound like the no true Scotsman fallacy to me, but are a bit more personal. Namely:
If any xtian believes in anything I do not approve of they can not be a real xtian.
Religious types hate to be pinned down on what makes for a real believer because that will exclude a lot of other so-called believers. And you know that your arguments against them are equally valid against you.
As for Obama he appears to be yet another panderer to xtian beliefs just like all those who have gone before him. Why is that worse, he will bend over backwards for xtianity just like those before him did too.
Russia and China. Two world powers with at least half the worlds population between them and they are not liberal. If you do not think that they have some say in the world then you have not been keeping up with current affairs.
Dear harebell:
“If any xtian believes in anything I do not approve of they can not be a real xtian.”
That’s exactly what I’m saying, and it’s true. If one claims to be a Christian, but does not believe the Gospel that was laid down previously, then that person is not a true Christian. Even the Apostle Paul said it. And I know how unpopular it is to say something like that. However, it’s true no matter how unpopular it may be to say.
“Religious types hate to be pinned down on what makes for a real believer because that will exclude a lot of other so-called believers.”
I don’t hate to be pinned down on what makes for a real believer. Neither did Jesus.
I also have a question, if you don’t mind.
How do you keep up with current events, both international and national?
Wow that’s a bold statement.
“If you don’t approve of any statement then the person involved cannot be a bone fide xtian”
What if you come up against somebody with the same mindset, but with a different interpretation of your dogmatic texts?
How would you arrive at common ground. By your “logic” catholics, lutherans etc are all non-xtians.
As for current events:
I read the blogs, watch TV, listen to radio, read papers, scan websites from around the world and talk to colleagues, friends and relatives all over this globe. (My brother spent his last two years of service in Iraq and Afghanistan.) Please do not think that I am averse to military service, all the members of my family have worn our country’s uniform even though I’m the only one for 4 generations, who while being mobilised, never went to theatre. I’m not disappointed by the way, the first gulf war was over with a thankfully low small loss of life.
Dear harebell:
Please, don’t get defensive, I was just curious. Most people I talk to aren’t as informed as you are, and I was just wondering how you got your news.
“Wow that’s a bold statement.
“If you don’t approve of any statement then the person involved cannot be a bone fide xtian”
What if you come up against somebody with the same mindset, but with a different interpretation of your dogmatic texts?
How would you arrive at common ground. By your “logic” catholics, lutherans etc are all non-xtians.”
Most of the time, if one has the same mindset as me, then we would interpret the Bible (I’m assuming is what you meant) relatively the same. There are, of course, fairly trivial matters. For instance, interpretations of the Book of Revelation. That is not nearly half as important (though still important, with valuable lessons for present day life) as what gospel one preaches. If someone were to tell you that you could earn your own salvation, I would seriously doubt his/her state of soul. That is a very serious topic, one that divided Christians significantly. (I might add here that one cannot be a Christian and say that you can earn salvation. It directly contradicts the Bible (see Ephesians 2:1-10).) I think it’s important enough to mention that I’m not “making up the rules” or anything. I take everything that anyone says, inspect with the microscope of the Word of God, and then judge it (what anyone says) according to His standards. There’s no “one interpretation fits all.” There are hundreds of thousands verses in the Bible that I haven’t a clue as to their meaning. However, there are these doctrines that you must absolutely believe in order to be a true, Bible-believing Christian:
1. God exists
2. God is sovreign
3. God created the world
4. Man sinned (or the Doctrine of Original Sin)
5. Jesus Christ was sent to the earth
6. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man
7. God is three in one (the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
8. Jesus Christ died as a sacrifice for sins
9. Jesus Christ rose from the dead to defeat death
10. Salvation through faith alone
11. Preservation of the Saints
Apart from “defence of my Country” I didn’t really believe I was being defensive, just informative. I guess I read that you were considering military service and tried to show that we are not that different.
As for your interpretation of the bible, it is amazing to me that you do not consider that the book could be an inaccurate statement of history. I mean all other religions of the book claim the same thing. The idea of the trinity had nothing to do with the bible and was a political decision thanks to the church of Rome.
Saints are man-made and are as a result of popularism within the Roman Church. Hence those recently elevated to Sainthood. Like an Oscar for the clergy and those who believed and didn’t question doctrine.
As for original sin, wow this is a creation of god and an excuse for why a supposedly omnipotent being allows suffering today.
Religion is a tautology and its apologetics is a sad exercise in trying to justify the unjustifiable.
To me it is sad that so many young people are being sold this lie and folk are being persecuted because of faerie tales and the need for old men to feel powerful.
The list 1-11 are just faerie tales and wishful thinking, but what truly worries me is that people could wish for all of them to be true.
The god of the bible is an evil vicious being with no concept of love or even compassion and as such is to be fought against. If a human being showed the same characteristics then they could expect to be placed in a prison or asylum. If it lived in the US then the death penalty would be called for.
Dear harebell:
“The idea of the trinity had nothing to do with the bible and was a political decision thanks to the church of Rome.”
This is a very false statement. Take Matthew 28:19. Jesus said “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” That is a very prime example of the trinity. Three persons, but one “name”.
“Saints are man-made and are as a result of popularism within the Roman Church. Hence those recently elevated to Sainthood. Like an Oscar for the clergy and those who believed and didn’t question doctrine.”
Originally, every Christian was called a saint. So really, the Roman Catholic Church has abused and deformed the word into something incredibly ugly. No Christian is better than another. All Christians are the saints of God.
“The god of the bible is an evil vicious being with no concept of love or even compassion and as such is to be fought against. If a human being showed the same characteristics then they could expect to be placed in a prison or asylum.”
This is a misunderstanding of God. Of course God has killed people, but these incidents were just. It is no different than today’s death penalty. That is not to say, however, that is God is without love. Would you sacrifice your own son for people who had cursed you, people who had essentially hated from the time they knew you? Would you sacrifice your own child for those kind of people? It takes an unfathomable amount of love to do that.
“As for original sin, wow this is a creation of god and an excuse for why a supposedly omnipotent being allows suffering today.”
God had nothing to do with original sin. It was Satan who tempted Adam and Eve, not God. Originally, Satan was an angel. He lusted after the power of God, and for that he was cast out of heaven. When God created the Earth (along with Adam and Eve), Satan tempted them to break the single law God had laid down. Obviously, God allows suffering and sin, but only for His glory. Through salvation, God is glorified magnificiently.
I know I can’t answer everything to your satisfaction, but I can try my hardest, which is what I’m doing. “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measures-surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7) I know that I don’t have all the answers, but I know that God is in control. I encourage you to read the Bible yourself, to see what it says. And don’t just read in one place. Try different books. I recommend reading Habbakkuk (it’s only 3 chapters long).
Have a good day (or night, if that’s when you read this!)
Your quote does not say one and three, it clearly refers to three separate beings and makes no mention of them being one. The only historical reference involves the politics of the divided holy Roman empire and an emperor’s decree. (see AD 381.)
As for blaming Satan, who created Satan? And therefore Satan’s character?
Absolutely you are right that most folk cannot answer all the questions that I have, but why if that is the case are US fundamentalist evangelicals so certain that they are right? If what you say is really the case then a small amount of modesty would be appropriate.
But no, folk are so certain about what god is and what god desires. Maybe humility and an acceptance that you could be wrong would be a correct attitude to adopt.
“Your quote does not say one and three, it clearly refers to three separate beings and makes no mention of them being one.”
If this is true, then why does Jesus say “the name of”? One name for three persons? That is the distinct nature of the trinity. We can also look at Genesis 1:26, which says “Let us make man in our image.” Or 1 Peter 1:2 which says: “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the santification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ…” WHile there is distinction amongst the persons of the trinity, there is only one God, as can be see clearly in Ephesians 4:4-6.
“Absolutely you are right that most folk cannot answer all the questions that I have, but why if that is the case are US fundamentalist evangelicals so certain that they are right?”
Just because I don’t know everything about a particular doesn’t mean that I’m not right. For instance, I know that the 13 British North American colonies defeated Great Britain in the American Revolution, but I don’t know everything about the war itself. I know that Parliment defeated Charles in the English Civil War, but I don’t know everything about that either. Incomplete knowledge does not mean an incorrect belief.
I love the way you refer to Genesis, how long after this was Jesus supposed to have existed?
And as for Peter, please, the guy was a mean and nasty zealot who was annoyed with the way the church was bypassing him. The first historical and dogmatic reference to the trinity was through the holy Roman Emperor. The history of church councils is really quite explicit on this fact.
As for your last point, that was a lot of hand-waving so that you could ignore the argument before you. Your examples do not in anyway mirror the argument I made.
You are quite right about the Revolution and the Roundheads defeating the Royalists, however what religious fundamentalists do is not generalise into the known they generalise into the unknown. Somehow incomplete knowledge leads to knowledge of fine details with religion, whereas the examples you quoted started with the outcome and stated a few facts.
Most zealots like to extrapolate from a few local instances into general statements. The statements you made were the opposite of this. You cannot conflate the two methodologies, although many a prophet has tried to.
Dear harebell:
“I love the way you refer to Genesis, how long after this was Jesus supposed to have existed?”
About 1,450 years before Jesus was born. Amazing, isn’t it? This only re-affirms what John says in John 1:1, that “in the beginning was the Word.” (Jesus is often called the Word of God). Not only that, but it also helps show that the Bible is unlike any other book in the history of mankind. It was written (under the inspiration of God) by more than 40 different people from different walks of life, ranging from fishermen, doctors, and prophets (not to mention exiles like John). It was written in 3 languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic) on three continents (Europe, Asia, and Africa). It is one book with one theme (God’s redemption of man for God’s glory) that is contained within 66 independant books. It covers hundreds of topics (most of them contraversial) and yet never contradicts itself. It contains hundred of specific prophecies that have never been proven false. And, it was written over the course of about 1500 years. That is one unique book.
“And as for Peter, please, the guy was a mean and nasty zealot who was annoyed with the way the church was bypassing him.”
What evidence do you have of this? Peter was a very kind man who spread the gospel to the gentiles. Acts 10:34-43. Of course the man had his flaws, but the church certainly was not bypassing him; he was highly respected amongst the other apostles. There was no real hiearchy in the early church, something that Catholics miss very much. No one apostle had more authority over another (or any believer, for that matter). No real Christian will attempt to force our religion down your’s (or anyone else’s) throat.
“Somehow incomplete knowledge leads to knowledge of fine details with religion, whereas the examples you quoted started with the outcome and stated a few facts.”
I presume you’re talking about doctrines like the Trinity and others like it? (Please correct me if I’m wrong) Well, there is direct knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity and the exclusivity of the Bible and such things; though I will admit they may not be as plain as the doctrine of Original Sin. This direct knowledge comes from God’s directly given Word.