(Image Credit: Paul Frederiksen)
Leviticus Also Said…
October 27, 2009 By 785 Comments
Comments
Trackbacks
-
[...] (picture via) [...]
-
[...] Leviticus Also Said… [...]
-
[...] • Leviticus also said… [...]
A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos
Atheist:
Subscribe through RSS
Follow Patheos on
Faith Channels
Religion Library
Topics
Resources
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
Love it – seems awfully dangerous to do something like that around a bunch of fundies though.
Nah, that was from the equality demonstration in DC… last week, was it? That’s what it says on Frederiksen’s Flickr stream, but you could probably tell from the makeup of the crowd and their signs anyway; young, stylish, and colourful.
I agree that it’s dangerous. For years I’ve been terrified that loving christians would slash my tires.
“For years I’ve been terrified that slashing Christians would love my tires.
There, fixed.
Of course it’s more loving for Christians to separate your innocent tires from such a blasphemous and abhorrent vehicle.
/sarcasm
But seriously, the Bible can be used to justify almost anything.
You’re right. The Bible can be used to justify almost anything, when used incorrectly. Likewise, a hammer can be used to kill someone instead of driving a nail into wood. There is an intended purpose for hammers, but there are also those who can use a hammer for other purposes.
If you want to completely dismiss hammers just because they can also be used to kill people, and vow never to personally use a hammer to drive a nail into wood… that’s your prerogative… but it seems just a tad bit paranoia-driven.
But this is a false analogy.
Something which can be used to morally justify harmful behaviour (the Bible) and something which can be physically used to cause harm (hammer) are not the same at all.
Compare the statements “I made the decision to hit this person in the head with a hammer because a hammer is a hard, blunt object which may be used to inflict trauma to the head.” and “I made the decision to hit this person in the head with a hammer because they are homosexual and I interpret the Bible to say that homosexuals deserve to be punished.”
The first is a statement of practicality (why use a hammer and not a piece of brie), the second is moral reasoning (why is it OK for me to hurt this person).
It is not a false analogy. You exactly outlined the point I was making with the analogy.
You’re right… a hammer can be used for constructive physical use… and for destructive physical use… its purpose is for construction, even though some may use it for destruction.
The Bible can be used for constructive moral use… and for destructive moral use… its purpose is for good, even though some may use it for evil.
I was never suggesting that a hammer can be used for moral reasoning nor that the Bible can be used to drive a nail into wood, though I imagine it could be possible. That wasn’t the point I was making at all. The only point I was making was that just because something might be used for destruction or evil… does not mean this is its purpose.
Those who want to blame the Bible for the world’s problems only point at those who are using the Bible for their own evil purposes… this would be no different than pointing to people who use hammers for their own evil purposes and trying to suggest that the fault lies with the hammer.
At least the Sikhs are upholding this one. Unless we’re discussing facial hair. In that case the Muslims are doing the duty. Just don’t get me started on Jewish sidelocks . . .
Now if someone will just hold up something like this at the football game where the cheer leaders have been banned from bible verse signs…
Classic cherry pickin’.
Kriss
Love this. So true. It bothers me that people can decide which lines resonate with them and which to ignore.
Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are RIPE for these kinds of pickings. I like referencing Numbers 22:11 in particular, because in today’s world it’s rare for anyone to NOT be breaking that commandment at any given moment.
Isn’t that Deuteronomy?
Haha, my mistake. It is still in the bible, though.
Gad, this is dumb. Critics of religion are just as ignorant as those that they criticize. Leviticus does not say, “Don’t get a haircut.” The command against cutting hair was reserved only for special circumstances, such as those taking a Nazirite vow. These vows were typically taken for short periods of time, and those taking them usually shaved their heads before the period of the vow started.
But what’s even dumber is the failure to distinguish between ceremonial and moral laws. This distinction has been held by Christians from the earliest days. Leviticus also said, “Don’t kill, don’t lie, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, care for the poor, pay your workers fairly…” and most of us are still just fine with those today. The Hebrew Scriptures are in fact the basis of much of today’s western moral reasoning and jurisprudence, both directly and indirectly.
So taunt, jibe, hate, whatever. You’re demonstrating your ignorance.
Ok I’ll give you the haircut one. But Leviticus 17-26 concerns holiness which are rules not only for priests but for congregations as well, so what about…
… the ban on mixing livestock, crops, and clothing materials Lev 19:19
… the ban on getting tattoos Lev 19:28
… death to children who curse their parents. Lev 20: 9
… death for adulterers Lev 20:10
… not being able to marry widowed or divorced women Lev 21:14
… or the dozens of other contradictory and ridiculous rules.
And sure Hebrew laws don’t allow theft, murder, or rape, except that they do. Because those are the exact things God commands the Israelite’s to do to dozens of other tribes. Kill their men and children, take their women, land, and livestock is a command that God issued many times. The only people the Israelite’s were concerned with treating justly were other Israelite’s, everyone else is essentially fair game.
Also Western Law isn’t based on Hebrew scripture, its based on Roman tradition and the establishment of precedence to create common law. The US system being based on the British common law system which predated the arrival of Christianity to the isles by about 300 years.
My personal favorite is the one saying that a man who rapes a woman has to marry her. To punish the raper. loooooooooooooooooooool@bronze age laws. Yeah, I’ll bet that was some punishment to him.
“But I wanted to marry her-I mean, dear me, what an awful punishment!”
Women were property in the old testament. It wasn’t about being punished for raping a woman. It was more like “you break it, you buy it” policy, the resale value of slightly-used virgins was very low. The only ‘punishment’ was being forced to pay the dowry to her father or oldest male relative.
Raping non-virgins was almost as bad. I mean how was a owner, er husband, supposed to know weather or not she was bearing his sons? Its not like they had the Maury show back then. That’s why they just killed the rapist and the raped woman, if she was married. You know so as not to keep the husband up nights wondering about who’s kids were going to inherit his hut and goats.
wait let me get this straight – let’s say you’re some poor ugly goat herder, you save up some money for the “dowry”, find the absolute hottest virgin around, then rape her. Now – OMG you have to buy her??? Oops sorry – here’s some cash. Thanks!
Just to get facts straight, in the case of a rape where the woman could not call out for help and be rescued (say, out in the fields), and the man was required to marry her, he was then -not allowed to divorce her for any reason-. The point here is that the woman could make his life a living hell and he could do nothing about it, so he better figure out how to treat her well and win her over. Further social context is that women during this period had no options but marriage or to remain in their father’s home until he died, then hope a brother took her in. After being raped, no one would marry her, so being forced to marry a rapist, who was in turn forced to treat her well, was pretty well her only shot at having a home and children, or even just sustenance. Not a pretty picture, no, but these are the realities of the time, and its a much more humane system than others in which the woman would be punished for man’s sexual misconduct without question.
“Further social context is that women during this period had no options but marriage or to remain in their father’s home until he died”
What you call social context are the very laws we are objecting too. The women were forced to marry even if it was to her rapist. She is not allowed to sustain herself independent of a man. Her society would rather exile her and condemn her to starvation rather than give her independence or simple human decency.
They had no options because the men in their society robbed them of those options. This isn’t some sitcom where she is going to nag him about the dishes, shes being forced into a relationship with someone who assaulted her and her society gives her no legal recourse or escape.
It’s not ‘social context’, its a misogynistic system that treats women as chattel. You keep saying this is a more humane system, more human than what exactly? A leash and a cage? You don’t seem to get that this system IS punishing women for a man’s sexual misconduct without question. She gets no say, no choice, and no justice.
Because being kept by the man who had no qualms on assaulting you is so much better. Not very knowledgeable about the concept of domestic violence, are you?
Or he could beat the shit out of her. Or just torture her into submission – a couple rapes would do the trick. She’d have no say about that, either.
Forced to treat her well… riiiiight. What it is is a horrific, barbaric system.
So if someone rapes you, we’ll know what to do – make you his sex slave.
No, Siberia, there’s nothing in Mosaic law that allows men to commit sexual or non-sexual violence on their wives. I have no idea where you get your information. HE is not allowed to divorce HER. Not the other way around. SHE can still leave HIM, so far as I can tell from that law, and has recourse to social structures that place limitations on his behavior. I don’t think the situation is quite the same as domestic violence as you imagine it now. And while I agree these social conditions are very bad by today’s standards, I don’t think any of the respondents on this thread have any conception of what a nomadic, foraging society has to do to survive (the nature of the society from which the Mosaic law originated). There Are No Options. Everyone stays together, those who leave, die. It’s not like you could just go out and get a job in a new city.
Furthermore, the teachings of Christ acknowledge the limits of the Mosaic law, and the NT did not repeat or validate these teachings about rape. I don’t understand why they’re somehow to be determinative of the whole of Biblically based religious belief when they have been irrelevant to real religious life for probably over 2500 years.
Of course there isn’t. But there’s no law disallowing it either – and as someone who actually works with law, I know far too well that the existence or lack thereof of regulations doesn’t stop the behavior from happening. The law may not say “go forth and beat your wife stupid”, but it does facilitate the fact by forcing – by law! – the union of those people. It’s what we call “enabling”.
But you yourself said that a tainted woman – a woman who was not a virgin – would have a terrible chance at life; at getting sustenance. Saying she can leave him if she wants is a false option – there’s no way she would leave him if the consequences are probably poverty, starvation and death.
No, it probably isn’t. It was probably worse.
I have such a notion. And I agree these laws probably made sense to a barbaric populace a couple thousand years ago. But it doesn’t change the fact they are barbaric, and it doesn’t change the fact there’s nothing whatsoever of divine in them – they are the laws of an ancient people, is all. I do not feel any compunction whatsoever to follow any – old or new – writings of ancient, barbaric peoples, and I do not try to sugar coat their reality with platitudes, either. We’ve evolved past that.
And yet I had a great-aunt who was forced by her very religious mother to do exactly that – marry her rapist because she was no longer pure. This aunt went on to live a life of terror under her rapist’s life – it involves electroshock therapy because of her supposed hysteria (you’d think bearing the child of your rapist and watching said rapist try to rape other people would’ve had something to do with it) and abuse of every nature. She was fourteen when she was raped – this was the early XX century – and she went on to live sixty years of trauma because of the outdated, but supposedly divine and thus timeless, laws of a very old nomadic people.
You’re kidding yourself if you think there aren’t people out there who still take those laws at face value solely because they are written in the Holy Book.
“Just to get facts straight, in the case of a rape where the woman could not call out for help and be rescued (say, out in the fields), and the man was required to marry her, he was then -not allowed to divorce her for any reason”
Citation, please.
Your attempt to lay out a case that the woman could just annoy the heck out of her husband is just silly. Sure, she might choose to be annoying, but he might also choose to beat the everliving crap out of her for her troubles. I doubt many people would have stood in the way. Women were considered to be property. It’s unlikely that many women would have made a nuisance of themselves without consequence.
The point is that it is utterly, galactically immoral to “punish” a rapist by allowing him to marry the victim. Any attempt to justify such an obviously immoral law deserves only ridicule and contempt.
Actually…if you actually read it…which I am sure you didn’t, it refers to a man sleeping with a married woman who is voluntarily sleeping with the man…it says that if a married woman is raped “in the field” i.e. not out in the streets where she isn’t supposed to be, then the rapist is killed, not the woman for there was no one to save her. Get it right.
Oh, well, that’s okay then.
(Also: what?! “[I]t refers to a man sleeping with a married woman who is voluntarily sleeping with the man”… which isn’t rape, right? So what are you talking about? There are lots of funny laws tucked here and there (especially Lev. and Deut.) in the Bible, I think you are referring to some other one.)
Well, if you know anything about marriage, it IS a punishment. HA!
Granted, Lev 21:5 only applies to priests. But that leaves open the question, whence the tonsure? It’s no longer common practice in Christianity for all clergy to be tonsured, but some orders in some denominations still do it, even today. Are they not disobeying Lev 21:5?
Tonsure isn’t practiced widely today, but by what stretch of the imagination do you think a Catholic monk feels any obligation to follow every detail of Mosaic ceremonial law? Demonstrating a great ignorance of Catholic theology here.
Re: “Demonstrating a great ignorance of Catholic theology here.”
Ignorance, you call it? Interesting.
At any rate, the point is this: If you accept that Leviticus is still “enforceable” enough, today and for Christians, that its injunction against gays (e.g. Lev 18:22) must continue to be upheld, then one must also condemn many other current practices, which also happen to be violations of Levitical code.
In other words, you cannot logically eat shellfish (a practice outlawed in Lev 11:12) yet still demand that Lev 18:22 be obeyed. You cannot logically eat pork (outlawed e.g. in Lev 11:7) and still demand that Lev 18:22 be obeyed. You cannot logically wear anything that’s a wool/linen blend (forbidden in Lev 19:19) but still demand that Lev 18:22 be obeyed.
The point is that all of this is cherry-picking. Anyone who genuinely believes that the Mosaic Law, including all of Leviticus, is still “in force” and must be obeyed because it’s divinely ordained, is not going to insist on one piece of it being followed while ignoring the rest. At least, they can’t do it and still be consistent with the idea that it’s divinely ordained.
What they are doing, instead, is using a piece of scripture to condemn and belittle something they personally find repugnant. But in order to make it appear to be something other than their own personal justification for their subjective value judgement against gays, they trot out the canard that this passage is “divine law.”
Sorry but that ain’t gonna wash. It’s either divine law … and that means it’s ALL divine law, not just the couple of verses condemning gays … or it’s not.
It’s time for Christians to summon the courage to decide what they REALLY think. Is Leviticus and the rest of Mosaic Law “divine ordinance,” or is it not? They need to mature beyond the stage of “cherry picking” to rationalize their value judgements. Unfortunately, while some Christians have this courage and maturity and do not condemn gays for being gay, many still do not.
PsiCop, this is really well put. Thankyou!
I can’t help but notice that Antiutopia hasn’t come back to respond to this particular thread!
It’s pretty sad to see the metaphorical high fives over not seeing a follow-up post by someone on the Internet. Is that the new way to win? Keep posting until the other person has more important things in their life?
It’s like watching bullies on the playground giving each other a high-five, thinking they are somehow making the world a better place.
Amusing, but sad.
Yeah, and anyway I expect antiutopia to come back eventually
Sorry if I caused offense. Firstly I really just wanted to compliment PsiCop on what I thought was a very clearly and well written point. I think “bullies on the playground” is a bit harsh.
It’s clear I didn’t make my second point at all well, and worse, clearly offended in the process, which I honestly wasn’t trying to do.
So:
PsiCop’s point, which has also been made by others here, is something that in my opinion hasn’t been responded to by any Christians. There has been a lot of argument about correct quoting or interpretation of the Bible, but nobody ever addresses point that PsiCop made (and I won’t try to restate it as clearly my comunication skills are a bit lacking!)
Can anyone address this for me?
And you’re demonstrating a lot of name-calling that lacks any punch. You’re also demonstrating an obtuseness, a continued inability to get the point. Which, as PsiCop said, not that you’ll get it this time either, it is still cherry-picking. Cafeteria christianity, bible buffet, take what you like and ignore the rest. (Hypocrisy.)
DUH!
Dear Random Guy:
If you equate all killing with murder, then yes, God commands murder. But in fact contemporary law does not make such an equation. While the topic is hotly debated, the death penalty for specific crimes does in fact persist to this day, and the commands of God to kill other tribes were justified on the grounds of their terrible immorality, so were a form of moral death sentence imposed upon them. Nowhere are the Israelites commanded by God to rape. Just for fact checking, I would not draw that big a distinction between Roman common law and the Hebrew Scriptures, as the Hebrew Scriptures predated Roman common law, as it’s widely accepted in current scholarship that Greek/Roman culture and mythology had semitic influence, and most importantly, as -the Romans were the ones who Christianized Britain.-
Yes, the Romans and Greeks partially copied Hebrew scripture and common-law, just as the ancient Semites copied their contemporary neighbors the Sumerians and all of their descendants.
Listen you can argue semantics when its a question of murder, self-defense, or man-slaughter. But saying that the voices in sky told you that your victims were bad people isn’t exactly winning me over. This isn’t a modern court room, were talking about primitive people killing each other for land and property.
God never explicitly told the Israelites to rape, but he did tell them to kill the husbands and children (which btw what kind of moral death sentence is imposed on children?) of tribes and take the women for themselves. Its like how the modern translations of the Bible uses words like maidservant instead of slave. It’s an attempt to whitewash what happens when primitive tribes conquer each other.
OK now for the history lesson, Rome existed for nearly 300 years before they even met the Hebrews. Their law was developed completely independently of the Hebrew influence. Buddhist and Hindus laws were written thousands of years before the Hebrews, but that does nothing to prove the Hebrews were influenced by them.
If it’s widely accepted in the scholarship then name some names. Because in the four years of Latin that I’ve taken I’ve never herd of someone making the claim that the Roman legal system was somehow influenced by Hebrew scripture. That is no one aside from you, on the internet.
As to Britian, it was conquered by the Romans in 43 AD. It wasn’t until 313 AD that Constantine I made Christianity ‘legal’ in the Roman Empire. Christianity didn’t arrive in the British Isles till the later part of the third century. So, once again, Roman Law and Culture predated Christian influence in Britain by over 200 years.
Correction – That should say ‘later part of the fourth century’.
Read the introduction to Kirk, Raven, and Scofield’s _The Presocratic Philosophers_ for the influence of *semitic* (not necessarily Hebrew) myth and other texts upon Greek culture, which in turn influenced the development of Roman culture.
I’m aware of the dates of the Roman conquest, aware that England was re-paganized by the invasions of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes from the 4th century onward, then re-Christianized in the seventh century. There is no meaningful presence of Roman common law in England that was not filtered through Roman Christianity after the sixth century. The Celts sure didn’t pass it on to the Angles and Saxons. That’s ridiculous.
I’m sorry you don’t see any distinction between acts of murder and acts of killing that proceed from moral and legal judgments, but that’s been part of civilized law for thousands of years now.
I didn’t ask for experts about the fluidity of ancient myth and culture. I asked you to prove that Hebrew Scripture influenced Roman Law, and therefore the establishment of western law, which was your initial claim. It’s dishonest to pretend that it is the same thing.
Anti’s old argument – “Christianity influenced British common law.”
My counter – “British common law was established before Christianities arrival.”
Anti’s new argument – “well that got filtered through Christianity later.”
Keep moving those goal posts and your never wrong.
You’re the one who can’t make a distinction between moral or legal judgments and bronze-age barbarism. I’ll ask you again; What kind of moral death sentence is imposed on children? Don’t bother responding unless you intend to answering that question fully.
God ordered the Israelites to kill children of other tribes many times over. You have yet to account for what in modern times would be considered a terrible atrocity as being morally justifiable. If you believe in a just and loving God, such actions are inexcusable. If however, you believe like I do, that many ancient cultures were violent and primitive and used their *fictional* Gods to justify their cruelty, then what happens in the Bible makes sense. But to attempt to justify the old testament as a grounds of moral authority is quite simply indecent. Too many horrors receive praise within its pages.
Random Guy:
Here’s what I originally said. I quote:
“Just for fact checking, I would not draw that big a distinction between Roman common law and the Hebrew Scriptures, as the Hebrew Scriptures predated Roman common law, as it’s widely accepted in current scholarship that Greek/Roman culture and mythology had semitic influence, and most importantly, as -the Romans were the ones who Christianized Britain.-”
I said Greek/Roman culture had SEMITIC influence, not HEBREW. My point was that both Greek/Roman culture and the Hebrew Scripture had shared influence from other semitic cultures.
Your argument does not take into account the fact of the Anglo/Saxon invasion and the reChristianization of Britain. Roman common law became Roman Christian common law long before it became British common law, a process which did not start until after the Anglo/Saxon invasion in the 7th cent.
I responded to another poster below about the commands to kill children.
“I would not draw that big a distinction between Roman common law and the Hebrew Scriptures, as the Hebrew Scriptures predated Roman common law, as it’s widely accepted in current scholarship that Greek/Roman culture and mythology had semitic influence”
– How can you not see that this statement implied an equivocation between Hebrew Scripture and Roman Law? You were not arguing that the had shared influence, you were arguing that one influenced the other. You mention Hebrew’s twice then switch to the more generic Semitic later on, it was clear to me that you were still talking about the Hebrew. That or you used the word Semitic so you could back-peddle if someone called you on it.
- Regarding common law the only point I have been trying to make is that the Roman foundation was laid before Christianity and while it may have been added to in later centuries, the system WAS NOT Christian in origin, and neither was it replaced by a different one. Nothing you have posted has refuted that premise.
And of course you didn’t answer the one question I wanted answered. “look somewhere else” is a cop out. You know how to use ctrl-c and ctrl-v.
You refuse to answer that question because it would expose your moral hypocrisy. You either have to support a baby-killing God, or throw out good to accept a more humanist based moral system. But you want to be a good moderate Christian, sitting on the fence, hoping that you never have to address the blatant contradictions in your moral philosophy.
Having said that I’m done. I will not be participating in this thread anymore. Your lack of reading comprehension, either purposeful or not, makes it in impossible to carry on a reasonable debate. And where there was potential for thought provoking dialogue, your complete unwillingness to address the core issues of your opponents arguments has made this whole venture tedious in the extreme.
“the commands of God to kill other tribes were justified on the grounds of their terrible immorality”
the COMMANDS of God to kill…??? I’m shocked, absolutely shocked that people still believe an omnipotent being would do such petty nonsense. An omnipotent being would want nothing – nor would such a being get angry or have human emotion of any kind whatsoever. There are over 4,000 stars for every human on this planet and the maker of this vast universe is going to concern itself with warring tribes?????
come now.
Duh! It’s because, originally, abrahamic god was a tribal god. It’s with Jesus -and Paul, and constantine- that they begin expanding their god to a “universal” god. probably in his origines they didn’t even claim that their god was the only one. It was their god and it was more powerful than their neighbour’s gods.
Omnipotent? He can’t fight against chariots!!
eww…capitalization
Saying there are over 4000 stars for every human on this planet to justify that an omnipotent being wouldn’t be concerned about warring tribes is the same line of thinking that leads to protecting those stars, even at the cost of human lives. Let’s not get too PC, or your next line of thinking will be to exterminate mankind to protect the rest of the universe.
;)
Where do you get your ideas about God, StareClips? How do you know? Do you think size matters to God the way it matters to us? The God of the NT counts every hair on our heads and knows the number of grains of sand on the seashore…
And yet doesn’t know how to beat an army with chariots and gets confused regarding the shape of the Earth…
And he doesn’t know about Adam eating the apple, he has to guess it :-p
And he didn’t put any science in his cobbled-together bible. He must not have known about the existence of bacteria, viruses, atoms and their structure, modern medicine and cures (which are modern because people have developed them; God was worthless at telling them in “his” book, though you’d think he could have!), physics, chemistry.
That would have been a convincer! Might have had some intelligent people convinced the book is real. It isn’t even good at faking real. I’ve seen internet scams more thorough and convincing than the bible. God comes across as pathetic. He wasn’t saying squat that was worthwhile. As other posters pointed out, he didn’t know shit.
As far as we can estimate, there are more or less one hundred billions (ten to the power of eleven) stars for each human being ( http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970115.html ).
In fact, there are more stars in the sky than grains of sands on our planet ( http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~gmackie/billions.html )
When someone takes a conversation about legalizing same-sex marriage and turns it into an astronomy discussion, it makes me wonder if this person really doesn’t want same-sex marriage to be legalized, and instead of coming forward with this viewpoint, changing the subject is the alternative.
Let’s get the topic back to legalizing same-sex marriage and keep religion out of politics.
I agree that we should all attempt to focus on the subject at hand, but conversations are a little more fluid than that. They tend to evolve. And it’s a good thing, too. Think of all the subjects that might never be explored if we doggedly insisted that nobody deviate from the original subject.
As to keeping religion out of politics…..good luck with that.
like that rule that says men are pure and women are not? Same book of the bible. If your wife/gf/Mom is on her period you need to avoid her. Do not touch her or your holy maleness will be soiled. Oh, if she has a baby, right after birth she is unclean. She is unclean and her husband should avoid her until she has purified, 33 days for a boy 66 days for a girl. Girls are worse. Bible is so anti chick.
Anne — most scholars of semitic cultures acknowledge that women under Jewish law were treated much better than they were in surrounding cultures. They have more fully human status. The laws you refer to are not intended to be insulting to women, but were again based upon notions of ceremonial uncleanness. And no, women were not in fact property. Even if their legal status makes us see them as property, the “rules” governing a culture are far more extensive than the “laws” governing a culture. These rules concern social propriety, etc., which govern what is acceptable behavior every bit as much as the laws on the books.
If women were not property, then why are they commanded to hide their hair (under a wig) after marriage in order not to tempt other men? Her “sexy” hair is only reserved for her husband.
Where do you see that command, DCtourist?
According to jewish law, or halakhic. Apparently the wig is called a “sheitel.” According to Rabbi Dov Lerner, A woman’s hair is “her crowning glory” and might encourage the violation of Jewish sexual and marital laws. This (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Conservative-Judaism-951/Orthodox-Jewish-women-wear.htm)
That’s one of those vague, pretend-expert comments that Wikipedia points out as unacceptable. They (Wikipedia administrators; anyone can edit) have higher standards than christians and their bible: they want proofs, evidences, specifics and references.
Oh, really? Wow, I didn’t realize that the standard for morality was just doing better than the douche-nozzle over yonder. I think my neighbor beats his wife and kids daily. So if I only beat mine once every two days, I’m good. I’m starting to dig this religion thing, now that I understand it better. Thanks Anti!
This is absurd on so many levels.
First of all, any distinctions between “ceremonial” and “moral” laws is an invention of the church, and is not present in the Bible. If you maintain this distinction, you maintain your ability to distinguish right from wrong from extrabiblical context, proving the Bible is not the ultimate source of your morality.
Second, Leviticus clearly DOES say nobody may cut their hair. “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.” ‘ ” (Leviticus 19:1-2 NIV) is followed by a number of decrees clearly intended for everyone, including: ” ‘ “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.” ‘ ” (Lev. 19:27-28 NIV) So it is forbidden for everyone to cut their hair or tattoo their skin.
Third, the purpose of the poster was clearly to compare Lev. 19 with Lev. 18, so let’s do so. “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Speak to the Israelites and say to them: “I am the LORD your God.” ‘ ” (Lev. 18:1-2) Sound familiar? This is followed again by a number of decrees clearly intended for everyone, including: ” ‘ “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” ‘ ” (Lev. 18:22) Clearly, for the sake of consistency, one must treat these two declarations equally. The authors and editors were clearly from the same period, the laws are clearly given equal weight, they are presented in the same way, from the same source, through the same medium, to the same people, and even the grammatical structure is nearly identical. How can we possibly decide which laws to obey and which to ignore except by our own common sense. And if we are allowed to use this, then we are the ones determining our morality, not the Bible.
Fourth, Nazirites are not introduced until Numbers, so Leviticus could not possibly be referring to this.
Fifth, Nazirites did not “take a short vow.” They were dedicated to God for life, a determination made by their parents, not them.
Sixth, the reasonable laws in Leviticus are not what we are debating; it is the unreasonable ones we debate. At the point that you concede not all of the laws in that book must be obeyed, you have no justification for condemning an entire group of people to live as second-class citizens because of a law against their lifestyle. This makes no more sense than asking them not to cut their hair.
Great post.
My only issue is with you using “lifestyle” instead of “orientation.” Lifestyle is a term used by the fundies and others who want desperately to deny that homosexuality is chosen.
Oops. My bad. That should have read *NOT* chosen.
Michael –
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance. Roger, I see, follows you in it.
First, if you include the New Testament in the “Bible,” then yes, there are clear distinctions between ceremonial, civil, and moral laws. That is the whole point of many of the disputes in the book of Acts and Paul’s early epistles, most of them having to do with Gentiles being circumcised and having to keep kosher. The same moral laws against killing, lying, stealing, etc., carry over uninterrupted into the NT period. Kosher laws were reduced to “not eating any meat with the blood still in it” and circumcision was no longer required — and the kosher laws were only followed that far so that Christians who started out as practicing Jews could fellowship with Gentiles who were never practicing Jews.
Next, the laws about -specific kinds- of hair cutting and tattoos, etc., need to be contextualized within the practices of religious groups surrounding the nations of Israel. The point was not that Israelites were never to cut their hair, otherwise that specific command for Nazirites would make no sense. The point was that Israelites were not to cut their hair -like those other idol worshipers-.
And speaking of Nazirites, no, it is not true that all Nazirites were Nazirites for life. That was only true of Samson. Read the commands in Numbers and you’ll see that there is no such requirement. You could read an example of a short term Nazirite vow in the case of Paul in the book of Acts — “he cut his hair for he had taken a vow.”
Now, I never argued with the fact that within the context of the OT law itself, all the laws were meant to be taken with equal seriousness. If you know anything about Hebrew and Jewish history, you know of course that they were not in fact treated that way, especially during periods when the temple had been destroyed.
But that point has -nothing- to do with the context of this threaded discussion and is a rather stupid point to make. But that’s okay, I expect stupidity and ignorance from almost all atheists these days. The point is that the Church -has not at any time, not since the time of the Apostles-, given equal weight to all parts of the Mosaic law, so there is no contradiction in Christians today maintaining moral restrictions against homosexuality as part of their faith while not feeling obligated to carry out Jewish civil or ceremonial laws. That issue was dealt with as early as the book of Acts.
I won’t even begin to address your ridiculous claim about what is in Numbers not being relevant to what is in Leviticus. Even if we reject traditional Mosaic authorship and hold to the Documentary Hypothesis, we should still understand that all these books were written long after the events they narrate, so that the Pentateuch in the form that we have it today should be viewed as a single document subject to a series of editors who worked on it from the 10th to the 6th centuries BCE.
What you should be arguing, if you had any clarity of insight into this issue, is that while every religion has the right to its own moral beliefs, it does not necessarily follow that those moral beliefs should be the basis of civil law for everyone. It is equally true that every group has the right to make their own beliefs the basis of civil law: they have to convince the majority of voters in order to do so, and if they do so, then their beliefs are reflective of the beliefs of the community. Homosexual groups are acting just like fundamentalist Christians on this point, trying to force their morality on everyone through the courts and through civil law. How the vote ends up determines the country we will wind up in. Every person, every group, has the right to try to make this country into what they see fit. The majority always decides in the end.
“Homosexual groups are acting just like fundamentalist Christians on this point”
So homosexuals are demanding that Christians be barred from marriage because it offends them? What, their just asking for the right for two consenting adults to enter into a marriage recognized by the state, allowing all of the laws that give special privilege to married couples to extend to their relationships as well? Oh, those aren’t the same things at all. Gay marriage isn’t a moral issue, its a legal one, the people pretending otherwise are bigots.
“The majority always decides in the end.”
Go take a course in civics, you clearly weren’t paying attention in high school. In the US we have this thing called the Constitution that guarantee’s EVERY citizen many enumerated and un-enumerated rights (thanks 9th amendment). This exists so that minorities have protection against the tyranny of the majority. It’s to try and prevent popular ignorance from becoming the law of the land.
It’s rather stupid, Random Guy, to think the US Constitution clearly and plainly addresses all possible concerns without need for interpretation or application. What a waste of time the US Supreme Court is! Why did the founding fathers invent such a thing? And, of course, I know you have historical evidence for the founding fathers’ support of gay marriage. Surely they merely forgot to include explicit mention in the bill of rights.
The fact is, the widespread legalization of gay marriage in the US will greatly change US culture, a culture in which we all participate. Gays are trying to shape US culture into what they want, fundamentalists Christians into what they want. Framing a “rights” argument is to frame a “moral” argument, but the idea of gay marriage, much less that it is a right, has been so universally absurd — even to cultures that accepted homosexual love — that I can’t believe you can imagine attempting any historical or legal argument for its support.
The Socrates of Plato’s dialogs openly desired other men, but was married to a woman, Xantippe, and had children with her. Marriage is to support procreation and nothing else.
“Marriage is to support procreation and nothing else.”
Do you even realize how stupid this statement is??? So by this logic my grandma shouldn’t have been allowed to remarry a man a few years after the death of my grandad for companionship? I mean, if she can’t pop out kids, well, why bother?
Sheesh.
Watch the insults.
I did not state or even imply that the Constitution addresses all possible concerns. The fact that it has an amendment process at all indicates that it was intended to be a living document, changing as the needs of the republic changed. Its not about whether or not founding fathers supported gay marriage. That’s a laughable anachronism. They believed in slavery and many were slave owners. They didn’t think women should be allowed to vote. Don’t get me wrong, these were some of the smartest men of their time. But that’s also part of their limitations, being men of their time, many things were simply beyond their consideration.
But you know what was so cool? They understood that their limitations were part of the problem, which is why they made the constitution amendable. Another cool thing, they did include mention of gay marriage in the bill of rights. Its called the ninth amendment, which has come to mean that simply because the Constitution doesn’t explicitly outline a right, does not mean that you don’t have it. They intended future Americans to discover more rights that were withheld from previous generations.
Gay marriage is universally absurd huh? So why have dozens of countries (and states and provinces) throughout the world legalized it? How come some countries have laws recognizing those relationships going back decades? I’ll let you look up the word ‘universally’ and get back to me on that one.
You want a legal argument for supporting gay marriage? How about the fact that married couples have dozens of laws in place to protect them. Everything from medical decisions, insurance coverage, custody issues, hospital visitation, legal protections against testifying against your spouse,execution of living wills, even the taxes you pay are framed around marriage. The list goes on and on. If the government gave no legal protections or advantages to any married couple this would be a non-issue. But by choosing to recognize one type of marriage and dismissing another, the government is discriminating against a group. If being married entails certain legal protections in this country, then it must follow that the right to marry is a fundamental one. The exact same thing happened 50 years ago with miscegenation laws, and the public opinion changed then just as its changing now.
For the record, marriage isn’t about procreation, before contraception became widely available procreation tends to happen just because people like sex. Marriage has traditionally been about passing property on through the male line. It also served to strengthen community ties by allying families with one another. In the upper classes its been used to maintain power and grow influence. Up until the last few hundred years most marriages were arranged for exactly these reasons with infidelity being considered taboo, but not unexpected. In modern times, with all of our social and economic mobility, these reasons for marriage become fewer and fewer. So the reason for marriage has shifted to being more about finding happiness (either through a spouse or a family) than it is about property.
@LRA
Looks like I’ll have to get a divorce as I’m married but we have no intention of having kids.
Poor Jabster. The catholic church doesn’t accept divorce either, so it looks like you’re totally screwed, dude.
;P
@LRA
Fortunately I was christened CoE so I’m ok — I can even be a member of the royal family after they fudged it for old big ears.
It’s OK, we know you’re scared of change. Thankfully, it happens whether you like it or not, and it will.
Much like women were trying to shape US culture into what they wanted. We made it. The world didn’t end.
And, to be fair, the fundamentalists could get what they want, too, and the world wouldn’t end, either, because the US isn’t all that special. The rest of the world will laugh at your backwardness, but won’t care.
I agree. Rights have nothing to do with moral. Morals are personal, rights are not. Some rights are derived from morals, but not all.
I’m glad to know that I should not be allowed to marry, as I am sterile. Since procreation is the purpose of marriage, and I cannot procreate – nor have a wish to…
Then again, according to the ancient law I shouldn’t be allowed to live, either – I am handicapped. The Greeks and Romans would have let me die at birth. Or, if you go back to the Bible, I would be allowed to live, but not worship, as I am physically blemished.
That’s OK, though. I have neither the desire to partake on ridiculous and outdated ceremonies because it’s socially expected that I do, neither the desire to worship a God of hate and bigotry.
That’s your opinion (to use our own adjectives, a stupid and ignorant one, in addition to being insulting and full of ASSumptions), masquerading as fact. You’re just being dead certain at the top of your lungs.
If every “religion has the right to its own moral beliefs,” do you believe that the Muslims have the right to kill all the infidels, because it is part of their belief system, even if it is obviously morally wrong to everyone else?
Ha…DC, there’s a difference between having the right to “believe” you have the right to kill someone, and having the right to actually kill someone. We cannot and should not desire thought control, even of bad, horrible, ugly thoughts. But we can restrain people actually killing people.
I don’t think you can successfully control those actions, especially if they are preached by a religious leader, supported by a religious organization, and are believed to come from god/allah. It’s your morality against theirs, and if you let them believe that it is moral to kill people, then your prosecution of those deeds will be seen as unjust and immoral. In fact, their judicial system may actually reward such actions and persecute actions in line with our ideas of morality.
Without religion in the mix, we’d have more of a chance to agree on moral issues and institute laws and punishments accordingly.
I don’t know much about religion, clearly less than you but it seems from your post that 2000 years ago Jews/Christians decided that what they believed 3000 years before that (when they were just Jews i.e. most of the kosher rules as well as some stuff about not cutting your hair like idol worshipers) didn’t make much sense. Some still made sense, so they kept some stuff from the OT but just not everything. I’d suggest they get together and figure out that some of the decisions from 2000 year ago also don’t make much sense, namely that homosexuality is evil. I mean, if they are just able to pick and choose.
As they say, Antiutopia, “pot, meet kettle.”
“Gad, this is dumb. Critics of religion are just as ignorant as those that they criticize.”
Yeah, special circumstances.
God can only commit mass murder on a genocidal scale *if someone else has land that a certain tribe wants*.
That vindicates the atrocities of the Biblical text entirely, doesn’t it?
(1) That description doesn’t match the factual activity of the people having the audacity to dare to disagree with you and your mythology.
(2) How does that description differ from your actual, factual (name-calling, hostile, hate-filled) behavior?
Prediction.
“Random Guy” will not return, at least not posting as the same name in this thread. Because he has been pwned.
Aaargh… I mean Antiutopia. Sorry RG.
Pretty stupid assumption, Siammg, as you can see… pity you atheists can’t think for yourselves, otherwise you’d see the problems with Michael’s response all on your own.
Tell me about your screename? Appears to clash with your stated beliefs? Why “Antiutopia”? Thanks.
Thanks for asking. If you read the last paragraph of my reply to Michael, though, you should see that I don’t think that what I believe is moral necessarily has to be the basis of civil law. What will I do if homosexual marriage were validated in all 50 states? Live with it, the people have chosen. I have lesbian friends who consider themselves married. They are friends and I respect their understanding of their relationship. What I think about it is irrelevant. What God thinks matters, but there’s enough sin in my life to deal with as it is…I’ll let God handle everyone else’s sin. I believe He has, actually.
What would I have to do if I did not make the decision to live within a society that tolerated and/or legalized various kinds of immorality? What has everyone else done in the past when they wanted to banish all immorality from their Republic (turning it into a utopia)? Usually very oppressive, fundamentally evil things. So I am against utopias. I would rather live in a society that tolerated some sins than in a society that attempted to banish all of it, as the sins that are tolerated are usually far less worse in consequence, at least, than the sins committed to banish all sin.
Just for a point of clarification, not all Christians are fundamentalists. The Roman Catholic Church believes that homosexuality is sin, but they also acknowledge that some homosexuals cannot help their feelings of attraction (not everyone who engages in homosexual behavior has a homosexual orientation, and most gays and lesbians know this). The feeling isn’t sin if you can’t help it; acting on it is sin. This is very difficult, but the same principle applies to heterosexuals — if a person is no longer attracted to his or her spouse, that person has to live with it, not seek out other partners, even though they may feel intense attraction to others.
The significant difference is, of course, that heterosexuals do have a legally and morally sanctioned outlet while homosexuals do not, and that makes life very hard. If you give yourself to God, you will have help. You may go through periods of guilt and failure, but even those are there to teach us about God’s forgiveness and love. Once those lessons are learned, life is much more bearable.
Antiutopia is such a tool, I see no incentive to reply to such self-deprecating, hollow nonsense. Petty speculation disguised as history. Where in Science we admit we know less and less but at least we know less and less about more and more – the corollary is that believers like Antiutopia know more and more about less and less.
Good luck sir : D
Antiutopia: “If you give yourself to God, you will have help. You may go through periods of guilt and failure, but even those are there to teach us about God’s forgiveness and love. Once those lessons are learned, life is much more bearable.”
Ahh the old comfort argument. God gives you great comfort doesn’t He Antiutopia? He makes you feel safe and secure – all nice and warm in His never ending blanket of boundless and endless love. Isn’t God great – with all His loving “help” he makes things “bearable”.
“God” is comfy isn’t He? How nice :)
I thought Auntie Utopia writes like a “she”.
I thought God was antiutopia’s aspirin: Take God three times a day, and you’ll feel no pain.
“The significant difference is, of course, that heterosexuals do have a legally and morally sanctioned outlet while homosexuals do not, …”
“I have lesbian friends …”
I presume you’ve expressed your thoughts to these friends you claim to have?
Being gay is as much a sin as being a person of color or a female. Nobody chooses their sexual orientation.
If your imaginary sky friend gives you such comfort, why not let him/her/it get on the intarwebs and troll atheist blogs?
Cause I have soooo much fun baiting stupid atheists with pretenses to reason and education, Roger. :)
You’re not winning any friend here by being hostile. Keep your hot-headedness in check and we’ll continue to have civil discussion.
DDM –
The sheer stupidity and hypocrisy of your reply stuns me. Christians and continually derided, hated, and unfairly criticized on this website, and you complain when I give you back some of what you’ve been doling out. Show respect and you’ll be treated with respect. Demonstrate ignorance and it’ll be shown up for what it is.
I have done nothing of the sort. It’s rather telling you immediately attack someone when they tell you to be fair. Calling people stupid and saying that they’re idiots doesn’t further the discussion at all. Please refrain from using direct insults as they don’t contribute anything.
Please, DDM — your silence about the bigotry, disrespect, hatred, and hostility vented toward Christians on this website is validation enough. Telling -me- to be respectful while allowing others to be far more disrespectful toward -entire groups of people- is -pure hypocrisy-. Let me see you come down on the bigoted and hateful atheists on this website with equal candor and I’ll take seriously your request that I show respect.
If respect isn’t a two way street, it doesn’t exist at all.
Always with the persecution… Listen, it’s not just Christians we discuss on this site, you know? All religions. Don’t feel singled out for whatever made up hate machine you want to believe we’re running. Don’t be a jackass and keep it civil.
I believe that you discuss all religions here. I didn’t say I felt persecuted. I am responding to the tenor of the posts here and at this site. If you don’t see that, perhaps you should try reading with someone else’s eyes. Asking me to “keep it civil” without imposing the same requirement on everyone else rings false.
Take the blinders off, man. Take the blinders off.
“Take the blinders off, man. Take the blinders off.”
I have to chuckle at that, considering you just replied to yourself.
(Yes, I know… the threading on this board forces this when the thread gets too deep, but you have to admit it’s funny in this context.)
“Christians and continually derided, hated, and unfairly criticized on this website”
They are not. Some christians, specially the fundi ones, or those that cannot provide any logic argumentation, are fairly criticized on this website.
Was it “unfairly criticizing” when I was attacking those parents who let their son die, because god would heal him? Was it “unfairly criticizing” when some wrote something attacking pederasts, and the protection they get from catholic institutions?
Since this is my first reply to you, Francesc, clearly I wasn’t thinking of you in anything that I said. You don’t need me to read posts here. So far as your specific criticisms, I’d have to read them to answer your questions about fairness. I’d agree with your criticisms of those specific parents and the RCC on its handling of pederasty in the priesthood, but I don’t know what broader points you may have tried to make from that and if those were justified or not.
Your sheer hatred showing as repeated name-calling stuns me.
Actually it doesn’t any more: you see a *lot* of it from “loving” christians on this blog.
Oh the irony…..
Just a thought Daniel, this reply-”tree” makes it very confusing to know who exactly any given person is actually replying to without quoting him/her – maybe I’m just not used to it : D
Then quote?
Christians love black kettles and pots. And I guess they love cherries cause they pick them all the time.
This is a good example of what I’m talking about: “Christians are…”
Any sentence that begins with those words has already gone wrong.
…Christlike
And what exactly does it mean to be Christ-like? What percentage of self-proclaimed Christians do you believe are Christ-like? Can an atheist be Christ-like?
Christians are…
…believers in God, and in the physical Incarnation of God.
…believers in the Bible as a vehicle of special revelation from God.
…numerous.
…widespread.
…diverse.
…occasionally supercilious twits on message boards.
How are we doing so far? All those things *seem* to be evidently true…
Any sentence that begins with “God is” is automatically wrong, too, because there are literally thousands or millions of individual conceptions of even the Christian god, not to mention all of the other gods, too!
“God is love” – biggest piece of B.S. I have ever heard in my life.
I’ll tell you what? Instruct your fellow Christians to quit generalizing, too.
You can easily pick it’s not a fundie poster – no spelling mistakes!
I think it looks fabulous!
BC
Haaaaahahahahahaha! Excellent.
Many of the fundies on here have been so illiterate I could hardly have stood to read them in fourth grade.
This photo made me laugh out loud! Thx.
For every text there is a context. Thirty years ago, people said “bad” when they meant “not good”. Twenty years ago, people said “bad” when they meant “cool”. Who knows what “bad” means today. Imagine what “bad” might have meant hundreds of years ago.
Keeping the times in mind, it was a ritual custom of the heathen to cut or trim their beards and hair into special shapes in honor of a particular pagan deity. Leviticus was referring to the context of the times during which is was written. It was about idolizing false gods. Likewise, is your tattoo of a rose? Or is it of a pagan symbol? Do you idolize your tattoo? Does it give you power? Does it give you divine favor? The context of your haircut or your tattoo matters.
While homosexual acts, according to the Bible, is a sin… so is adultery. Adultery is not against the law (at least, not in every state)… so homosexuality should follow the same example. While many laws might have been based on sins, the entirety of governance is not regularly based on Christianity.
So, while I respect fellow Christians and their walk with God, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” While this may not contextually fit this situation, it shows that man’s law governing men needn’t replicate God’s law. God’s law is between you and your Maker.
In my humble opinion, the government should allow people the freedom to be sinners, as long as their sins do not infringe on the rights of others. Period. Leaving the judgment of sins to God and focus on the judgement of rights-violations.
Stareclips.com –
Gad, for once a rational argument from the other side. Thank you.
Clearly, of course, you don’t believe gov’t should allow -all- sins, but allow some and restrict others. Neither of us want gov’t to stop restraining people from theft and murder and discrimination and hate crimes.
So the question is, what sins do we want gov’t restraining and which not? That is a question for the majority of the polis to decide.
I quote:
“In my humble opinion, the government should allow people the freedom to be sinners, as long as their sins do not infringe on the rights of others.”
I can imagine that theft and murder infringe the rights of others, so stareclip’s opinion may be that those should be restrained.
But you are speaking about sins, and discrimination doesn’t seem to be a sin on god’s eyes, and the same with slavery. There are moral positions that we, as a society, have assumed that are not considered “sins” by christianity -at least not in the bible. Likewise, there are moral positions in the bible that we, as a society, may not want to follow anymore. The point is, whatever a bronze-age man wrote inspired by an imaginary entity, it has not to guide our present laws
All forms of racism, prejudice, and discrimination are affronts to the work of Christ on the cross. So, yes, the Bible (when taken in its full context as a whole) is against racism, prejudice, and discrimination.
I’ve attempted to say it before, and I feel it is important enough to repeat. Law needn’t be based on sin. Sure, many sins are against the law… but if you keep focusing on sins, then you start to cloud your judgement.
Sin is between you and god. Government is between you and other people. If you break the laws of government (man), you must answer to the government (law). If you break the laws of God, you must answer to God. Just because some laws have commonality between the two does not mean one must be based on another.
So, instead of saying “OK, which sins will we consider to be illegal and which sins will we consider to be legal?” we should instead be taking sins out of the equation and saying, “OK, which rights do we feel we should have, and which is the best way to protect these rights without infringing on other rights.”
For law, the question of what these rights are or should be is usually pretty simple… refer back to the constitution. All men (the pronoun referring to all of mankind, not just the male sex) are created equal. So ask yourself, in a situation where a man marries another man and shares in the same tax benefits as a man and woman who are married… or a woman marries another woman and shares in the same tax benefits as a man and woman who are married… or as two men who are married… who is infringing on another person’s rights?
I see no rights being infringed when two people of the same sex want to be married.
I DO see rights being infringed when opposite-sex couples are taxed differently and share more benefits than same-sex couples.
In this area, the law has grossly overstepped the bounds of the constitution. Pushing for same-sex marriage isn’t about “going against the Bible.” I can agree with you if you say, “When two people of the same sex get married, they are only going through the ritual of marriage, but this not the same marriage referred to in the Bible.” However, for a constitution which considers all people as being equal… and for a constitution that allows freedom of religion… how could anyone consider it acceptable to provide additional benefits and tax breaks to those who practice Biblical marriage and not provide those same benefits and tax breaks to those who do not?
The simple fact of the matter is… the laws regarding marriage should never have been written in the first place. All individuals should have been taxed equally. The problem is, people tend to use law to encourage certain activities. Want to make sure the population continues to thrive and grow? Let’s encourage marriage and procreation. How do we do that? I know. Let’s give married couples and those who have babies additional tax breaks. That will encourage population growth. It sounds fine and dandy in principle, but it ignores the fact that as soon as you start using the law to encourage certain activities, you essentially punish those who do not participate in those activities or do not participate in the activities the way you originally intended. Then, you leave future generations to clean up the mess.
The only two solutions I see are:
1) Completely eliminate any favoritism to married couples. This is problematic, because there is a lot of law already based around this. It would be much more complex changing all of these laws. For instance, the fact that one spouse cannot be asked to testify against the other. This is to ensure that the law does not break up solid relationships.
2) Equalize the favoritism by not concerning the law with which denomination the couple are married under and whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex. This is the simplest solution, as far as law is concerned.
My vote is for #2.
Sin or not, the law isn’t about sins. Sins are between you and God. God’s law, not man’s law. If one is going to be concerned about how laws might “corrupt” the world and cause people to become sinners… keep in mind that the laws giving favor to opposite-sex marriages may very well be encouraging sin. Think of people who aren’t religious at all… or who aren’t even in love… who get married for the tax benefits. I have seen this all the time in the military. Two people rushing to get married to reap the government rewards. That marriage, even though it is opposite-sex, could be considered an abomination as well. Let’s face it, people who are more driven by man’s law than God’s law are often driven to sin by following man’s law, whether you agree with the law or not.
So, keep your relationship between you and God between you and God and keep your relationship between you and your neighbor between you and your neighbor. God calls on all of us to love each other equally. God also calls on us to discourage sin, not through the power of man’s laws and man’s punishments, but through love and the spreading of the Gospels. So, if you want to discourage same-sex marriage, do so with loving words and through prayer. In the meantime, show your unconditional compassion for your neighbor and allow everyone to share in the same rights, privileges, and tax-breaks equally, regardless of religious beliefs or sexual preference.
All forms of racism, prejudice, and discrimination are affronts to the work of Christ on the cross. So, yes, the Bible (when taken in its full context as a whole) is against racism, prejudice, and discrimination.
Forgive me, but it is hard to find that message anywhere in the text. Can you quote some passages that clearly support this very unusual reading?
Stareclips –
Your reasoning fails you on this point. All law has as its basis some form of moral reasoning. Doesn’t matter if you use the word “sin” or not — you are still reasoning morally when proposing laws or changing of laws. I can drop the word “sin” from my previous response to you, substitute it with “unethical or immoral behavior,” and make the same point. We have to reason from something to construct laws. Any laws that don’t deal with purely practical matters proceed from some kind of moral reasoning. Rights based arguments proceed from moral reasoning.
Your reasoning fails when you mention “morality” but you fail to mention that it is only when one infringes on another.
I can commit immoral acts, but if I commit these immoral acts willfully and do not cause another harm from my immoral acts, then it shouldn’t be law.
For example, let’s say I am sitting at home and I stab my hand with a fork. It hurts. Some might even have a basis for calling this “immoral”. But if “protecting” me means locking me away in a cell and taking away my rights of freedom, then what is the net gain? To protect my physical hand you have taken away my entire freedom.
So, the only thing that needs to be discussed when it comes to “morality” and “law” is… does enforcing this law give us a net gain or a net loss.
Nobody is forcing two people of the same sex to get married against their will. However, the law IS forcing two people of the same sex who are already in a relationship with each other willfully to pay higher taxes than those who are opposite sex… preventing the partner certain rights when it comes to decisions in the hospital and funeral decisions and other such legalities. The law as it stands right now is taking away the rights of certain people for what gain, exactly? What do we gain from it? You could argue “we gain morality”… but that’s not good enough… I could say that it is immoral to swear and then have recording devices placed in every home to be sure that when swearing occurs in the home, the punishment is dealt out to protect immorality.
That’s not what law is supposed to be about, attacking each other for being sinful.
What law is really supposed to be about is protecting us from each other. If what you do only affects you, then the law should stay out of it. When someone else infringes on your right to be free or to be treated equally, that’s when law should come into play. Law should protect your property, not your relationship with God or any other moral code outside of religion.
The standards and principles that the Constitution was founded on was about protecting your property… protecting freedoms, such as the freedom of speech and freedom of religion… to give everyone the ability to be happy and to function in society as equals.
If you agree with these morals, then you should agree that same-sex couples should share in the same rights as opposite-sex couples. If you disagree with this, then it is clear that you are pulling from a different set of morals than the ones the constitution was founded upon.
Exactly.
You can think what you want; think it immoral, think it moral, think whatever you want. You’ve the right to think and believe whatever. But stay out of the law.
God’s impartiality…
John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Notice it says “the world”, which pretty much covers everyone, not just a particular race, group, etc…
Deuteronomy 10:17 – “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.”
Acts 10:34 – “Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism”
Romans 2:11 – “For God does not show favoritism.”
God asking us to follow the example of love for each other…
Ephesians 6:9 – “And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.”
James 2:8 – “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right.”
Ephesians 2:14 – “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,”
In the Old Testament, God divided humanity into two groups: Jews and Gentiles. God’s intent was for the Jews to be a kingdom of priests, ministering to the Gentile nations. Instead, for the most part, the Jews became proud of their status and despised the Gentiles. Jesus Christ put an end to this, destroying the dividing wall of hostility. As a result, the two groups became one. There is now only “the world”.
John 13:34 – “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”
Ephesians 4:32 – “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”
The summary…
Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
I hope this helps.
A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
Hmm…
Let’s see… that’s one of the problem with the bible morals…. it is ambiguos:
Gen.9:25-27
And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Gen.16:8-9
And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands
Ex.21:2-6
If thou buy a Hebrew servant….
Ex.21:20-21
If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.
Lev.19:20
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
Dt.20:10-11
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
Eph.6:5
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.
Quotes here: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/slavery.html
“In the Old Testament, God divided humanity into two groups: Jews and Gentiles. God’s intent was for the Jews to be a kingdom of priests, ministering to the Gentile nations”
Can you justify that with quotes, or is it a possible interpretation?
“Hmm…” is right. Scripture such as this definitely requires some thinking, and not just arbitrarily cherry-picking it and taking it out of context.
When taken into the full context of the writings before that verse and the writings after it, you will see that Jesus did help the woman.
Putting this into context, imagine that you were on a mission to help the Katrina victims during the floods. While in the airport, before you board your plane, someone has cut their finger. They see that you have a first aid kit with you, so they ask for some assistance. By helping them, you will miss your flight. You could say, “I’d love to help you, but I’m on a mission to help the victims of hurricane Katrina. Surely you can find help for your bleeding finger yourself. I’m on a much larger mission to help people who are suffering much more.”
That would be a reasonable response. Taking it out of context, one could say, “You are giving favoritism to those who live in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky and Ohio.” If your flight were specifically to Mississippi, one could say, “You are giving favoritism for Mississippi. Don’t you know that Louisiana was also affected?”
So, in the context of the verse you picked, Jesus was on a particular mission. This mission was to fulfill a promise. If he got side-tracked by every needy case along the way, he’d be breaking his promise. This wasn’t about being partial to one particular race or group when on a miscellaneous “OK, who needs me?” trip. He was on a specific mission and was making it clear that the mission was to be fulfilled, no matter what might distract Him from completing it. In any case, he did help the woman AND he fulfilled his promise and completed his mission.
He wasted more time and “effort” (if that word can reasonably be applied to a deity) berating the poor women and calling her a dog than if he had just wordlessly healed her. He goes out of his way to insult her (and teh context of the passage clearly makes it a racist jab) before condescending to heal her anyway. As I said to Antiutopia on the same subject below, this is not impressive behavior for a deity who is supposed to embody compassion, especially if, as you and he claim, is supposed to be no respecter of nationality.
@Francesc,
At some point, if you are going to cherry-pick a bunch of quotes and take them out of context, then the only quote I can give you that will assist in your studies would be the copy and paste the entire Bible in here for you to read.
Saturday Night Live and Jay Leno and other masters of comedy can take other videos and quotes out of context (usually the President) and make it appear as though they are actually having an interview with the person (when they aren’t) and make the person seem dumb… evil… etc… It makes for good comedy.
When it comes to knowledge, taking things out of context usually isn’t funny at all and is detrimental to society. Imagine if scientific principles were taken out of context and also treated as science. i.e., imagine teaching someone Newton’s second law of motion:
The change in velocity (acceleration) with which an object moves is directly proportional to the magnitude of the force applied to the object and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.
Now, someone could easily take this out of context and assume that “velocity” just means “speed”. Everyone knows that in a car, “acceleration” means to “go faster” and that “deceleration” means to “go slower”. Therefore, someone could interpret this to mean:
The increase of speed of a moving object is directly proportional to the magnitude of the force applied to the object and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.
This is FALSE. This is NOT Newton’s second law of motion at all. In order to understand the context, one must not only read Newton’s law… but must also read the works by which he was basing his law, and the meaning of the words he was using at the time.
For those who don’t understand the definition of “acceleration” and “velocity” from a physics point-of-view, other facts of science can be easily twisted into falseness. You need to keep the context and not just cherry-pick verses that you didn’t carefully study and consult with fellow scientists regarding the meaning. Velocity is not just speed, but direction. So, if I go in a circle at a constant 5 mph… even though I am going the same speed, I am constantly changing direction, so my velocity is constantly changing. Any change in velocity is an acceleration. Even slowing down would be an acceleration, which is contradictory to the term people would use for an accelerating vehicle. Any change in velocity is an acceleration. Any change in speed OR direction is a change in velocity. Therefore, if I go in a circle at a constant speed of mph, I am accelerating in scientific terms. If I go in a straight line at 50 mph and continue to apply the breaks, going slower and slower… I am accelerating in scientific terms.
So, given this, if someone who does not regularly study the Bible… consult with professionals who have spent years studying the Bible… converse with God in prayer about the teachings… and applied this wisdom to their understanding of the Bible and to the understanding on these particular versus… it would be very easy to take them out of context and assume they mean something entirely different.
Christians do the same thing. Christians who try to use the teachings of the Bible to enforce laws against homosexuals are being just as big of hypocrites as those who have no faith in the Bible, yet use quotes from the Bible to prove their point.
@Elemenope,
If you had read and studied the Bible, you would see that the comment was not racist. Yes, today, the “dog” comment can be seen as “insulting”. Of course, the “sheep” comment can also appear insulting, but during its time it was not. A lot of symbolism of “dogs” and “sheep” and other animals are used, but just because in today’s terms you find the use of language insulting, it does not mean it was meant this way during the time.
Take, for instance, the shepherd/sheep message. During the time (as I am sure might still be the case today), shepherds were great caregivers. Tending to each and every sheep individually. A shepherd took great care to make sure no sheep went astray. The shepherd would learn each individual’s sheep’s personalities and know how to deal with the situations appropriately, to keep the sheep safe.
In today’s terms, when people hear the shepherd/sheep message, they think of sheep as lemmings, blindly following without question or concern for others. This is another example of taking concepts completely out of context and perverting the original intent. Even the term “lemmings” is a red herring, because even these animals have been given a false rap.
If you want to continue to shape any sentence to fit your mood and use the Bible to preach your message of hate, that’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t mean you are preaching the message of the Bible… it just means you are preaching your own message and using phrases taken out of the Bible… taken out of its original context… and applying it to today’s understand of words and concepts. That’s not teaching the Bible at all.
It would be no different than telling people that they don’t have to pay income taxes, because the system is clearly written as “voluntary”… or saying that when Newton’s second law of motion says “acceleration”, he’s only referring to an increase of speed… or saying that the story of the tortoise and the hare is clearly teaching us about “white people and green people”. Anyone who is wise in the teachings of science… and Aesop’s fables… and of the Bible… would truly understand the meaning… and when they do not understand the meaning, they would be open to discussion with others, to have their minds changed. It sounds to me like you’ve made up your mind, and the only time you quote words in the Bible… it’s to destroy the Bible. It’s a good thing you don’t do this same thing to science, because I can’t imagine where that would lead you. You can disbelieve in gravity all day long, but it’s going to prove you wrong eventually, and it’s likely to hurt. ;)
I’m on the sidelines for this, but I must say we’re seeing some great “scripture twisting” going on here. It’s amazing how believers can make the texts say whatever they want.
@Stareclip
I understand what’s quote mining, I’ve seen a lot of creationists doing it before, but your example about Newton’s second law is not exactly the same, as you changed concepts. I would suggest you next time remembering that Newton’s laws are only true in a inertial referential system. So, out of their context, they are indeed false -without changing a word.
But… I’ve answered you in the same way you did. I should apologize, because when I quote bible verses I am cherry picking, while when you quote bible verses you are certainly showing us the Truth.
I agree that we should keep in mind always the context, but I have a problem with your definition of context. It seems to me that you are following the lines of thoughts of hundreds of bible scholars whose work was not understanding the bible, but trying to improve god’s work to make them coherent and apliable to present day.
I’m still waiting for you to give some evidences that “God divided humanity into two groups: Jews and Gentiles. God’s intent was for the Jews to be a kingdom of priests, ministering to the Gentile nations”. It seems to me that in his origins abrahamic god was simply a tribal god, and it evolved to a universal god later.
So, I accept -in theory- that the bible should be read between its context, but the people educated to do that are antropologysts, not the average bible scholar. And I definetely don’t agree with you in that the bible must be read after “converse with God in prayer about the teachings”
Slavery existed for hundreds of years between christian kingdoms, the same as racism and sexism. The same as genocide and holy war. God couldn’t explain himself to all those christians who missunderstanded him?
@Francesc,
A verse which talks about the two groups (Jews and Gentiles) being merged together into one group can be found in Ephesians… with Ephesians 2:14-15 summing it up.
I’m not sure if you expect God to explain himself as a booming voice from the sky or not, which is why I’m not sure how you’re looking for me to explain it.
God created everything and everyone. He gave us free will. He makes His will be known to all through various means… tragedies… grace… miracles… etc…
Slavery existed for hundreds of years between groups that tried infusing Christianity into government, which Jesus was specifically against. He brought the church walls down for this very thing. God “explains” himself by bringing those walls tumbling down.
There are still bad Christians in the world, just as there are still bad non-Christians. That doesn’t really prove anything. However, the deeper understanding of God’s will improves regularly. Where there was once slavery, there is no more. I see this as an improvement and as God’s will. I’d be interested in knowing what you think about this.
For instance, do you believe slavery is OK? What if the majority believes in it? Was it wrong that slavery ever existed, or is it wrong that people feel slavery is bad? If slavery is bad, what universal truth decides this? If the majority of people felt that slavery is acceptable, would that be “universal truth” enough for you? If not, by what mechanism does the minority rule? Can you draw a distinct line between when the majority should get its way and when the minority should get its way?
(By the way, the context in which I am saying “minority” isn’t meant to imply ethnicity… but simply, in the counting of votes, the group that got the fewest votes for a particular ideal.)
What if out of 6 billion people, everyone except for ONE MAN thought killing innocent children was OK. Would you accept that “this is just the way things are”? Or, would you be that ONE MAN, fighting against billions? What argument would you have to justify arrogance against such a vast majority?
I just ask out of curiosity, because the idea of believing that there isn’t a universal truth and plan outside of individual human minds intrigues me, because it seems so backwards.
From your quote in Ephesians (thanks for answering much question) I can understand that God’s salvation was [according to Paul, who was proselityzing among non-jews] intended for both, jews and non-jews. From that point to “God divided humanity into two groups: Jews and Gentiles. God’s intent was for the Jews to be a kingdom of priests, ministering to the Gentile nations” is still some way to go…
“I’m not sure if you expect God to explain himself as a booming voice from the sky or not…”
Of course I do! Or in an equivalent way. You are assuming that he did exactly this before. Would you believe that God spoke to me from the sky, saying that we all must paint the frogs purple? So why do you believe what someone wrote on a book? Would you believe that your neighbour’s daughter was pregnant because of god?
“Slavery existed for hundreds of years between groups that tried infusing Christianity into government, which Jesus was specifically against”
Eh… We can’t be so sure. Paul was specifically against chrystianity into government, because “god” said to him that the end was close. 2.000 years ago.
“Where there was once slavery, there is no more. I see this as an improvement and as God’s will. I’d be interested in knowing what you think about this”
It’s pretty clear… Our society has evolved and decided to abolish slavery. That was human’s will. And I also see this as an improvement, of course.
“If slavery is bad, what universal truth decides this?”
I don’t believe in an universal truth. There have been lots of people trying to solve that problem. I think Daniel posted some time ago a post about it, wich author I can’t remember; there you can find different perspectives about the source of morals without involving god; better explained that if I try. My morals are what they are and i can’t fight against them more than you do, but certainly I don’t expect everybody sharing them with me.
“What if out of 6 billion people, everyone except for ONE MAN thought killing innocent children was OK. Would you accept that “this is just the way things are”? ”
No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t even if they were guilty children(?). You are forgetting that, for some time, killing innocent foreigner children wasn’t thought as “bad”. Would I be arrogant enough to disagree with all that people? Of course, statistically two persons that are usually wrong have more probabilities to be wrong when they agree that a single one.
And indeed, I haven’t answered your questions about my morals, sorry (well, I have said which are my morals but I haven’t justified them). That would be a long comment in another thread that I would enjoy :-)
@Francesc,
The reason I believe Jesus was against separation of Church and State (though the Bible only shows evidence of Paul discussing this) is because Jesus had made distinct references between God’s law and man’s law. I believe that Paul recognized this and practiced this idea. If you allow man’s law to enforce God’s law, man is now acting AS God. Sinners must face God’s consequences, not man’s consequences. This is also why I make sure to draw a clear distinction between sin and crime. Although some crimes happen to be sins and some sins happen to be crimes, the two are not the same thing.
Through wisdom, man’s law may have similarities to God’s law, but God’s law should not be forced on another man through threat of consequences brought on by man.
For those who do not believe in God, an analogy (though admittedly a poor one) would be like watching someone fall off a cliff. You are most certain they should die. All of the physics involved… the force of gravity… their body’s terminal velocity… the distance… the force of impact the human body can sustain… all point to this person dying. Instead, however, they live. You can’t believe it! According to all of the rules, their consequences should have been death, most certainly. So, you pull out a gun and shoot them. We can’t have nature being wrong, after all… gotta help it along, right? There. Fixed it. According to the laws of physics, he should have died when he fell. He fell. He died. Everything is in order. Now suuuuure, you had to help science out a bit… with that gun… but hush up, now. Order is restored.
(please note the sarcasm and don’t take my quotes above out of context)
Another example of Jesus being for the separation of Church and State (through actions and not words) was His very life itself. He lived a perfect life, according to the Bible. Not because He was without crime, but because He was without sin. In fact, He was a criminal. Not a serial killer, mind you… but He most certainly upset the government because he was essentially a freedom fighter.
On another note, you stated, “Our society has evolved and decided to abolish slavery. That was human’s will. And I also see this as an improvement, of course.”
I think there are a lot of things we tend to take for granted, because some feel it’s not worth thinking about anymore. There appear to be more interesting things to think about, like the movie 2012 (which I personally can’t wait to see… and no, I don’t believe the world is really going to end in Dec 2012)… but here are topics I don’t see being discussed much anymore:
* If “survival of the fittest” rules the day, it would appear that everything that exists has two common goals. To be fit and to survive. On a larger scale, an adult must be fit and survive to care for its young. The young must survive to become adults. To what end? Is survival only for the sake of saying “I survived… OK, now what?” Imagine if a football player who knew all of the rules of football one day asked, “I know these are the rules I must follow, but why? Will it be so terrible if I don’t follow the rules?” So, he simply walks off the field in the middle of a game. The team shouts, “Hey, you can’t do that!” to which he responds, “Why not? I just did.”
“We’ll forfeit the game!”
“So? What are the consequences?”
“We’ll lose!”
“What will that result in?”
“Us not winning!”
“Then, what?”
“Well… it will really suck.”
Eventually, this reasoning trails off. If one player isn’t passionate about the end result… doesn’t really care if he wins or loses… or if his team wins or loses… or if his teammates care that they win or lose… etc… then there isn’t much that can be done to reason with him. So, while the rules still exist, and the consequences of actions or breaking the rules still exist… the purpose doesn’t, and everything falls apart.
Obviously when discussing scientific principles and asking about purpose, there’s an easy out to just say “the universe doesn’t care one way or another… it just is what it is”. I don’t see this as wisdom, but a closing of one’s mind to exploring the other half of life.
Why does it rain? To give water to plants? Well, no. Water just happens to have different states and the sun helps this along. If the sun didn’t exist, it probably wouldn’t rain, unless we take geothermal energy into account. Regardless, it doesn’t happen because it “wants” to happen. It just happens.
Why do plants need water? They just do. It’s the way they came into existence.
What can we learn from studying weather or studying plants? We can just learn that weather exists and plants exists. We can probably predict some things and build some artificial versions of things, but there aren’t any lessons to be learned. Learning a lesson implies there is something to be taught. If there is something to be taught, there must be a purpose.
If life wasn’t meant to exist, it wouldn’t. There are forces of nature which destroy life and there are forces of nature which assist life. If the forces of nature which destroy life were greater, life simply wouldn’t exist. Instead, life does exist. Which means the scale is tipped in the direction of pro-life (not to be confused with the abortion argument.)
Water is important for life. Food is important for humans to live. But what is life important for? Everyone goes through the motions every day… to regularly eat… to regularly avoid death… and yet, very few stop to think why hunger pangs and thirst are keeping them “in the game”.
It is too simplistic of an answer to discount all of the complexities of life and say that we only exist so that we can observe existence.
If this line of thinking sounds like I subscribe to Intelligent Design theories… I don’t. In fact, I don’t care to study it much… which is why I am not even certain if this is the same line of thinking.
Why don’t I “subscribe” to Intelligent Design? For the same reason that I believe in the separation of Church and State. The two are for completely different purposes. Once you start to mix the two, bad things happen. Why do we eat? To survive. Is eating pleasurable? Yes. So, I will eat for pleasure instead. Then, you won’t be eating to survive. You will be eating to die.
There are motivators in life… which drive us to follow “the plan”. Eating is pleasurable not because we should only eat because we want pleasure, but because food is needed for survival. Pleasure is the motivator. Eating is the action. Survival is the purpose. Once we replace the purpose with the motivator, and eat for the purpose of pleasure, the plan changes. We get overweight, we get serious health problems, and we die.
Life exists whether humans survive or not. Life doesn’t need our help to work. This system is not man-made. It does, however, have a purpose. We stray from that purpose by changing goals. We change the goal of eating from survival to pleasure. We change the goal of sex from procreation to pleasure. We change the understanding of the universe from purpose to whim.
You mentioned that it was human’s “will” to abolish slavery. Wasn’t it once human’s “will” to create slavery? I believe it is God’s will for slavery to not exist. It was human’s “whim” to create slavery in the first place. This went against God’s plan for us. You can know God’s will by looking at the world around you… by using the capacity for logical thinking that God gave us… by being willing to “think outside the box” and go against the whim of most other human’s when you feel that most other human’s are acting from hate and not from love… from selfishness and not from selflessness… from acting god-like and not by acting like one of God’s children.
Even if you don’t believe in God and think it is all hocus-pocus talk (just like many in the past, especially religious nuts, hear some scientists and giving hocus-pocus talk about the world being round or the Earth revolving around the sun)… this does not make you inferior to me, nor should it to any decent Christian.
Heaven and Hell isn’t about the privileged and the underprivileged. We are all the same in God’s eyes. We are all given the equal opportunity to make our choice. Heaven ad Hell is simply about choice. Two rooms, so to speak. Two doors. You either choose to walk through one door, or the other. You either choose to walk into one room, or the other. You either choose selfishness and act as your own god and reject Jesus from your life, or you choose selflessness and follow the will of God and accept Jesus into your life. You either choose Heaven or you choose Hell.
It’s not about “control”… because free will is an important part of the game. It’s not about winning or losing, it’s about walking the right path or walking the wrong path. Very decent and nice people will choose Hell. Some murderers will choose Heaven. Don’t confuse man’s judgment with God’s purpose. We look down on murderers out of hate… the same feelings which may have driven them to kill. We put them into prison to protect ourselves. Why should a murderer ever belong in Heaven? It’s because the after-life isn’t about earthly things. A murderer who has truly repented has exercised the ultimate in will-power. The ability to ignore his own earthly desires and choose the will of the Higher Power. Some very nice people on earth who continue to focus on earthly desires will be controlled by their earthly desires. By being incapable of living outside of themselves, they will not be choosing Heaven.
Sure, the Bible talks about “punishment”… but it also talks about “choice”. In that sense, it’s no different than saying “pain” is the punishment for “stabbing your hand”. You made the choice. The pain is a result of your decision. Whether it is said that the pain is your punishment… the pain is the consequences of your actions… or the pain was your choice. It’s all the same thing, from different perspectives. You can disbelieve the knife is sharp all you want… you can disbelieve it is your hand… you can disbelieve that the pain will really be that severe… disbelieve all you want, it’s not going to change much. Life doesn’t exist because you think it exists. You think because life exists. We didn’t create God. God created us.
If “survival of the fittest” rules the day, it would appear that everything that exists has two common goals. To be fit and to survive. On a larger scale, an adult must be fit and survive to care for its young. The young must survive to become adults. To what end? Is survival only for the sake of saying “I survived… OK, now what?”
In between the surviving and the procreating, there is other stuff to do.
No concession from him/her, though, on admitting Zeus’, Ahuramazda’s, or especially Shiva’s impartiality.
Apparently trying to browbeat people on a blog into believing his/her particular mythology.
claidheamh mor,
Maybe you need to re-read what I have posted. I’m not trying to browbeat anyone. I came here in support of same-sex marriage legalization… in turn, I was asked a bunch of questions… I answered these questions… this led to more questions and more discussions, where my words were taken out of context. I will give the benefit of the doubt that my words were not twisted intentionally, but out of a misunderstanding (due to poor wording on my part) of the message I was trying to convey… this led to more discussions and questions, etc…
So, how this gets turned into “trying to browbeat people” is a pretty huge stretch.
And my toy’s not broken, per your covertly hostile non sequitur.
“Why, I’m jest havin’ me a friendly little exchange!”
“In between the surviving and the procreating, there is other stuff to do.”
It’s also more meaningful than treating this existence as some sort of precursor to life where you go live in the happy happy warm and fuzzy heaven place forever and ever.
“And my toy’s not broken, per your covertly hostile non sequitur.”
It sounds like you’re trying to hard to read between the lines. What happened to the straight-forward black and white world you lived in a moment ago? Now it requires you to interpret what you think I meant and not simply read what I said?
Gal. 3 — “There is no Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, man or woman, you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Eschatological ideals expressed in OT prophetic books, the book of Acts, and the book of Revelation see “all tribes, nations, peoples, languages” as being one before God at the end of time.
There’s nothing strange about StaplesClips reading on this point at all.
Gal is a letter atributed to Paul, who was trying to proselitize in Greece. May it be possible that he adapted, that he made up, a different version of Jesus’s teachings? Moreover, he was trying to convert greeks and slaves; could it explain that quote?
Francesc:
Yes, of course, a teaching you like must be made up. Quote selectively, stop where the account explains how Christ healed the girl anyhow, ignore the fact that Paul was called to the Gentiles by Christ, etc. And teachings that imply the worst are of course treated with the stupidest possible literalism at all times, with the insistence that the stupidest literal meaning is the only reading possible.
Typical atheist treatment of Scripture.
Yes, of course, a teaching you like must be made up. Quote selectively, stop where the account explains how Christ healed the girl anyhow…
Yes, after he called her a dog. So, he will even stoop to healing those he considers less than human. How benevolent of him.
“ignore the fact that Paul was called to the Gentiles by Christ”
Was it so??? What are your proofs?
I am not saying that the interpretation I wrote is the only possible, I accept that yours -letting out the little thing about an omnipotent god being involved in it- is also an interpretation.
I want you to see that you are doing exactly the same, in the reverse way: you are finding bizarre explanations and justifications for those verses you don’t like, while denying any not-so-cool explanation for the ones you like.
Sorry, I forgot to add:
Typical christian apologetics
@ StareClips
“While homosexual acts, according to the Bible, (are) a sin… so is adultery. Adultery is not against the law (at least, not in every state)… so homosexuality should follow the same example.”
No, because you are stating that our secular laws should be based upon a particular arbitrary religious code. I don’t care what some particular religion decides to dub a “sin”. What matters here is whether or not homosexual relationships harm other people in a clear way. I submit that they do not. THAT is why homosexuals should be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexuals, regardless of religious affiliation.
If we want to use the holey libel as the foundation of our laws, then we’re down to slaughtering children who talk back to their parents and stoning adulterers to death in the streets. All these religious fundamentalists always babbling about how they want to “put god back” into the law, the constitution, schools, etc. don’t have the foresight to see that they’ll regret those sentiments deeply should they ever get their wish.
Any influence that religion has on the law should be eliminated with extreme prejudice.
Ummm… did you even READ what I said? Or what I have been saying all along? Or are you just agreeing with me without making it seem like you’re on my side?
I am FOR same-sex marriage legalization.
Re-read what I said… and re-read exactly what you quoted of mine… and you will see that it’s saying the same thing. Man’s law isn’t about religion, nor should it be.
Your position on the issue is not what I was addressing. I understand you support same-sex marriages. So do I. And I agree that our laws shouldn’t be “about religion”. This is why I object to you referring to biblical scripture to plead your case (re-read your quote).
You said Adultery is a sin, but it isn’t illegal everywhere. Then you said Homosexuality is a sin, but since adultery, a sin according to the bible, isn’t illegal everywhere, then homosexuality, also a sin according to the bible, shouldn’t be illegal either. I’m saying that the bible shouldn’t even enter into this conversation regarding the legalities surrounding adultery and homosexuality. In short, we don’t need to consult biblical texts to decide as a society what should, and should not, be legal (we’re in agreement).
Your argument is centered around the morality of biblical scripture (in this case calling on us to ignore the “sin” on legal matters), and while I agree with your conclusion, I find the foundation of your argument to be flawed. The bible shouldn’t enter into this legal issue at all.
I will add that I find it perplexing that you believe in god, accept the bible as his message to humanity regarding his existence and nature, and then call upon us to ignore his will in matters of human law and politics. Maybe it’s just me, but that seems somewhat inconsistent.
If you disagree with the Bible, then I most certainly wasn’t referring to Biblical scripture to plead the case for you. If the only thing you believe in is other writings of humans (such as the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence), then I have no problem pointing out that the separation of church and state is most clearly outlined in the first amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The only reason I used Biblical scripture to make the case (as well) is because there were others who were claiming that the Bible states otherwise… or that Christians should be pushing for God’s laws to supplant man’s laws. I tried to make clear that the Bible says otherwise… and in the process, may have repeated myself too much. I did not mean to imply that the Bible is the de facto standard by which separation of church and state is clearly defined. I recognize the conflict there, and I apologize if that is the message is appeared I was intending. I was only communicating to those who feel that God’s laws are more important than man’s laws… that even God’s laws state that church and state should be separate.
As for man’s laws and God’s laws, I don’t find any inconsistencies at all. The federal government exists, but this doesn’t mean that each individual state should sit around and be lawless. Each state makes its own laws. Each locality makes its own laws. Each family makes its own laws (i.e., no shoes inside). Etc, etc, etc…
While God’s laws are more important (in my feeling) than man’s laws, this doesn’t mean that man’s laws shouldn’t exist, nor that they shouldn’t be followed.
If same-sex marriage is legal, this is not inconsistent with God’s law. Why? Because I don’t have to enter into a same-sex marriage if I don’t want to. The choice is still mine to make. If, however, the law says “all men MUST sleep with other men”… I would have a problem with this, and I would disobey man’s laws in favor of God’s laws.
Since nobody is proposing such a law, then I don’t see the problem or the conflict.
This whole homosexual “debate” drives me batty. When Christians say “the Bible tells us”, I always ask which Bible? If that confuse them, I say “there are at least 9 official Christian Bible canons, depending on your orientation. If they’re confused still, I note all the different translations of their Bible, of which there are over 70 in the English language *alone* for the Catholic, Protestant and Mormon canon. And still confused? I point out that there are more than 38.000 Christian denominations in the world. The English alone figure is around 17.000. (All figures from Christian Global Almanac 2007) 9 * 70 * 17.000 = more than 10 million possibilities of interpretation for the English bibles alone. And through all that they expect that the specifics of homosexuality is preserved through over 2000 years of translations, interpretation, cultures, bias and prejudice?
Why can’t Christians show a little – um what’s the phrase? – common sense? Some humility towards others?
Why the hell do they even care?! They profess all the time that their god is the judge of all things, their God even tells them not to judge anyone, and that it’s up to them as Christians to lead a Christian life, yet they poke their noses into everything and want to interfere with everybody else’s lives. Leave us alone, and we’ll leave you alone. It’s not your business, it’s your God’s, so just leave it at that, ok?
Please — you could cite 100 different Biblical canons, but all of them would have the same position toward Christianity.
Demand humility and respect from your own side first and you will receive it from here. Repeat ignorant positions with certainty and use that as the basis of condemnation and disrespect for Christians, and you’ll get the responses you deserve…the ones I’ve been giving here.
The same position toward -homosexuality-, that is.
FYI – This is how you “quote” something for emphasis. A dash is used to add more information or clarify an idea, but commas can do the same. All of your little dashes are getting in the way of your writing.
“Repeat ignorant positions with certainty and use that as the basis of condemnation and disrespect …”
How ironic …
Unlike you, I provide evidence and arguments for my position, Jabster.
Evidence and arguments, well you must have a different dictionary to me then. Honesty, keep up the good work as so far you provided such compelling arguments I wonder how anyone could disagree with you …
In this thread:
A butt-hurt christian with facts, history, evidence, and bibliographies for everything but the existence of his god.
Exactly what I’ve been thinking this whole thread, Nzo.
Please :) At no time have I said, or ever will say, that I can provide, rational, scientific, objective evidence for the existence of God. I believe that God exists because of my own individual encounter with God, and I believe that anyone who believes should only do so for that same reason. Since I do believe that God in fact exists, I believe that encounter is perfectly possible for all who are open to it and honestly seeking the truth.
You “encountered” God? Really? Did he have a long, white beard and brown sandals?
No?
Well, then. You encountered nothing. And don’t give me this “he lives in my heart” crap, because I really, really like Harry Potter, but we all know he’s not real. You’re in love with a mythological character named Yaweh/Jesus. Muslims are in love with Allah. Which God is the real one?
(Let me give you a hint: neither)
No, no they don’t. There are homosexual Christians, *practicing* homosexuals, as well as homosexual priests, even female lesbian priests, and then Christians who are happy with that. All Christians are *not* in agreement on these things, *quite* far from it and claiming otherwise is Lying for Jesus [TM] which you fundies are so preoccupied with. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
I don’t demand humility and respect from you, or any xian for that matter. In any event, you’ve demonstrated repeatedly an utter and complete lack of ability to exhibit either trait. What I do expect is a little civility and decency. The mature and respectable thing to do is to challenge what you believe are bad ideas with facts and reason. What is not mature, humble or respectable is to continuously denigrate people who disagree with you. Claiming that “they dun it first” is a pretty pathetic excuse for bad behavior.
In other words, calling people idiots who disagree with you is wrong, regardless of any perceived transgressions on their part. Your behavior belongs to you, and no one else. Take responsibility for your own behavior instead of trying to project responsibility for it onto other people. Maybe then you’ll realize that you just come off like a maladjusted adolescent.
The fact that there are different works or different languages (translations) or that words and meanings change with the times (context) is no excuse for discounting the writing itself. This is what Bible study is all about.
It is true, though, that people cannot merely read the Bible and walk away feeling absolutely certain that the way they have interpreted the meaning is the way God intended it. With reading the Bible must come study and prayer. This is also why church is important, because preachers and pastors have gone through many years of study to put the Bible into context. It’s akin to seeing a lawyer instead of reading the letter of the law and feeling secure.
Here is an example of reading the law incorrectly. In the United States, income tax is defined as a “voluntary” process. Some have inaccurately interpreted this as meaning they do not have to pay taxes. The reality is, the use of the word “voluntary” refers to the system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them.
Now, if you take the original writing of the law… add in the commentary needed to explain this subtlety… and throw in a Spanish translation as well… should we all just throw out the entire writing of law, including the Constitution? Or, should we just continue to study the law and understand where we interpret things wrong while, at the same time, never relying 100% on what someone else says how the law is written or what it means and read and study for ourselves?
The same applies to the Bible. The King James Version says in one verse, “Charity suffereth long”. If you didn’t know any better, you might interpret that as meaning “If you give money to charities, you will suffer.” The reality is, the word “charity” at the time it was written meant “love” (specifically the kind of love shared between Christians). The phrase “suffereth long” referred to patience. So, the NIV translation of that same phrase is “love is patient”. Even with this translation, if you were too quick to interpret, you might think it means “If you love pizza, you will patiently wait for it to arrive.” However, the love specifically being referred to in this passage is Christian love. The patience being referred to means not rushing to judgment or ridicule.
So, yes… there are a lot of languages in the world… and yes, there are a lot of versions of biblical texts. This does not make the works less important but more important. Having many references and points of view is necessary to grasp the much larger picture being communicated.
Couldn’t God find any more reliable media?
It seems that the laws of the God-Inspired Bible have the very same flaws as any other (GASP!!) man-made laws, at least when it comes to write them down.
As an omnipotent deity, He could have easily devised some form of reproducible media that would have conveyed His message, exactly as intended, to anyone accessing it, regardless of language, age, cultural level.
I can’t help but consider all this “god” concept very fishy.
From your comments, I will just assume you don’t believe in God. I would assume, however, that you believe in life itself. That it exists to exist. Then, you could easily question “gosh, if life wants to exist, why does it allow death to exist?” You could spin in circles constantly asking “why”. Relax. This is all a part of understanding.
If you have a child, and you want your child to get good grades in school, the most efficient way to accomplish this is to do his homework for him, right? However, you know that doing so will make your child dumb. He will grow up constantly needing others to do his work for him. At that point, what is his contribution to society? You will have failed as a parent.
So, instead, you let him do the work himself, knowing full well that he will make many mistakes along the way. You must encourage him to keep doing his best and to keep trying, even though he repeatedly makes mistakes. Making mistakes is a part of the learning and growing process.
To be absent of sin is to be perfect. Sin is simply imperfection. God asks us all to be perfect, but none of us are. We all have imperfections. These imperfections are sin. (I’m not talking about man’s ideas of what imperfection is, but God’s.) God clearly laid out what the rules are, but we have to keep in constant communication with Him to understand these rules. The Bible is all about beginning that relationship with God. Going to church, studying the Bible, and fellowship is all about building that relationship with God. You make a lot of mistakes along the way, but in those mistakes are born understanding and further learning. Regular prayer maintains that relationship with God.
So while it may seem overly complex to some, the perceived complexity is what allows growth and the ability to head towards perfection (though never actually reaching it.) It would be no different than if I tried to explain my relationship with my wife. I can tell you about how we communicate and how we love each other and how we sometimes have disagreements. You might also ask, “If you truly love each other and the rules of relationship are pretty straight forward, why would there ever be disagreements between you?”
The answer is pretty simple, really. Individuality is a wonderful thing. I would never ask God to take away individuality from mankind. It is one of His greatest gifts to us. We could have all been programmed as automatons. We weren’t. We were given individuality and free will. Not everyone is going to Heaven. Life isn’t just a boring walk from one end of the sidewalk to the other. There is a constant dynamic. A lasting relationship with God, if you choose to trust in Him. A temporary relationship with other people, lasting fewer than a hundred years or so. A constant dynamic of struggle, through which we grow and learn. Sin in the world ensures that not everyone “gets it”… but it’s OK, because not everyone is destined to “get it”. We should pray that everyone understands, but be mindful that not everyone will.
Those who feel that the Bible expects that we use the laws of man to give special treatment to heterosexual couples and to punish (treat differently) homosexual couples just don’t “get it”. Christians should be spreading the Gospels through love, not through divisiveness.
The NT assumes serious divisions with humankind. You don’t need me to quote Christ on this point, Staples. There is no sense at all of a universal brotherhood of man in the NT. Some are going to heaven, some to hell, hence the urgency that we get as many as possible to repent and believe.
“Christians should be spreading the Gospels through love, not through divisiveness.”
We’d prefer if they spread the gospel through Evidence instead of the burblely happy feeling they get when they swap stories and understandings about their ancient faerie tales.
“We’d prefer if they spread the gospel through Evidence instead of the burblely happy feeling they get when they swap stories and understandings…”
That’s actually a pretty funny comment.
Gospel means “good news”. So basically, you’re asking people to spread the good news without being happy about it.
Good news without evidence is just bullshit.
@Sunny Day
Blunt but true …
> I would assume, however, that you believe in life itself. That it exists to exist.
> Then, you could easily question “gosh, if life wants to exist, why does it allow
> death to exist?”
“believe” in life? oO
I have the impression that you are making a lot of assumptions about me, and I don’t like it the slightest.
And no, “if life wants to exist, why does it allow death to exist?” seems to me a terribly stupid question.
“Life” as a general concept is something that just “is”, not something that wants.
“Lifeforms” instead want to live (more accurately: to reproduce) and kill in order to do it.
Also, I didn’t ask you about free-will, I asked you about the accessibility of the Bible.
Well, the way you asked the question made me realize that you either think God Himself wrote the Bible with a big arm from the sky Monty Python style… OR that you believe in God, and that you believe God created everything, but that you don’t think God wrote the Bible and that, instead, people did.
You’re making the Bible out to be something that’s very complex. The reality is, the less you pay attention to the Bible, the more complex it seems. The more you pay attention to it, the less complex. The complexity only exists in people’s own ignorance.
I could type one sentence:
I saw an ice cream truck skipping rope.
…and without a simple comma, you would imagine that something impossible happened. Throw in the comma:
I saw an ice cream truck, skipping rope.
…and you will realize that I saw the truck while I was skipping rope. This is a very possible statement (though I’m not much of a rope-skipper and I haven’t seen real ice cream trucks in ages.)
It only takes understanding of English Grammar to see the nuance. Given that, the Bible is no different. Those who have a hard time understanding what God wants aren’t really putting in the effort. That’s what God wants. The effort. By simply understanding the context of the Bible (which is possible through study) and through prayer, it will all be fairly obvious. For the lazy, it will seem complex… and often those battling it out are either too lazy to figure it out, or they have some other agenda.
“That’s what God wants.”
You sound like an arrogant fool – presuming to know what God wants. You are so blind you can’t even comprehend your blindness. Sad.
I reckon if god wanted nothing more than for us to make an effort to sift through a bunch of provincial, tribal jibberish, he’d have started off by saying so in an unambiguous way.
Nonsense.
Life doesn’t “want” anything. Life is. Death is. It no more wants things than gravity wants things. It exists because it exists and it has no wants or choices, because it simply is.
God, however, is a conscious being. God has wants; moreover, God can do things and doesn’t; not the same thing at all.
A better comparison would be, “if I want to live, why would I slit my wrists?”, in which case the whole idea of yours falls apart, because it’s illogical that someone who wants to live would commit suicide.
“you let him do the work himself, knowing full well that he will make many mistakes along the way.”
Yes, but I’d start her off with the most accurate textbook I could afford, and would help her to correct her mistakes by pointing them out and then explaining the answers to her.
I’d also worry a little if she started persecuting groups of people based on her incorrect answers.
Let me give you a hint, StareClips.com; I was a Bible scholar for many years, and I was just like you, I assume, in digging into the contextual historical and doctrinal evolution of our Faith. Even read Jaroslav Pelican’s ‘History of Christian Doctrine’? I had it practically memorized, I was so entrenched in it.
Then one day I did something I didn’t expect of me. I lost bias when reading the Bible. I did it to test the premise of Bible history, because, frankly, in my position you need to take that extremely seriously. If you don’t explore every part of the written word, how else can you see God-breathed messages? So I read it *without* bias, without predetermining that it held truth of any value, and just read the words.
This is a crucial thing to understand, because we Christians’ (euphorically speaking) answer to pretty much anything is, ‘read the Bible.’ That’s our answer. That’s our vantage point, it’s where our answers start and end. So I did without bias.
And boy did my experience blow me away. You are so happy to talk about covenants and God’s great plan, but I was horrified to find that that great plan seemed to be between the lines just where I left my Christian bias. Doctrine. Interpretations. Challenges of linguistic probability and terrible source control. If you’re a starch Bible reader, you *know* about the multiple authors of many of the texts it purports to be one, for example Paul telling women to shut up in church (I Cor. 14:34,35) which has an indirect reference to Genesis 3:16 and Eph. 5:22 and furthered contradicted by Eph. 5: 19 and I Corinthians 11: 4-16, and as you know, this is called exegesis.
But after exegesis comes contextual enquiry of semantics, and I’ve heard just simply too many Christians wank on I Cor. 14:34,35 to make one feel sick. How much energy and endless sermons by an endless stream of highly educated (in religious terms) priests try to soften the blow, saying we must *really* look to places like Timothy 2: 12-15 to get more generic rules rahter than focusing on the narrow context in which Paul says the first part, and on and on and on it goes.
But you know what? It’s opinion. It is *not* a stable doctrine that all Christians agree on. Most priests have slight variations over the theme; some press the contextual culture, some go for the exegesis only, others with lofty semantics, others yet again go for definition of the convenant (without being too specific on which one), or as I mentioned, go for the multiple author and linguistic analysis, that *that* part was added by someone else with a different writing style, and *obviously* not Paul himself. And on and on. Saying otherwise is Lying for Jesus [TM].
And you dare claim all Christians have the same doctrinal standpoint on “these issues”? I think “these issues” are cherry-picked from one end to the other (you can look up the historical doctrine of the Greek word “paiderasste” which Paul should have used for homosexual, rather than “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” which he did use and have other meanings.) loitering the Old Testament for laws that is referenced in the New Testament not cancelled out by the new covenant. (You also might want to look up “to’ebah” and find out what homosexuality means to the lord. You might even ask a rabbi for the same; they don’t have the problem *you* do, which, given the Old Testament, is rather strange as it is *their* book foremost. Ever thought about that one?)
The bottom line for me is that once you take away your own bias and read the Bible from a neutral angle, things immediately takes on a different form. I’m not talking about trowing contextual and historical knowledge out the door, but simply read the text as if it is an instruction to you as a thinking individual who’s not taken its truths for granted, and try to see if it alone can be trusted.
I was appalled at it and myself for ever thinking this pile of moral filth and Bronze-age diatribe could be a guiding light for the future of mankind, even less as the true writings of an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-loving God.
It’s not the first time I hear the argument about “distinctions between ceremonial, civil, and moral laws” and I would be really curious to follow the debate.
I’m disappointed to see that both sides of the debate lowered themselves as just accusing the other side of “ignorance” and dwelling in their pretense of superiority.
Especially the hard-core commenters of this blog, that I would usually regard as very civil and informed.
Antiutopia, you are making some points that are better than what the usual godbots do, you would sound far more convincing if you dropped your self-righteousness and started love thy (atheist) neighbor like yourself.
This website seems to draw all sorts. I don’t entirely agree with anyone here. Antiutopia makes better points than a lot of my fellow Christians, though. I must admit its hard not to seem self-righteous in this context as a Christian.
About the distinctions between ceremonial, civil, and moral laws, its a really thorny subject and its hard to decide where one group of laws ends and the others begin. For example, how far-reaching is the application of the verses in the Gospels and the book of Acts (there are a number, I can’t remember the exact references) that say its all right to eat pork and not get circumcised, among other things. The same laws that proclaim a woman ceremonially unclean during her period also say that a man is unclean in the same way if he has a wet dream.
As an illustration of how my faith and my life intersect, my personal opinion on homosexuality is that its on the “same level” (not really theologically accurate, but humans feel the need to distinguish ‘lesser’ and ‘greater’ sins) as extramarital sex. Its morally wrong, but I’m not about to lose a friend because of it. I have friends who are homosexual or bisexual and they know my opinion of their activities, just the same as my friends who are having sex with their girlfriend whom they’ve known for 2 weeks, and they are still my friends, because they respect my opinion and choices, and I respect their choices, even though I do not agree.
I think it is stupid for Christians to make such a big deal out of homosexuality. There are much more pressing issues, such as poverty and human rights, that make much more moral and biblical sense for us to address. I hope this was on-topic enough.
I think it is stupid for Christians to make such a big deal out of homosexuality. There are much more pressing issues, such as poverty and human rights, that make much more moral and biblical sense for us to address.
Indeed.
Francesco –
Much appreciation for your comments. My experience with arguing with most atheists is that they are an ill-informed bunch and will not be convinced by anything, so the most I can hope to do is correct them about the facts as clearly and diligently as possible. I say this about atheists who should know better, like Dawkins. I don’t know that a well-informed atheist has published an intelligent critique of religion since the 1950s, perhaps since this century. The best critiques of religious belief tend to be from religious people.
This thread was, indeed, quite painful to read.
…
A rhyme, ha-hah!
I don’t know quite when I despaired of all hope for this thread. I think it was about the point where someone started justifying horrible social reactions to rape as just dandy for the time, and started justifying murder of entire tribes on the basis of them just clearly all being bad people.
No, no-one said rape was “just dandy at the time.” The point of the laws is that they inflict punishment on the man while making provision for the woman. The rape itself is never acceptable. We justify killing people today because of the things they do — the OT is hardly different from us on this point. I will say that, historically, many Christians have as much trouble with these OT commands as you do, and tend to read these accounts as allegory rather than literal history. Read William Blake’s annotations to Bishop Watson, and Origen’s _On First Principles_ from the 3rd century C.E., esp. book IV chs. 2-3.
No, no-one said rape was “just dandy at the time.”
You are reading poorly. I said “…someone started justifying horrible social reactions to rape as just dandy for the time…”
Pay attention to the part in bold. The OT describes a social regime for handling those who have been raped which is objectively cruel. You defended that social regime as being progressive for the time. Which is true, BTW, (in a pathetic manner of speaking) but nauseating when you consider that this is supposedly the best a divine being can come up with for how to instruct his people.
One thing that surfaces in the teachings of Christ about the Mosaic law (see the Sermon on the Mount) is that God made concessions to His people in the law “because of the hardness of their hearts.” Unless you expect God to circumvent free will completely and turn us into automatons, then you have to allow God to make some concessions to human limitations. These were not “horrible social reactions” within the context of early semitic cultures. You should really read around a bit. Frazer’s The Golden Bough describes how young girls about to be married had to serve as temple prostitutes before their wedding night, being sold to any man who came along. Furthermore, women were often blamed for inciting the rape and would be punished while the man is set free. Mosaic law both provides for the woman and punishes the man. That was human life then. Perhaps you should hold we human beings a bit more responsible for the social conditions we create before condeming God for what he doesn’t -force- us to do.
Yes, it would be so hard for God to reveal through one of his prophets certain principles, such as “if a rape occurs, it is the fault of the assailant” or “a rapist should be given no power over his victim”. He had his prophets and lawgivers write down other wild stuff, and this would have been no different.
God: Very culturally sensitive when it comes to rape, not so much when it comes to shellfish?
Blame for the man for rape is implicit in every command about the treatment of rape in the OT. I’ve made that point over and over again. Trust me, being married to a woman who is very angry with you, and whom you can’t divorce for any reason, is serious punishment.
Just as serious as being married with your rapist, I suppose. And the woman’s fault was…?
I would suggest you to rewrite and reconsider your last comment
Trust me, being married to a woman who is very angry with you, and whom you can’t divorce for any reason, is serious punishment.
Whom you have absolute authority over, and can punish for disobeying…yeah, sure, the nag wins every time. Domestic violence? A myth.
You can’t be serious. If the best God can come up with for rapists is “you have to marry your victim” I am not impressed. Even in the context of the ancient world. Heck, even castration would work better.
If you’ve studied long enough, you’d understand that in the translations, there is a difference between “shall” and “should”. A huge difference.
Antiutopia that has to be one of the least thought out things you have said. In what way would she be able to make her rapist life rough? Oh she didn’t make his supper, he beats the crap out of her. You seem to think that a man who rapes a woman is going to be all nice to her once they are married. Rapist for the most part seem to be a sadistic bunch. Think about the age of the girl who was a virgin back then. What age would that be maybe 13 or 14 when they were sold off for marriage? So most virgins would still have been kids by our standards. The male would have been anywhere between 16-25 would be my guess. Since there were no laws against beating the crap out of your wife back then how would you prevent him from doing that? Hell he might even enjoy it since the odds are he is sadistic anyway. There is no way she would have been able to punish him for what she did to her. If she killed him she would have gone to her death and as long as he didn’t kill her he could treat her as he wanted. Your attempt at justifying these laws shows just how sadistic you and your type can truly be.
From Antiutopia: “Trust me, being married to a woman who is very angry with you, and whom you can’t divorce for any reason, is serious punishment.”
Wow. You’re serious, aren’t you? I don’t know how you can treat something as serious as being forced to marry your rapist so lightly.
“Unless you expect God to circumvent free will completely and turn us into automatons, then you have to allow God to make some concessions to human limitations.”
Because ordering the punishment a rapist is too difficult for Gawd?
That makes perfect sense.
Thanks.
“You defended that social regime as being progressive for the time. Which is true, BTW, (in a pathetic manner of speaking) but nauseating when you consider that this is supposedly the best a divine being can come up with for how to instruct his people.”
God: Completely indistinguishable from a bigoted misogynistic goat herder.
I will say that, historically, many Christians have as much trouble with these OT commands as you do, and tend to read these accounts as allegory rather than literal history.
You attempted to defend them as if they were not allegorical. So, which is it? A fun story to tell the kids about their erstwhile neighbors, or a history of unremitting genocide?
Just a general response to those who think Christians “pick and choose” what OT commands to follow and what not, or that they are condemning homosexuality today purely on the basis of commands in Leviticus and not for other reasons…
There are a number of theologies with long currency that explain the Christian’s relationship to prior covenants established by God. The main point is that all orthodox Christian traditions recognize different “covenants,” or legal contracts, between God and His people, that determine the relationship between God and His people, and between God and humanity.
You could view God’s command to Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit as one covenant. It was broken by A and E, so another one was put in place.
You could view God’s covenant with Noah as the next covenant; God’s with Abraham as the next; and the Mosaic law as the next. The arrival of Christ is seen by Christians as having “completed the terms” of the Mosaic covenant and setting out new terms today.
So Christians are not obligated any longer to obey the Mosaic covenant. We are to “outwardly fulfill” the moral requirements of the Mosaic covenant by inner transformation, and the ceremonial and civil laws are set entirely aside. Just read the books of Acts and Paul’s early epistles to see the process at work, in addition to many of the teachings of Christ. “Love God and love your neighbor” sum up the intent of the Mosaic law according to Christ. “Love one another self sacrificially” (i.e., spoken to Christians about their fellow Christians; everyone else is covered under the command toward neighbors) was a new law added by Christ.
The emphasis upon inner transformation under the New Covenant (or testament) is that we need to focus on this inner transformation. That’s the point of the sermon on the mount. Don’t lust, and you won’t commit adultery. Don’t hate, and you won’t murder. So what we have to do is receive this inner transformation, which happens when we have faith in Christ, repent, and receive the Holy Spirit. At the least, the process begins here. The OT is still useful as a guide as we learn how to be, but the focus is to view commands about external behavior as guidelines for inner character traits.
Rules governing sexual conduct in the NT are covered extensively by Paul in 1 Cor. and Ephesians. Marriage is now a symbol of Christ’s relationship to the church. If we sin sexually, we sin against our own bodies, which now belong to God. While divorce was allowed for the person under Mosaic law, it is not allowed for Christians. Homosexuality remains a sin.
Divisions between civil, ceremonial, and moral laws provide hermeneutic direction, that is all, and allows us to exercise common sense judgments that tell us command against stealing and lying are a lot more important than commands about where you bury our poop.
On picking and choosing…
Acts 4:32-35 “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
I don’t see many Christians, um, doing this anymore. At all.
It’s a description of a practice, not a command. Many wish it were still so.
So a few passages later when Ananias and Sapphira were struck down dead for not fully obeying this “practice”, you’re still claiming it was just a strong suggestion?
Elemenope, you should be able to distinguish in the bible:
- Strong commands. If you disobbey them, you should be stoned -like working on sunday.
- Moderate commands. If you dissobbey them, you have to pay a sue -like raping a young girl
- Suggestions. You have to repent but no other punishment is required. Clearly your exemple was only a suggestion, it would be very inappropiate -and comunist- if it were a commandement
That is one strong-assed “suggestion!” However, I can hazard a guess that our newest godbotherer is going to say that Ananias and Sapphira were struck down not for fully obeying the “practice,” but for lying. Another bit of picking and choosing is Paul’s command that women keep silence in the church…can’t very well do that when you’re ordained to preach, can you?
Well they have to be silent AND they cannot have authority or teach men. If you want to see some real hermeneutical gymnastics, listen to the people who still hold to the infallibility of Scripture and argue for women preachers by reinterpreting all those passages. The amount of cognitive dissonance going on is astounding.
I think I’ve probably heard sermons by people like that, Daniel. You’re right, the amount of hermeneutical gymnastics to get there is astounding. So is the abject stupidity.
Oh, and notice how the newest godbotherer seems to have confined him/herself to this topic alone and has trotted out all these half-baked arguments and outright insults in order to justify a retrograde belief in the immorality of homosexuality?
So the Christians were Socialists??
So you’re here to rampage around stating facts, quoting books, and throwing proof in the faces of those who think you’re a complete imbecile for believing in a god?
Also, your posts seem to contradict each other – as if wherever the line is drawn, you will jump to the other side regardless of what you’ve said previously.
Case in point:
Atheists are able to be convinced by facts. If you had ANY experience with us, you’d know that.
Of course, you wouldn’t know this, because the only thing you need to convince you of something are some dusty old scrolls and someone to tell you they’re magical, hence your assertion that atheists ‘will not be convinced by anything’.
All the book knowledge and wiki-looking-up you do when you write your posts doesn’t change the fact that you’re out of your mind.
**sorry for the spam, missed a tag there**
What I find fascinating is the number of atheists that claim to study the Bible, then use quotes from the Bible to prove their points. Wouldn’t this be like completely disbelieving that black holes exist, yet devoting a good portion of your time studying the physics of black holes, discussing black holes with others, etc, etc… For completely dismissing an idea, there sure is a lot of time and energy going into discussing it.
Where the discussion goes south is when the inference being made involves taking a quote from the Bible, yanking it out of its context (including the time period it was written in), then using the quote to either rile people up, or to try to prove some sort of anti-Biblical point. It’s no different than the “put lipstick on a pig” comment made by Obama. Anyone who has at least half a brain and isn’t inherently anti-Obama KNOWS what that phrase means… and they KNOW that the context he used it in meant that McCain’s policies were the pig and that Palin was the lipstick.
However, those who either KNEW this, but wanted to “stir the pot”… or perhaps people who were really that clueless… kept insisting that Obama was calling Palin a “pig”. Which of course, could be used all sorts of ways… that he was insulting her… because she was a woman, he was clearly being sexist… because he is black and she is white, he is clearly being racist… and more nonsense could be derived by taking what he said out of the context of the message he was conveying.
The Bible is not a simple topic. It’s not just a discussion about right and wrong. It’s an entire guidebook to maintaining a lasting and healthy relationship with your Creator. You can’t just spend 5 years reading all of the pages of the Bible over and over and “get it”. Mankind has spent hundreds and hundreds of years studying the Bible and many still don’t “get it”. Also, don’t forget (or ignore) your “gut feeling”. If you read something, and it upsets you… there’s probably a reason it upsets you. If the fact that the Constitution was written by slave owners bothers you… that’s great… but don’t toss out the Constitution… understand the spirit in which it was written and if the founding fathers had lived through the past 200 years, what they would have to say about it today. If you hate the idea of slavery, but lived 200 years ago, you probably could have been a slave owner… and if you lived for 200 years, you’d probably feel guilty for it. It doesn’t mean you were a bad person at heart… but that people are easily influenced by the tolerance of certain actions.
To me, I find the discrimination against homosexual couples to be just as bad as slavery was 200 years ago. We should all feel guilty about it. Hopefully, it won’t take us 200 years to finally feel guilty about it… or to finally make a difference.
Given this, the same applies to the Bible. Don’t cherry-pick verses from the Bible to try to insist that homosexuality should be illegal in the eyes of man’s law. Also, don’t cherry-pick verses from the Bible to try to discount the entire teachings of the Bible. If you don’t believe in God, then stay out of people’s relationships with God. It’s akin to thinking someone’s spouse is ugly, then going on message boards letting everyone know that she’s ugly and that the person is dumb for loving her. People believe in God. People love God. People have a relationship with God. If you don’t believe in God, who are you to interfere with that relationship?
It’s hypocrisy. Pointing the finger at “the other side” and saying “they started it” or “they do it too” doesn’t justify hypocrisy at all. It only attempts legitimatizes it, which essentially destroys all hope for reaching a conclusion to the discussion. The point of a discussion is to reach a conclusion. If you try to make attempts to stop the discussion by “winning”, you only succeed in arguing in circles forever. Is that any way to live life. Even if you don’t believe in God, certainly you must believe life itself is worth more.
“It’s no different than the “put lipstick on a pig” comment made by Obama. Anyone who has at least half a brain and isn’t inherently anti-Obama KNOWS what that phrase means… and they KNOW that the context he used it in meant that McCain’s policies were the pig and that Palin was the lipstick.”
… and that is where you are wrong and you even say so yourself as you later go on to claim:
“. You can’t just spend 5 years reading all of the pages of the Bible over and over and “get it”. Mankind has spent hundreds and hundreds of years studying the Bible and many still don’t “get it”.”
Although you have highlighted the problem. You are claiming to “get it” which presumable means that you will also claim that other Christians with different interpretations don’t “get it” — what makes you so sure you’re right and they are wrong?
If I claimed I “get it” all, then I apologize. I don’t claim to “get it” all. If I believed this, I would stop going to church… I’d set down the Bible… and I’d figure “hey, everything’s OK.”
That’s my concern about atheists who don’t read the Bible at all or who never go to church or never study such things. If I can study and still admit that there’s more for me to learn, where does that leave someone who doesn’t care to study?
Here’s an example. I used to be for the death penalty when it came to punishment for premeditated murder. I was in a discussion with a friend of mine (who happens to be atheist and who happens to be Republican) about the death penalty. In that discussion, he convinced me that capital punishment does not belong in any truly civilized society. So, my opinion on that matter changed.
Now when it comes to things like legalizing marijuana, I’m still at odds. I’m not fully committed to the idea that it should be a crime… but also not fully committed to the idea that legalizing it wouldn’t cause major woes for society. Drawing the line is a difficult balance and takes lots of contemplation, study, and discussion. Even if marijuana were legalized, I would never do the drug. It’s not what I believe in. However, I don’t feel right punishing others for thinking it’s OK. I believe we should treat each other as if we were siblings with a common Father… not trying to play Daddy to each other, as we often do.
So, if it seems that I feel I “get it”… understand that I am only trying to spread my knowledge… and when I say that others don’t “get it”… I’m mainly referring to the fact that (and perhaps this is a wrong assumption on my part) those who cherry pick quotes from the Bible to attack Christians or the Bible itself are probably not people who study the Bible regularly, go to church regularly, and are as open to having their minds changed by their Christian friends as their Christian friend’s mind might be changed by them.
Regardless of this, no amount of people trying to tell me that I don’t really have to legally pay my income taxes because the word “voluntary” is used in the tax code is going to change my mind about paying my taxes. Likewise, no amount of people telling me that the Bible says we should all be hateful is going to change my mind about the message of love clearly stated in the Bible.
To be right with God means to treat God as the Father and to treat all of His children (the world) as fellow siblings. Even if you don’t believe in God, this doesn’t change the fact that I view you as a brother/sister. Any messages I try to get across, I do so out of love, not out of control or a sense of inequality.
I should study the bible, go to church every sunday, etc… because if I don’t do that, i can’t say I understand the bible.
1.- That’s not practical, moreover, it’s impossible.
A.- I should go to church… wich church? Evangelical? Catholic? Orthodox? Mormon?
B.- To be fair, I should study with the same effort every religion. Buddism, Muslim, Jew, Scientology… I can’t imagine you having dedicated so much time to any religion other than your own.
2.- I’m pretty sure that I don’t understand the bible in all his meanings. I don’t understand black holes as deeply as I would want to. Same with general relativity or q
…or quantum mechanics. But there is a difference. I have some evidences about the existence of black holes.
3.- You are asking us to go to church because church can change your mind. Yes, they are experts in brainwashing, as they have been doing that for centuries. And they are experts in justification of wathever bible says, as they have also been doing that for centuries. Bible scholars aren’t usually impartial, their main job is to explain in a logic way what it’s not logic.
4.- I’m open to new ideas. I have dedicated infinitely more time to christian ideas than to Nietzsche’s ideas. Nietzsche wasn’t an all-knowing almighty god, but I understanded his words. I would expect more efficiency in convincing me -or being clear- from your god
I have to disagree with you about churches being “experts” in brainwashing. The power of social institutions and the loyalty to family have much more to do with influencing people to drink the kool-aid than he efficiency of the average church to convince people of the legitimacy of biblical scripture. I went to church for years. Not just one church, but several churches (catholic and protestant) because I moved around a lot due to work. What I heard and saw in those churches is what ultimately made me realize it was all a load of crap. Well, that and studying the bible in earnest (I actually thought I might become a minister at one point). The churches were absolutely instrumental in my eventual de-conversion.
@StareClips
So your comparison to “lip stick on a pig” was basically wrong then? Thanks for clearing that up.
What I find fascinating is the number of atheists that claim to study the Bible, then use quotes from the Bible to prove their points. Wouldn’t this be like completely disbelieving that black holes exist, yet devoting a good portion of your time studying the physics of black holes, discussing black holes with others, etc, etc… For completely dismissing an idea, there sure is a lot of time and energy going into discussing it.
It’s not that strange. Using the Bible to discuss with Christians is like speaking someone’s language instead of your own in order to communicate with them. If Christians consider the Bible a reliable data set for their beliefs, then using that data set to attack their beliefs is just good debate practice, and does not indicate that the Atheist lends any credence to the data set or conclusions derived by others therefrom.
It is generally a mistake to assume that because an Atheist trots out an interpretation of scripture that they don’t know the context of the passages being quotes or that it is not a widely supported interpretation even within the ranks of the faithful. Many Atheists were once members of the religion, and are quite familiar with the scripture from that experience.
The interpretation of the racism present in the passage of Matthew we discussed above comes directly from Clayton Sullivan’s work in the area. Clayton Sullivan is, it should be noted, a Southern Baptist minister, and a well-respected scriptural interpreter.
Perhaps that is the keystone to the whole communication breakdown. You see “Christians” as one big group that completely agrees and understands every aspect of the Bible and what it means. You then read passages of this Bible, and assume that the meaning you derive must be the same meaning that all “Christians” derive. You then assume you now know “the language” of all “Christians”.
However, imagine for a moment a scenario where someone approaches you and says “When an acceleration is applied, a force is felt, right? So, when I step on the gas in my car, I fall back into my seat from the force. However, if I keep going 5 mph and then turn, I also feel a sideways force, even though I was not accelerating. Ooooh, magic, huh?”
So, you respond to them by explaining that “acceleration” in that sense means any change in velocity… and that velocity is a vector that is comprised of both a speed AND a direction. So, the change of direction by turning meant there was a change in velocity and, hence, there was an acceleration.
They, in turn say “No. Look, here. A dictionary. Accelerating: v. To increase the speed of.” And they point and laugh and say, “Are you saying you don’t believe in dictionaries, or are you just cherry-picking your definitions.”
This goes back and forth for a while… eventually, you would just understand that they just “don’t get it”. That’s not to say that you know everything there is to know about physics, that you can build a black hole in your back yard with household materials, that you travel through time regularly, etc… It just means that you have read the material… you have studied it… and you have collaborated with others who have read the material and understand it. You are convinced that they have not read enough or studied enough to understand the physics definition of acceleration.
At the same time, the other person could say “I used the term ‘accelerating’ to speak your language. I also used Newton’s second law of motion. That’s also ‘your language’.” While it may be true, the person took the language out of its context. They did not understand it in the same way as others who have studied it, agree with it, and use it. And if every attempt you make to teach them results in every tennis ball being lobbed right back, then you realize they have no intention of actually ‘learning’… but are just being argumentative for the sake of ‘winning’. It would get you nowhere. Certainly, you still want them to understand… you want the whole world to understand. It’s not just about speaking the language and quoting lines and using dictionaries… it’s also about working together with the same people who believe in Newton’s laws of physics… know what he meant when he wrote the words… know the definitions that were really intended… and generally understand the concepts being explained.
So, while you may think that quoting the Bible means you are “speaking the same language”… the reality is, you’re only using the same words… but you’re applying them in a completely different context. That’s not the same thing.
Perhaps that is the keystone to the whole communication breakdown.
Let’s not be hasty.
You see “Christians” as one big group that completely agrees and understands every aspect of the Bible and what it means.
No, I do not. I do see Christians (as a group) as people who strive to understand the documents we call the Bible because they believe that great truths are contained therein.
You then read passages of this Bible, and assume that the meaning you derive must be the same meaning that all “Christians” derive.
No. In point of fact, some Christians would disagree with the interpretations I provide. Others would concur with them. I am also well aware of the disagreements amongst Christians themselves about textual interpretation.
You then assume you now know “the language” of all “Christians”.
The language thing was a metaphor about an aid to communication between members of two disparate groups. But to the extent that the metaphor is understood more literally, yes, the Biblical text undergirds a great deal of what Christians believe, and that is partially what defines Christianity. To wit, there is no Christianity without the Bible.
I believe that Atheists and Christians have a naturally shared vocabulary, insofar as they both experience the same physical universe. Christians also arrogate unto themselves a spiritual vocabulary which Atheists, for obvious reasons, do not share. This does not mean that Atheists cannot learn this vocabulary and use it as elements of argument; it only means that to them it is a construct which describes a virtual, rather than real, reality. It is no different than, say, two people discussing the fictional world of the Lord of the Rings and making interpretative choices. To do so, it does not require them to assert that Tolkien’s middle-earth is real.
No, we see christians as one big group that believes in the supernatural and has their own personal imaginary friend that seems to agree with them on whichever point they choose to make. You, and every person you go to church with, has a different idea of what/who god is. He seems to have a different set of values depending on who you speak with.
We read passages of the bible and assume that the person we are speaking with is at least sane enough to not jump through batshit-crazy hoops to derive another meaning from it.
Sure, I know the language of all christians, see Daniel's guide to christian cliches and phrases.
To add to that, I do not follow Clayton Sullivan… but if what you say is true, then I disagree with him on the point about racism in that passage.
Re: “What I find fascinating is the number of atheists that claim to study the Bible, then use quotes from the Bible to prove their points.”
The reason for this is simple. In the US and other occidental cultures, the Bible is often used to justify lots of things … and it’s used even on non-believers. Therefore, non-believers have as much reason to know the Bible, as believers do. What’s more, many atheists and other types of non-believers have knowledge of the Bible, not because — as atheists or non-believers — they’ve undertaken the study of it. Rather, a lot of them were once Bible believers, and their knowledge of it comes from that period in their lives. This is the case for me; while I’m a committed agnostic now, this wasn’t always the case. My knowledge of the Bible, and of Biblical languages, is a relic of my past, first as a Catholic and then as a Pentecostalist.
Re: “Wouldn’t this be like completely disbelieving that black holes exist, yet devoting a good portion of your time studying the physics of black holes, discussing black holes with others, etc, etc… For completely dismissing an idea, there sure is a lot of time and energy going into discussing it.”
You mean … exactly like certain groups claiming to have studied evolution, but only just enough to be able to claim to debunk it? For the record, if I were a committed Creationist trying to debunk evolution, I most certainly would study evolution.
Re: “Where the discussion goes south is when the inference being made involves taking a quote from the Bible, yanking it out of its context (including the time period it was written in), then using the quote to either rile people up, or to try to prove some sort of anti-Biblical point.”
What’s odd is that, in my experience, it’s Biblical literalists and religious fundamentalists who are most often guilty of this. When atheists/non-believers do it, their motive isn’t to impose some kind of belief on someone and use a Bible passage to justify or rationalize it; rather, it’s to show that using such justifications or rationales is flawed because the message of the Bible is inherently inconsistent and non-contextual readings are flawed.
Re: “It’s no different than the “put lipstick on a pig” comment made by Obama. Anyone who has at least half a brain and isn’t inherently anti-Obama KNOWS what that phrase means… and they KNOW that the context he used it in meant that McCain’s policies were the pig and that Palin was the lipstick.”
You’re absolutely right about that. Rhetorical tricks like this — and the evasions people use to get out of them — are as transparent as a sheet of glass. Just once, I’d love to hear some politician, religious figure, pundit, etc. ‘fess up and honestly say, “Yes, that’s what I said; I knew what I meant at the time I said it; and I stand by it 100%, even though it makes me look really bad, because that’s what I honestly think.” However, that will never happen because no public person of any kind is ever honest or sincere enough to do this. On rare occasions they may actually insist they were right, but they deflect the (rotten) appearance by insinuating that “the other side” is wrong to criticize them, or has their own skeletons in their closet, etc.
Re: “The Bible is not a simple topic. It’s not just a discussion about right and wrong. It’s an entire guidebook to maintaining a lasting and healthy relationship with your Creator.”
Actually that’s not correct either. The Bible is not a single “guidebook” to anything because it has no coherent design. Each of the Old Testament books (39 according to the Protestant canon, more if you include the deuterocanonicals as the Catholic and Orthodox churches do) and the 27 books of the New Testament has a unique purpose and, in most cases, unique authorship (some of the the OT books had overlapping authorship, and several of the NT books had a common author, esp. the genuine Pauline epistles, the Johannine epistles, Luke & Acts, etc.). Each book more or less had a specific origin and, for lack of a better term, raison d’etre. At the time each was written, it was not considered to be part of a whole.
It was only much later that Christians decided that the Bible was a single, coherent message. And this is an axiom that gets them into a great deal of trouble, because it leads to all sorts of contradictions and inconsistencies. (Of course, the severest literalist simply defines those away and refuses to acknowledge them; nevertheless they remain.)
In any event, none of the Bible books were written with the purpose of establishing a “relationship with the Creator.” The idea of “having a relationship” with a deity was not something that any of the Bible book authors even conceived as possible. For them, God is a vast, immense, super-human and largely inscrutable being. You can obey him, you can worship him, you can do things to please and/or placate him, but “have a relationship” in the way one has a relationship with a friend or family member? That’s preposterous, and worse, anachronistic. The peoples of the Near East cultural realm — of whom the Hebrews that wrote the OT books were part — considered the gods to be terrifying and powerful; human beings existed only to serve them, and they could, at any moment, decide to wipe them all out. In fact, stories of this type were common in the Near East and are the sources from which the Hebrews drew.
Re: “You can’t just spend 5 years reading all of the pages of the Bible over and over and “get it”.”
I agree fully. Understanding the Bible books — as they were written and in terms of they meant to their writers and initial readers — requires knowing them in the original languages, not in translation, as well as an education in the history of the cultures which wrote them (i.e. the Near Eastern and Hellenistic/Greco-Roman). I’m pretty sure that 99% of Christians don’t come anywhere near this level of expertise. I’m not even sure most divinity-school graduates have that.
Re: “Also, don’t forget (or ignore) your “gut feeling”. If you read something, and it upsets you… there’s probably a reason it upsets you. If the fact that the Constitution was written by slave owners bothers you… that’s great… but don’t toss out the Constitution… understand the spirit in which it was written and if the founding fathers had lived through the past 200 years, what they would have to say about it today.”
Again I find I agree with you 100%. One must study history and historical relics — such as the Bible books, or the Constitution, etc. — dispassionately. It’s OK to arrive at subjective value judgements about things, but that doesn’t change their meaning. At most, it simply means if you were writing something, you’d be writing it differently … but it stands to reason that would be the case. So it’s hardly a revelation.
Re: “To me, I find the discrimination against homosexual couples to be just as bad as slavery was 200 years ago.”
Great … now all we have to do is get the rest of the fundamentalist Christians in the US … some 25% of the population depending on whom you listen to … to agree. And we need to get politicians to stop catering to this 25% of the population, which they’re obeying out of all proportion to their actual numbers.
Re: “Don’t cherry-pick verses from the Bible to try to insist that homosexuality should be illegal in the eyes of man’s law.”
Wonderful! Couldn’t have said it better.
Re: “Also, don’t cherry-pick verses from the Bible to try to discount the entire teachings of the Bible.”
Actually when I quote the Bible to point out a problem of interpretation, that is exactly what I’m doing — pointing out a flawed interpretation. When I point out, as I did previously, that you cannot assert that all of Leviticus is divine law to be obeyed literally, but pick and choose the parts to obey, that’s revealing the inconsistency in viewing the Bible that way. It says nothing about the Bible itself.
Re: “If you don’t believe in God, then stay out of people’s relationships with God.”
That goes two ways you know. If you believe in God, that’s fine … for you. Don’t then use your beliefs to dictate how I must live your life. And if I refuse to obey you, don’t also complain that somehow I’m hindering your freedom of religion.
Re: “It’s akin to thinking someone’s spouse is ugly, then going on message boards letting everyone know that she’s ugly and that the person is dumb for loving her.”
You might have had a point, if believers weren’t trying to commandeer the country to suit their purposes, or trying to convert everyone to their worship. So long as they keep telling me what I must say, do, and believe, then I have every right to point out the fallacies and flaws in their reasoning. Yes, even in terms of the very Bible they believe in, and if it means I have to quote that Bible back at them, I get to do that.
Once they stop forcing their beliefs on others and keep their religions in their homes and churches, then it would only be fair to leave them alone.
Re: “Pointing the finger at “the other side” and saying “they started it” or “they do it too” doesn’t justify hypocrisy at all.”
You’re right, but the fact is that, when it comes to discrimination against gays and trying to outlaw it, we’re talking about how the country is run. Non-believers have as much right to say what they want about it, as believers do. It is not “hypocritical” to have that voice and to use it.
Re: “It only attempts legitimatizes it, which essentially destroys all hope for reaching a conclusion to the discussion.”
If you’re suggesting the way for gays to handle religiously-inspired discrimination is to shut up, go away, and stop making a point of themselves … I hate to break it to you, but for most of history, that’s exactly what most have done. And honestly, it hasn’t worked. What would you expect them to do?
Re: “The point of a discussion is to reach a conclusion.”
That’s true, but I don’t know of any Biblical literalist or religious fundamentalist who’s willing to reach any conclusion other than the one his or her preacherman has already declared that he or she is supposed to conclude.
“That goes two ways you know. If you believe in God, that’s fine … for you. Don’t then use your beliefs to dictate how I must live your life. And if I refuse to obey you, don’t also complain that somehow I’m hindering your freedom of religion.”
I think the reality is (at least as far as you and I are concerned) is that we both agree that religion doesn’t belong in government. At that point, the fact that you and I disagree about God is mostly irrelevant.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that when you said “Don’t then use your beliefs to dictate how I must live [my] life,” you weren’t referring specifically to ME, but were simply referring to other Christians who have told you that you don’t have a choice about how you live your life and that you must live your life their way. I would never tell you how to live your life. I don’t believe the government should, either… considering the government is supposed to be representative of us. I would pray that you come to recognize the existence of God, that you would understand His Grace, and that you would have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. However, if this never happens for you, I would still consider you to be an equal and would never want to take away any of your freedoms.
What happens is… poor examples of the Christian faith will use the Bible to attack people or take away people’s rights and freedoms… in my opinion, the only thing the Bible should be “used” for is reading and study and understanding and spreading the word. The only “actions” (besides talking) that should come from readers of the Bible are helping others and showing others the love that Jesus showed for the world. When feelings are rightfully hurt by these poor examples of the Christian faith, rather than the individual’s ideas being attacked in return… the entire Christian faith and the Bible are attacked. This overreaching now brings more people into the fold… the good examples of the Christian faith. So, the audience gets larger. Then, rather than those who were hurt by the original person joining the opposition, the opposition grows to all of those who disagree or disbelieve in Christianity. Eventually, this grows out of proportion and starts becoming an attack on the idea God (regardless of religion). Eventually, the discussion leads nowhere.
The original discussion was about poor examples of Christianity using the Bible to create (and later maintain) laws to create inequalities in what is supposed to be an equal society. Then, some of those suffering from this inequality cherry-picking verses of the Bible to prove why the Bible itself shouldn’t be relied upon. This ultimately leads to discussions about why God may or may not exist. The original discussion is completely lost in babble.
I believe in God. I believe Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I believe the government should keep religion out of law, other than to provide freedom of religion. I believe same-sex couples should get equal treatment as opposite-sex couples. Whether this means same-sex couples are given the special treatment afforded to opposite-sex couples, or opposite-sex couples have these special treatments taken away to level the playing field. (My choice is the first one.) Anything else that discusses why the Bible is or isn’t reliable, whether taxes are voluntary or mandatory, whether the founding fathers were religious or were slave owners, or whether discussing the Bible is the same as “telling others how to live their lives” is all part of side discussions which detract from the real issue.
Legalize same-sex marriage, already.
Re: “I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that when you said “Don’t then use your beliefs to dictate how I must live [my] life,” you weren’t referring specifically to ME, but were simply referring to other Christians who have told you that you don’t have a choice about how you live your life and that you must live your life their way.”
You’re correct, my “you” was rhetorical, and I’m sorry about that. I should have been clearer, but these comments are not really the best place to explain things at great length. I write a little fast and sometimes my mode of address moves without my being aware of it. So my apologies, even if you (not a rhetorical you) briefly thought I was speaking directly to you.
Re: “When feelings are rightfully hurt by these poor examples of the Christian faith, rather than the individual’s ideas being attacked in return… the entire Christian faith and the Bible are attacked.”
Quite aside from the idea of emotionalizing the reasons some choose not to be believers … the problem is that Christianity itself and its believers, are effectively inseparable. Allow me to explain: How else can an outside observer try to understand Christianity, except by looking at the behavior of its adherents? Sure, you can read the Bible, and the Church Fathers, and the canons of the Councils, and the writings of the Doctors and the Reformers and theologians, preachers, and religious pundits … but let’s be honest here: Doing all of that will only tell an observer just so much, and worse, it can befuddle them. It’s a huge pile of information and difficult to digest; not all of it is even followed any more even if it was in the past; and few, if any, Christians are even aware of it all themselves. Spending too much time on all of that will only clutter the matter rather than resolve it.
So what’s a neutral observer to do? They watch Christians, see what they say, how they act, and arrive at conclusions based on that.
What you are suggesting — and many have said much the same — is that one cannot judge Christianity by watching Christians. I don’t agree. In fact, I see it the opposite way … it is impossible to understand Christianity, or any other religion, without watching the behavior of its adherents. It may not seem fair to conflate an idea with the people who hold it, but that’s just the way it is. A neutral observer has no other choice.
That said, what is an observer to make of Christianity, if there are so many abhorrent Christians who claim to practice it? If Christianity is truly of divine origin, and if it truly has power to influence people to be better than they would be otherwise, then I must ask the obvious question: Why aren’t they better? Sure, they’re individuals, and can do what they want … but one would think that, overall, one would find better behavior in the aggregate. But that isn’t the case.
Lastly, I’ll point out something obvious: An idea — or collection of them, as any religion is — cannot be “attacked.” An idea is an idea and that’s all it is. It can be true or false or indeterminate; it can be helpful or harmful; it can be valid for one person but not for another; but in the end, an idea is what it is. Nothing that anyone says about it, can alter it in the slightest. Thus, it cannot be “attacked” because it cannot be “damaged” by anything. Ideas can be critiqued, but ultimately whatever one conclusion reaches about an idea, is based on the idea’s content. A critique can reveal something about it, but ultimately the idea speaks for itself.
Only people, animals, or physical things can be attacked.
That said, I understand that some people who have certain ideas, may feel as if they’re being “attacked,” if the idea they hold is being critiqued. But really, if one wants to show that one’s idea is true and valid and not in accordance with the critique, there’s only one way to deal with that … and that’s to demonstrate conclusively that the critique is invalid.
So if people are judging Christianity poorly because there are Christians out there making it look bad, other Christians shouldn’t whine that Christianity looks bad! Instead, they should take the bull by the horns, and force the misbehaving Christians to behave, so that the critique fails to hold up. Now, I’m not advocating using force. What I am saying is that Christians have to actively counteract the misbehavior. Complain about it when they see it. Condemn it when they have the chance. Stop it if they’re able to and without breaking the law or harming anyone.
But in the end, they have no right to go around telling people not to draw conclusions about Christianity, based on the behavior of other, abhorrent Christians. That’s just silly, and if I may be so bold, a little juvenile. If Christianity has any flaws or problems, it’s up to Christians to fix them … it’s not up to non-Christians to look the other way and act as if the problem doesn’t exist.
In regards to your “take the bull by the horns” part… this IS happening… but those close-minded Christians can be so stubborn sometimes. ;)
Take this post for example:
The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity
I don’t agree with every point, but as you can see, Christians often spend quite a bit of time preaching to other Christians due to the mistakes that we are all likely to make. Part of being a Christian means expecting your Brothers in Christ to hold you accountable.
You’re absolutely right. Christians do spend a lot of time preaching to each other. The problem is no two people hold the exact same set of beliefs when it comes to their religion or god. So the obvious question is: Who is right?
You all use the same justifications for your interpretations of biblical scripture, but the complexity, contextuality and apparent arbitrariness make it virtually (and perhaps literally) impossible to come to an acceptable conclusion that everyone can agree upon. My point here is that it is utterly useless for christian A to attempt to reform christian B when the two of them do not agree on interpretations about biblical scripture. You might occasionally get some concensus that way, but the thousands of different sects of christianity speak to the size of this obstacle far more strongly than my words here ever could. In short, christians can’t even agree with one another, much less anyone who doesn’t accept the validity of the bible or the christian faith.
That being said, your implication that those other christians who don’t behave as you do are simply not understanding correctly, as you do (of course), and need to be reigned in, comes across as hollow. They are standing on their side saying the exact same things about you, and using the same texts as *proof* of their position.
Teachings of religion aside… I do understand the tendency to attack the “group” rather than the “individuals”, especially when the group seems to consist of many individuals. Keep in mind, however, that you have plenty of Christians who are on your side and want things to change and are working to fight the opposition, including those who are poor examples of Christianity.
Jesus often defended the sinner without defending the sin. Jesus died on the cross not because we are sinless, but because we are all sinners. Jesus also said to put God’s law above man’s law. Jesus was essentially a criminal, but not a sinner. He faced prosecution and execution under man’s law while remaining right with God.
So, I believe very strongly today that if Jesus were alive today in the flesh, he would put the term “homosexuality” into the proper context, and whether or not he would still declare it a sin, he would still say that man’s law needs to keep out of it. God’s law is between man and God, not for man to rule over other men. We are all brothers and sisters, not each other’s parents. We have only one Father.
“So, I believe very strongly today that if Jesus were alive today in the flesh, …”
So let me get this straight, you believe you know the mind of god better than other Christians that beleive that homosexuality is a sin?
I never said that homosexuality wasn’t a sin.
Let me put it another way, since you’re only dancing around what I’m basically saying instead of focusing on the central theme.
If sinning was a crime, we’d ALL be in prison.
@StareClips
I’m just wondering why you have such arrogance that you believe that you know the mind of god better, as you have stated more than once in this thread, than other Christians. What makes you know you’re right and other Christians are wrong, what indeed makes your religion right and others wrong?
This is your central theme as it’s at the heart of what you are basing your argument on …
To be fair, every christian thinks that his particular sect -or nomination- has a better understanding about god’s will that the other ones. If not, they just would change of sect.
Of course, they also think that their holy book is hollier than holy books from other religions.
Why? Duh, because they feel so. A muslim doesn’t feel the same? Yes, but muslims are wrong
:-p
When I point to other Christians not “getting it”… I’m not talking about little nuances. I’m talking about off the wall things, like Christians that believe that God wants us to paint all frogs purple. I cannot find any evidence to that fact, so I will believe they are wrong. Could I, too, be wrong thinking they are wrong? Sure, but I’m not willing to bet my life on it.
How about you? Do you think God wants us to paint all frogs purple? Do you think God exists or doesn’t exist? If you have an answer, be prepared to explain your “arrogance” in kind.
Ouch! You put it too easy:
I don’t think god exists. Why? I’m answering in your own words:
“like Christians that believe that God wants us to paint all frogs purple. I cannot find any evidence to that fact, so I will believe they are wrong”
@Francesc,
See? Wasn’t that a whole lot easier than belittling me?
Ok, I may have belittled you a little bit, but only when you deserved it (kidding)
My post about “every christian thinks…” was not intended specifically at you, but to the average religious guy who post here. Appart from christians, I remember in particular a muslim guy that was sure Allah is the only god because he felt it.
I pretty much agree with you when you distinguishes between religion and civic laws, and I have classified you in my mind as “the kind of christian I would like to see more frequently”. But I disagree with you about religion, and I may be a bit arrogant or unkind when I answer some assertions, sorry
It’s all good. I’ve enjoyed the exchange. I only came here because I am for legalizing same-sex marriage and when I saw that sign, it made me concerned about that strategy of debate. It’s a losing strategy, in my opinion. It’s the equivalent to someone walking up to a senator and saying, “You’re doing everything wrong. You need to change course. You’re spending too much money on the wrong things. Like going to the moon, for instance. Everyone knows the moon landing was all a big hoax anyway.” Eventually, the senator just isn’t going to hear a word you say, even if you speak some truths.
So, I came here primarily to defend those who are for same-sex marriage legalization against the religious zealots who are against it and who I know would have a response to the picture. Instead, it looks like I got caught up in the “net” intended to ensnare all Christians, no matter their views on laws. Having conversations with the more intelligent kind, such as yourself, made it worthwhile.
If I got a bit zany in anything I said, I apologize. I was often a bit rushed in getting my view out there while simultaneously getting frustrated with some of the name-calling and other behavior that I may have posted some silly comments. It’s not an excuse, but it is an explanation.
StareClips…you dont (yet) know Him, for He is holy (separate, pure). The reason homosexuality will never be “blessed” is because man is the intended image of God (surely I dont have to cite verses here, right) fashioned in His very image and likeness and He does not change, is an eternal constant, thankfully.
Its His image in us that’s been defaced, marred, distorted in the fall of man from our high place in the spiritual realm in fellowship with the Eternal Father and the Eternal Son. It’s that same image that Christ restores in us, back to holiness, purity and our true (original) nature which is after His image.
That doesn’t mean He doesnt love all people, those who call themselves homosexuals, etc. It’s just that He knows the true image and (high) standard of mankind and since Love is closely bound to truth…He will not relent because He is Love. All the best.
“So, I believe very strongly today that if Jesus were alive today in the flesh,”
Must be a bummer to know your perfect god couldn’t get it right the first time around.
I think He got it perfectly. I wouldn’t have it any other way. Sorry to hear you’re so pessimistic.
It didn’t occur to you that maybe some of those atheists used to be christians and studied the bible so much that they finally found out that it’s false? You think that they’d somehow just forget all that knowledge they gathered before coming to that conclusion?
The rest of us realize that, while god does not exist, and the bible is a wonderfully evil fairy tale, dangerous fundies DO exist. How is one supposed to convince another of something if one has not studied the subject matter?
Do you see how your comparison of black holes there is erroneous and misleading? You’ll have to forgive me, since your first paragraph was so inane, I refused to read the rest. Please start your arguments with substance next time.
“It didn’t occur to you that maybe some of those atheists used to be christians and studied the bible so much that they finally found out that it’s false?”
Yes, but they obviously weren’t true Christians who knew how to interpret the Bible as god intended … then again you’ve got to ask how incompetent a god must be that gives a manual of how to avoid hell and then makes it so difficult to understand.
touche salesman – if he does exist, god is a douchebag
Is that like thinking that if the founding fathers of the constitution really knew what they were doing, they wouldn’t have made it so difficult to understand. It sounds like you want to burn the constitution just because others have a hard time understanding it.
Do you also do your child’s homework for him to make him smarter?
No offense, but that is about as far afield of Jabster’s point as it is possible to be.
You fundies and your comparisons…
Last time I checked, there was no “burn books for atheism” in my event log. I’ve heard of a few christian book burnings lately though.
It usually isn’t an ATHEIST saying that a christian isn’t/wasn’t a ‘real christian’. Jabster was obviously summarizing what some christian would reply to what I wrote. So, your beef here seems to be with everyone that believes that you, and everyone else isn’t/never was a real christian.
No, but posting something like this makes you look like an ass.
@Nzo
When will believers realise that the parent/child relationship is nothing like the god/human relationship. Would you torture your own child for eternity because he/she did not worship you?
I posted an inquisitive question. You posted an insulting statement. Not sure how inquisitiveness can make someone look more like an ass than an insulting statement.
Appearing to be purposely stupid so as to play the victim makes you look like an ass.
@Sunny
Yes but it’s all going to turn out wonderfully in the end if you just open your heart and let Jesus in, well unless one of the many other religions turns out to be correct then you’re buggered, possible for eternity.
At least twice you have resorted to name-calling, so you’ve essentially given up on the discussion. Being that you clearly don’t want to keep this civilized, I’ll find other things to do.
What is it with you Americans and your “founding fathers” fetish?
The American constitution was written by people. It is difficult (of course, to us from outside it seems wonderfully simple; it’s almost quaint, compared to the Brazilian constitution!) and it is complex and it’s invaluable, but it isn’t the be-all of existence. It can be corrected and it can be amended, and it is. They knew what they were doing, but they were only people.
You can’t say the same about the Bible. It’s also wonderfully complex and rich, but it’s also flawed (as in, “not divinely inspired” or “written by people who thought they were talking in God’s name”). It can and should be amended and corrected as a moral guide. Take the good, throw away the bad, and life goes on.
I give it no more credence than I give the Aeneid, the Iliad, or the Vedas.
That makes perfect sense.
So, cars aren’t actually made by people, either.
People just built machines… and these machines are used to “take the good” and “take the bad” and mold and shape the metal and other materials to make parts that are then assembled by people. However, the people didn’t make the cars… tools and machines did… and people didn’t really make the machines, because they didn’t make the atoms that consist of the machine.
So, really, vehicles just started “existing” right? Nobody created them.
You forget the fact that God created people. He inspired the Bible to be written.
By suggesting that it’s just some conspiracy by a bunch of people already assumes that God didn’t exist in the first place. I can understand that if you don’t believe in God, then you don’t believe in the Bible. However, why even discuss whether or not the Bible was inspired by God or not if you don’t even believe in God in the first place? And, if you believe God exists, but you just think the Bible wasn’t inspired by God, then which writings do you believe God did inspire?
Whoever said I think it’s a conspiracy?
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just the works of very ancient people trying to understand their world. If I write fiction for my entertainment, or to teach my peers, or to explain away what I don’t understand; if I write fantasy and people a thousand years from now form a cult around it – doesn’t mean I intended it.
Because other people obviously do. I don’t, but I still want to see the reasoning that lead other people to believe it. Maybe they’ll convince me. Most likely they’ll just feel threatened and try to distract me from my goal, though…
Why would God inspire any writing at all? Why should he – if he exists – even care?
Why should He care? You’re right. It could go either way. He could care. He could not care. I would have been a lot easier to not care… but He does, which is what makes life so wonderful.
Couldn’t you say that the scientific method is “just the works of very ancient people trying to understand their world”? Even the creation of 0 (zero) was a concept created to visualize the lack of anything countable. Just because ancient people were involved doesn’t mean I’m going to dismiss it all as pointless or clearly headed down the wrong path.
@StareClips
… care to explain how you came to this conclusion? If I was being cynical I would say you’re trying to doge the issue by making extremely poor analogies.
What issue am I dodging?
I came to this single post (not the whole site, mind you) because, as a Christian, I wanted to say that:
1) I support legalizing same-sex marriage.
2) It is counter-productive to cherry-pick phrases from the Bible to attack a whole group, assuming the whole group is against you, when this clearly isn’t the case.
I thought the image in the post was funny, but it’s terribly mis-representative and, as a result, damaging for the cause. A better protest sign might have said something like “Jesus died for our sins, not for your tax breaks.”
So, I’m just trying to figure out what issue it is you think I’m dodging. That religion needs to stay out of government? Not dodging that one, because I agree. That many Christians have screwed up government by trying to push religion into government? Not dodging that one, because I agree.
I suppose that, because I am a Christian, you believe I should apologize on behalf of any Christians you and I both disagree with? I do apologize. I’m not sure how sincere my apology would be since I disagreed with these people all along. I have never agreed with it. Apologizing on behalf of other people makes little sense. Those who owe an apology are those who have been using the Bible to govern people instead of righting their relationship with God.
Please help me out if I’m completely missing the issue that you feel I am dodging.
right now you’re dodging the fact that you were being an ass…
Now, that’s just being not nice, Nzo.
Now this is beginning to sound like a Monty Python script.
“I thought the image in the post was funny, but it’s terribly mis-representative and, as a result, damaging for the cause.”
Because you say so?
“A better protest sign might have said something like “Jesus died for our sins, not for your tax breaks.”
Sure if you want to be an Retard and attempt to completely change the message of the sign holder to something more palatable for yourself and supporting of your religion. I can see how you’d desire something like that.
StareClips, I think the example of “doing the homework for your children” is not fitting at all, and I feel that it does not properly addressed the matter.
If I want someone to learn, I provide a source that it is as easy to understand as possible.
The fact that I provide an optimal source does not mean that this someone does not have to study: it just means that she will waste less time trying to understand the true meaning of the content.
Neither kills this person free-will: she will be still able to refuse the content, disbelieve it, or simply act against it.
Without reducing freewill the slightest, God could have provided something far better and clearer, avoiding misinterpretations, redundancies, allegories, confusions, and laws that are NOT universal.
“… then again you’ve got to ask how incompetent a god must be that gives a manual of how to avoid hell and then makes it so difficult to understand.”
Remember this is a entity that you believe has the power to create the universe and all life with in it so no comparisions to the founding fathers this time.
I was just trying to speak your language, so to speak. You put more faith into human beings, since you don’t believe human beings were created and merely appeared by random chance.
I can’t reason with that kind of pessimism by talking about God when you refuse to believe He exists. This means you only want me to talk about God so that you can counter the statement. What would that prove? That you are pretty good at arguing any statement? I know lots of people who are pretty good at arguing any statement, and they aren’t exactly in a very sane situation right now. I hope you aren’t that far along.
In any case, I will pray for you. I can’t read the Bible to you, you’ve got to make an effort to read yourself. If you feel that you’ve already done “enough reading”, then clearly you put God in a “box” until you weren’t satisfied that the “box” was big enough for God to exist.
I wish I could help you, but if you don’t really want help, I will just pray for you. Hope all is well.
@StareClips
Now, if that’s not dodging the issue then what is it. Oh and the praying for me part isn’t that the equivalent of a saying “yeh whatever” in an attempt to end an argument which you know you are losing?
… and one more thing , the bit about random chance; go and study evolution before making such uniformed statements. Then we can talk about those ideas compared to your godidit. It most be so much easier when you don’t have to supply boring things like evidence and reason for your facts.
I just LOVE it when Christians end an argument by saying ‘I’ll pray for you’! Can you get any more condescending, pleeease? To me that sounds like ‘You poor, lost, confused soul, I’ll pray that the Lord Jesus Christ opens up your wounded little heart and fills you with His Everlasting Grace’ (‘And if that doesn’t work, there’s always eternal damnation, hahahaha!!!!’)
Bollocks. Even when I was a hard-core Catholic I would never DARE to spout shit like that, even to my (equally hard-core) atheist wife and her two unbaptized daughters, as I fully applied the basic tenets of: ‘Don’t judge’ and ‘Take the plank out of your own eye before looking at the speck of dust in your brother’s eye’. Maybe you should take a leaf out of my book…
BTW My wife won out in the end. You can’t beat common sense at the end of the day :p
@Jabster,
If you think prayer is about saying “whatever”, then you clearly don’t know the topic of which you’re preaching.
I know all about evolution. I find it rather fascinating.
“I know all about evolution. I find it rather fascinating.”
“since you don’t believe human beings were created and merely appeared by random chance.”
Please explain your statement then?
Although chance is involved in biological evolution (random mutations), it is not a driving force. Natural selection is pretty much the opposite of chance (progressive refinement, “keeping” the “good” mutations). If you think “evolution = chance”, your grasp of modern evolutionary synthesis is very weak.
Which is ok! But don’t claim you know “all about evolution”. I encourage you to learn more. I think you will find it is actually very simple and logical, and perfectly explains the earthly distribution of flora and fauna, and nothing else (especially Creation!) makes sense at all. You can believe in God, I guess, but “not believing in evolution” is basically willful ignorance of 20th-century knowledge. There are no competing theories. It’s a fact.
“I know all about evolution”.
No, you don’t. You’ve already demonstrated that you fail to grasp the non-purpose driven mechanism of evolution. And it sounds like you equate it with randomness as well.
It seems a lot of assumptions are being made about my statements.
Not once did I say that evolution itself consisted of randomness.
I said, “since you don’t believe human beings were created and merely appeared by random chance”. The emphasis words are CREATED and APPEARED.
I don’t believe the laws that govern evolution, the scientific principles which make evolution possible, and the very existence of life itself by which evolution relies merely appeared but were created.
The use of the word “random” was not meant to imply the process of an organism evolving, but the existence of evolution itself. Just like gravity itself. I don’t believe the universe was bored and, wham, there’s gravity. I see purpose. Time, for instance, is just God’s way of keeping everything from happening all at once. ;) (That’s a joke, for the joke impaired. So, there’s no sense in creating another argument about time and space. Don’t even get me started about string theory.)
Perhaps my mistake was using the term “human beings” and not simply “life itself.” For that, I apologize.
Also, just because I stated what it appeared Jabster believed in (anything other than Creation) does not mean to imply that I don’t believe in evolution and other scientific phenomenon. Don’t confuse me with the Christian that stares blankly in space, says dinosaurs aren’t real, or says the Earth is a few thousand years old. I see those people as being just as unwise as Scientologists, Intelligent Design Theorists, Moon Landing Hoax Theorists, and those who find it impossible to believe that there are supernatural forces in the universe that we have yet to fully understand.
“I don’t believe the universe was bored and, wham, there’s gravity”
How on earth was the Universe bored?
Not knowing the answer to something does not mean that goddidit … unless of course you have evidence to say that god, and in particular your god, created the Universe.
“If you think ‘evolution = chance’”
I already stated that I don’t and addressed this issue. I wasn’t talking about the process of evolution but the very existence of evolution.
Imagine, for instance, someone says “why do things fall?” The easy answer is “gravity”… so the obvious follow-up question is “Why does gravity exist?” to which the answer becomes a little more complex. One day, I am certain we will have an actual scientific answer to that. For instance, all empty space may be shrinking at a negative acceleration. As a result, a constant inward force would be felt by all matter (constant due to relativity)… this is a plausible (yet not easily proven) possibility… but the obvious follow-up question would be “why is space shrinking and why at a negative acceleration?”
For every answer we find… more questions are raised. There is always going to be an “unknown”… which continues to prove that all of this would have existed whether we were around to analyze it or not. If you don’t believe it exists for a purpose, then you must believe it exists for no purpose. If there is no purpose or rhyme or reason, then it exists only by chance. This is the “random” I was referring to… not saying that the process of evolution is carried out through probability… but the very existence of the principles of evolution (as opposed to the existence of the principles of some other laws) is a random crap-shoot if you believe that there isn’t a purpose to existence.
@StareClips
Did god tell you to post that why you where praying for me?
@StareClips
But how does it help to say there is a purpose that defines why the universe is the way it is? You’re just inserting a pointless extra step into your questioning of the universe:
Q: Why is the world the way it is?
A: Because this is how the universe happened to turn out.
Q: Why is the world the way it is?
A: Because God made it and he designed it to fulfill a purpose chosen by him.
Q: Why did he choose this single purpose out of an infinite number of purposes?
A: Because this is what he happens to want.
I feel like because we are purpose driven animals (by which I mean things like going to the shop with the purpose of buying brie) you feel the need to also assign purpose to the whole of the universe. But it’s unnecessary and meaningless to do so.
Ultimately, that’s just where you and I disagree. I see such questioning, curiosity, and reasoning as a thought process that isn’t unnecessary and meaningless. I don’t find any amount of using our ability to think to be unnecessary and meaningless.
Someone could just as easily say that exercising is unnecessary and meaningless… you pick the weight up… you put the weight back down… you pick it up… you put it back down. A reasonable person might ask “Why are you doing that? Either you want the weight down there, or you want it up there. Why do you keep changing your mind?” The obvious response is, “The individual actions may seem unnecessary and meaningless when taken individually… but there is a greater purpose that will not be seen for many weeks or months or years.”
I don’t want to “just survive”. I don’t want to simply accept that gravity is what I can observe it is and, instead, want to contemplate what forces might be causing gravity. Whether it is simply the transmission of gravitons, or a much simpler application of relativity and Newtonian forces… I don’t want to simply accept that “other people” will do all of the heavy lifting while I just sit around and survive from day to day.
I see a much larger picture… one that existed before me… and one that will exist long after me… that I choose to be a part of. I also don’t want to simply confine myself to natural observation, but also to supernatural observation. I don’t simply want to confine myself only to logical cognition… or just to creativity… or just to spirituality… but I want to open my mind to all of its capabilities. I want to observe everything that life has to offer us… not just in the easily physically observable state… but that which cannot be easily observed… whether you believe in a possibility of a multiverse… or whether you are more fascinated by the workings of the human psyche…
There is never a lesson that cannot be learned through deep observation. Certainly, one shouldn’t draw scientific conclusions from the Bible… just as one shouldn’t draw spiritual conclusions from a physics book. The two can certainly compliment each other, however… similar to how the two halves of the brain work independently, yet compliment each other.
This is not to say that I am in deep contemplative thought every time I go to the grocery store to buy milk or bread… but I am in deep contemplative thought as much as possible. Nor do I think it’s unnecessary and meaningless to do so.
Then we’ll most definitely have to agree to disagree.
Firstly, you have misunderstood my point, I’m afraid. It wasn’t that you shouldn’t question anything, but that in my opinion proposing that there is a sentient creator in order to question the nature of the universe is not the most logical way to investigate it, and in fact takes you no further along from your starting question.
I am fascinated by the cause of gravity, by science in general, and physics more specifically. You seem to be saying that scientists are content to come up with a basic description of a force or phenomena and then will cease to be interested in it- their work is now done! This is absolute nonsense. Scientific theories are improved or succeeded by new, better theories over time. The whole point of physics is the investigation of what causes the forces we observe.
How does saying “God did it” or “It’s what God wants” display more questioning, curiosity, and reasoning?
“How does saying ‘God did it’ or ‘It’s what God wants’ display more questioning, curiosity, and reasoning?”
It doesn’t. Nor did I mean to suggest it does. I never said that I look at the universe, wondering why God created it the way He did. I first looked at the universe… at the relativity of time… at the constant force of gravity and the constant speed of light… at the human mind… and the human mind’s capacity to observe and question all of these things… and in all of this, I have seen God’s wonderful work. I don’t believe the existence of God proves that the universe exists… I believe the existence of the universe proves God exists.
Presupposing the universe exists and that we are not figments of another life form’s imagination, we can observe the universe without question. We can observe the conservation of energy and presuppose that this rule won’t suddenly be changed on us. We presuppose that everything observable and recordable is unwavering and will never change. And, if it changes, it will change in a predictable fashion based on more rules that we can define using mathematical formulas.
I don’t question the logic of the scientific method every time I decide to perform an experiment. I don’t question whether the universe will be here tomorrow to decide whether or not observing it is fruitless today. I don’t question whether or not I will be alive tomorrow to determine whether or not I should even bother saving my money for retirement, or whether I should blow it all today. Once I have drawn conclusions that I do, in fact, exist. That the people around me, do in fact, exist. That the universe and its laws does, in fact, exist. That everything we observe is made up mostly of empty space. I can continue my cognitive thinking without revisiting these questions over and over.
The same applies to God. If you do not believe in God, that’s your prerogative. That’s your thought process. Your brain and my brain are disconnected for a reason. Just as there is a reason that we have the capacity to communicate thoughts to each other. I didn’t just decide one day, “hey, let’s pretend God exists and then go from here”… I observed… I contemplated… I analyzed… and in my various dealings with artificial neural networks and artificial intelligence… in my dealings with simulating human behavior using computer technology… and in my life experiences… I have come to the conclusion that there is a God. You may disagree with me, and that’s fine. It doesn’t shape my experiences, nor should my experiences shape yours. Your conclusions are your own. I only state the conclusions I have come to.
If I had the capacity to take the Holy Spirit and physically put it into your body so that you can experience it for yourself, I would… but I don’t. It is something you must invite in… not something that can be forced. It is something that can be communicated, and this is what the Bible is. The communication of the experience of the Holy Spirit. It requires an open mind, just as the reading of scientific texts requires an open mind to accept that the scientific method is not unnecessary and meaningless. You can watch a good movie and be entertained. You can also write a good movie and entertain others. Or, you can live your life like you see in the movies. Either you’re on the outside observing life… or you’re on the inside, living life. I feel that both are important, but that’s only the conclusion I have come to. By stating what my conclusions are, I don’t mean to suggest that my conclusions are any “better” than your own conclusions. So, if agreeing to disagree is necessary to make that possible, than it is so.
OK.
I just took issue with the implication in some of your posts that if a person isn’t open to the existence of God they are closed minded or uninquisitive about the nature of the universe.
On the subject of your experience of the world versus mine/another atheist’s I don’t think it’s something that can be debated effectively! Or if it can I’m not the person to do it :)
No one claims that the founding fathers are God, or that there words are divinely inspired. They had some great ideas, but they were also wrong on some points. Christianity claims that the bible is inspired by God and is a perfect work. I can claim that Jefferson was a great guy, with awesome ideas, but he was wrong to keep slaves.
Do you also claim that God is a great guy, with awesome ideas, but that he was wrong to commit his atrocities?
We don’t throw out the constitution when it is wrong, we change it (amendments). Unless you are suggesting that Christianity amend the bible so that it no longer spouts hate and bigotry then you can’t compare it to the constitution.
Further, the reason why people are attacking the bible and Christianity (regardless of whether you support or oppose homosexuals) is because it is a flawed system of logic. You claim to already have all of the answers in the bible. There is no room for discussion of morality when God has already set out the answers for you. In a religious system all that is left to do is figure out what God said and apply it.
The rational system of logic is to realize that we don’t have all the answers, no one has all of the answers. Only when we admit ignorance can we attempt to gain wisdom.
Every single advance in morality has come because someone decided to question religion and God (specifically Christianity in the western world). Only after an enlightened individual, who looked past the religious bullshit, introduced a better morality did the religious leaders find ways to say that their texts had agreed all along with the new morality. John Locke advocated real freedom in 1689. Later, in 1787 (almost 100 years later) religious leaders began trying to find ways to make the bible agree with freedom to end things like slavery. If the bible really held all of these wonderful moralistic messages in it, then why did it take irreligious people to first codify the morals?
Rationalists, as a group, are tired of trying to justify how our morals can fit into your dogma. Religion had its place and purpose once, but humanity has obviously outgrown it. The worst part is that in 50 years Christians will be trying to claim that they were the ones who decided that homosexuals should be equal under the law. Just as they did with slavery, racism, and democracy. I don’t really care if you have found some way to pretend that your bible allows you to be tolerant. The bottom line is that your view point (the religious view point) is one that hampers society. We can no longer afford to be bound by bronze age morality no matter how you interpret it.
I didn’t say that at all. So, in essence, you are arguing with yourself. I never said that we cannot gain wisdom through discussion or that I cannot learn something from you.
Yes you did.
“Is that like thinking that if the founding fathers of the constitution really knew what they were doing, they wouldn’t have made it so difficult to understand. It sounds like you want to burn the constitution just because others have a hard time understanding it.
Do you also do your child’s homework for him to make him smarter?”
Right… I said THAT… I didn’t, however, say what YOU said. That doesn’t mean I am saying they are “god-like”… I’m just saying don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You are conflating the constitution and the bible. These two documents are viewed extremely differently by their supporters. The constitution is a document that can be changed. We are allowed to throw out the parts that have become outdated (the 2/3rds compromise) and add in things that were not originally included (like the 14th amendment). The bible is considered the unchanging word of God. Christians don’t throw away the parts that are outdated and add new things to it. That is why we have this whole problem of people making moral judgments based on bronze age prejudice.
Right, but human understanding of the Bible changes with time… as does human understanding of the words written in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. There can forever be a debate about whether healthcare is a part of “promoting the general welfare” or whether it is a part of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
The very existence of lawyers shows that what human’s write are never clear-cut, inspired by God or not.
Divine Inspiration: Indistinguishable from the meanderings of a misogynistic misanthropic bronze age goat herder.
StareClips – you seem very intelligent. I’d like to pose this question to you:
Why would God get angry?
thanks for your response.
God could get angry for any number of reasons… but presuming that you aren’t looking for a reason and are more interested in why an omnipotent being would create something that could anger him, I think maybe you’re misunderstanding the context of anger in that sense.
When God gets “angry” it’s not the same as when humans get angry. One of the biggest mistakes people make when reading the Bible is they personify God as if He is flesh.
The term “God the Father” is an important one. Imagine your son is trying to solve a maze. He starts drawing a line and you see that his line is starting to head down the wrong path. The moment you see your son heading down the wrong path, you feel negative inside. You want to grab the pencil from him, erase his bad line, and point him in the right direction. The problem is, if you do this, he’ll never learn. He’ll only know how to let you control his life and will never know how to live his own life.
You want him to succeed at the puzzle, but not because you solved the puzzle for him, but because you gave him the guidance to see the puzzle, understand the objective, and know how to detect when you’re heading down the wrong path.
So, God created us and created the puzzle and is watching us solve the puzzle. When we head down the wrong path, he gets angry with us. This isn’t the same thing as a two employees in a fist-fight who are angry with each other because one of them ate the other’s sandwich from the refrigerator. It’s a disappointment anger. It’s an anger of correction.
You could just as easily ask why our human bodies are allowed to feel pain. Even if you take God out of the equation, you might think life was a bad design. If you happen to harbor such pessimism, I’m afraid you have bigger issues to deal with than just religious disbelief. I think the human body is an amazing design. Pain is a necessary event to warn us of greater dangers. Yet, at the same time, the body even has the ability to dampen pain in situations where it might hinder us.
So, don’t confuse God’s anger as being some sort of alcoholic rage. God is a jealous god. Not because he doesn’t want us seeing other people… but because He loves us and wishes the best for us. He also values freedom, which is why He doesn’t just control us into doing the right things. However, He wants us to use that freedom to walk with Him.
Perhaps, in this way, the U.S. constitution is pretty much modeled after Christianity. Not the individual laws, but the principle. In the founding principles of U.S. law, you should be given the FREEDOM to break the laws, and not be punished until you actually DO break the laws.
In other words, you won’t be thrown in prison because you were considering breaking the laws. Also, the government won’t control your life in such a way that breaking the laws would be IMPOSSIBLE. Instead, you are discouraged from breaking the law, given the freedom to break the law, and face the consequences if you do decide to break the law. At least, this is the way it should be… which is why there is still lots of room for changes to be made.
“When God gets “angry” it’s not the same as when humans get angry. One of the biggest mistakes people make when reading the Bible is they personify God as if He is flesh.”
Yet you magically happen to know what god feels even though you are human?
As I mentioned earlier, every fundie has his own personal god.
You make a great storyteller though, stareclips. It’s too bad you pretend that there’s some kind of truth or validity to it, instead of just dressing up funny and entertaining some kids.
Nzo, you are not a good storyteller, and you are not even funny.
It’s not magic. It’s study.
Think of it this way. Gandhi existed. People have written about him. If you read and study everything he has said and how he lived his life and through this process you get to know him, you will be able to imagine how he would think or react given a certain situation. You might not be perfect in doing so… because the only way to know absolutely is to have him be here doing it.
The similar is true for God. God, through prophets, made His intentions, His ways, and His rules clear. Then, through Jesus Christ, things were made even clearer. Those who reject God will continue to try to twist the words or find ways to make a clear statement ambiguous, which is why prayer is still needed. By reading the Bible, studying, talking with fellow Christians, seeking counsel, and praying to God and accepting Him into your heart, He will fill you with the Holy Spirit. You will have a deeper understanding of what He expects from all of us. You will have a deeper understanding of your purpose. This doesn’t mean you still won’t sin… because you will still stray… but you will at least be close enough to understanding God.
This is not much different than how a child learns from his parents. By observing their parents, following their rules, breaking their rules and suffering the consequences, eventually people carry their parents with them internally even well after they have passed away. Sometimes there are misconceptions or their parents weren’t loving parents, which requires counseling later on… but in the majority of cases, any adult can still say how their parents would have reacted or how they would have felt given a certain situation. Is it 100% fool proof? Absolutely not. At least, with the Bible, we always have a reference point to confirm our feelings, study examples, and continue to walk with God in our lives.
It’s the basis of the whole “What Would Jesus Do?” stickers. If you don’t study the Bible at all, you likely aren’t going to have a clue what Jesus would do. Even those who have studied the Bible for years didn’t know, for instance, that Jesus shows signs of sarcasm which some mistakenly think is inappropriate for Christians. Do priests even get it wrong trying to figure out what Jesus would do in a given situation? Sure. However, the more you read the Bible… the more you study… the more you pray… you will get better and better at it. Never perfect, but better.
The Argument from Pacifism
1. Ghandi exists.
2. Ghandi is totally awesome, right?
3. Therefore, God exists.
By the way…
Which prophets? Is Muhammad the Real Thing? Joseph Smith? Jesus? L. Ron Hubbard? David Koresh? John the Baptist? How do we tell?
“It’s the basis of the whole “What Would Jesus Do?” stickers. If you don’t study the Bible at all, you likely aren’t going to have a clue what Jesus would do.”
I’m amazed that you have such a level of arrogance to claim that you’re right and other Christains or wrong on so many subjective ideas.
I never claimed I am right and others are wrong. Quote, please?
I’m just simply giving my interpretation. If I knew my interpretation was wrong, I wouldn’t give the interpretation. I’m willing to accept that I may be wrong in areas, but until I know those areas for sure, I’m going to stick with what I believe.
It’s like black holes. Nobody has held one in their hands… and many have never seen one, except in artists renderings. I believe they exist. I’ve had discussions with someone with a PhD who does not believe they exist. Regardless of these discussions, I still believe black holes exist. Is it “arrogant” for me to believe black holes exist even though someone with a PhD strongly believes they don’t? Shouldn’t I cave in to his way of thinking? No. It’s individuality. I think differently than he does. Maybe one day he will turn out to be right, and if it is still in both of our lifetimes, I can say to him, “Wow, you were right. That’s cool.”
If you think that me believing in my interpretations is arrogant, then how do your understandings of the world not make you arrogant, as long as someone in the world might think differently than you? Or, do you believe everyone is right simultaneously?
“I never claimed I am right and others are wrong. Quote, please?”
You have insinuated dozens of times that you are right and others are wrong:
“It’s not magic. It’s study.” (response to how you “magically” know what god feels) You imply that you know because you study more, i.e. you are right and they are wrong.
“I think maybe you’re misunderstanding the context of anger in that sense.” (“you misunderstand, but I know the truth”, i.e. you are right and they are wrong).
I’m not going to quote every instance in which you insinuated that you are right and others are wrong because it would be an exhausting effort just from this thread alone. Suffice it to say that it isn’t necessary for you to state directly that you are right and others are wrong. It’s quite enough that you imply it every time you post. There is nothing inherently wrong with you giving your interpretation and believing you are correct and those who disagree are wrong. The problem is, you need to make a stronger case for your position and attempt to respond directly and honestly to objections from other posters. You routinely evade direct responses and instead bog us down with more conjecture and interpretation, which is the entire problem to begin with. It’s utterly pointless for anyone to even read your comments at this point, because you just keep bouncing from one set of assumptions to another, all of them predicated on the same misguided beliefs. Every time someone challenges one of your assertions, you just make another one that is just as specious. There’s no end in sight.
“You have insinuated dozens of times that you are right and others are wrong.”
My point is that we are all going to be wrong sometimes. I have certainly been wrong. I used to be for capital punishment… now I am against it. I used to be against same-sex marriage legalization… I am now for it. With each of these changes in heart, the driving force has been my faith.
Could I still be wrong on these two issues? Perhaps. At the moment, however… in my heart, I feel that this is the way God intended for things to be… according to my understanding of the Bible.
So, certainly… if I feel same-sex marriage should be legalized… and someone else points at the Bible and says “No, the Bible says it is wrong, and therefore it should be illegal.”… of COURSE I am going to think they are wrong. Do I hold the possibility that they might be right and I could be wrong? Sure. At the moment, it’s only a possibility… but I feel strongly about this, so I am not on the fence… same-sex marriage should be legalized.
Now, given this… does this make me arrogant? Does believing in something strongly… and feeling those who oppose you are on the wrong side of the argument… make one arrogant? If so, then everyone is arrogant and calling someone arrogant loses its impact.
Being wrong is human nature. So is being sinful. I am human, so I am not without mistakes and I am not without sin.
Do you suggest that you have never insinuated that you are right and others are wrong? If so, do you feel this same way about things like gravity? If someone says “gravity doesn’t actually exist” would you say “hey, you are probably right… in fact, I’m probably wrong about gravity existing… but not other people… anyone else who believes gravity exists is right about it… unless that suggests that I think you are wrong.”
It’s a pointless debate. Sometimes, when you believe something, then it means that anyone who believes the exact opposite… is “wrong” in your eyes… not absolutely… not impossibly right… but simply of the view that you disagree with. And if you agree with something, you must certainly think it is the right thing to agree with, correct?
As for “conjecture” and “interpretation”… is the only correct way of thinking, in your opinion, thinking that can be done using charts and graphs? I love my wife, but I’m not going to draw a chart or graph and give it to her on Valentine’s Day to prove my affection. My love for her is much deeper than that. There are some things in life that are corrupted by trying to over analyze them. Thinking logically is very important… don’t get me wrong… but there is a lesson to be learned from the questions of whether a robot could ever feel true love.
“Thinking logically is very important… don’t get me wrong… but there is a lesson to be learned from the questions of whether a robot could ever feel true love.”
I’m sorry but now you’re just going down the route of “if you leave your brain at the door it’ll all be fine” … I’m sure that those of others faiths can claim exactly the same thing but there wrong aren’t they?
StareClips.com I am having a hard time believing that the main driving force as the reason for changing your views on the death penalty and same sex marriages. I figure the real driving force was a well done argument by someone and it called into question what you had always had faith in. I figure that the main driving force for being for the death penalty and against same sex marriage was faith. When you admitted to your faith being wrong about those, didn’t it show how easily faith can mislead you?
Is everything always so black and white for you?
You said, “I’m sorry but now you’re just going down the route of ‘if you leave your brain at the door it’ll all be fine’” No, I’m not. Jesus calls for wisdom… calls for us to use our brains… to use logic… etc…
However, when our logic says that censorship and the taking away of freedoms is the best way to protect people… we need to step back and realize that there is more to life than only the “logical” way of thinking. Logic consists of rigid laws. Free-will consists of the ability to break these laws when it is the right thing to do.
I’m not suggesting we should all throw our brains out the window and run only on emotions. This would be suicide. I’m only suggesting we shouldn’t be emotionless robots. That would be also suicidal. Let’s use both parts of our brain in conjunction and not always pit the two against each other.
Baconsbud,
Thanks for making those assumptions, but you know what they say. When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of U and MPTION. :D
The driving force between my feeling that same-sex marriage was wrong and that the death penalty was necessary was feelings I had before I had a close relationship with God. Those feelings were not driven by anything outside of myself. It was purely driven by emotion.
For one, as a child (high school years) a teacher had shown a movie where a girl was raped by multiple people. Looking back on it, I’m not sure such a thing was appropriate or inappropriate… looking back on it, it certainly was an odd thing to show a classroom. Nonetheless, while watching the movie, I was filled with much rage against the rapists (a fictional story, sure, but that doesn’t detract from the emotions felt.)
In any case, after seeing that movie… it touched a nerve… and I felt that if I had been one of the people present, I would have wanted to kill everyone involved to save her. It’s an emotional response. Everyone wants to be the “batman” to save the world where the world fails to save itself. For the longest time, this led me to feel very strongly in favor of the death penalty, especially for things like multiple murders and rape.
It wasn’t until later that I had become stronger in my faith. I would regularly consult the Bible when conflicted about a topic. I had a discussion with a friend about the death penalty… he knew a lot of about the political systems of other countries. We talked a lot about the differences between governments, etc… and about the death penalty. I opened my mind to the possibility that I was wrong about the death penalty, so I started consulting the Bible and prayer. Through this, I have concluded that the death penalty is wrong and should not be allowed in a civilized society.
Similarly… through mindful reading of the Bible and through prayer, I have concluded that same-sex marriage should be treated equally to opposite-sex marriage under man’s law.
Prior to my close relationship with God, I based my opinions on emotional knee-jerk reactions. Sometimes, my opinions were based on simple logic. “Hey, if you kill someone, then why shouldn’t someone kill you?” Once I strengthened my relationship with God and spent more time studying the Bible and going to church, I have learned to temper my emotional knee-jerk reactions with wisdom and prayer.
If you feel my faith has mislead me… then I only ask where you think my faith should have led me instead.
StareClips.com are you sure my assumptions were wrong. You yourself said that a friend was talking to you about it. That caused you to question your views on the death penalty. You then began to study about it and to think a lot on it. Those aren’t actions of faith but actions of self education. Faith is taking something as truth without evidence. I doubt you went from supporting the death penalty to not supporting it without evidence. I know I went though the same thing some years back.
Baconsbud,
OK, now you’re talking about a completely different definition of faith than I am talking about. What you’re describing is blind faith, which the Bible specifically warns against. I’m talking about informed faith.
You’re on a hiking trip with a friend and the fog rolls in and you can’t see the path anymore, but you remember that there was a steep drop-off to the left. You continue to move forward, but you can feel with your feet that the path is getting narrower and narrower. The fog is getting thicker and thicker. Then, your friend says “Hey, I’ll bet there’s a ledge right to our left. We should just jump and have faith that the ledge is there and we will land safely and will be able to escape this thick fog.”
That’s blind faith. That’s a bad idea.
You’re on a hiking trip with a friend and the fog rolls in and you can’t see the path anymore, but you remember that there was a steep drop-off to the left. You continue to move forward, but you can feel with your feet that the path is getting narrower and narrower. The fog is getting thicker and thicker. Then, you hear a voice call out from down below, to your left. The voice says, “Hey there! I saw you two hiking before the fog rolled in. I thought you could use some help getting out of your situation. If you move 10 yards ahead, there will be a ledge just to your left, about 4 feet down. If you jump down to it, there is an easy path to climb down to where I’m at and you’ll be out of the fog.”
That would be informed faith. You still can’t see the ledge… so you wouldn’t be relying on any of your own senses to be sure the ledge exists… you would be acting on faith that you can trust this person, that the information you are being given is accurate, etc…
That’s the kind of faith I’m talking about. Blind faith could completely throw out the Bible… or completely rely on the Bible with no prayer… or completely rely on prayer without church… etc… Informed faith is studying the Bible… discussing it with others… going to church… praying… and drawing conclusions based on the information gathering.
The only evidence I needed to be against the death penalty was recognizing that God gave us the air we breathe… and the life we live… not government. So, the government has no right to take away that which God gave us.
The government, however, does give us a structured society in which we can feel safe, free from oppression, etc… if we violate the rules, government has the right to take us out of that structured society. So, prison is well within the means of government. Not capital punishment.
“Do you suggest that you have never insinuated that you are right and others are wrong?”
Nope. I’m not suggesting that at all. You, however, did exactly that: “I never claimed I am right and others are wrong.” Don’t attempt to deflect away from the original point I was making by projecting your behavior onto me.
The point was that you asserted you had never claimed to be right while others who disagreed with you were wrong, and I demonstrated clearly how that was not the case. You had done just that, repeatedly. I don’t know why it takes you several paragraphs to respond to that when you didn’t even attempt an honest reply to the issue at hand. You seem like a nice enough guy, but you spend the bulk of your time wandering off track. I’m beginning to wonder if you have attention deficit disorder or are bipolar, and I don’t mean that as an insult.
The only thing you have “demonstrated clearly” is that your interpretation of what I am saying is something you will not waver from.
I never meant to suggest that I am “right” and others are “wrong” outside of myself… only that, inside of my own head… I have come to conclusions that I believe in… and those conclusion, by the nature of how the human brain works, are right… until proven wrong, in which my mind can be changed.
Take, for instance, the taste of pickles. I happen to like pickles. If you don’t like pickles, that’s your prerogative. If you then say, “No… you don’t like pickles… because liking pickles is wrong.” I would respond with, “Whether or not you think liking pickles is wrong or not… what you said is not true… I DO like pickles.”
You see, I’m not disagreeing with you whether or not liking pickles is right or wrong… I’m only disagreeing with your assertion that I don’t like pickles. The only person who should know for sure whether or not I like pickles is ME.
One’s relationship with God is the same way. There is one universal truth that exists outside of me. Whether I understand it correctly or not, it is still a universal truth. I will most likely be wrong, but the goal should be to continue to try to understand it. So, if someone else comes to a different conclusion than me… of course I am going to think they are “wrong” on the micro level… within my own mind… if I thought they were right, then they’d be agreeing with me… but I’m not going to think they are “wrong” on the larger scale, because that is their journey and their journey alone to make.
This is also why I feel that religion and politics should not mix. Freedom of religion is an absolute necessity for one to be able to walk freely in one’s journey to understanding. If law tries to interfere with this journey, we will all surely be wrong.
@StareClips
“I’m not suggesting we should all throw our brains out the window and run only on emotions. This would be suicide. I’m only suggesting we shouldn’t be emotionless robots. That would be also suicidal. Let’s use both parts of our brain in conjunction and not always pit the two against each other.”
So presumable you’ve also done this with all of the other religions that you have rejected then … oh no this only appiles to your own brand of religion doesn’t it?
So your interpretation of the Bible is identical to all other Christians who have spent years reading the Bible but just don’t “get it” then; and your ability to know the mind of god better than other Christians is not arrogant?
We all have the ability to know God better than everyone else. I don’t have special abilities… I just have the desire. I never claimed what I know is true… because the only truth is the Bible.
@Stareclips: Grats, you’re officially one of the sheeple.
@Custador,
Congrats. You are now officially one of the name-callers.
“I never claimed what I know is true… because the only truth is the Bible.”
Well your interpretation of Bible … strange isn’t it how many other Christians have another version of the “truth” yet you’re convinced you are right however much you protest otherwise.
@StareClips
p.s. How did the praying go for me, as I’m buggered if I can feel any difference?
Jabster,
Now you’re just heading down the road of “the wisdom of the crowd”. That’s good.
P.S.: The prayer went pretty well. Not sure why you think you’ll feel a difference. It’s not magic. It’s communication.
New Christian Definition: Wishful thinking is now called “Communication”
@StareClips
“Well your interpretation of Bible … strange isn’t it how many other Christians have another version of the “truth” yet you’re convinced you are right however much you protest otherwise.”
You seem to have failed to answer the question so I’ve posted it again …
@Sunny Day
No that’s other religions you are thinking of … only StareClips own brand of religion gets the special “you have to leave your brain at the door” treatment.
It’ s a pretty analogy, but a poor one. Simple fact is, unless we are to take every event in the Bible as metaphorical, many things that God does do not comport with this notion of silent stewing disappointment. A more apt metaphor is looking at ants walking a maze and then squashing them when they set too far off the wrong course. God *punishes*, instead of corrects, in many many circumstances. When bears tear apart the kids who make fun of the prophet’s baldness at God’s command, there is no teaching going on in re: the kids. They’re just being rendered painfully and irrevocably into mincemeat.
If that’s what you want to believe, that’s your prerogative.
If you believe there is no God, then you believe that there is only the laws of physics, chemistry, and other forms of science that is responsible for our existing.
If you only believe the laws of physics, chemistry, and other sciences as the only things responsible for life existing, then you would have to admit that science is pretty cruel, too. Gravity kills animals that don’t believe walking off a cliff is a bad idea. Blood can kill by becoming cancerous. The earth can shake and kill millions.
So, for some reason, your only argument against there being a God is that science can be pretty mean. So would this also be a basis for believing that science couldn’t possibly exist, because if it did, it’s pretty mean? Is it really survival of the fittest, or survival of the lucky? If the basis of life is to survive, why would life make it so impossible to survive? To what end? So the only survivors can be stronger and smarter? To what end? So a bunch of strong and wise lifeforms could die in an earthquake?
The big difference between us is that you believe the only purpose to life is living… whereas I believe that we must live for a greater purpose. If you choose not to believe in God, it’s your prerogative… but it raises the question, what do you gain personally from making sure someone else doesn’t believe in the God that you don’t believe in? Sounds to me like you’re fighting a battle with no winners.
If you only believe the laws of physics, chemistry, and other sciences as the only things responsible for life existing, then you would have to admit that science is pretty cruel, too. Gravity kills animals that don’t believe walking off a cliff is a bad idea. Blood can kill by becoming cancerous. The earth can shake and kill millions.
Science is not cruel. Science is merely a specific set of descriptions of reality. What you seem to be arguing here is that *reality* can be cruel, and you’ll get no argument from me on that point. It is the sort of pointless, random cruelty that one might expect from an unconscious universe, rather than one that is directed or guided by some entity.
The rest of your post didn’t make much sense.
Excuse me for saying this, but you have a rather confused idea of life giving itself purpose.
You seem to have this idea that everything must exist for a predefined purpose, so you attribute meaning to things where it makes no sense, as illustrated by this quote: “If the basis of life is to survive, why would life make it so impossible to survive?”.
That makes absolutely no sense.
For one thing: uh, no, that’s not remotely true. For another: the burden of proof is not on skeptics to disprove the allegation, but on the ones making the allegation. In other words, if someone says, “there is a god”, it is that person’s responsibility to prove it, not their audience’s responsibility to disprove it. Such a claim is false until proven true. Most skeptics do not argue that there certainly are not gods (some, including me, do…); they argue that there is no convincing case that there are gods. See also Russell’s Teapot.
One big difference between us is that I don’t accept truth by revelation… whereas you believe things with little or no empirical support. If you choose to believe in God, it’s your prerogative… but it raises the question, what do I gain personally from respecting your irrational and dangerous worldview? Sounds to me like you’re unaware of the vast amount of damage done by religion; there’s this persistent fallacy that belief is a person issue, but it obviously affects other people.
*personal issue
The problem is, science is not conscious, neither is science something that is out to get you. Physics and chemistry are (and I’m repeating myself here). There is no intent, and to assume intent, or feelings, into things is like blaming the rock for hitting you in the head. The rock didn’t do anything because the rock is an inanimate object. It’s not personal. It can’t be personal, because personality precludes consciousness and the laws of physics are not conscious.
It’s very different when you put a conscious mind into things. Then you argue “why would something made of Love – and we only have a human frame of reference about what Love is – do things like this?”
So, then, why do you think we are here?
Science tells us how we are here. How things fit together. What laws are in motion. I only ask you “why”? If you don’t believe there is a purpose, and you just want to have fun while you have the chance, I can accept that. I disagree that it’s any way to live, but it’s your prerogative.
There is no “why.”
The purpose of life is what you want it to be. It isn’t predefined by a deity to have some special purpose.
Apparently, to you (StareClips) this seems like a sad way to live, but I strongly disagree. In fact, I think it is so much more fullfilling, and that it gives you that much more potential for being truly human – whatever that entails (it’s up to you to find out).
You’re beginning to sound like a Christian.
Replying to yourself, funny.
The question “why?” is a sticky one. It could mean one of two things: what are the mechanics? and what is the purpose?
The former includes questions like “why are plants green?” and “why do helium-filled balloons float?” If you are asking “What are the mechanics of the origin of life?”, science does seek an answer to that. No answer yet, though. People are working on it as we speak. Type.
The latter includes questions like “why are bicycles shaped that way?” and “why do we not eat pork?” The thing is, entities assign purposes. They don’t otherwise exist. So, if you ask “Why are we here? What is the purpose?” you are presupposing a cosmological entity of some kind. When you ask this kind of “Why?”, you are assuming there is something to ask. In other words, if there is no such cosmological entity to assign a purpose to the Universe, then the question “why?” is meaningless.
The answer to “why?” might be “There is no answer to that question, there is no why.”
You could also ask why the colors sound delicious. Just because you can make an English sentence out of it, doesn’t mean it makes sense. “What objective purpose does the Universe serve?” may be a nonsensical question.
It’s not about when to stop asking questions, it’s about when to accept an answer.
rA: “entities assign purposes. They don’t otherwise exist. So, if you ask “Why are we here? What is the purpose?” you are presupposing a cosmological entity of some kind. When you ask this kind of “Why?”, you are assuming there is something to ask. In other words, if there is no such cosmological entity to assign a purpose to the Universe, then the question “why?” is meaningless.”
Very well said. It’s a scary thought to think that there is no purpose – there is no point. We can look at the dinosaurs and ask – what was the point? We can watch a million people die in an earthquake and ask – what was the point? Maybe God was just doing some pruning. We can look at the billions of galaxies and ask – what is the point of those…all that worthless burning gas seemingly made by God for nothing! Why make them? Jesus came to our little planet – not any of those other ones right? If there is a purpose surely it is our little ball of dirt and not any other. All the dark matter, dark energy, unfathomable numbers of stars and galaxies with one goal = us. We are the purpose of the universe!
Humans assign purposes, invent a God, then pretend that God loves them, and that they know what that God thinks and feels and values. This God is amazingly human like – gets offended, angry, jealous. A funny but wonderfully comforting delusion and entirely man made, to provide us the missing purpose and of course – give comfort.
Biologically speaking, we are here for the sole purpose of making more humans. But as someone noted above, the ‘why’ only makes senses to entities – and as entities ourselves, we want the why; we need to know the why. We point at the stars and see constellations. We point at the stars and imagine magic signs that dictate our lives. That does not make astrology true – wishing it to be true does not truth make.
Me, I believe we are here for no reason other than what we make it be. There is no greater force holding our hand, pushing us, guiding us… I’d rather be a free agent of chaos and accident than a lab rat on God’s personal laboratory, though. I’d rather think this isn’t just a massive cosmic experiment, but that’s me.
“I’d rather be a free agent of chaos and accident than a lab rat on God’s personal laboratory, though.”
There is no “I” in “team”.
What you said could also be replaced with any other argument about someone not wanting to work well with others.
For instance, “I’d rather be a free agent than be that team’s lab rat on that team’s personal laboratory.”
You hold free-will to be so important that you are willing to exercise it at the expense of anyone else, as long as you can keep proving that the will is your own and not of a higher purpose.
But there’s ‘me’… ;)
And that would be my choice if I didn’t want to. I work well with others because I chose to. Lab rats do not exactly choose to be used in experiments – and I’d rather not be some uber powerful creature’s version of a lab rat. Choice is important.
And I’m sure slaves would rather be free agents than work for someone’s profit. Again, choice is important. If I am in a team because I chose to be, that is one thing. If I didn’t want to be a lab rat for some company’s goal, I am entitled to leave said company. If I am locked in a situation, and have to do things because I have no choice, maybe I will do them, but I’ll resent the hell out of it, and fight said situation with all that I can.
No. I just don’t like the idea of being a slave. If I am part of a greater purpose, I want to know what that purpose is and why I should be part of it at all. “Unfathomable” doesn’t quite cut it, and “mysterious ways” don’t either.
You find comfort in that idea and that’s fine, good for you; I’m glad you have something that comforts you. But the idea that there’s someone watching me and judging and measuring my every action, someone I am utterly, impossibly powerless to avoid, who reads my very thoughts and analyzes them, who isn’t known for kindness to those who fail (i.e.: hell), especially since the requirements for failure are so utterly generic or obscure that nobody seems to agree on what they are, chills me to the bone. It’s a game that’s impossible to win, and one I won’t partake in if I have a choice.
Again, that’s just me. I’m horribly flawed like that. God made me that way, I suppose (if S/he exists).
@Siberia,
Hahaha… I’m surprised you didn’t go with, “There’s no I in team, but there’s an I in StareClips.com”… but I suppose this could be easily applied to Siberia, as well.
I think the concept of free will is very interesting from a philosophical standpoint, especially when discussed with some Atheists who also happen to be very scientific from their way of thinking.
For instance, I once had a discussion with a fellow that didn’t truly believe free will existed. Just as an apple falls from a tree, not because it wanted to, but because the forces (gravity, strength of branch, decay, etc…) resulted in the apple dropping… he also feels that human behavior is nothing more than a result of electrical and chemical reactions of which we have no free control. When we do control these, we only do so because we are controlled into doing so.
By his very definition of life, he already considered us all to be lab rats with nature itself running the maze.
To which my view is… why would you rather be a lab rat to a system that doesn’t care for you… than a lab rat to a Creator who loves you?
…but again, this is purely philosophical. This isn’t a reason to believe or not believe in God, just a simple musing about how different people look at life through different colored glasses, then proceed to tell everyone that their color of glasses is silly or imaginary.
It’s also interesting to use “fear of hell” as a reason to avoid believing in hell in the first place. When I observe human behavior, I celebrate the act of trying more than I celebrate whether or not we win or lose.
When the first humans tried to fly… I’m sure many told them that the consequences of falling should justify never trying. And I’m sure those who succeeded felt that the reward of succeeding justifies never giving up.
Finally, if you think the Bible is all about “break one of these rules and you’re going to hell”, you’re clearly missing the New Testament and God’s new Covenant with us and the point of Jesus and forgiveness. Leaving out that part is like cutting out the right side of your brain. Sure, you could still technically live… but is it really living?
Do you believe that some things in the world have a tendency towards construction and some things in the world have a tendency towards destruction?
Everything has a tendency towards disorder, however, chaos/simplicity frequently produces order/complexity, e.g.: snowflakes, lightning, crystals, sand dunes, stalactites, tornadoes…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
(Note that the above are examples in nature of complexity forming from simplicity without sentience/design/”guiding hand”. Another example is flower petals, which aggregate stunning complexity by following very simple rules. Evolution by natural selection is another.)
Nature wouldn’t form complexity from simplicity if there weren’t rules put into place well before-hand. You suggest that the rules formed from nothing, then continue to cease to change, allowing complexity to form from simplicity. I say that there is a purpose to these rules and a reason we were given the capacity to study these rules.
In my opinion, your line of thinking would be like a single neuron deciding that the brain doesn’t really exist… there’s just other neurons, and that all of these neurons just work together and create complexity from simplicity. Whereas belief in God is believe that outside of just a bunch of neurons… there is a brain… with a specific purpose… and an entity attached to that brain… who has free-will and lives life with purpose.
(This is an analogy for the reading impaired.)
“I say that there is a purpose to these rules and a reason we were given the capacity to study these rules.”
All you have to do now is provide your evidence, or a way to test your idea.
Magic Man didit is not good enough.
That’s the great thing about freedom and free will. I don’t “have to” do anything.
What you believe is your prerogative, and your faith or lack thereof is your own journey.
I don’t ask you to prove scientific understandings using prayer no more than I think it is appropriate for you to ask me to prove purpose using the scientific method.
I can ask you to prove an apple is red using only my ears, but your inability to do so doesn’t speak to the fact that the apple isn’t red… or that my ears are broken… or that you’re incapable of proving anything… it just means that what I have asked for is pointless.
There is no “I” in “team”.
But you can spell “Eat Me” if you use the “e” twice.
Elemenope:
>
No, if you read the OT carefully, you’ll see there are usually hundreds of years between Israelites starting to fail and the arrival of God’s wrath, usually with a succession of prophets in between, along with minor setbacks. You need to educate yourself on the basis of the covenant between God and Israel as described in the latter chapters of Deuteronomy, chs. 25-6. The covenant was for the land. Live obediently, you will be blessed and free from enemies. Live disobediently, and the surrounding tribes will oppress you and take away your land. That has little to do with the NT. The only overt and immediate expression of wrath was in the case of Ananias and Sapphira (they were struck dead for lying, by the way, not for a refusal to give). In all other cases, sins go on and on — the mercy of God, giving us time to repent, until the final day of judgment.
No matter what we have done, if we are alive, God can redeem us. You.
No matter what we have done, if we are alive, God can redeem us.
And so, re: the kids mauled by the bears…?
Bringing up a “kids mauled by bears” comparison is like comparing someone to Hitler or calling soldiers “baby killers”… while it certainly gets ones emotions riled up, it does so at the expense of logic.
Unless, of course, logically speaking, you feel that bears are the spawn of Satan.
I would much rather protect the bears from the likes of you. :D
Huh?
2 Kings 2:23-24 Then [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
God. Kills. Kids. With. Bears. It’s right there in the text. (Of course, maybe I’m just not reading it with the appropriate Platonic mode. LOL, Antiutopia.) Those kids learned exactly nothing except for a short lesson of how painful it is to be mauled by a bear before they died. Hence, your notion that God is merely instructing the wayward and is doing it out of love for them so they might learn is a bit unsustainable.
Elemenope –
Within context, that passage relates what is believed by its author to be the just retribution of God against disrespectful children. The lessons learned were learned by those observing the death and carnage, and the lesson learned was that you’d better not even think about messing with that prophet. I’m not the one presenting arguments about God teaching us lessons through punishment, though.
I’m not the one presenting arguments about God teaching us lessons through punishment, though.
Yes, I know. That is why only the parenthetical aside about scriptural interpretation is directed at you.
Within context, that passage relates what is believed by its author to be the just retribution of God against disrespectful children. The lessons learned were learned by those observing the death and carnage, and the lesson learned was that you’d better not even think about messing with that prophet.
Impressive “lesson”. Very ethical. I am wowed by God’s economy with lives. I mean forty-two lives is cheap when establishing that prophets are not to be messed with, aren’t they?
@Elemenope,
You’re just debating in circles. You brought up bears. I know the story. However, unless you’re lying, I thought you don’t believe in God. If you don’t believe in God, and you don’t believe the Bible is the Truth, then your viewpoint is there is just “the world”. Yet, bears DO maul people. So, are YOU happy with a world where bears maul people? I’m talking about innocent people. Even kids.
So, what’s your solution? Hate the world? Think the world is unfair? Kill all the bears?
People like telling stories of evil bears to have bears exterminated… they tell stories of evil sharks, and sharks are killed… they tell stories of evil people, and people are killed.
If you don’t believe in God, there isn’t a purpose to life (outside of individual’s motivations) because there isn’t God’s plan. So, if you don’t see and understand purpose, it makes sense that you would read about God and not understand His intentions. Yet, rather than try, you just read the snippets and derive a National Enquirer style headline from it. That’s just cheap hyped “journalism”.
That’s like picking up a chemistry book and saying, “You mean to tell me everything is made of mostly empty space and these little charged particles zipping around? Pshhhh… How silly.” To which the only answer anyone could give is, “Well, yes. If you can’t grasp that, then go back to watching TV.”
You’re just debating in circles. You brought up bears. I know the story. However, unless you’re lying, I thought you don’t believe in God. If you don’t believe in God, and you don’t believe the Bible is the Truth, then your viewpoint is there is just “the world”. Yet, bears DO maul people. So, are YOU happy with a world where bears maul people? I’m talking about innocent people. Even kids.
So, what’s your solution? Hate the world? Think the world is unfair? Kill all the bears?
You don’t get to wish yourself into a better world. Do I like that bears occasionally maul children? Of course not. But I do not *hate* the bears. The bears are just doing what they do. What does make it disgusting is the notion that possibly some great intelligence directed the bears to harm children. That is why the story is horrific. Bears don’t know any better. If there is a God, God should. This is the great moral difference between a horrible accident and murder. If his intentions are somehow benefited by having kids mauled by bears, then his intentions should be visited by nothing but disdain.
To the extent that the world is made better or worse, it is done so by the efforts of people. The world is what it is, with the potential for random cruelty, but also great wonder. You have odd beliefs about atheists if you think we ‘hate the world’ or ‘have no purpose’. Like all humans (and whatever excuses they use, whether it be God’s plan or some other), atheists strive to make their lives better, and to find what is worth living it in the world, through love of family and friendship, through art and beauty, through understanding and science.
To put it shortly, if this universe was designed, it was designed badly, but if it was an accident, it was a beautiful one; different standards apply for different circumstances. There is not much evidence for infinite intelligence in this universe, but there is plenty of interesting stuff to do.
That’s actually a fascinating viewpoint. The world is only beautiful if it is unintentional. Thanks for that.
Well put and I totally agree. It is petty, narrow-minded, and utterly arrogant to cram the inconceivable complexity and wonder of the Universe into a little “goddidit for the benefit of humans” box. “Mankind is the ultimate purpose of everything” is about as far from “humility” as you can get.
StareClips: thanks for the response. “You want him to succeed….”
If God wanted to guide us as you so eloquently put, then why would he kill so many of us? He nearly wiped out all of humanity in the flood – innocent first borns in egypt etc. I could go on and on. How is this loving guidance?
Also, you say “He also values freedom…” How do you know what the Creator of the universe values?
once again thanks for your response.
If you are growing grapes, and some weaker non-fruit-bearing vines are crowding out the fruit-bearing vines, you cut the weaker non-fruit-bearing vines to make sure the fruit-bearing vines have a better chance of survival. Your intention isn’t to arbitrarily grow grapevines because you’re bored… you have a purpose. You’re growing grapes.
So, when people are not bearing fruit, the vines get cut.
Now, if 10,000 people die in a flood, does it mean it was because all 10,000 people were sinners and they died because they made God mad? No. It was just time to cut the vines. Those who died in the flood and had already accepted Jesus Christ as their savior will be in Heaven. It really isn’t as tragic of a loss as you might make it out to be, unless you believe that once you die, that’s it. If that’s the case, I can understand why you put so much value in individual lives and little value in the greater purpose. Everyone dies eventually… life is rather short in the grand scheme of things. We are here to live our purpose and play our role in the bigger picture. For those who died without doing their part, it’s tragic… but it was their choice. For those who died after fulfilling their purpose, bless them.
I like your analogies but they don’t concur with the idea of an omnipotent being. Why create the vines if you already know you’re going to have to prune 99.9999% of them in a flood (before Jesus Christ)?
I don’t think you’ve really thought out the idea of an omnipotent being. You have this idea of a loving Father and that’s about as far as you’ve taken it. Try to think about a being that knows everything – past, present, future, can create or destroy anything etc. Think about this for awhile.
“God” already knows the outcome of the game he created. Would such a being micro-manage things? Would such a being have a need to rank things? Would something be more important to such a being? Importance is born out of our need to make choices for survival. Such a being would have no such need – nor need anything at all. You anthropomorphize your idea of God into becoming something like yourself, with emotions, getting offended, angry, surprised, jealous etc. Think about this – why would such a being have human characteristics? You think this way because it was the way you were raised – you were taught to think this way and cannot break out of the cage your programming has put you in from childhood.
No, no, the analogy makes perfect sense: he must sacrifice himself to himself to pay the price he demands of men for the crime of being the way he made them. And to make sense of that, he is gonna need a glass of wine! Omnipotent trans-dimensional beings get thirsty, too.
“Those who died in the flood and had already accepted Jesus Christ as their savior will be in Heaven.”
*facepalm*
Grade-A stupid, right there. Jesus “Christ”, IF he existed at all, DID NOT FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HEBREW MESSIAH. Even if he did, the people (supposedly) present at the time of the (supposed) flood HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING ABOUT HIM.
Christ, you people are DUMB!
and SCARY. Comparing human beings with rotten grapes (or ‘chaff’, for that matter) that need to be ‘culled’ every so often sent a chill down my spine. ‘Ethnic cleansing’, anyone?
Who said anything about ethnicity? I find it more scary that when cutting grape vines is mentioned, you think about ethnicity.
‘Ethnic cleansers’ seek to dehumanize the ‘enemy’, just like yourself and your ‘rotten grapes’.
For not caring much for Christ, you sure say His name a lot.
You sound programmed.
New Christian Definition: 2 usages of a word is a lot, 1 Post is a lot.
Additionally its a sign of “Programming”
Sorry… you didn’t specify which flood, and since I had posted something previously about Hurricane Katrina, I thought you were talking about THAT flood.
If you don’t believe in “the great flood”, why are you even bringing it up in conversation?
You are perfectly within your right to ignore my posts and I will respect that. What I find odd is that you don’t believe what I say, yet you still engage in conversation. I’m only here because I’m curious. Why are you here?
This is where your morality falls apart. If I killed 10,000 people because I had felt they were no longer usefull to society (unproductive vines) then I would be a monster. If God does it then he is loving and merciful. So the ends justify the means. Does this mean that because the Jewish state came about because of the holocaust Hitler was justified? The ends were achieved by the despicable means.
No one has to defend the cruelty of nature. We don’t need nature to be kind because we don’t believe that all morality comes from nature. If morality comes from God then he must be moral.
God is God. We are not God. I’m not sure why you can’t draw that distinction.
Unicorn is Unicorn. You are not Unicorn.
If you refuse to consider whether God is acting in an immoral fashion when he is either ordering genocide or commiting it himself, then please refrain from all other assertions about God being good, loving, just, or any other attributes, because then you give up your ability to evaluate the characteristics of God in any way whatsoever.
trj,
You’re just using circular reasoning. It’s no different than the statement, “If God can do anything, then can God create a boulder so big than even He cannot lift it?”
The reason this question makes no sense (and the clear answer is “no”) is because God is the foundation of perfection. When something is “perfect” it is exactly as God intended. When something is imperfect, it means it is not as God intends. This imperfection is “sin”.
So, understanding that God is perfect… the question about the boulder is basically asking “Can God be imperfect?” to which the simple answer is “no”. Perfection cannot be imperfect.
So, any action of God does not go against “morality” because morality is defined by God. That’s like asking, “Can the cold air be hot?” By definition, it simply isn’t… and if it becomes hot, it is no longer cold air anymore.
So no, God cannot be immoral or imperfect because this goes against the very definitions.
The reason this question makes no sense (and the clear answer is “no”) is because God is the foundation of perfection. When something is “perfect” it is exactly as blah, blah, blah. blah, blah …. boring
Tinkerbell is Tinkerbell. We are not Tinkerbell. I can draw that conclusion.
The kids in my church sang that kiddie song: “Tinkie loves me, this I know; for Peter Pan tells me so”.
It was truly fascinating watching two people completely distance themselves from the discussion while still finding a need to chime in with word association. It reminds me of when my son (when he was 4) used to throw his own toy out of frustration, but then would become further frustrated that his toy was now broken.
Everyone is Tinkerbell for certain values of “Tinkerbell”.
Ahhhhhhahahahahaha!
Perhaps that would be an integral for the values of Tinkerbell from -1 to 0?
I’ll see the bet “God=God We ≠God” and raise it the integral of Tinkerbell.
And raise that it makes as much sense as stareclips (a text search for “stareclips” produces “matches: more than 100″) browbeating people into believing his/her particular mythology.
Right. And, you are the center of the universe because a line can be drawn from your center of gravity to the edge of the universe in any direction and, assuming the universe is infinite, you will be creating a circle of radius infinity with you being the center point of said circle.
Being the center of the universe, I’ve got some questions to ask you. Like, for instance, why didn’t you just make Pluto bigger so that we wouldn’t have a problem defining it?
Another example of faulty christian thinking, assuming a creator when there’s no need for one.
“Being the center of the universe, I’ve got some questions to ask you. Like, for instance, why didn’t you just make Pluto bigger so that we wouldn’t have a problem defining it?”
I never said you were a creator. I only said “center of the universe”. Wow, now you’re just playing with yourself.
A text search for claidheamh shows claidheamh browbeating everything into believing in Tinkerbell.
I would have to say, word association is entertaining… but that’s all it is. It most certainly isn’t educational.
StareClips, I don’t think I’m the one using circular reasoning here. You define morality in the most fundamentalist way possible: as the nature of God himself. This robs the definition of the word of any useful meaning.
What you’re really saying with this definition is that God is the perfect, infallible, unquestionable example of morality – a statement that is completely ludicrous considering his behavior as described in the Bible. Any human commiting large-scale atrocities similar to the ones God commits in OT (like killing the entire human race except for one family) would be considered the epitome of evil and would be used as an obvious example of moral corruption.
You use a double standard of “morality”. God is supposed to be the shining example of morality, yet you would never equate such behavior with morality if it came from humans. So your definition of morality is without meaning, which is not surprising considering that you define it tautologically.
“What you’re really saying with this definition is that God is the perfect, infallible, unquestionable example of morality – a statement that is completely ludicrous considering his behavior as described in the Bible.”
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that God’s rules for us define morality. When God provided us an example of this, He gave us Jesus.
So, Jesus is the perfect, infallible, unquestionable example of morality that we should all live by.
I’m saying that God’s rules for us define morality.
Why?
Ok, so (human) morality is defined as adherence to God’s commands. Again, that’s a very fundamentalist definition. (By the way, your separation of God’s and Jesus’ morals is rather specious, seeing as they were both the same – perfect – being and therefore must both have perfect morals. But never mind that for now).
Such a definition of morality is not very useful, seeing as Christians can’t agree what God’s commands actually are.
Furthermore, some of God’s commands are extremely immoral by any reasonable standard. The draconian OT laws are of course the obvious example here, but even if we agree that these laws were repudiated by Jesus (another point Christians can’t agree on), I must question how some of God’s rules could ever have been considered moral.
Please tell me this: Even if the divinely decreed rules concerning the treatment of homosexuals are no longer to be observed, was there ever a time that such rules could be considered moral? Was it ever moral to kill gays by stoning, simply because they were gay?
If not, what does this say about God’s morality that he would command such a thing?
“‘I’m saying that God’s rules for us define morality.’ – Why?”
I can’t answer the “why” until I understand what your definition of morality is. If I had to guess, I would guess that your definition of morality is not “God’s rules” in which case my only answer to that question can be ‘because that’s the definition of the word I use when I say that’.
The same problem comes up with someone asks “If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” The problem with that question is that this can depend on the definition one has of “sound”. If you feel that sound requires observation, then the simple answer is “no”. If you feel that sound exists whether or not there is an observer, then the simple answer is “yes”. For me, personally, I believe “yes”… because my understanding of sound is a phenomenon that exists whether or not am observer is present.
People have had similar arguments about color. Saying that black is not a color, merely the absence of color. While that is true in the spectrum definition of the word, there are other ways to utilize the word. You can say that, in the crayon box, there is a crayon with the color of black. Anyone who tries to say, “No. Black isn’t a color.” is just being cute with definitions and sound smart. The reality is, under the definition of object description, black is very much a descriptive color.
So, while I believe that a tree DOES make a sound when it falls and there is nobody there to hear it… and that black IS a color… I ALSO recognize that others may have a different viewpoint of this. This doesn’t make my viewpoint right and their viewpoint wrong. It just means we’re speaking another language.
If, however, the other person attempts to speak my language… to suggest they are using the exact same definition and understanding of the word in question… and THEN to suggest that I am still wrong, they are clearly mistaken. They are attempting to observe through my eyes… not by actually looking through MY eyes… but by replacing my eyes with their own. It’s not the same thing.
To clarify, I was asking you why you do, which you kindly answered.
Are you familiar with the Euthyphro?
“I never said you were a creator. I only said “center of the universe”. Wow, now you’re just playing with yourself.”
You really are a laughable fucking moron if you expect us to believe that you were not implying it.
“why didn’t you just make Pluto bigger so that we wouldn’t have a problem defining it?”
“If not, what does this say about God’s morality that he would command such a thing?”
This requires much study. Some have interpreted the word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew writings in Leviticus 20:13 to English as being:
And a man who will lie down with a male in beds of a woman, both of them have made an abomination; dying they will die. Their blood is on them.
I don’t equate this with capital punishment. So, clearly, with much reading of the Bible as a WHOLE (and not just picking out a single passage and takings it’s modern day translation as being set in stone)… can lead to a much greater understanding of God’s will.
I particularly have a strong opinion about current day translations… not so much the KJV, but the NIV (and subsequent ones which are in the works)… but that’s a separate issue… one must always go back to original writings to be sure they are getting the proper message.
In regards to Euthyphro… I am familiar, but not deeply familiar… I only know enough that it helps to make clear why the separation of church and state is so needed.
When I speak of morality… I speak of Biblical morality… morality between man and God… not civil morality… between man and man.
The crux of the Euthyphro as pertains to this conversation is outlined fairly effectively here.
When I speak of morality… I speak of Biblical morality… morality between man and God…
What do you mean by this?
So, since you cannot justify God’s command to kill gays, you insist the translation (all of them) of that verse must be wrong. And somehow you think that if God is merely threatening gays with death, this reflects God’s perfect morality? Really?
Can you do the same translation trick for all the other unreasonable divine decrees ordering people to be killed for various transgressions, such as working on a Sabbath, not believing in God, worshipping another god, disobeying your parents, or being a witch?
You insist that the Bible must be seen in a larger context (read: “the bad stuff is clearly annulled by all the good intentions”). Seen in a larger context, isn’t it interesting just how many immoral laws God has personally decreed?
StareClips…there is no such thing as “morality” my friend even though for now it “appears” to be a reality. Morality implies an either/or, a good/evil, a choice but in the SPIRIT there is no duality, only a single nature (His). No potential for good and evil, only good. Is it possible that a dead man should have to keep the law? Hmm…
Morality is a consequence of the Law. Why is it that Moses had to die before the wandering Israelites (who we are until we “cross the Jordon” from servanthood to friendship) could enter into the proverbial “promised land”. What does Moses represent? The Law right? Remember, our old man (adam and his marred image and nature) died with Christ on the cross and now Christ is our (only) life and as dead men (dead to our former selves, lives) we are “freed from having to adhere to the law” for the “law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death (meaning separation)” and “the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ”. Morality, the keeping of the law (a great paradox here) actually works against us, keeps us separated from Him, not closer to Him.
What do JC’s words here mean “if your eye be single your whole being will be full of light”? When you understand this…then you will truly “see” aright my friend and the Law (Moses in you) will have died and you will hear these words “no longer do I call you servants, but now (since you have crossed over) I call you…friends”.
A beautiful journey awaits you, a (spiritual high ground) a “Promised Land”.
All the best friend.
“What do you mean by this?”
Morality between men is often defined by straight-forward logic or emotional response. Someone kills a family member, you want them dead. You feel that “fair is fair, right”? When this happens to enough people, a collective of people can decide “If you kill someone, you deserve to die.” and that becomes the moral code of the people… which often leads to the creation of law. Capital punishment for murder.
Morality between God and men often goes against what man feels is his “nature”. It is in the “nature” of man to feel hatred toward someone who kills his family member. It is in the “nature” of man to want to kill someone he feels hatred towards. It is in the “nature” of man not to “forgive” someone who is so blatantly upsetting to him. God, however, says to forgive. To love your neighbor. To love your enemy. This is not in the “nature” of man. It, in fact, goes against the very nature of man.
So, while man’s moral code might say “it’s OK… murderers can get the death penalty, but that’s OK because many people agreed it was OK… it is our collective moral code of conduct… everyone knows the rules and must accept them”… God’s moral code might say “no, that’s not OK…”
This isn’t to say that the two don’t have similarities. For instance, man’s moral code is often against stealing another man’s property… and so is God’s… so there are similarities. However, they aren’t always the same.
Thanks for the reference to Euthyphro, Elemenope. It’s an interesting read. I will certainly continue to ponder this for quite some time. I think the latter part of that article hits the nail on the head in terms of my line of reasoning with most of these types of chicken/egg dilemmas. That the real problem isn’t that the logic is too complicated to understand, but that there are different ways at looking at the definitions of certain words.
Here are examples, given to different philosophical discussions:
Chicken/Egg: The chicken came first. That is, unless your definition of “egg” in this case is something that which needs to be laid by a chicken. I personally feel that the chicken came first. Certainly it started in an embryonic state… but not in a traditional “laid egg” sense that we know and understand today. This process started when the first chicken(s) laid eggs.
Tree/Sound: The tree does make a sound. That is, unless your definition of “sound” is something which needs an observer. I personally feel that a tree falling in a forest does make a sound, whether an observer is present or not. Of course, my understanding of sound involves the existence of sound waves whether or not there is an observer by which the sound waves can act upon.
God/Boulder: God cannot make a boulder so big that He cannot lift it. That is, unless your definition of God is that He is capable of being everything describable by humans, including imperfect and sinful. I personally feel that God is incapable of being imperfect and sinful because I believe perfection and sin are defined by God’s will.
God/Good: Regarding the Euthyphro dilemma, I see this as only a debate about the definition of “what is good”? If your definition of “good” is “things that result in a positive consequence”… then certainly you’d have a difficult time imagining God to be good if God allows bad things to happen. I, on the other hand, see God’s will as being the definition of “good”. So, if it is God’s will, it is good. Certainly, many people are unhappy about God’s will sometimes… but I don’t believe goodness hinges on the happiness of people. That’s a different definition of good. It is God’s will for us to be free… to have free will… to have freedom of choice. It is also God’s will for us to face consequences for our decisions and actions. By observing these consequences, we can determine what is good and what is bad.
For instance, most who have gone through divorce don’t see divorce as being “good”. Yet, regardless of how bad the consequences of divorce are, people still continue to be unfaithful in their marriages, even though a common consequence of infidelity is divorce and the consequences of divorce are rarely good. Despite the fact that our brains are wired to learn that positive consequences enforce the repeat of better decisions… and negative consequences enforce the avoidance of bad decisions… people still continue to be unfaithful… and in turn, the divorce rate is high… and in turn, a lot of people are unhappy.
Now, some might blame this on marriage itself… saying it is “unnatural” for two people to commit themselves to each other forever. Yet, what’s strange is, many people want to… even people who aren’t religious at all want to… even in the case of same-sex marriage. Why? Is it only for the tax benefits? Perhaps this should be looked into. Maybe there are statistics which will make it clear whether or not “love” is the driving force, or whether it’s love for tax-breaks.
In any case, God hates divorce. This is not to say God hates divorced people… just that God hates divorce? Why? Because He wants only good for His children. Some call it circular reasoning to say that God’s will defines what is good and that God is good because He only wants what is good for His children. However, it is only circular reasoning if you assume that both instances of the word “good” mean the same thing.
Put it into the perspective of a father and child. A father wants his son to be successful because he knows that success = good. Likewise, an outside observer can say that the father is “good” because he wants only success for his son. This isn’t circular reasoning… it simply requires that the equation of success = good to be understood.
So, how do we determine this? By how God’s Creation works as a whole. We don’t “question” whether we need to eat or not when we feel hunger pangs or whether we need to drink or not when we feel thirst. Instead, we simply understand that thirst means drink and hunger means eat. Likewise, we have similar “gut feelings” when it comes to “right” and “wrong” which should not be ignored. However, just as some people can eat at wrong times (when depressed) and drink the wrong things (like soda)… we need to band together and look at the bigger picture to find out where we have gone astray. We use the wisdom of the crowd to determine how to understand when we really should be eating… and what we really should be drinking… and apply the same wisdom when determining when our “gut feeling” is wrong and when our “gut feeling” is right. By being attentive and open to this information, we can know God’s will in the bigger picture… outside of simple hunger and thirst… but in terms of man’s role in the universe, other than simply the consumer of resources.
“You really are a laughable fucking moron if you expect us to believe that you were not implying it.”
I’m not sure why you presuppose to equate “center of the universe” (implying a circle and the universe) with Creator. I thought I made it clear in what I said that I was talking about a literal circle, with a circumference… this, I was speaking geometrically.
What’s worse is… it was clearly a light hearted joke… one which you seem to be debating as if it were serious. In response, you’re calling me a moron. Very interesting.
That’s unsupported nonsense. Using a particular mythology to justify ans support that mythology. It is also
Circular reasoning works because….
Your statement to which those were replies was so devoid of sense or logic (using circular reasoning, an “=” statement, and providing logical support of a mythology with its own stories) that humor is left for responding to it. It lacked any substance for serious discussion.
Name-calling. Non sequitur. Attempt to insult with non sequitur.
This is the kind of thing street people in serious need of psychiatric help say. It makes no sense.
Ahhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahaha!
Is it OK for you but not for trj?
It often makes me wonder if the greatest difference between those who believe in the possibility of God… and those who refuse to believe in the possibility of God… is the ability to keep words in context.
I never said “God is God, therefore, God exists.” If you would read the context of what I was saying… you would understand that my point in saying this was that someone was comparing God to humans… and humans to God. God was being personified in an attempt to prove or disprove God’s morality. I was making clear that the two are different and that personifying God gets us nowhere. Thus, “God is God. We are not God.” That statement wasn’t meant as a proof of God. It was made to clarify why someone’s argument of comparing human actions to God’s actions is fruitless.
It would be interesting to create a psychological test which can determine one’s own ability to see information in the context in which it is presented, and to keep the understanding of that information in the proper context. Then, correlate this to the capacity of one to accept both the existence of the natural and the supernatural.
If such a test could be established, it would be interesting to see if one could overcome this obstacle after the age of 30, or if it is too late.
StareClips, I’d be interested in hearing your answers to the two questions I mentioned earlier:
1) Does God exhibit perfect morality when he threatens gays with death, claiming they have it coming for being gay?
2) Does God exhibit perfect morality when he decrees the killing of people for transgressions such as working on a Sabbath, not believing in God, worshipping another god, disobeying ones parents, or being a witch?
I keep answering and you keep not hearing it.
God is ultimate sovereignty. God does not answer to a different authority. Religious morality is God’s will. God always accomplishes God’s will.
If the definition of “morality” you’re using here is “human’s morality”… i.e., what makes a human feel warm and fuzzy inside and what doesn’t… then sure, God breaks the rules that humans create all the time. Jesus upset a lot of people too, so you could easily say that under the human-confined concept of morality, Jesus was immoral.
However, when I speak of morality, I am speaking of God’s will. It’s like asking the question “is water wet?” or “can water be dry?” The answer depends on how you understand the definitions of wet and dry.
So in no way can human morality and common decency be derived from the commandments of God. And it is our obligation to adhere strictly to God’s laws, even though many of them are immoral by human standards and involve killing people for minor transgressions.
Is that about right?
trj,
Not exactly. You keep sneaking in words such as “can” instead of “should”… and “derived” in place of “dictated”.
It’s OK to derive human morality from God’s law. For instance, God says “thou shalt not kill”. There is no problem with deriving human morality from this.
What I’m saying is that a sin shouldn’t face punishment from man… a crime should face punishment from man. Not all sins should be crimes and not all crimes are sins.
Divorce is a sin, not a crime.
Putting money into someone else’s parking meter is a crime, not a sin.
God does not command us today to kill people for minor transgressions. If you believe this, you are likely taking the verses out of context.
If someone runs towards a police officer with a gun and says “I am going to shoot” it is well within the rights of the police officer to fire a shot in self defense.
Someone taking that simple concept out of context might suggest that it would be OK for police officers to shoot such a man 12 times, 5 of those times while he’s on the ground face down.
Someone else taking that simple concept out of context might suggest that it would be OK for police officers to shoot someone from a distance of 30 yards when the man is wielding a knife.
Someone else taking that simple concept out of context might suggest that it would be OK for the man to shoot the police officers because they, too, are wielding guns.
There are many ways to take simple concepts out of context. Taking concepts out of context do not invalidate the concept, it just requires further discussion and further clarification to gain greater understanding.
The Bible in its entirely must be considered when referencing any single collection of quotes.
Prayer must be considered when attempting to understand the meaning of the Bible.
Wisdom, intelligence, the capacity of faith, gut feelings, and communication are all gifts of God that we must use with great discernment when understanding God’s will.
I think a major part of my confusion is caused by your insistence on God having a separate morality (or even being morality). Morality by any common definition is a measure of how you treat others, but you’re saying that such standards don’t apply to God. God can do whatever he wants to. Fine. But what does this have to do with morality then?
But there’s another question I’d like to ask you:
Before Jesus came along, were people obligated to follow God’s commandments? You mention that one should always consider the context, to which I agree, but OT seems rather specific: kill those who don’t follow Jahve, kill disobedient children, kill witches, kill people working on the Sabbath, and, yes, kill gays. Whatever mitigating circumstances might apply, the message of these laws is that you should simply on principle kill such people. Why else would God decree them?
My question to you is:
Do you truly believe that people at the time were obligated to follow these commands? Do you believe it was right of God to demand such things to be done?
“Morality by any common definition is a measure of how you treat others, but you’re saying that such standards don’t apply to God. God can do whatever he wants to. Fine. But what does this have to do with morality then?”
Precisely the point. When you ask a question such as “When God does X, is it immoral?” I understand it in the same terms as asking, “When you change your own mind, are you going against your own will?” The answer to both are easily “no”… but if the follow-up is “Well, if God can do it, so can I.” or “Then I can change your mind for you, and you will still have free-will.”… then you’re just playing a word game.
If you define morality as being how one person treats other people, then a question such as “Is everything God does moral?” wouldn’t apply because God is not a “person”. If you presuppose that God doesn’t exist, that makes the question even more fruitless.
“Before Jesus came along, were people obligated to follow God’s commandments?”
Yes.
“Why else would God decree them?”
That’s a good question to look into. Perhaps you may find the answers you seek in the Bible. I don’t mind answering questions… and giving my view about how I understand the Bible… but if you only continue to try to understand the Bible *through* me, then you’re missing the point. You aren’t supposed to trust my understanding of the Bible… you are supposed to travel the journey yourself. I can’t deliver Jesus to you. I can only pray that you find your way to Jesus.
I’m not suggesting this specifically… but am throwing out one of the many possible explanations for things we don’t agree with in life… maybe God kills for the purpose of “survival of the fittest”. If you feel that it is the way of nature that the fittest creatures survive and the unfit die, then you may consider it unnatural to give the unfit an unfair advantage over the fit. By doing so, you are disturbing the nature of things. So, everyone simply accepts that “survival of the fittest” is a naturally accepted phenomenon. That when we observe one wild animal trying to eat another wild animal, we do not jump in and always try to intervene. Is it because we are evil and like watching animals be killed? No. Many animal loves can’t stand watching one animal slaughter another. Yet, at the same time, a true nature lover would accept that it happens this way. These are two conflicting ideas which could lead to constant never-ending discussion.
So, when God kills… I don’t look at this as a lesson of “so, I should kill, too”… because I am not God. Instead, I look at the full context. For instance, when a restaurant owner kills mice and insects in his kitchen, I don’t simply try to derive a lesson of “So, this guy just hates living creatures.” Instead, the lesson can be as simple as, “Kitchens should be kept clean and sanitary.” Certainly, two different principles… not killing life forms… and keeping kitchens clean and sanitary… can be combined to create insect and rodent solutions which do not kill the insects or rodents. Perhaps this is the compromise we should all be seeking.
“Do you truly believe that people at the time were obligated to follow these commands?”
Sure.
“Do you believe it was right of God to demand such things to be done?”
And there you go, hitting topics similar to “can water get wet?” or “can a perfect circle be an oval?” I don’t believe it was “wrong” of God to demand such things. Do I wish it could be otherwise? Sure. Likewise, I’m sure many people wish most life lessons could be learned only through reward and happiness. This isn’t how life is. Whether we feel it is right or wrong does not indicate whether or not God is right or wrong in making life the way it is.
This is like saying that a wife is only “right” in her actions if her husband is happy about it… and is “wrong” in her actions if her husband is unhappy about it. When speaking of the wife’s freedom or will alone, her actions are neither right nor wrong. Her actions are her will. That’s it. When taken into the context of her relationship between herself and God, if she goes against God’s will, it is wrong… if she obey’s God’s will, it is right. When taken into the context of her marriage covenant with her husband, is she is unfaithful, it is wrong.. if she is faithful, it is right.
An individual by themselves cannot be right or wrong in terms of morality without taking a relationship, contract, or covenant into account. A person can be right or wrong with the law… a person can be right or wrong with a friend… or right or wrong with a business partner… or right or wrong with God.
I suppose it is possible that a person can be right or wrong with themselves, only if they have made a pact with themselves. But “right” or “wrong” still requires an agreement of some sort.
Which is why I have repeated on numerous occasions that one being religiously right or religiously wrong is between that individual and God and nobody else. One being legally right or legally wrong is between that individual and the government and nobody else. The two are separate.
On a side note, the Bible talks about being “right” with God… and I believe this specifically pertains to having a parent/child relationship with God. This was demonstrated through Jesus and the Father/Son relationship. Therefore, we should all act as brothers and sisters to one another. This is how we can be “right” with God.
So God in his undisputable perfection was right to command the killing of other people for minor transgressions, as God is always right by the simple fact that he is God.
It’s not so much that he was morally right in commanding people to do these things; he was right by the very act of him commanding them in the first place. You regret the necessity of people having had to kill gays, disobedient children, unbelievers, and whoever was considered a witch, but what you feel about it doesn’t really change that it was what had to be done.
We should always strive to obey God, and it happened to be his will that those people must be killed simply for being what they were.
Have I got it right?
trj,
I have issue with you using the term “minor transgressions”. Are you the one judging them as “minor”?
“What you feel about it doesn’t really change that it was what had to be done.”
Yes and no. I believe that God values relationships and allows those He loves to influence His actions. This is not to say that we are in control of God, but that God has the capacity to change His mind in response to His love for us. This is evidenced by God’s dealings with Moses. God’s will is His will alone. God does not owe us His love, but He provides His gift of love anyway.
Also, I want to point you to 1 Corinthians 10:13…
“No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.”
So, if anyone is dealing with a temptation that they cannot bear, perhaps they are not looking for the way out that God has provided.
Finally, a common misconception is “God helps those who help themselves.” This couldn’t be further from the truth, Biblically. What is more true is, “God helps those who cannot help themselves.”
Children disobeying their parents, people working on the Sabbath, people choosing not to believe in God, people being gay, people having the misfortune of being accused of witchcraft. Yeah, I’d say those are minor transgressions.
But my opinion doesn’t count, and neither does yours. God commanded those people to be killed, so it must be so. They had the chance of repenting, and when they chose not to they deserved to die. Or so you say.
There’s your own flavor of spin:
“people having the misfortune of being accused of witchcraft”
No, the Bible talks about witchcraft… not of people having the misfortune of being accused of witchcraft. By your wording, it leaves the impression that those being accused are wrongly accused.
Those who were wrongly accused of witchcraft where not killed by God’s will, but by the wickedness of man. It went against the Ninth Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” (Exodus 20:16)
Also, your opinion and my opinion do count… as I had previously discussed. Some opinions count more than others. I don’t feel that it is right to judge (as it is God’s judgment) to determine whether my opinion counts a lot or not, so I must defer to God’s judgement and His will.
Also, in your statements, you assume that everyone who dies goes to hell… or failure to repent leads to physical death… or that good people don’t die. This isn’t the case at all.
Finally, you say “they had the chance of repenting, and when they chose not to they deserved to die”, but I feel you are looking at this the wrong way. Does a person who jumps off a cliff deserve to die? Does a person who swallows poison deserve to die? Does a person who gets hit by a drunk driver deserve to die? Does someone who is 110 years old deserve to die? From our standpoint, no… nobody should deserve to die… yet they do… sometimes through their own poor decisions… sometimes through the poor decisions of others. Sometimes they just die from old age. It is not for us to judge whether they deserved to or not… only to recognize that they did die. From death, we can learn about life.
I can understand that if you believe physical death is the end of everything, that it’s game over. From a Christian perspective, it’s not game over at all. It’s the next level. So, physical death is not a punishment… it is a consequence of physical actions… spiritual death is a consequence of not repenting and not believing when given the chance.
For someone who truly does not believe, why would you concern yourself one way or another with the consequences a true believer believes in? Other than, of course, to enter into a debate.
I talk of people being accused of witchcraft because I believe there is no such thing as witchcraft. Whereas you appear to believe there is: “By your wording, it leaves the impression that those being accused are wrongly accused”.
And your opinion or mine only count so far as God deigns to consider it, according to you.
I never assumed that people go to hell or that good people dont die. Please give me some credit. Neither have I assumed that failure to repent leads to certain physical death. Instead, I’ve stated that according to God these people should be killed on principle (or that used to be the case, at least).
You agreed that people were obligated to follow such commands of killing. Those who did not repent of their wicked ways I can only conclude deserved to die accordingly. Otherwise you’re saying that God commanded killing people who didn’t deserve to die.
As to why I concern myself with the consequences of your beliefs, I enjoy debating. Plus, I suppose, there’s an element of morbid fascination. You have a truly fucked up view of morality and human decency.
trj,
Well, certainly, if you don’t believe in the supernatural, this would apply to witchcraft to, so I can see where you’re coming from.
Perhaps I was taking a narrow view of the word “deserved”… I automatically associated shame to it, or human judgment, which was my mistake. Taking the word “deserve” as simply being a consequence… i.e., someone who jumps off a cliff deserves to fall… someone who swallows poison deserves to die… etc… and not with the human emotional attachment of pointing a finger and saying, “ha ha, they got what they deserve”… then, yes. The consequences of sin without repenting is spiritual death which will be realized upon one’s physical death, whether it be at the same time or it comes later.
“You have a truly fucked up view of morality and human decency.”
I’d be interested in knowing if you can back that up with truth, or evidence. I’m curious as to how you draw this conclusion, as I have been talking mostly of morality when it comes to God’s will, not of human-to-human interaction in today’s world.
I feel that we are all equals. We should all treat each other as brothers and sisters. We should all show humility toward one another. We should love our neighbors. We should love our enemies. If someone wrongs us, we should forgive them. We should respect each other’s boundaries, property, and beliefs. We should be sure the laws of our government do not infringe on the rights of others to live peacefully and in freedom and as equals.
That’s my view of “morality and human decency” when it comes to our interactions with one another, if you cared to ask. So, my question to you is, which part of this is “truly fucked up”? Just curious.
I thought you might ask.
It’s very simple, really. You mention a bunch of ethical rules and considerations for inter-human behavior, which is all very good and commendable, and I can hardly imagine anybody disagreeing with them.
The problem is that you’re ready to annul any of these principles if you’re commanded by divine decree. You mention that people before NT times were obligated to follow the draconian commands of killing whichever group of people displeased God. Where is your respect for your fellow man if you agree to a dictate that he should be killed for, say, not believing in your god? Where is the equality and love of which you just spoke?
That is the discrepancy which leads me to criticize your personal morality. In the name of your God, you appear willing to support discrimination and atrocities which decent people would normally never consider. That is fucked up. And it shows a lack of moral on your part.
And while I’m at it, considering that it is possible that those divine decrees do not actually reflect the will of God, but merely the will of prejudiced men, should I not worry? I don’t know what’s worse – having a real, vengeful god declare that I should be killed or having deluded followers of an imaginary god declare that I should be killed. Either way, the holy scriptures, when combined with your preferences of obeying divine authority, hold the potential to fuck things up for everybody as well.
“Where is your respect for your fellow man if you agree to a dictate that he should be killed for, say, not believing in your god?”
I never said this.
“…the holy scriptures, when combined with your preferences of obeying divine authority, hold the potential to fuck things up for everybody as well.”
Yes, the potential is there. Just as the potential to really screw things up with a hammer… or screw things up with democracy… or screw things up with a republic… or screw things up with unity… or screw things up with a car. The potential for “screwing up” exists no matter your beliefs or tools or ways of life. Not sure how that singles out the Holy scriptures.
“And while I’m at it, considering that it is possible that those divine decrees do not actually reflect the will of God, but merely the will of prejudiced men, should I not worry?”
Absolutely. “God loved the world so much that He sent Jesus to lay down His life for us.” (John 3:16) “the world”… not a specific race… or ethnic group… etc… so, the Bible speaks specifically to prejudice.
So, it’s not only a matter of seeing someone go to church or reading a Bible which makes them right with God… they have to be fully right with God. If they are prejudiced, it should be a sign to “worry”, as you put it. You shouldn’t expect someone to be holy just because they are a Christian… nor should you expect someone to be evil just because they are non-Christian. Christianity is a faith, not a holy-stamp.
Imagine a couple of scenarios. Here is the first:
You are Jewish. You are hiding in an attic, along with 60 other Jewish people. The Nazis are downstairs, searching for you. If they find you, they will put you (and all 60 others) in a gas chamber. Out of the 60 others, only one is making too much noise. You are all in a perfect hiding spot and would otherwise never be found, if it isn’t for the one individual who cannot help but to make noise out of nervousness. No matter how much you try to console this other person, you cannot console them. If you (or any one of the other 60) comes out from this hiding spot, you will most certainly be discovered, as would the hiding spot and the ones hiding. What would you do?
Here is the second:
A disease is spreading. It is an airborne disease. It is a disease which scientists have determined causes the infected individual to breathe out an infectious gas instead of carbon dioxide. This gas is heavier than air and remains trapped in the lower atmosphere as it accumulates. The disease is spreading quickly. When it began, it was discovered that fewer than a dozen people were infected. In the five days since the first reported case, nearly a quarter of a million people are now infected. There is no way to contain the disease. The only known way to stop the spreading of the infection is to kill the infected person before they die from the infection itself. It is determined that the entire human race will be wiped out if the disease is allowed to spread for just five more days. Would it be OK to kill 250,000 people to save over 5 billion, or should we just ride out the remaining 5 days into oblivion? What do you think?
Thankfully, these are not the kinds of situations we need to deal with… because we live in a bubble. Our lives are so much simpler. God takes care of these decisions for us so that we don’t have to concern ourselves with more than we can bear. Otherwise, God equips us with the ability to handle a situation if it is our purpose to fulfill it. If God asks us to do something which seems morally wrong, it is for a greater purpose outside of our own selfish desires.
I can understand your concern, though. “What if my neighbor is convinced that God commanded him to kill me? What then?” My suggestion… if your neighbor comes at you with an axe, defend yourself. Nobody says you have to roll over and take it. If it was not God’s will for this to happen and, instead, your neighbor is just delusional, God will perform a miracle.
What I find fascinating is this. You don’t believe in God, yet people die every day. I believe in God, and people die every day. You seem turned off by the idea of God existing because, if He did, he’s “bad” for going around killing people every day. And, what’s worse, He often “uses people” to do His killing. Yet, you don’t truly apply this to your disbelief in God. If you don’t believe in God, then the only “will” you believe in… is the will of each individual person. You seem more comforted in knowing that there are 6 billion separate and distinct wills running around with the capacity to indiscriminately kill. Yet, you find concern with the idea that there could be a single God with a single will to kill when it is necessary for the protection of life, and to command His people not to kill, to love one another, etc… yet the only thing you focus on is the death. Yet, the death which occurs does not cease to exist just because you choose not to believe in God. So, I just wonder what your end-game is with that, or is it just fear without proper justification?
You’ve said explicitly several times that you think people in the OT times were obligated to follow God’s commands, including killing infidels, Sabbath-breakers, disobedient children, etc etc. These people were to be destroyed as a matter of principle according to God.
While God is ordinarily considered among Christians not to demand such things anymore (although some Christians disagree), you said you found that people back then should obey these commands. From this I surmise that had you lived back then, you would have done likewise. And I further surmise that you are entirely ok with these laws having once been in effect.
This demonstrates a glaring contrast to your professed subscription to ethical values. Were God to command it, you would abandon your vaunted principles of equality and respect for others in a heartbeat. The fact that you find it ok that people in OT times discriminated and killed others according to their sexual orientation or their religious beliefs, tells me that your morality towards others is superficial.
Also, I take issue with your constant attempts to justify God’s ancient atrocities by implying that it was all for the common good. You mention a twisted “survival of the fittest” analogy where God culls the human population. Let me guess: You justify the killing of infants in God’s genocides by the fact that it was necessary for humanity’s salvation, and besides those infants are in a better place now. This is the excuse I normally hear from theists attempting to justify God’s horrific actions.
As for my lack of belief in God, what I find comforting or not has no bearing on what I believe. And what concerns me about a vengeful god is not the possibility that he might exist, because I find this possibility to be so minuscule as to be non-existing. No, what concerns me is the people acting on behalf of such a god. You’ll find that the old adage applies: atheists have no problem with God – it’s his supporters that concern us.
Can you blame me for my concern? Consider this: although you may not like to admit it, there’s a possibility that you are simply flat out wrong about either the existence of God or about what constitutes his divine will. Maybe when you die it’s simply the end. If so, then the Bible’s divine commands are reduced to a bunch of prejudiced and unjust instructions for killing other people, all for some ideal of salvation and redemption that is simply a fancy made-up construct of human minds.
If you’re wondering why I’m focusing on the deaths resulting from God’s commands, this is the reason. I believe death is final. And I believe that supporting and executing the killing of others over supposedly divine decrees that to any unbeliever looks like simple prejudice and ignorance, is fundamentally, morally wrong.
“…you said you found that people back then should obey these commands. From this I surmise that had you lived back then, you would have done likewise.”
That’s quite an assumption. While I appreciate the vote of confidence that you believe I am entirely without sin, I must digress that I am not. I am a sinner. This means I have gone against God’s will. I have repented… and I continue to try to do God’s will… but I am not infallible. So, for you to surmise that, had I lived back then, that I would have done likewise… you’re taking a huge leap of faith, there.
This is no different than pitting someone between the label of “patriotic” or “baby killer”. When someone doesn’t join the military, they’re seen as not being patriotic. If nobody fights for our country, who will? Yet, when human life is taken in war… whether an “innocent bystander” or not (couldn’t EVERYONE be considered “innocent” in a time of war?)… killing life is murder. So, now, you have two ways to look down upon the entirety of civilization. Either you’re not passionate enough about your fellow man to fight for his freedom and safety, or you’re a murderer.
I choose not to judge either, and simply let my faith guide my own life. I, personally, did not join the military, but I have friends and family who have. If any of my friends have killed another in battle, I do not consider them to be equal to a serial killer, for I know their intentions were pure. I still consider myself to be patriotic, because I don’t feel that militant force is the best way in which I can support my fellow countryman. Do I consider myself a coward? Sure. Worthless or a scourge upon the face of the planet? I think not.
So, I see no benefit in judging those in the OT for obeying God’s will. I also see no benefit in judging those who disobey God’s will. We are all equals. We are all sinners.
When you focus only on the God of the OT, you focus on Judaism. I am not Jewish. I am Christian. God sent his only Son, Jesus Christ, to Earth to spread a new message… a radical message that conflicted with most ways of thinking in the times of the OT. In a time where it was every man for himself… where governments were not formed to treat everyone as equals, but to give power to those few who sought to change the world to suit their own ideals… Jesus spread a message of love for your neighbor… and love for your enemy… a message to turn away from retribution, but to turn the other cheek and forgive. This was a message that was so radical… so against human nature… that it drastically shaped the course of events from that moment forward.
Perhaps you are under the impression that the times we are living in today are somehow worse than the times that existed prior to Jesus’ arrival. Or perhaps, because you always use the OT as a benchmark by which Christianity is bad for the world, perhaps you do feel that things are now better since Jesus arrived. Maybe you think things are better despite Jesus. That had Jesus not been sent, we’d be just fine… or possibly better off. Yet, you don’t have a time machine to change the past. So, your conjecture is nothing but that… a gut feeling… you seem certain that only bad things have come from Christianity… and that, because of this, it means that either God doesn’t exist, or if he did… he’s an evil god.
The funny thing about many atheists… is that they treat atheism as if it were a religion. They create ideals and concepts by which a world exists where there is no God. They insist that this is the ideal that everyone must believe in, and if they do not, they are wrong. That anyone who believes in God, we must fear… but anyone who denies God, we should accept. In this sense, atheism is truly becoming a religion in its own right… not a religion of a supernatural God… but the religion of a man-made set of principles… where you’re either with us, or you’re against us. Christians don’t fear atheists… and don’t want atheists to be “gone”… yet many atheists fear Christians… and want Christians to be “gone”.
I listen to Penn Jillette’s vlog all the time… he’s a really fascinating guy… well spoken… very charismatic… I’d hope to meet him one day, possibly even get his autograph. He is a very outspoken atheist. What’s funny is… the more he speaks, the more the atheists “gather”… in time, rather than atheists acting as individuals, they flock together… read each other’s material… and people like Penn Jillette start being seen as “evangelists” for their cause. Even Penn has said a number of times that he has witnessed this, and thinks it’s a funny phenomenon, because he doesn’t truly think this is what atheism is all about.
The point is… when atheists try to convince (convert) Christians… it’s because they fear what damage Christians could do, with their unity and common ground. When atheists try to convert (convince) atheists… it’s out of love… not to protect themselves, but to help the non-believer. Whether you believe or not does not harm me… yet you treat my belief as potentially harmful to you… whether directly or indirectly. You have used examples another of times, pointing to the atrocities that others have done in the name of Christianity, then suggesting that I would most certainly do the same thing, or am capable of doing the same thing. Atrocities are not monopolized by believers… by a single faith… by a particular ethnicity… or by only the rich or only the poor. Evil is an equal opportunity employer, employing Christians, atheists, Jewish people, Muslims, Africans, Americans, Indians, Men, Women, and all walks of life to commit sins against God, whether they believe in Him or not.
So, whether you believe in God or not, you should at least believe that there is no evidence that the world would be in a better place if Christianity were eliminated. So, if this is the case, why would you seek to change minds from Christianity to your way of thinking? What benefit do you gain? What benefit does the world gain? Do you really think people won’t kill other people? Or will they just find some other reason (money, land, greed, sex, oil, etc…) to kill people?
There’s a difference between holding a principle and acting on it. I’ve been careful until my previous post never to accuse you of actually wanting to personally do the killings which are demanded by God, but only accuse you of supporting them. In fact, that was also what I meant this time around. I should’ve phrased it as “…I surmise that had you lived back then, you would have supported the principle of these commands.” That is, you wouldn’t actually perform those killings, but you would be ok with someone else performing them. They might have made you uncomfortable, but it would after all be right since God commanded it.
Is even this assuming too much? If so, I apologize, but it is perfectly in line with my other, related assumption that you think it was ok that these laws existed, which is based on your statements that people back then were obligated to follow these laws, and that it was right of God to command them. You didn’t comment on this.
I’ll hold any time that having the view that it was at some time in the past ok to discriminate and kill people based on their sexuality or their religion – even if you believe we should not do so any more – is immoral.
One can argue back and forth whether serving in a war is morally right, and one can argue whether it is moral to be patriotic based on what your patriotism covers. But when people as a group are singled out as being abhorrent and persecuted because of factors such as their sexuality or their religion it is immoral.
As for my emphasis on OT, my aim is not to pretend that it represents Christianity. I’m well aware that most Christians consider NT to have obviated the rules of OT (although the same Christians will often insist on the Ten Commandments still being in effect, except not really because they choose to disregard a Commandment or two – but that is for another discussion, I think). Neither do I naïvely claim that religion is the root of human evil. What I wanted to illustrate is that OT is in large parts immoral and as such does no credit to NT which is supposedly the will of the very same God who commanded immoral things in OT.
This points back to the “God is morality” disagreement which started this whole discussion, which we will probably never agree on. I hold that divinely decreed laws which are immoral by human standards make the deity commanding them immoral as well, whereas you think that God is by definition perfectly moral, so even when he commands behavior that is immoral by human standards this in no way reflects on his own morality. I find your view inconsistent and confusing as it effectively introduces a human meta-morality used to judge the ordinary human morality. But maybe we should let it lie – I have a feeling that on this point we differ so fundamentally in our viewpoints that it’s very difficult for us to have a meaningful discussion about it.
As for your general statements about atheists, I think you’re misrepresting us. “[Many atheists] create ideals and concepts by which a world exists where there is no God. They insist that this is the ideal that everyone must believe in, and if they do not, they are wrong. That anyone who believes in God, we must fear… but anyone who denies God, we should accept.” I personally don’t know any atheists who thinks this way, and I live in a country where atheism is the norm. Anyone, be they atheist or theist, who insists that people must think in a special way and believe certain specific ideals, deserves only scorn. There is however a difference between accepting the right of others to believe what they will and accepting their beliefs. The only thing uniting atheists is our shared unbelief in gods. We don’t intend to make Christians or other believers conform to some godless ideology, neither do I think you could get atheists to agree on what form this ideology would take in the first place. When you’ve been around this blog for a little while, you see that the atheists debating here will disagree on pretty much everything else than gods or religion.
“We are not God”
… erm, but you keep posting how you know what god really means yet other Christians (who disagree with you) are obviously wrong. Do you have god’s mobile number of something?
Jabster,
I’ve already addressed this in previous posts. I’ll try to summarize again here. I don’t claim that Christians that disagree with me are “wrong” in a universal sense. However, when a person belongs strongly in their opinion, most certainly they are going to debate FOR their opinion and AGAINST the opposite opinion. In this situation, there is certainly going to be a sense of “wrong” and “right” coming from both sides… when it comes to personal feeling.
Do I think, however, that I can never be proven wrong… can never have my mind changed… or that others whom I think are “wrong” are 100% certainly going to hell? No… I can’t make that judgement call. When someone stops thinking about other possibilities, they simply stop thinking. The Bible (and Jesus specifically) calls for us to be wise thinkers. Wisdom doesn’t come from knowing you are right, but feeling you are right while knowing you might be wrong.
It should be the goal for every Christian to “know” God’s “mobile number”. This is what prayer is about. Prayer isn’t just saying, “Hey God… please let me get a big raise at work.” or “Hey God… I’m sorry I had sex before marriage.”… prayer is about having a regular relationship (with regular communication) with God. This requires regular conscious thought about every decision and every feeling… not just blindly following a rigid interpretation of text without actually communicating with God.
If someone decides to drown their child in bath water and says that the Bible commanded them to do it… I feel I am within my right to say that I think they are wrong. I feel very strongly that the Bible does not condone or ask for such behavior. I don’t feel this is me being “arrogant” in regard to this other person… any more than the law is being “arrogant” in saying that a person doesn’t have the right to do that either.
stare “Perfection cannot be imperfect”
nor can imperfection come from something that is perfect. A perfect God is impossible.
“If someone decides to drown their child in bath water and says that the Bible commanded them to do it… I feel I am within my right to say that I think they are wrong. I feel very strongly that the Bible does not condone or ask for such behavior.”
Funny on hundreds of levels. You speak of the Bible as if it’s some sort of person. How can words written in a book “condone” something? Those very same words say to smash your baby against rocks. Have you even read the bible? Do you recall reading how when moses came down with his 10 commandments immediately afterwards God instructed everyone to kill each other?
Yes. And I also know that my name isn’t Moses. Your point is?
“nor can imperfection come from something that is perfect. A perfect God is impossible.”
So, by this line of reasoning, it sounds like you don’t believe that perfection itself has existed, can exist, or ever will exist.
Do you really view the world as an imperfect mess of pointlessness?
“Do you really view the world as an imperfect mess of pointlessness?”
In short – yes. Humans assign the “point”. The universe has no point. Imagine for a second if all human beings suddenly ceased to exist. The world would continue rotating, orbiting the sun and so forth. The universe cares not for your “point”.
That’s interesting. The fact that the Earth would continue rotating, orbiting the sun, and so forth… if all human beings suddenly ceased to exist… shows ME that the universe is designed with intention and that humans are only one piece of the bigger puzzle.
For you, this fact shows that everything is an imperfect mess of pointlessness. So, we both see the same thing, but have different views regarding what it means.
Do you think the existence of gravity and the ability for something to have an axis and to rotate as being part of the imperfect mess of pointlessness, too?
” shows ME that the universe is designed with intention”
interesting you use the word “designed” Reminds me of that cartoon where the angel tells god the universe was created beautiful in its complexity, sublime in its simplicity and he replies – “Great, now let’s wait 14 billion years and tell some desert people how to behave.”
It is natural for your human brain to think everything was designed. It feels right to you – you look around and feel that it MUST have been designed. How could it be otherwise? The moon placed there to guide the tides, Jupiter placed just right to act as a cosmic vacuum cleaner so that we don’t get destroyed by comets. Gravity is there – to guide the orbits of the planets and so on. But if you insist that everything was designed and created by the Creator – then you must answer the question: Who created the creator? You cannot insist that everything had to be created and then maintain that the Creator needed no creator. You can’t have it both ways – no matter how much you’d like to and no matter how much you “feel” that its right.
if all human beings suddenly ceased to exist… shows ME that the universe is designed with intention and that humans are only one piece of the bigger puzzle.
How do you figure?
Two competing hypotheses:
1. The Universe was designed
2. The Universe was not designed
If the universe was designed, that tends to mean that each part has a purpose (and if the designer is perfect, as you have elsewhere claimed, then there is no unnecessary or superfluous component in the design).
So the observation that removing one of those pieces in fact affects very little (if anything), such that the rest of the universe would go on as it always had when the component was around, is clearly evidence that the universe was not designed, at least not with the care that a perfect being could put into it.
1) You’re right. There is no unnecessary or superfluous component in the design of the universe.
2) “So the observation that removing one of those pieces in fact affects very little…” I sure hope you see the humor in that comment. The word “observation” in that sentence presumes “human observer”. So, removing humans would be removing the observer, which means that quite a bit would be affected. Take away all human beings, and Einstein’s theory of general relativity falls apart. That is, unless you’re thinking of other sentient beings that are non-human existing. Your theory falls apart again when you convert “all human beings” into “all observers”.
Do you really think general relativity plays such a minor role in life?
Take away all human beings, and Einstein’s theory of general relativity falls apart.
It certainly doesn’t. “Observer” in the case of physics is merely a spatio-temporal point (or more commonly, a spatio-temporal frame described by eigenvectors) from which things are being described. It functions the same whether there exists an actually observing being there or not.
So the observation that removing one of those pieces (such as removing “physics”) in fact affects very little (if anything), such that the rest of the universe would go on as it always had when the [physics] was around.
I don’t know. I’d still have to disagree with your logic.
You’re mixing your terms a bit.
Things are what they are, and do what they do. Sciences, such as physics, are merely human *descriptions* or *models* of these behaviors (of things being what they are and doing what they do). If the humans disappeared, things would still be what they are and do what they do. If another species came along one day and made descriptions or models of these behaviors it is very likely their resulting sciences would be similar to ours.
Planets and stars and atoms and particles would still behave exactly as quantum physics and general relativity describe them if humans disappeared tomorrow. Nobody would be around to call those behaviors “physics”, but the behaviors, i.e. the content that physics describe, would persist, just as they did before humans existed.
StareClips, correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re trying to apply the idea of the human mind invoking a wavefunction collapse – the (misunderstood) idea that the universe exists in some undefined stage until our minds force it to take on a definite form out of all possible forms, so that our minds are constantly shaping reality.
This is a misunderstanding. Although we cannot fundamentally observe without interacting with what we observe, this does not mean that we define the universe. An observation is just another physical reaction, of which there are an infinity going on all the time, without human participation.
Also, the theories of relativity, or rather, the natural mechanics they describe, do not depend on humans being around. The universe has done just fine without us for 13.7 b. years.
Right. However, when I mention Creation… I’m not talking about merely the creation of human beings… but of everything… the laws of physics… etc, etc, etc…
When I mention the order of things… I get in return that chaos can sometimes create order (such as with snowflakes.) However, when I speak of order of things… I’m not talking about chaos… I’m talking about, for instance, gravity. It exists. It has a specific purpose. It is unwavering. It did not emerge from chaos. It simply is.
We can describe gravity in various ways… have various theories about push or pull… or gravitons to communicate the energy… but no matter how we observe it or how we explain it, it always is.
I suggest there is a specific order to this… a purpose… combined with all other existing unwavering aspects of science which serves a purpose… combined, these purposes can sometimes create chaos… which, in turn, can generate patterns again… but none of this would be possible without existence itself being possible.
Science simply accepts that the observable exists… doesn’t question why, except to create a formula to explain the phenomenon without flaw. Science then continues to use this knowledge to predict how this system will continue in various conditions. That’s great.
Religion doesn’t merely accept that the observable exists, without question. Religion questions the reason for the existence. If gravity has a purpose, what is its purpose? If we have the capacity to overcome gravity one day, what is the purpose for this? What should our goals for the future be?
I don’t see the two being at odds. I see them analyzing both sides of the same coin.
So, while science says “everything will still work just fine without human beings”… religion says “yes, but human beings ARE here”.
While science asks “here is what we are observing, why does this work?”… religion asks “why are we around to observing this?”
I think both questions are valid questions. Both have their merit. A person can be both a homosapien AND a beautiful human being. There’s no need to redefine beauty using formulas as there is no need to redefine science with emotional conjecture.
When you start analyzing religion using the scientific method, you miss the point.
When you start interacting with science through prayer, you miss the point.
Each has its purpose.
Think of it this way… when I talked about “physics” disappearing… I was generalizing… I don’t mean the study of physics (which requires humans to do the studying)… but the principles that exist whether we observe them or not. Take something as simple as gravity, for instance. Everything we know about gravity is from our observation of gravity… and experimentation with gravity. Yet, gravity existed long before we did. Gravity will continue to exist long after us. So, clearly, gravity doesn’t exist merely to be observed by us. Gravity has nothing to do with us. It is bigger than us. Yes, we compartmentalize it… only talking about gravity in ways we can observe it and test it and study it and experiment with it.
To me, that is very close-minded thinking. It gives up a huge potential of our own capacity for a greater understanding than just the logical interpretation of things. We observe animal behavior to determine purpose… i.e., what makes living more important than dying? What makes surviving more important than extinction? What makes coming together more important than separating? When you answer with a quick, “That’s just the way it is” and then move on to make other observations or write other formulas to explain variances, you miss a much larger aspect to life than simple observation. Observation… science… understanding… is all very important… but it’s not the only thing humans are capable of. To borrow from the U.S. Army (unfortunate though it is)… Be all that you can be. Don’t be less.
FWIW, aesthetics is generally more effective than science or religion for analyzing beauty. Beyond that, though, the problem with the thrust of your thesis is that there were undoubtedly people who were “beautiful human beings” long before anything approaching Western religion existed.
Religion doesn’t merely accept that the observable exists, without question. Religion questions the reason for the existence.
Uh, no. Religion doesn’t question the reason for existence, nor encourage its members to ask such questions. It attempts to advance an answer to that question (and tends to encourage people to behave badly towards one another when other people have other answers). If you were looking for the branch of knowledge which seeks to *ask the question*, philosophy is it.
And in the obverse, science (or its understanding, or its application) does not diminish the potential for a person to be a “beautiful human being” either.
And I believe it was with a philosophical mind that God expects us to read the writings of the Bible. Unfortunately, many do not. You say that the Bible “encourages” people to behave badly towards one another. I disagree. While people who have read the Bible often do behave badly towards one another, the Bible as written discourages people to behave badly towards one another.
Saying that the Bible encourages people to behave badly towards one another is like saying science encourages people to drop atomic bombs on each other. While it makes it possible, it doesn’t mean it is responsible. People are responsible for their own actions, not words alone.
The Bible is meant to be read with much wisdom… when in the hands of people who seek neither wisdom nor guidance, you end up with results akin to getting the Anarchist Cookbook into the hands of a teenager. Nothing good usually comes of it, no matter how sound the information is.
> “If gravity has a purpose, what is its purpose? If we have the capacity to overcome gravity one day, what is the purpose for this?”
There you go again, assigning purpose to things for no reason other than you insist there must be some purpose. Just because you can ask “why” doesn’t automatically mean your question is valid.
Actually, this is a general problem in religion – whenever you ask “why” (as in “what purpose?”), you’re also presupposing elements of your own beliefs. Why did God create us? Why does God let evil things happen? Why does God do whatever he does? A religious person’s premise is always God, and as a result his questions as to “why” are seldom or never useful in a search for objective truth.
Furthermore, unlike science which is able to independently verify the answers to its questions of “how”, the answers to your religious “why” will be different for every person you ask.
Understand, it’s not that I don’t see any value in asking “why” (“what purpose”), but I think one should be very careful of one’s own presuppositions when doing this. Otherwise, it simply becomes a study in confirming your own subjective beliefs, which does nothing to further your understanding.
Also, you may find that many of the “why” questions that originally presupposed some purpose are gradually being invalidated by the scientific findings. Your question “Why are we around to observe this?” is one example of this. Science offers the anthropic principle, practically negating the purpose of asking “why”.
Always strive to find the large picture. And always question the basis of your questions in doing so.
As for the existential questions regarding life, death, love, morals, etc, I use a common standard of ethics and humanism, my own gut feeling, and an intention of improvement to find answers (I suppose these answers mostly apply to myself). Essentially, I use the good aspects of religion without the superfluous baggage.
Saying that the Bible encourages people to behave badly towards one another is like saying science encourages people to drop atomic bombs on each other. While it makes it possible, it doesn’t mean it is responsible. People are responsible for their own actions, not words alone.
No, they are in fact quite different. The biggest difference between science and religion is that religion seeks to be normative, suggesting or persuading that certain acts/thoughts/beliefs should or should not be undertaken. The distinction is between handing a kid a loaded gun, and handing a kid a loaded gun and then pointing out that his neighbor killed his cat and then telling him that all cat-killers should be shot.
The Bible is meant to be read with much wisdom…
Seeing how most people are not much possessed of this quality, how can it be maintained, if it is true that only in the hands of the wise is the Bible a cause of good and in unwise hands a cause of evil, that the Bible overall is a positive force?
trj, Elemenope,
“Actually, this is a general problem in religion – whenever you ask ‘why’ (as in ‘what purpose?’), you’re also presupposing elements of your own beliefs.”
Why is this a problem? Are you not presupposing elements of your own beliefs which lead you to feel that this is a wrong way to think?
Certainly, this idea goes against the scientific method… but are you not presupposing elements of the scientific method when applying it to everything in life, assuming that everything must be formulaic?
“I think one should be very careful of one’s own presuppositions when doing this.”
I agree. Being “careful” suggests there is a wrong conclusion to come to and a right conclusion to come to… so clearly you’re on the right line of thinking. If there were no right or wrong, no care would be needed.
“…it simply becomes a study in confirming your own subjective beliefs…”
Absolutely, which is why I feel one must start (and continually refer back to) the Bible. Trying to imagine God’s will on one’s own leads to dangerous cults. These, in turn, twist the words of the Bible to suit their desires… instead of adjusting their desires to be inline with the Bible.
“…my own gut feeling…”
I feel this has a basis in religion as well… though one must be equally careful about this as well. People’s “guts” can change with prayer and study, and can lead you anywhere without either. If the goal is to be led anywhere, you might as well trade in your gut for dice.
“Seeing how most people are not much possessed of this quality, how can it be maintained, if it is true that only in the hands of the wise is the Bible a cause of good and in unwise hands a cause of evil, that the Bible overall is a positive force?”
This is where an element of faith comes in. I believe in the wisdom of the crowd. Take a million people of various beliefs, differing intellect, the wise and the unwise… and one individual answer is not likely to be trusted… but a collective answer from all often holds more merit than a single answer by a respected “expert”. It’s what makes democracy work… and the Internet so powerful.
Sure, you can poke holes at specific examples… for instance, Wikipedia. Citing Wikipedia is a fool’s game. However, most information is only allowed on Wikipedia if the information has a respected citation. So, in those instances, you find the information on Wikipedia… then you find the sources that were cited… and you verify the information from the original source. In this case, the wisdom of the crowds acts as a verification service, whereas Wikipedia only acts as the directory of information, linking to the original sources.
There was actually a case where someone entered information into Wikipedia… someone saw that it had no citation, so they flagged it “citation needed”… in the meantime, a respected news organization saw the information and either ignored the need for citation, or saw the info before it was flagged, and without fact-checking, the news organization regurgitated this information on their own news pages. They also didn’t cite where their information came from. So, ultimately, the “citation” given on the information in Wikipedia used this article, from the respected new source. The circle was complete.
This is an extreme example… and, also due to the wisdom of the crowd, has since been rectified… but it does go to show that you cannot rely only on one activity, even when it comes to factual information. Even scientific results can be poorly interpreted. This is often the basis for many pharmaceutical drugs. ;)
So, to get the bigger picture… one must start with the Bible… refer back to the original texts (not just in the modern translations)… involve themselves with discussions with scholars… study the history and… pray… go to church… ask questions… involve your “gut feeling”… etc… When you don’t do this, you risk running into the same problem with the Bible as you could run into with ANY source of information in life. Misunderstanding or misuse.
I hope those double blockquote tags work, or this comment is going to look really weird.
No no no, major elements of the belief. Critical elements. You cannot ask “why?” without presupposing there is something to ask. If there is no designer, no master plan, then asking “what’s the master plan?” doesn’t make any sense.
Yes, sure, an answer may be deformed by the way a question if framed, but trj wasn’t talking about a slight effect: in the case of a “cosmic why”, the question itself presupposes the existence of God.
You would be rightly critical of someone who used an unspoken premise “there are no gods” to support their conclusion that “there are no gods”. This is a fallacy of circular logic, or “begging the question”.
“No no no, major elements of the belief. Critical elements. You cannot ask “why?” without presupposing there is something to ask. If there is no designer, no master plan, then asking “what’s the master plan?” doesn’t make any sense.”
… but, but, but without a why my life in the big scheme of things has no purpose and as I don’t like that as a thought then god must exist!
Hm, I have a feeling you didn’t get my main point. I was talking about questioning the overall premise of God’s existence, not some Bible interpretation as opposed to another.
Every one of your question regarding purpose presupposes not only the existence of God, but also the specific nature of God. This is not helpful at all when trying to ascertain objective truth. It will not lead you to any new insights, but merely to confirm the overall presuppositions you held from the start.
You’re essentially asking “What purpose does God have with phenomenon X?”. The answer will be “God has purpose Y”, and this answer is based on yours or others’ preconceived notions that a) God exists, b) God has a specific nature.
You refuse to consider that premise a or b might be wrong, or that it doesn’t even make sense to phrase the question to begin with. Essentially, this is circular reasoning.
Your main point, itself, is circular reasoning.
I don’t refuse to consider the premise that A or B might be wrong, I just disagree.
If God doesn’t exist, then you’re right… debating between the Bible and the Koran would be a fruitless argument.
If cognition doesn’t exist, then you’re right… trying to think would be a fruitless endeavor.
If time doesn’t exist, then you’re right… imagining how long this line of thought could take would result in an infinite loop.
If we don’t exist, then you’re right… thinking about what we observe is ludicrous.
Once you have come to the conclusion that you exist, you presuppose a lot of things. However, by continually denying your existence… or continually questioning your existence… you make little progress.
So, I am convinced that I exist… I am convinced that you exist… and am convinced that people exist… I am convinced that time exists… I am convinced that cognition is possible… and I am convinced that God exists… I can continue to question these things, and certainly I still do put a lot of thought into what these things mean, but getting stuck in an infinite loop isn’t helpful at all.
Don’t get me wrong… such lines of thinking can be entertaining sometimes. Like imagining that we don’t actually exist, but are nothing more than actors in the daydreams of a much larger organism. That our perception of time is nothing more than the aging process of this larger organism. That our macroscopic study of the much larger universe is really the microscopic study of this organisms internals.
Questioning existence is what led to such gems as “I think; therefore, I am.” I don’t belittle such capacity to question that which is so easily taken for granted. I just suggest that once you have drawn a conclusion… it’s OK to base assumptions on that conclusion to continue the thought process… even if you might have to revisit that conclusion from time to time.
I have worked with artificial neural networks and artificial intelligence for a number of years, so I recognize that ALL “logic” that the human brain is capable of is really “fuzzy logic”. The moment anything becomes 100% certain without question, the neural network falls apart or becomes weaker. However important synaptic plasticity is, the ability to actually draw conclusions, learn, and retain knowledge and wisdom requires long-term potentiation.
Such assumptions are only fruitless when made without any supporting information… this would be “blind faith” which is dangerous. When I speak of faith, I am not speaking of blind faith at all… but of informed faith.
Erm, I’m not really sure how your inclusion of solipsism or the non-sequitur of going from “something exists, therefore God exists” illustrates any circular reasoning on my part. Neither did I suggest such an extreme line of reasoning as you suggest.
Ahhhhhahahahahahahahahahaha!
Excellent.
trj “having a real, vengeful god declare that I should be killed”
He didn’t just declare – he actually smote people down. In every single case it was a believing Christian. Not one single time did God smite down a non-believer.
Religion isn’t about asking why. Religion is someone who already knows the answers telling you why.
The bible was never meant to be read philosophically. If it was don’t you think that there would be even one passage in there about it? God never says that he really didn’t do the things in the bible and some of them are just metaphors.
Philosophy is about questioning. If you feel the need of God then spirituality can also be questioning. Spirituality however is not based on creeds and doctrines (like the bible). It is an understanding that there is a spiritual dimension that we do not understand. Religion is not spirituality and spirituality is not religion. The two are mutually incompatible. Religion demands obedience while spirituality demands individualism. I can see that you have already moved far from religion. Yet you still cling to the trappings like the bible and utter subservience to God.
The bible should not, and cannot, be the basis for any rational and moral civilization. Read it, seriously sit down and read it without going into a huge philosophical “the words don’t mean what the words mean” mode. Read it like you would any other book and realize that the words do mean what the mean. When God says “go kill these people” he actually means “go kill these people”. The purpose of language is to convey information. When words are written it is easy to understand what they mean.
The problem with your morality being based on subservience to God is that it leads you to condone atrocities if God commands them. Look at Fred Phelps and his hate mongering. Guess what, that is directly out of the bible. How can you be so arrogant as to say that when the bible says “kill your rebellious children” you know better than the writers of the bible what they really meant to say. Stop making excuses for the book and realize that it is just wrong. As long as you bow down before this book and the idea of submitting completely to God you are able to be controlled by anyone who can show you that they have a direct line to God. You are no better than an Islamic suicide bomber. The only difference is that you haven’t yet heard the voice of God telling you to kill. When you say
“‘…you said you found that people back then should obey these commands. From this I surmise that had you lived back then, you would have done likewise.’
That’s quite an assumption. While I appreciate the vote of confidence that you believe I am entirely without sin, I must digress that I am not. I am a sinner. This means I have gone against God’s will. I have repented… and I continue to try to do God’s will… but I am not infallible. So, for you to surmise that, had I lived back then, that I would have done likewise… you’re taking a huge leap of faith, there.”
You are stating that good, moral, and righteous people should be willing to commit atrocity in the name of God. Why no one else called you out on this I can’t understand. This very fact, your willingness to abandon all morality at the command of God (or at least your desire to be willing) is repulsive in the extreme. We as a society cannot allow people who consider blind obedience even in the face of utter, despicable, unabashed evil. I’m sure I will get Godwin’s law called on this one, but the defense “I was just following orders” was not good enough during Nuremberg. I’m sure you will claim that their orders came from man and your orders came from God. The problem is that you only think your orders come from God. Even if they did come from God what gives him the right to order my life terminated. I don’t care how big and powerful God is. Might does not make right. I don’t care if God made me. If I make a sentient, feeling, living, loving, robot I don’t have the right to kill it.
This is why we argue with you. We don’t care that you now support gay marriage. That fact is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is that you, and all good religious people, are willing to deny everything that is good and moral in the name of God. If God commanded it you (as you have already stated above) and all good Christians would consider it a sin, a crime against God, if you did not torture and murder entire populations. If God commanded a holocaust you would be considered bad and immoral people if you tried to stop it. Now don’t give me any bull shit about how “God would never command those things”. Two points there: One, God speaks through men, and those men can say anything. If you believe in prophets then you can be tricked into believing that a prophet is speaking for God (you already believe he speaks through the bible). Two, God has commanded genocide and infanticide, holocaust is just a small step away.
You, and all religiously driven people, are a constant threat to the safety and security of this planet. You operate under irrational assumptions and refuse to take responsibility for your morality, and thus your actions, claiming that only God can decide what is right and wrong. Your innocent disguise as one of the “nice” Christians doesn’t fool me for a moment.
“Perhaps, in this way, the U.S. constitution is pretty much modeled after Christianity.”
I just threw up a little bit. It’s always sickening when someone tries to claim the works of others as the fruits of christianity.
“In other words, you won’t be thrown in prison because you were considering breaking the laws. Also, the government won’t control your life in such a way that breaking the laws would be IMPOSSIBLE” Instead, you are discouraged from breaking the law, given the freedom to break the law, and face the consequences if you do decide to break the law.”
More Cherry Picking, YAY!
I guess that part about “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”, was just bullshit also, right?
Perhaps I should have put the word “perhaps” in bold, because you made it sound as though I was saying it was the case.
I don’t believe our laws were based on Christianity, even if some of the writers may have been Christians at the time. I generally argue against people who say our country was founded on Christianity. I don’t believe the Bible says that pagans will also go to Heaven. Yet, under the law, pagans have the same rights as Christians.
I have been very clear about my stance that religion and law should not mix.
And yet, because I didn’t bold the word “perhaps” or because I said “modeled after” and not “similar to”, you vomited. Sounds like you have a weak vomit reflex. It would make a funny Saturday Night Live skit. And here I thought the general consensus was that Christians are overly sensitive.
You failed your Dodge Roll.
““In other words, you won’t be thrown in prison because you were considering breaking the laws…”
More Cherry Picking, YAY!
I guess that part about “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”, was just bullshit also, right?”
Without forgetting Thomas Jefferson, who basically wrote the US Constitution, and who once said: “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man”. Christian influence my a$$…
Since when is “sin” the same as “prison”? I think you need to re-read some things.
If you daydream about cheating on your wife, it goes against what God wants you thinking about. If you change course, God forgives it and you move on.
Not sure how you are seeing “prison” in any of this.
“Since when is “sin” the same as “prison”? I think you need to re-read some things.”
Since you did when you stupidly attempted to compare christianity to the US Constitution. You then tried to conflate them with an example about how US law doesn’t punish you until you commit an overt act, when actually your imaginary god does punish people for thought crimes.
[now, I'm using a fallacy just for fun and to point out that I don't think the parent/son example can be compared to the god/humans]
“You feel negative inside. You want to grab the pencil from him, erase his bad line, and point him in the right direction”
So, when parents “feel negative” inside, they want to correct their kids, but that’s not the better thing to do, I agree.
Of course, when god “feels negative” inside, he doesn’t correct us with a newer and improved version of the bible, that would be wrong. It is definitely better to drown us and every animal on the earth and to begin again.
Yeah, that would be like killing your son and giving birth to another one. It seems so much easier!!
[now seriously]
You are saying that US constitution is christian-like because it defends freedom…
In particular, you said that “you should be given the FREEDOM to break the laws, and not be punished until you actually DO break the laws”
And that’s so unchristian-like! Remember that your god can read your mind. He can now if you want to have sex with your neighbour’s wife, and that’s a sin even if you actually don’t have sex with her. He can now if you really don’t accept him as your saviour, even if you go to church every sunday.
BUT that type of “freedom”, when you are only to be punished when you break a law, is the very essence of every justice system all over the world. What may be an improvement in your constitution is that you have to be found guilty by your pairs, and that guiltiness must be proved beyond doubt. I would say that it is (in theory) sooo scientific-like…
You seem to have a rigid understanding of what “sin” is. Sin isn’t some sort of gavel the almighty judge slams down.
If I tell you, “To win the type everything backwards award, you just need to type everything backwards.” then it’s pretty straightforward. So, you type everything backwards for a while, but then you slip-up and type something forwards. To this, I can say you sinned. You not longer get the “type everything backwards award”.
I’m not beating you up over it… the police aren’t out to get you… etc… you just broke a rule which now redefined you as a sinner. No biggie. You don’t get the reward.
So, yes, daydreaming about having sex with your neighbor’s wife or cheating on your own wife is a sin in God’s eyes. It’s not going to win you any favors with God. It’s not the way God wants us to be. If you think to yourself, “Screw you, God, and your silly rules. I’m going to daydream about cheating on my wife every day, because it’s fun!”… well, don’t expect God to open the gates of Heaven wide for you and say “you’ll fit right in!”… because you won’t. If, however, you repent (which isn’t serving jail-time or beating yourself up over it… it’s just recognizing that this is a rule and that you broke the rule…. and you should make every effort to change your ways… and you try), then you will be forgiven.
None are without sin. This doesn’t mean nobody will get into Heaven. It also doesn’t mean that everyone should feel guilty, moping around, slitting their wrists, etc… It just means that we need to hold ourselves accountable for the way we carry ourselves. Is that such an unfair trade-off for the gift of life?
Not sure at all that you were answering to me…
You said that US constitution is similar to christian way-of thought in that you can’t commit a crime by thought, only by action. I said that, as christian, you can sin by thought or by actions. Moreover, you will be judged by your thoughts -if you accept or not Jesus as your saviour; if you repent or not, if you beg telepatically God to forgive you…
If that’s how it came across, I apologize. I didn’t mean that the similarities between the U.S. legal system and Christianity were because thoughts of crimes aren’t prosecuted. I meant to convey the idea that we were not programmed like robots, incapable of doing anything outside of our programming. We were, instead, given the free will do do anything… whether a sin or not… the sin still has consequences, just as the crime has consequences, but we are still given the free will to commit the sin in the first place.
Yes, religion is different in that there are crimes of the mind… but that’s why religion is religion and government is government, and never the two should meet.
Crimes in terms of “government” must be of ACTS. However, we are still given the free will to commit those acts. i.e., if I buy a gun, I can’t be detained and have my gun taken away because I have the capacity to shoot someone… I am only arrested if I actually commit a crime with the gun. Likewise, in religion, God hasn’t taken away my ability to think sinful thoughts… He has given me the free will to do so, even if there are consequences to my choices.
I wasn’t trying to draw the line between physical sin/crime versus thinking of a sin/crime… I was drawing the line between CONTROL (to prevent any crime from being possible) and FREEDOM (where the person is given the ability to commit the crime before the crime is ever committed.)
Eternal Torture as punishment for fleeting thoughts?
That sounds so compassionate and just.
Well, there’s been probably 60 responses since I last signed on, so I can’t cover them all. I’d like to address the issue of Biblical interpretation.
There are two dominant currents in Biblical interpretation. The first is influenced by the Platonic tradition, views human beings as a combination of body, soul, and spirit, and believes that our personalities can be oriented toward body, soul, or spirit. Our personality orientations determine how we read. So an immature, bodily oriented person reads literally; a more mature, soul oriented person reads for ethical content; and a spiritual person reads the Bible allegorically for spiritual content.
This was THE tradition guiding Biblical interpretation from at least Origen’s On First Principles (3rd century CE) to Erasmus’s De Doctrinae Vertae (I think that’s the title, 16th century). Dante’s letter to Con Grande Della Scala spells it out, so does Aquinas in the Summa Theologica — with variants. The ideal in this tradition is that literal and spiritual interpretations coincide, but if the literal sense is offensive to common sense, reason, or morality, an allegorical reading is possible. This hermeneutic is still used by the Roman Catholic Church and is reflected in their most recent catechism.
Book IV of Origen’s On First Principles is a category of Biblical passages that he believed it was ludicrous to take literally. His first one was the creation account in Genesis. How do you have light without a sun? How do you even have a day until the sun appears on day 4? Intelligent readers from both Jewish and Christian traditions note real and apparent contradictions in Scripture and deal with them according to their theological tradition.
The other major tradition in Biblical interpretation is the Protestant one. In this tradition, the spiritual reading of Scripture IS the literal reading, bu the literal reading properly understood. Bottom line here is that there are no other interpretations but the literal interpretation.
So you have two very different possible Christian (and orthodox Christian) responses to episodes in the OT in which God commands the Israelites to kill everyone — including children. The interpreters from the older tradition may say that interpreting this passage literally causes an offense to morals, and that it is to be interpreted allegorically to mean that we are to fully reject evil in our lives not matter how dear it is to us. Interpreters from the Protestant tradition will have to accept the literal account, so will have to say that God is just in commanding the punishments he commands, that he is the judge of a moral universe, and that in spite of these punishments, he still loves these people more than you do — so that the effect of allowing even these children to live would somehow be worse than requiring them to be killed.
To say that the first tradition “twists” scripture while the second does not is to demonstrate, once again, sheer ignorance of history, of the history of Christian interpretation, and of how people — I mean Everyone — actually interpreted the Bible for 1600 years before the rise of the printing press and before Martin Luther came along. Atheists are in fact just as stupid and ignorant in their interpretations of the Bible as fundamentalist Christians often are, and the fact that they may have once been fundamentalists is a very good explanation. Going from an ignorant fundamentalist Bible interpreter to an ignorant atheist Bible interpreter is no improvement at all.
The atheist interpretations of Scripture here have been rather shallow and stupid in comparison to the more rigorous treatment of the Bible _by people who believe in it_ for over the last 2000 years. Pointing out your dumb little “evil passages” or “contradictions” is not to say anything new, and the interpretive principles supporting atheist readings of Scripture tend to be non-existent to sophomoric. Sometimes what seems to be an insult is a test of faith, esp. if a woman was being insulted, seemingly, then still given what she wanted in the end. What seems to be important to one tradition is ignored by others (such as wigs) — even most others — so why make these petty examples representative of all religious belief, even Biblically based religious belief?
The majority of Christians throughout the last 2000 years have not been fundamentalists, so the typical atheist move of making out all Christians, or “real” Christians, to be fundamentalists is a serious misrepresentation of the facts of history.
So are you saying that all atheists are completely ignorant of the Church Fathers and how they wrestled with some of the more…”esoteric” biblical texts? You keep saying “atheists are…” or “atheist interpretation of Scripture” (as though there was some unified intellectual tradition that could be right called such), but what you’re doing is coming to ONE blog, looking at ONE picture (of a guy making a rather funny comment about cherry-picking–and believe me, many fundamentalists who run straight to Leviticus 18:22 have no idea of Tertullian, Origen and Athanasius either), and making grand generalizations about ALL atheists.
Now, let’s get all these attempts to one up each other with what we think we know about biblical scholarship out of the way and get to the heart of the matter (which is, essentially, the subject of the picture in this blog post): what’s your take on homosexuality? You intimated upthread that homosexuality is disordered (if I’m misreading you, do let me know). If that is how you read homosexuality, what informs such a reading? How do you justify an argument that homosexuality is “wrong”?
Thank you for the direct questions, Roger.
Yes, I believe homosexuality (when lived out) is immoral. I do not believe that any homosexual should be denied any civil right on the basis of his or her orientation or lifestyle (not all those who live homosexual lives have a homosexual orientation, and the gay community knows this). I would support civil unions for gays to serve the legal purposes of marriage. I do not support gay marriage, as their union are impossible to be procreative and do not need that kind of validation. The state only needs to validate procreative unions and only needs to support those.
That some heterosexual couples cannot, or choose not to, have children does not invalidate the principle, as most heterosexual couples will continue to have children.
At any rate, I do not believe that our moral state has anything to do with our access to civil rights. I do not believe marriage is a “right” — those who performed marriages always reserved the right to deny them to any couple they saw fit. The idea of marriage as a civil right, like the right to free speech, is purely a late 20th century invention to my knowledge, at least as the idea is widely disseminated. Anyone with information to the contrary would have my appreciation if they provided it.
Why? What is immorality?
Is there anywhere in the law that says that marriages are exist to support procreative unions? I do not know American law enough to elaborate on this, but I do know Brazilian law, and I know that in Brazil, while marriage is dedicated to the foundation of families, it says nowhere that these families should include children – or that said children must be born out of the genes of the couple rather than, say, adopted (which is perfectly possible with homosexual couples). There is not a single word about procreation; if there was, you’d have to consider the possibility of marriage by elderly people (who cannot procreate) or infertile people (who cannot, also, procreate). If that was the case, you would have to consider that people who are proven sterile cannot marry, either, because the state should not support unions that cannot end in children born of the married couple.
You could argue that the concept of family precludes homosexuality. But that is also shot when you consider that the concept of what constitutes a family is also remarkably fluid. In some cultures, family includes a man and several women; in others, there is no such concept as marriage, but children are brought up communally. In others, a family is not broken by marriage, but retains its cohesion to include uncles, aunts, parents.
The fact that homosexual unions were not, up to this day, considered legal is irrelevant; women were little more than chattel up to this century, as well, and blacks were considered inferior, when not property. Things change, perspectives change. You were unfortunate (or fortunate) to be born during a period of change.
That the concept of what a family is has changed, and will continue to change, is not new.
That may be true when it was a religious thing – but when it’s a civil thing, then you have to obey the equality principle. The state is not religion. Religious leaders and individuals can and will deny t celebrate whatever they want, but the state cannot do so; the state cannot take things personally, if you will, not according to modern law.
The state cannot treat people who are essentially in the same situation, differently. It would be unconstitutional to deny me the right to drive if I pass all the tests and regulations required to do so, solely based on the fact that I am female. It would be unconstitutional to deny you the right to worship, solely because I do not agree with you. It would be unconstitutional to deny me the right to marry because I do not want children, or cannot have them (provided that there is nothing in the law that requires that I compromise to have children to marry).
Excuse the typos; it’s early and my english-mode isn’t too sharp yet.
Sorry, I forgot this:
Yes it does. It invalidates the principle because you are holding a double standard – you say marriage is about procreation, but infertile people can marry; why? What makes them essentially different from homosexual people? You could even argue that a couple of lesbians is in a better position than an elderly couple; while they cannot have children with each other, they can if they use artificial insemination, as many heterosexual couples do!
Think. You have a couple, A & B. A & B cannot have children. C & D cannot have children, either. Without identifying their genders, what is the difference between A & B and C & D?
Or even worse: A & B do not want to have children. C & D want to, and have artificial insemination so that D gets pregnant. E & F decide to adopt, because while they cannot possibly have children, they are in a stable familial union and can provide and care for a child.
While E & F may be a homosexual male couple, they may also be a heterosexual couple where the woman has had a histerectomy. What is the difference?
The difference is artificial, and based on a false premise. It doesn’t exist for any reason other than you want it to exist, because you think it is morally wrong. That’s fine. You can think whatever you want, but law does not – and should not – agree to the whims of the people.
How should you interpret the bible if you’re born mentally retarded – the soulish way, the bodily way, or the spiritual way?
Kinda like you, the bodily way.
Re: “The majority of Christians throughout the last 2000 years have not been fundamentalists, so the typical atheist move of making out all Christians, or “real” Christians, to be fundamentalists is a serious misrepresentation of the facts of history.”
It’s true that Christian fundamentalism is a 19th century invention. However, it is disproportionately influential and has a great deal of allegiance even among other Christians who are not part of that movement.
Consider that some 25% of the US, right off the top, is Christian fundamentalist. The exact number has risen and fallen over the last couple decades but that’s about what it’s been. Consider that this 25% of the country wields a larger proportion of political control over the country; this is due to the Religious Right movement. For example, almost 40% of the US Senate is Republican, and therefore will obey them.
Consider further that even many non-fundamentalist Christian churches and organizations, have over the last few decades become part of the Religious Right and thus have become allies of that mere 25% who are fundamentalists. The Catholic Church in the US, for example, can largely be counted on to do whatever the rest of the Religious Right says, even if ostensibly the R.R. was created by Protestant fundamentalists who despise the Catholic Church (aka John Hagee, who is very anti-Catholic). Other churches and organizations have, in a similar way, hitched their wagons to the fundamentalists.
(I hate to think what would happen to Dominionist or near-Dominionist Catholics like Rick Santorum, if they get their way and the Protestant fundamentalists who run the Dominionist movement actually get the theocracy they want. Because in that case, Catholicism would be outlawed, and Santorum would cease to be able to be a Catholic. But I digress.)
What this means is that Christian fundamentalism exerts an enormous amount of control over the US as a whole … and some states, in fact, are virtual fundamentalist theocracies.
It’s all well and good to say that not all Christians in the US are fundies, but the fact is that even non-fundies have ceded a great deal of authority to the fundies. In large parts of the country the fundies are “in charge.”
The challenge to Christians who are not fundamentalists and who do not support Christian fundamentalism, is — very simply — to finally stop supporting Christian fundamentalism! A non-fundamentalist cannot say, “But I’m not a fundie!” while at the same time allowing the fundies to speak for Christianity as a whole.
It’s up to US Christians to decide where their allegiance lies. Is it with the fundamentalists? Too often the answer to that is “yes,” even if they do not count themselves, personally, as fundamentalists. I know few, if any, Christians willing to do anything but support the fundamentalists. But as the old adage goes, if you aren’t part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem. It’s decision-time for America’s non-fundamentalist Christians.
No, PsiCop, nowhere near 25% of people in the US are fundamentalists. Nowhere near 25% of people in the US are Protestants. You need to distinguish between Evangelical Christianity and Fundamentalist Christianity, and you need to understand that you can’t make this distinction purely on the basis of doctrine alone. And no, the Republican Party does not take marching orders from the Religious Right. A Bush insider revealed that much within the last four years. It was in the news. There are more US Catholics than fundamentalists of all denominations combined, and if you’re concerned at all with Christianity as a historic phenomenon, then fundamentalism is indeed very much a minority movement.
Nowhere near 25% of people in the US are Protestants.
Yeah, you are right about that. It’s closer to 50%.
Re: “Nowhere near 25% of people in the US are Protestants.”
If you need help understanding how many Americans are fundamentalists, here are some resources for you. There’s nothing like some good, hard data.
Re: “And no, the Republican Party does not take marching orders from the Religious Right. A Bush insider revealed that much within the last four years. It was in the news. ”
A ex-official working for a disgraced outgoing president is not a credible source of information. The Republican Party IS controlled by the Religious Right, and that’s demonstrable. Their last presidential candidate, John McCain, had not been particularly religious … he’d even called Robertson and Falwell names, several years ago. But to get the nomination he had to court the Religious Right, and he did, ultimately making nice with Robertson, and getting the support of guys like Hagee. In other words, he had to become a good religious boy in order to get their favor.
This calculation didn’t work out for him. But that he needed to do it, demonstrates conclusively that the Christian fundamentalists own the Republican party.
Re: “There are more US Catholics than fundamentalists of all denominations combined …”
I don’t dispute that. However, Catholics ARE taking marching orders from the Religious Right. Here in CT the bishops spent lots of money and campaigned mightily against gay marriage, but failed to get it repealed … which caused them to push back against their critics, and that in turn caused the critics to push back. (Yes, it was all very juvenile.)
But the point is that the Catholic bishops are becoming political activists, and their activism follows Protestant fundamentalist leanings. Yes, indeed, the US Catholic bishops have sold their souls to the Protestant fundamentalists, in return for political power. (Surprised? I’m not.)
So US Catholics are not among the 25% or so that are fundamentalists … but they have given most of their political power to the Religious Right, which is run by fundamentalists.
Re: “… then fundamentalism is indeed very much a minority movement.”
Interesting how such a tiny minority managed to run the country for 8 years? Huh? You missed my point: The actual numbers of fundies many be relatively small, but the majority of Christians who are not fundies, have ceded them the power to speak for them and have given them their political allegiance. That minority of fundamentalists possesses far more political power than their numbers would normally permit them to have. And … it’s all because the non-fundamentalist Christians gave it to them, of their own volition.
PsiCop –
Do you even read your own sources? If you look at Table 3 on page 5 you have a complete breakdown of religious self-identification.
26.2% Catholic (not fundamentalists).
18.7% Mainline Christian (not fundamentalists).
19.3 % Baptist (fundamentalists are one group within this larger number, and they are a minority).
14.8 Christian generic (fundamentalists are randomly distributed here too).
It’s rather unthinking to assume that groups that share the same stance toward homosexuality are therefore alike. Yes, the RCC has the same opposition to same sex marriage that fundamentalists do, but they are not like fundamentalists at all in this belief.
Re: “Do you even read your own sources? If you look at Table 3 on page 5 you have a complete breakdown of religious self-identification.”
Yes, and some of those “mainline fundamentalists” are of the fundamentalist variety … e.g. many Presbyterians, the Missouri Synod of the Lutherans, and more. As for Baptists not being fundamentalists … hah hah hah hah hah, as if I believe that. Find someone else foolish enough to buy that, I’m not. The single largest Baptist group is the Southern Baptist Convention, and they are, in fact, solidly fundamentalist.
Fundamentalists can be found inside each of the last 3 categories you listed, and make up the majority, if not the entire number, of Baptists. Thus, the numbers you cited agree with me.
Re: “It’s rather unthinking to assume that groups that share the same stance toward homosexuality are therefore alike. Yes, the RCC has the same opposition to same sex marriage that fundamentalists do, but they are not like fundamentalists at all in this belief.”
Effectively they ARE the same — because they are all demanding that society and the laws reflect the same religious principles. The Catholics have, in fact, fallen under the whips of the fundamentalists. Catholics may have different doctrinal rationalizations for the things they believe, but as long as they’re all obeying the fundamentalists, then they’ve put the fundamentalists in power.
As a non-Christian it does not matter to me that Catholics and fundamentalists have non-identical doctrinal rationales for their demands. All that matters to me, is their demands … and they are largely the same.
May I ask, where in the Bible are the instructions for properly reading the Bible located?
…and why do we need theologians? Surely if an omnipotent creator sent a message with instructions for mankind’s salvation, such a message would be clear and easy to understand, wouldn’t it?
@Nope
Isn’t part of the idea to ensure that the masses don’t have the information so those in control can deceide what is the “right” answer?
@Antiutopia
“There are two dominant currents in Biblical interpretation”
That doesn’t make any of them right, when they try to know writer’s intention.
“The ideal in this tradition is that literal and spiritual interpretations coincide, but if the literal sense is offensive to common sense, reason, or morality, an allegorical reading is possible”
We agree here, I was raised catholic. And that’s completely equivalent to imposing your morality over bible’s morality.
“Book IV of Origen’s On First Principles is a category of Biblical passages that he believed it was ludicrous to take literally”. Sure. So they invented a new and allegorical meaning because they knew that text was crap.
“In this tradition [protestant], the spiritual reading of Scripture IS the literal reading, bu the literal reading properly understood”.
The problem is what in hell “properly” means. They don’t seem to agree at all.
“The interpreters from the older tradition may say that interpreting this passage literally causes an offense to morals, and that it is to be interpreted allegorically to mean that we are to fully reject evil in our lives not matter how dear it is to us”
That’s a real free interpretation, isn’t it? He may as well be ordering us to eat icecream in winter [yeah, I like icecream and I want to eat it also in winter, so it HAS TO be in the bible]
“of how people — I mean Everyone — actually interpreted the Bible for 1600 years before the rise of the printing press and before Martin Luther came along”
Mmmm… so it is a correct interpretation, because of a 1600 year’s tradition? Should we remember that this interpretation lead us to holy wars? To genocide? To burn witches? Fortunately, our morals have evolved, so a present interpretation from the catholic church is very different from a 2 thousand years old. Wich one was correct?
Both of them? Then bible is not an universal moral code, as it changes.
“Going from an ignorant fundamentalist Bible interpreter to an ignorant atheist Bible interpreter is no improvement at all”
It is. You can drop the “fundamentalist” part and not be such a hater.
“The majority of Christians throughout the last 2000 years have not been fundamentalists”
I bet you can’t back up with data that assertion. Moreover, it depends on the definition of “fundamentalists” we are using.
“The ideal in this tradition is that literal and spiritual interpretations coincide, but if the literal sense is offensive to common sense, reason, or morality, an allegorical reading is possible. This hermeneutic is still used by the Roman Catholic Church and is reflected in their most recent catechism.”
You state that if a passage is offensive to morality it can be taken allegorically? But if all morality comes from God, and God speaks through the bible, then how is it possible to be morally offended by the bible? Or is it possible that Christians, like all other people, do not actually take their morality from the bible? You can’t claim that morality comes from the bible and then when it is pointed out that a passage is immoral say “that one doesn’t count” simply because you agree that it is immoral. Rather than picking and choosing which parts are literal and which parts are allegory why don’t you just take the logic step and realize that the whole thing was made up. Only when you realize that it was written by humans, with no divine inspiration at all, does it really begin to make sense. All of the immorality exists because the writers considered that moral (like the murder of children). All of the contradictions exist because it was written by separate people with separate ideas. The faulty science exists because the writers weren’t the almighty creator of the universe and so didn’t actually know any science.
This is why biblical apologetics is ridiculous.
D’n “The faulty science exists because the writers weren’t the almighty creator of the universe and so didn’t actually know any science.”
Very well said. If humans could comprehend how infinitesimal and immeasurably tiny this planet is on the grand scale of this vast universe, we would not be here discussing bronze age desert scribblings.
I would like to appeal to anyone that thinks the Creator of the universe cares about tribal squabbles or male foreskin or female virginity or pig meat or with what foot you get out of bed or silly man made rules, practices, regulations, traditions etc. – please view this link and try, just try to comprehend what it means and how it points to human ignorance and arrogance:
http://www.cosmiclight.com/imagegalleries/deepfield.htm
Size doesn’t matter to importance, VizLord. Of all the millions of things that can kill a person, the most dangerous of them are too small to be seen. There’s nothing more provincial and animalistic than associating size with importance.
D’ns response is better as it demonstrates that he’s thinking and paying attention. All morality comes from God, yes, but within the Christian tradition — for close to 2000 years from within the Christian tradition — the Bible is not the only way that God speaks to human beings. The Bible is called “the word of God written.” But there’s also the word of God in our conscience, and the word of God in nature — and each of the three influence our understanding of the others. In older exegetical traditions, our interpretation of the the word of God written should not violate our understanding of the word of God in our conscience.
And yes — brace yourselves, you afundytheists — the Catholic Church has always asserted that the Bible is subject to the church, not the other way around. It has asserted it is the creation of the church. Again, this is a belief that all Christians had, especially all educated Christians, for close to 1500 years before Luther came around.
The point is diversity of Christian belief on the matter.
I’ve read more atheists that most atheists on this thread have read, and my generalities hold up well. You all deserve to be treated and spoken to like the group of ignorant morons that you are until you educated yourselves about religious faith before speaking about it — especially if you’re going to congratulate yourselves for being “brights,” the preservers of rationality and cool headed thinking.
“ignorant morons”? Is that how your God sees them? How can calling someone, anyone by a belittling, demeaning name do them (or you or your God) any good? Is that Him speaking through you?.
And thus John C was brought into the light about the nature of religion and denounced it forever.
…
We can dream, can’t we?
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God… read the Psalms.
I’m treating atheists on this thread the way most atheists treat Christians. When I see calm, rational, unbigoted critique of religion, I’ll respond accordingly. I will not accept that I’m the only person obligated to show respect.
I’m treating atheists on this thread the way most atheists treat Christians.
A startling example of remarkably enlightened ethics.
Heh.
Oh yes. The atheists on this thread have been Very concerned with the ethical treatment of Christians, the fair representation of their beliefs and history. Please. The very blog entry that initiated this discussion set the tone — the sheer stupidity of it, the disregard for the complexity of Christian thought and its history.
If I can shame some of you out of ignorance, even just one, good. I don’t expect to do that much good, and all the respect in the world on my part would only be met with disrespect in the end. Doesn’t really matter either way.
Wow, you are just a train wreck, aren’t you? You couldn’t shame your way out of a wet paper bag, twit.
And your claims to know more about atheism than atheists, while also claiming that no one here knows about religion is almost stunning in it’s complete ignorance.
More than one of us are former ministers, moron. Some of us have read the bible in the original languages. Your attempt to lecture us on the various schools of biblical interpretation just made me roll my eyes and laugh at you.
Child, please. Know your audience before you whip your ignorance out and make a laughable display of yourself.
When you wander into the middle of a blog, with scarcely an ounce of context for the attitudes and conventions of that community, and then assume that you know everything there is to know about the people there, their prejudices and predilections, to make snap judgments about them, then I say you err badly.
Normally I am the first to rush to the defense of a person who think is being unfairly maligned. But I am less moved to do that when said person came into the scene already throwing elbows. Your very first post outright accused atheists in general of intellectual immaturity, and your tone never much improved. In contrast, StareClips has been basically respectful, and I reciprocated that respect.
…the fair representation of their beliefs and history…
The beliefs of Christians are diverse, and so representing them as a group is tricky. However, it is not unfair to associate general trends of belief and action to a given group as a matter of convenience if the trends hold fairly steadily through the group; statistical outliers are just that, and do not belong in the standard distributional mode of group description. It is generally understood that for every generalization there will be exceptions, but unless those exceptions are statistically significant enough to call into question the legitimacy of the grouping, they are not sufficient to undermine the point being made about the group.
As far as history goes, I have never been much impressed with anyone who arrogates to the position of history’s arbiter, as you seem fond of doing. It is sufficient to say that events either did or did not happen, and then people may quibble over the *meaning* of those events, in the context of other such proximate happenings. Nobody here has smeared or denigrated Christian history, if that’s where you are going with this. They just disagree as to the significance and interpretation of particular events.
If I can shame some of you out of ignorance, even just one, good. I don’t expect to do that much good, and all the respect in the world on my part would only be met with disrespect in the end. Doesn’t really matter either way.
This fatalism is why I have a hard time taking seriously the notion you are here discussing at all in good faith.
You must be joking … right? Christians in the US are somehow not being treated “fairly”? Are you serious?
For the record, over the centuries, Christians have had the luxury of being able to write their own history. Far from being poorly misrepresented, they have been able to make themselves appear disproportionately good — because until the last couple centuries they’ve been able to squelch (violently if needed) anything to the contrary.
Christians have gone uncritiqued for far too long. Besides, I don’t recall Christians ever having had much concern for representing others “fairly,” either.
Sorry but the Christian martyr complex doesn’t work on me. I understand the Christian need to feel persecuted — honest, I do get it, I know they cannot help themselves — but there is nothing wrong with critiquing religion. Heck, Christians have critiqued each other for centuries — in various sectarian conflicts, and in movements such as the Reformation — so there’s nothing wrong with non-Christians having at it once in a while.
Especially since Christians usually have no problem with going after non-Christians, themselves.
The point is my friend that the responsibility is upon your shoulders (since you profess his name) to take the high road, to demonstrate Christ, not merely reference a (dead, religious) historical Christianity.
Please, John C, what nonsense — how easy it makes it for you to excuse yourselves of all responsibility while at the same time condemn others for their perceived failings.
Ty — Sorry, but I’m familiar with ministerial training, and being a licensed or ordained minister is no guarantee that you have any real theological training. When I see some knowledge or clarity of thought demonstrated, I acknowledge it. Something you’re incapable of doing. The “lectures” I give are in response to demonstrated ignorance. Anyone who takes fundamentalist interpretation and belief as the norm for Christianity clearly knows nothing about historic Christianity.
I am not an atheist…quite the opposite.
Yes, believe it or not, religious people regularly visit this site and post here. They haven’t quite turned anyone to the faith yet, but it makes for some interesting debates and discussions.
Note that none of them insult people to get their points across.
Hahahahahahahaha
Did you actually break that tired old quote out?! Seriously? That’s all you’ve got?
If I come back with a couple dozen quotes saying exactly the same thing about Allah, are you going to switch religions?
Truly, the fool in his heart has said there is no Flying Spaghetti monster. RAmen.
I’ve read more atheists that most atheists on this thread have read, and my generalities hold up well.
LOL. How on Earth could you justify a statement like that? How could you know how many atheists, that, say, I have read?
Your claims of authority and knowledge without backing are becoming very wearisome.
Not hard, having read much, I recognize ignorance when I see it.
Wow. Now I have a headache. You’ve finally done it.
Well played, sir!
Nope, don’t you see? Antiutopia’s god told him exactly how many atheist authors each of us has read, and that’s how he knows he’s read more atheist authors than most of us.
He just can’t share that data, because he had to sign a NDA. But trust him, he knows exactly what he’s talking about, even if he doesn’t back his claims up. Trust him. On faith.
I have never read any atheist author and never felt the need to do so.
I have never felt the need to read the Bible either.
I have been baptized, yet somehow I’m an atheist.
How’s that? oO
“You all deserve to be treated and spoken to like the group of ignorant morons that you are until you educated yourselves about religious faith before speaking about it — especially if you’re going to congratulate yourselves for being “brights,” the preservers of rationality and cool headed thinking.”
You imply that you agree with the Platonic mode of Biblical interpretation, that certain Biblical passages cannot be interpreted strictly literally.
Well then, how do you interpret them?
It’s one thing to say, “oh yeah, you atheists are dumb because we Christians already know that these Bible passages are quite ridiculous, so there!”
If you know some of the Biblical passages don’t make sense, why do you still believe that they have authority?
For example, the creation accounts in Genesis. How do you reconcile even a metaphorical/allegorical interpretation of those accounts with modern evolutionary science?
Science tells us that the world was already in disarray before the appearance of the first human-like beings. Science tells us that the world was never a paradise: it was chaos and suffering and conflict and competition.
Why do you still believe the Bible and Christianity to tell you how it happened when those accounts have been demonstrated to be flatly contradictory with our knowledge of the universe?
So, some passages of the bible are to be taken literally and other parts interpreted allegorically?
This clearly shows that any meaning derived from the bible is decided by men.
My final post for the night. From here on out I’m going to quit responding to the morons. If I see something with some merit, I’ll respond to that, but that’s it.
You don’t need to be Jewish or Christian to study Biblical history. There are many a good atheists who are Biblical scholars, knowledgeable of church history, of Hebrew culture, etc., who regularly publish, and yes, who know the original languages. Some of these have been my teachers, directly or indirectly. I’ve read their books. None of them would say the idiotic things that have been asserted on this thread, or reason the way most of the atheists here have reasoned about church history or Biblical interpretation, Old Testament or New.
Those of you atheists here who know better but remain silent validate every negative generalization I’ve made about atheists on this thread. Atheism today is intellectually vacuous and fundamentally dishonest. Pity.
I have never won a debate with an ignorant person. — Ali ibn Abi Talib
Of course, it is cheap and easy to assume the other is ignorant. But, on teh Internetz, protestations of superior authority are usually empty prideful boasting. If you have managed to convince yourself of the bankruptcy of Atheism, I am sorry that your prejudices are that blinding. You yourself have not made a good show for your Christ, today.
So far, all you have to offer the world is more of the same…religion, and this is all that religion can produce, an external, academic, unfruitful “head” knowledge that portends to strife and debate. Your inner man has not yet undergone the change of nature. Gal 4.19.
These “atheists” are the very neighbors Christ told you (and I) to love as ourselves. You see Anti…its all about love, you seemed to have overlooked that (significant) truth friend.
Christ, not religion.
You know John C., I must admit – I wish more Christians were like yourself. You are miles above ostentatious, misguided people like Antiutopia.
PsiCop, I’ve already said that the most effective critique of religion has been from religious writers. Critique of religion is good. I notice you’ve ignored the factual content of my last reply to you. Naturally.
Last one for the night, really.
You missed my review of your numbers, Antiutopia, so here it is again:
“Yes, and some of those “mainline fundamentalists” are of the fundamentalist variety … e.g. many Presbyterians, the Missouri Synod of the Lutherans, and more. As for Baptists not being fundamentalists … hah hah hah hah hah, as if I believe that. Find someone else foolish enough to buy that, I’m not. The single largest Baptist group is the Southern Baptist Convention, and they are, in fact, solidly fundamentalist.
Fundamentalists can be found inside each of the last 3 categories you listed, and make up the majority, if not the entire number, of Baptists. Thus, the numbers you cited agree with me.”
Again, I repeat, stop whining that Christianity has been critiqued. Boo freakin’ hoo. If Christians like you don’t want Christianity to look bad, that’s a problem you can solve for yourselves, quickly and easily … by controlling the Christians who make it look bad. Giving in to them, as the Catholic bishops have done, is NOT the way to do it. Getting up and stopping them from speaking for Christianity, is.
Either do it, or don’t. But don’t come here and whine about it if you choose not to. Non-Christians are not the problem. (Some) Christians are. Fix them, or don’t. If you choose not to, you have to live with the results of that decision.
pretty freakin’ simple. The guy with the poster is simply stating the obvious. For every law the bible list it creates another law that to inform you to forget about that law god has given in the previous book. Also, he’s trying to inform that in actuality it’s impossible to follow every law written in the bible due to one cannot interpret the laws intelligently to follow them. And 100% of Christians aren’t following every law god has given. But you can make a crap load of cash if you can make your interpretation stick to the wall longer then anyone else’s. That’s why Benny Hinn is a multimillionaire and most of us on here are not;)
The quote on the poster is taken out of context.
Even though Leviticus 19:27 clearly states “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads”, it has already been explained that, with a little research and understanding of history, it refers to the cutting of hair into special shapes in honor of a particular pagan deity. So it is OK to cut your hair, even though the bible clearly rules against it.
The other evening I was driving home at a speed of 50mph in a 40mph restricted area. After being stopped by the police, they asked if I had noticed the speed restriction signs.
I replied that of course I had, but rather than take them literally, I had interpreted them to mean a limit of 40mph to other people who maybe are not as skilled in driving as me, maybe with older cars with less able breaking systems. Surely, on a relatively clear road, driving a car with servo assisted brakes and with my years of driving experience I didn’t have to obey the road signs?
The policeman was not impressed by knowledge and understanding of the Highway Code as he wrote me a fixed penalty notice of 3 points on my license and a £60 fine.
He was obviously an atheist.
The question is, if the Levitical law did state “no haircuts”, how many Christians would actually give a damn?
The answer is pretty obvious, and so the guy with the poster still has a point.
So, there are laws on the books to protect children. To protect children, anyone who takes a sexually provocative picture of a minor (a child under the age of 18) is considered creating child pornography.
So now, you have cases where 17 year olds are using their own cell phones to take sexually provocative pictures of themselves and sending them to their boyfriends or girlfriends via text message.
So, taking the letter of the law literally, these 17-year-olds are being jailed. Mind you, from laws that were designed to protect children.
Sometimes the spirit of the law needs to be taken into consideration when humans find twisted ways to complicate the letter of the law.
Taking you speed limit example, in my area at least most signs only say SPEED LIMIT 30 (for instance).
However, there are such things as UPPER LIMITS and LOWER LIMITS. It doesn’t specify which limit it refers to, so why can’t I just see this as a LOWER LIMIT… I must go no faster than 30 mph.
Furthermore, at least in California, you can get pulled over for “unsafe driving” if you go 40 mph in a SPEED LIMIT 40 zone. Why? If it’s raining, you could get pulled over.
You see, the speed limit signs make sense to drivers because drivers have already learned beforehand what the laws are, what they mean, etc… By understanding the additional details of the law, drivers are expected to know that the speed limit signs indicate the maximum speed, not the minimum speed. Also, in California, you are not supposed to drive faster than the posted speed limit OR faster than what is safe given the road conditions.
So, if it’s raining and visibility is limited, you are expected to go slower than the posted speed limit, or you could get cited.
Yet another example of how one could just a simple sign that everyone normally understands, and use it out of context by taking it too literally, without applying any of the additional knowledge of law which applies to the sign.
Well, you do make an interesting point, in that law, upon contact with reality, requires nuance to apply justly. But that only makes the overarching point worse, because there is no indication of that understanding in the law we are discussing. In many cases, the laws are so broad, that applying them would be similar to interpreting ink blots. For example, “Do not murder”. Given that we know there’s plenty of murderin’ going on in the Bible, that requires some nuance to apply. It’s the equivalent, in our metaphor, of having a road sign that simply says “DON’T SPEED!”. Without giving you a guideline about what would be considered speeding.
Fairly useless sign, no?
Absolutely. If the entire Bible only stated, “Do not murder.” it would be pretty useless. It’s a good thing there’s a few more words than that. :D
My point is, those words don’t really help us today. We are in a different cultural and legal context (one in which, for example, slavery is illegal, and it is not OK to beat your spouse, and it is not OK to target women and children in warfare). Half the nuance is thus lost in translation between that cultural context and this one.The Mosaic Law is really unhelpful for determining how people should act, mainly because it was designed as a code of laws for a particular civilization a long, long time ago.
Thus, we have modern, detailed rules about murder that work much better for us.
“The Mosaic Law is really unhelpful for determining how people should act, mainly because it was designed as a code of laws for a particular civilization a long, long time ago surrounded by superstition and mythology.”
Added more info for you.
:)
The point I am making, though I admit rather crudely, is that by breaking the upper speed limit I have broken the law. There is no other interpretation of this rule. There may be excuses for breaking a speed limit or mitigating circumstances that may allow me to avoid prosecution (emergency dash to the hospital etc.) but I have still broken the law.
If a simple rule that says “you shall not ….” can be interpreted as “you can…” then these rules are useless.
Pretty freaking simple. First astronomers said there are 9 planets in the Solar System. Then they said there could be 10. Now they’re saying there are 8.
So, from now on, you’re just going to put down any books about astronomy, plug your ears, and disregard anything astronomers say from here on out?
I sure hope you don’t apply that same logic to parenting.
AETC = Atheists for the Ethical Treatment of Christians.
I’m a member, anyone else want to join? We have to protect them from other Christians, I think.
Penn Jillete would probably join.
:D
But which Christians? How are we to tell the Real Christians (TM) who require protection from the False Christians (TM)?
Blind intellectualism.
you all are going to hell! LOL
Wow, great sign!
Speaking of cherry-picking, isn’t that what Christians do?
It is always funny to see people fall into the trap of the reigious nuts like Antiutopia in trying to provoke you into some emotional state by using religious logic. The trap is to keep you into this logic discussion to avoid that you will notice that people like Antiutopia are very insecure and very lonely people.
Just look at the pattern of Antiutopia’s messages, it is just a big front of pretending to be far superior than atheists while in reality his own faith is just hollow and empty. I have seen this behaviour before, like some religious people against gay to turn out te be gay themselves but try to show the world that they hate gay.
It is a waste of time to discuss with these people, they are off the chart, so who cares if they all me a stupid atheist. LOL
Haven’t had time to respond until now, much less keep up with all the posts. What I have read — that’s been directed toward me — range from perverse expressions of atheist “piety” (why demand that I act the way you think a Christian should act if you don’t believe there is a God, and that Christianity is a vast delusion? Wouldn’t acting like a Christian be the worst thing to do, then?), to responses that are essentially, “My prejudices and bigotry is more right than your prejudices and bigotry,” and then on to a great many descriptions of what is wrong with me as a Christian or as a human being.
Not much in the way of substance, fact, or rational argument, however. One respondent, Amanda, posted a correction about the facts of the OT regarding rape laws (she got some things right and some things incorrect, I think), but this correction invalidates the arguments that some atheists here have been making that Scripture acts as if women are to blame, not men, when a rape occurs — Amanda correctly points out that in some circumstances, the man is put to death for raping a woman.
Please note that I am calling atheists -on this thread, as they have been responding-, “stupid.”
Ignorance is simply not knowing. Ignorance can be cured.
Stupidity is willfully not knowing.
I will concede that everything that has been said about me is correct. I am a failure as a Christian, as a man, and as a human being. I am sad, lonely, and vindictive. I am filled with hate and anger. I am probably a racist, certainly a bigot. I eat at McDonald’s and like it; I enjoy torturing small animals, and I am probably a wife-abuser, misogynist, closeted homosexual homophobe.
Worst of all, I probably even voted for Bush twice.
I am all these things not in spite of my Christianity, but because of my Christianity. I am everything the atheist says I am and worse, even worse things that they cannot imagine.
None of this invalidates the factual content of my claims about the history of Christian thought, and this factual content upholds my claim about the stupidity of atheists _on this forum_, in their responses to me, in their readings of Scripture, and in their understanding of Christianity.
And the nature of these responses demonstrates the _illogic_ underlying atheist thought. Read a first year logic textbook, people. Ad hominem arguments prove _nothing_.
But, since when are most atheists concerned with the facts.
Gad, give me a good old Marxist any day, one who bothers to study history before making claims about it.
I am all those horrible things, but I am not stupid and ignorant.
Anti…you got no love bro, what’s the deal with that? But what you do have is a haughty, arrogant and downright ugly “religious” spirit about you that does nothing to reflect, much less glorify Christ who is love. Tell me, who was it that JC had the hardest time with, the harshest rebuke for in the gospels? It was the “religious” types right, you knew that didnt ya? But maybe what you didnt know is that you are one of them. Your academic learning has so far done nothing to effect your heart, for His nature is not yet your’s.
Come back when your old man has been dealt with, has been humbled, when you have something (someOne) substantial and different to offer these “neighbors” of yours that you refuse to love as Christ commanded. Come back when you can (honestly) say that you love them, when the alibastar jar (in you) has been broken open and the sweet fragrance of Christ is all you emit.
It’s sort of cute when they bicker.
Antiutopia, this is the very first time I read John C actually criticizing someone, I didn’t even consider it was possible.
I think you are lending too much power to the people on this website.
While I do understand that it can be largely frustrating to receive flak from all directions, if you can’t keep your cool you should review your reasons for being here in the first place.
I will concede that everything that has been said about me is correct. I am a failure as a Christian, as a man, and as a human being. I am sad, lonely, and vindictive. I am filled with hate and anger. I am probably a racist, certainly a bigot. I eat at McDonald’s and like it; I enjoy torturing small animals, and I am probably a wife-abuser, misogynist, closeted homosexual homophobe.
Lying is very unChristlike. Unless it isn’t. Straighten me out, would you please?
On a side note, I don’t recall Antiutopia saying he was Christ-like. The only person who was Christ-like was Jesus.
Furthermore, Jesus showed sarcasm. Sarcasm often involves lying, but lying in an obvious way to prove a point… not to try to spread rumor.
Go whine somewhere else. You are the one being quite deliberately stupid, which, in MY religion, is a sin. I’m happy to see it’s been painful for you.
You may consider me to be on the “Dark Side”, if you will, condemn me as a Satanist (I am), but your arrogance will be your downfall, and I WILL be there to point and laugh.
(For those I have no quarrel with, I wish you all well, and that your gods may bless you. for the Atheists, I wish you well, may the universe work in your favor.)
Hail Satan!
Oh, another christian victime! You should be praised among the martyrs!
“Stupidity is willfully not knowing”
And then, my ironymeter exploded
I know I said I was done, but then I read this:
“Please note that I am calling atheists -on this thread, as they have been responding-, ‘stupid’ ”
“Ad hominem arguments prove _nothing_. ”
ahahahahahahahahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *snort* AHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *snicker* he he he heeee.
That made it all worth it. Your very first post started with assuming the ignorance of others. You have repeatedly called civil participants on this blog dumb and stupid. Your arrogance is sadly typical.
Your just some guy who’s invisible friend, god, has all the same biases as his creator. You occasionally say poorly thought out things, which can normally be forgiven. But unfortunately you compensate by insulting the intelligence of people who disagree with you. Which doesn’t make us want to overlook your mistakes. It makes us want to feed them to you, as many have on this blog.
You may think we/I hate you, but the real truth is that I pity you. You’ve been passive-aggressively attacking everyone who responded to you, even those that defended you in good faith. You managed to, in a few short posts, alienate yourself even from the believers that frequent this site. You came here wanting to be persecuted. The thing is you clearly have some degree of education, and your not crazy, but your demeanor is so uncivil and condescending that what you do have counts for nothing. John C actually said it best “you got no love bro”.
Good luck to you man, your going to need it.
@random guy — you owe me a new irony meter!
How was what I was saying ironic?
It certainly wasn’t an ad hominem attack, which is defined as dismissing an argument because of the person giving it. It doesn’t actually address the argument making it a logical fallacy.
“This person is stupid and therefore wrong about X” is an ad hominem.
“This person is wrong about X because of A, B, and C. They are also stupid” is an argument followed by insult. It may be rude but it is not a logical fallacy. Many people get confused about what actually constitutes a fallacy.
Even having said that, what I posted wasn’t even an argument. My post was not about Antiutopia being wrong (another matter entirely). It was about him being rude and presumptive and it was my critique of Antiutopia’s behavior and his possible motivations for posting here. Antiutopia implied in his very first post (and repeatedly after that) that anyone who countered his argument was acting out of ignorance. He dismissed our arguments because, in his mind, we are all stupid and we are all atheists. There weren’t any ad hominem’s in this thread until he showed up, which is why I found his most recent post hilarious and deserving a response.
No, no, you misunderstand. I didn’t catch the irony until you pointed it out, at which point my IM went kerblooey.
You’re cool. My mockery is saved for those who have earned it. *looks pointedly at antiutopia*
no problem i actually wanted to clarify my intentions anyways, as a lot of people tend to follow the pattern of “my feelings are hurt” -> “that means it was an ad hominem attack” -> “therefore you’re all wrong because you used a logical fallacy”.
Just cause they hurt your feelings doesn’t someone is wrong. I kind of wanted to cover that before Anti made that claim.
Ha.. :)
No, I don’t believe I’ve been victimized by anyone here :)
No, the discussion on this entire website is _not_ fair and civil toward Christians in general, generally demonstrates an appalling lack of knowledge about historic Christianity, and that appalling and repeatedly demonstrated lack of knowledge is coupled with certainty and arrogance. What I am demonstrating here is what I see from many — you are seeing yourselves reflected in me.
So no, I am not saying, “you are stupid, so your opinions are wrong.” I am saying, “You are ignorant, as demonstrated by your wrong opinions, and persist in your ignorance, so therefore, you are stupid as well.” Yes, it is an argument followed by an insult, but the insult is deserved.
My point about ad hominems is that I support my claims about Christianity with reference to a number of texts and authors, a number of facts, and descriptions of the varieties of Christian beliefs, hermeneutics, and traditions linked to specific authors and texts. _No one_ responds to the factual content of my claims, but simply responds with descriptions of what is wrong with me and my faith.
So I acknowledge all the criticisms to see if anyone is up to discussing the _facts_ about Christian history.
Nothing that I say is a point of argument to _anyone_ who has read much of _anything_ written before the 17thC. I suspect most of you here have read much written before the 19thC except for what you were made to read in College Lit surveys. Maybe some of you have read Enlightenment authors, but demonstrate serious ignorance about what the specifics of what the Enlightenment was in response to.
PsiCop come close to trying to support his argument with factual claims, but has tended to divert what I have been saying about Christian history to a discussion of Christianity in the US over the last 30-40 years. All in all, that is a diversionary tactic in relationship to the points I am making, but he is still trying to make a legitimate point supported by facts. I need to go back and read his responses from the last day and a half if I can find them.
I would say this much about the last response from him that I read:
No, PsiCop, mainline denominations do not have a great many fundamentalists in them. If anything, they are very liberalized. The most conservative you get are R.C. Sproul type Reformed people, but while he is very conservative, he is hardly a fundamentalist.
Anyone who knows much about the SBC convention knows that it is divided into moderate, conservative, and liberal groups, but yes, the conservatives are very influential, make up a significant minority, and have a lot of fundamentalists in them.
No one who has any coherent definition of “fundamentalist” and knows anything about Catholic theology would ever equate Catholicism with fundamentalism, or identify it as a species of fundamentalism.
I would like to repeat that you were disagreeing with my claim that _historically_, fundamentalists and people with fundamentalist beliefs comprise a small minority of Christians, by claiming that _in the US today, fundamentalists make up a majority of US believers_. Of course that is a non-sequitur as a response to my claim, and in my opinion, it is factually incorrect.
However, we need to define our terms. The scholarship I’ve read distinguishes US fundamentalists from US Evangelicals by saying their doctrinal stances may be identical, but the former emphasizes doctrine and morals as the primary content of lived Christianity, while the latter emphasizes “a personal experience with Jesus.” So Billy Graham would be an Evangelical but not a fundamentalist.
So far as I can tell, PsiCop, you seem to be defining a fundamentalist as anyone who opposes homosexual marriage. Not a very useful definition and not one shared by any sociologist of religion.
But, I’m not expecting rational argumentation from most of the atheists around here. Or even that they’ll recognize it when its presented to them.
A lack of knowledge about historic Christianity?? That is just laughable. The people who write on this blog are some of the most religiously educated people you’ll ever meet. On what basis to you make that assumption? The basis that they disagree with you and therefore aren’t KNOWLEDGEABLE enough to understand your twisted logic? wow.
Well I don’t know everything about historic Christianity. I can say I’ve formally studied it in school and read dozens of books on the history of Christianity and the Bible on my own, as well gone to numerous lectures and conferences. But there’s always more to learn.
I think Antitutopia showed his clear bias when he said:
There’s really no point in continuing dialogue with someone like that IMO. Statements like that are uncalled for — as are many of the other things he has said. He’s not looking for truth or for a discussion. He’s preaching to those dumb atheists.
Trying to influence people by calling them names doesn’t seem like a preachy thing to do – it’s something a bully would do. Seems like he’s getting pretty desperate to me.
Personally, I’ve been on the fence about religion, and people like this Anti guy really turn me off to the whole idea. Thanks for pushing me (and likely others) farther away from God and making my decision that much more clear.
Ha…gad, I’ve not yet read anything so dishonest on this thread yet :).
And apparently he has an Internet Truth Meter that can read the private intentions of other people. Wowzers!
I actually have some respect for you, Elemenope, because at times in your posts I get the feeling that there’s a real human being behind your words.
However, you really don’t want to apply your reasoning about my post to, say, the 100 or so responses posted to me over the last two days.
But I don’t really need a mystical truth meter to know not to take seriously someone saying they are now really committed to a position they were already committed to. Please. Those who look to Christians for reasons to disbelieve have already chosen to disbelieve. The best I can do for them is expose the BS when I see it, on the off chance that any part of them that loves or acknowledges truth may respond to it, even if only privately.
I actually have some respect for you, Elemenope, because at times in your posts I get the feeling that there’s a real human being behind your words.
Your mastery of the backhanded compliment is really something.
Those who look to Christians for reasons to disbelieve have already chosen to disbelieve.
This isn’t exactly the best “tending to the flock” work I’ve ever seen.
“because at times in your posts I get the feeling that there’s a real human being behind your words.”
Translation: “If you’re not nice to me, you are not human”
Yeah, kind of funny. I wonder if that can be expanded. Is being “nice” a quality specific to mammals and not merely just humans? Maybe we can trace back to determine where “nice” lands in terms of narrowing down where someone belongs in the Animal Kingdom.
Are you kidding? What’s the deal with your smiley face? I was not kidding at all.
“I actually have some respect for you”
Translation – I have no respect for anyone else here
You are making that point quite obvious.
I finally understand. He is trying to prove the GIFT by himself.
It helps if you interpret his inappropriately placed “:)” as a sneer.
You are assuming that the first part of that equation fits ;-)
LOL. Yes, I think it best to assume charitably and go from there. In my experience, people who act as he does in real life don’t get very far. So I assume the format is distorting him somewhat.
Maybe I’m being naive, but fortunately we will likely never know.
Who are you to judge that that’s dishonest? I think you know that it’s honest, and can’t handle it, and have to disparage it with some hostile attack that is actually a false-to-fact statement.
Now that IS dishonest.
Ban him. He’s doing nothing but being a more sophisticated troll.
Yep, Roger, that’s the bottom line :) Shut him up :). How I love atheist commitments to freedom of speech and of expression. You’d do great in Stalinist Russia and Communist China — the real fruits of atheism.
ha…it just struck me how ironic Roger’s comment is. Just read the title of the website. The entire website is a giant trolling enterprise. Pot…kettle…black…
You all are getting all the respect you deserve.
I wasn’t considering banning you, but you’re starting to make me consider it. I think I’ve only banned 3 people in over 60,000 comments. I hope you won’t have the privilege of joining those 3.
I’m all for freedom, but when you start namecalling and being purposely disrespectful, I don’t have to tolerate you here anymore. I don’t tolerate it in my house, and I don’t tolerate it on my blog. You have a right to your opinion, and I have a right not to publish your opinion if I don’t want to.
Not sure what your goal is, but I would suggest you step back and consider what it is before you continue your downward spiral.
You’re too late, and pathetically unoriginal. Roger and Jesavius said it first. And you blew your opportunity to get their message.
Like the kindergartner replying to another, “No, you’re a boogerface!”, you’re just parroting what they said.
So Stalinist Russia is the “real” fruit of atheism but secular Scandinavia is not?
You’re just as terrible as the “fundamentalist” atheists you deplore.
What happens when atheists scapegoat Christian scripture in a way you feel is unsophisticated? You berate them for their ignorance – you demand that they recognize the broad diversity of Christian tradition – how ridiculous, you vigorously assert, for someone to pigeon-hole Christianity into such a narrow and false conception!
Yet here you are, doing the exact same thing to atheism!
Leave it to you to complain and whine about atheists telling you what the “real” Christianity is, when you do the exact same thing, telling atheists what the “real” Christianity is.
Are you a liar and a hypocrite? I don’t know if you are, but if you’re not, I recommend you renege your statements in this comment.
Honey bunches, it’s the freaking INTERNET. If you’re banned from a blog, there are about a bazillion more that you can plague with your special brand of snotty, Jebusy, know-it-allness. I’m sure those readers would be just brimming with gladness to listen to you share your Wikipedia’d knowledge about the Wholly Babble.
Antiutopia has lost all credibility.
Antiutopia naver had any credibility to lose.
Daniel joins the ranks of those who claim knowledge without demonstrating it. It is possible that I missed a previous post of yours. Do you care to read the posts in which I cite specific facts about Christian history and contradict me, or will you be honest and go there and acknowledge that I’m correct? Or, will you just keep citing your knowledge without actually sharing it with the rest of us?
“There’s really no point in continuing dialogue with someone like that IMO. Statements like that are uncalled for — as are many of the other things he has said. He’s not looking for truth or for a discussion. He’s preaching to those dumb atheists.”
Reminds me of a quote I vaguely remember “Argue with a fool long enough, and he’ll call you a fool” lol. I have no respect Antiutopia.
I have yet to see a demonstration of all this learning, knowledge, and reading. I’m citing basic texts by major theologians about the history of Biblical interpretation, and see no familiarity with them by any respondents.
These people have nothing to prove to you. Christians come and go all the time on this site, and the really smart ones (Wade [the first one], Brgulker, JonJon, etc.) hang around, and we have great discussions and debates about the content and history of Christianity, and the continuing social effects and consequences of their belief. They have actually demonstrated the ability to defend their positions effectively without resorting to crudeness. Heck, John C (who isn’t really here to argue intellectually), outclasses you simply by being a nice guy.
We’re just used to a better quality of Christian, I suppose.
“_No one_ responds to the factual content of my claims, but simply responds with descriptions of what is wrong with me and my faith.”
Such bald faced dishonesty. No one on here has attacked him solely for being a Christian. When he said some bible verses only applied to priests, we showed him the crazy ones that didn’t apply to priests.
When he said gay marriage was universally absurd, we showed how many countries do not have as big a problem with it as the US.
When he said there was no moral argument for allowing gay marriage, we gave the arguments.
When he started blathering on about differences of interpretation, we explained to him that is the very cherry-picking behavior we criticized in the beginning of this thread.
If he hasn’t seen factual response to his claims, then he quite simply hasn’t been reading them (very likely). But he probably just dismissed many responses immediately without reading them. Because if we are all just stupid atheists what could we possibly say to counter his brilliant pronouncements?
Re: “PsiCop come close to trying to support his argument with factual claims, but has tended to divert what I have been saying about Christian history to a discussion of Christianity in the US over the last 30-40 years.”
You would be correct to say that I am wrong, if those 3 or 4 decades of history had occurred in a vacuum and without the active cooperation of a majority of Christians. But that is not the case. The fundie minority — which you insist is 2% of the population rather than 25% or so — has been granted a great deal of power by the rest of America’s Christians. Whether they are 2% or 25%, they still wield an incredibly disproportionate amount of power … and that’s only the case, because non-fundamentalist Christians have ceded it to them.
You can’t get around it.
As for those 3 or 4 decades not reflecting Christian history, again I beg to differ. Various kinds of irrational thinking about Christianity (of which modern fundamentalism is but one sort) have been part of its history almost from the beginning. And the measures those Christians have resorted to, in order to get “their way,” to undermine their opponents, and to force everyone to think exactly as they do, have been many, and they’ve often been vicious.
Shall we discuss e.g. the mobs of literalist/orthodox Christians that “St” Athanasius whipped up in Alexandria to target the homes and businesses of Samosatene/Arian Christians? (Even in his own time his methods were recognized as extreme and he was driven from the city more than once.)
Shall we discuss e.g. the glorious debacle known as the Council of Ephesus, where partisans of anti-Nestorian Cyril of Alexandria commandeered the proceedings — in advance of others arriving — to his own ends, then when everyone arrived, there were fistfights in the streets, and Cyril ended up deposed (only to be restored later by Emperor Theodosius II who, quite honestly, had no idea how to deal with the Church’s sectarian rifts?
Shall we discuss e.g. any number of other Christian ecclesiastical and/or theological conflicts, which resulted in exiles, destruction of property, imprisonments, torture, and even death?
Am I to believe … as a non-Christian … that the ferocity, sanctimoniousness, general anger of Christian fundamentalists in the US today, is somehow not a reflection of the very same Christian-doctrine-originated emotions that led to violent conflicts in the past? On what rational basis am I to presume this?
Re: “So I acknowledge all the criticisms to see if anyone is up to discussing the _facts_ about Christian history.”
I’m not sure that it would be wise to hang one’s support for Christianity on a discussion of its history. As I mentioned just now. Only the most unthinking Christian would consider that to be flattering.
Re: “No, PsiCop, mainline denominations do not have a great many fundamentalists in them.”
Wrong. Baptists are a fundamentalist denomination. From Religion Facts: “Authority of the Scriptures or sola scriptura states that the Bible is the only authoritative source of God’s truth and any view that cannot be directly tied to a scriptural reference is generally considered to be based on human traditions rather than God’s leading.”
Worship of scripture is, in fact, what makes a Christian “fundamentalist” as opposed to some other sort of Christian. That’s what the adjective “fundamentalism” means when speaking of a religion … it refers to a dependency, if not over-dependence, on a small number of tangible core elements of a religion. In the case of Christians, it’s their scripture-worship.
Re: “Anyone who knows much about the SBC convention knows that it is divided into moderate, conservative, and liberal groups, but yes, the conservatives are very influential, make up a significant minority, and have a lot of fundamentalists in them.”
Curiously, it is these fundamentalists who speak for the SBC. They determine its policies and its doctrines. It does not matter that there are others within the organization, if they cannot or will not speak up and say otherwise. Silence equates with consent.
Re: “No one who has any coherent definition of “fundamentalist” and knows anything about Catholic theology would ever equate Catholicism with fundamentalism, or identify it as a species of fundamentalism.”
Fundamentalism does exist within Catholicism … it just takes on a different manifestation. I’d say the Sedevacantists qualify. One of the more famous of these is Hutton Gibson, Mel Gibson’s father.
Re: “However, we need to define our terms. The scholarship I’ve read distinguishes US fundamentalists from US Evangelicals by saying their doctrinal stances may be identical, but the former emphasizes doctrine and morals as the primary content of lived Christianity, while the latter emphasizes “a personal experience with Jesus.” So Billy Graham would be an Evangelical but not a fundamentalist.”
I suppose one might define it that way, but I don’t. Anyone whose view of a severely restricted “base” from which doctrine is determined, is effectively a “fundamentalist.” If you need help with the definition of “fundamentalism,” here are some links: Merriam-Webster’s, Cambridge Dict. of Amer. English, Compact Oxford Engl. Dict., Princeton Wordnet. I’m not sure Graham could be called anything but a “fundamentalist,” by a majority of these definitions … because as I understand it he adheres to a literalist view of the Bible and claims all Christian teachings must emanate from it.
Re: “So far as I can tell, PsiCop, you seem to be defining a fundamentalist as anyone who opposes homosexual marriage. Not a very useful definition and not one shared by any sociologist of religion.”
As an outside outside observer of Christianity, the appearance certainly is that the majority of Christians — fundamentalist or not — are opposed to gays. Sure, there are some denominations which are open to gays. And there are some who are even willing to ordain gays. I don’t deny that. What I am saying is that the majority of Christians in the US have given voice to opponents of gays. When the Roman Catholic bishops join forces with the Protestant fundamentalists who established the Religious Right to oppose gay rights, I consider that significant. These are two large Christian groups who have, traditionally, opposed one another — but they have united behind a common goal and are marching behind an anti-gay banner. (They also are marching together behind an anti-abortion banner too. In fact, they have MUCH more in common now than they ever had before.)
This fact tells me something about Christianity. It may not give me the message you, personally, would like me to take away from it. But it tells me something nonetheless.
Again, I do not view the history of Christianity in isolation. It is much more of an organic whole than perhaps you are willing to admit. Historically there have been efforts to rein Christianity in, make it better, make it serve humanity rather than control it and even beat it into submission … but almost without exception, those efforts have been overwhelmed by contrary forces.
Few would argue, for example, that the mendicant movement of St Francis did not have potential to make the Church and European Christianity as a whole, better. But what happened to the friars? The Church made them — both the Franciscan and Dominican orders into Inquisitors. How did that help the Church? Did that improve Christianity? DId it make Christianity any more humane than it had been? Of course it didn’t.
You can tell me till you’re blue in the face that not every Christian in the US is a wild-eyed gay-hating, abortion-doctor-shooting freak. But the fact is that those Christians exist. And they exist in enough numbers to have political power. Worse than that, though, they have a far larger amount of power than their sheer numbers ought to have given them.
And they have it, because most of the rest of the Christians … i.e. the ones who are not wild-eyed freaks … have given it to them. If you want me to believe that not all Christians are that way, then you must put that claim into actual practice. It’s time for the non-freakish Christians to stand up, tell the freaks to shut up and go away, and for the last time, stop granting them so much political power.
Until this happens, I can and will — very logically — conclude the worst of US Christians. It’s up to YOU, as Christians, by your own behavior to convince me otherwise.
I’m not sure how much more clear I can be. And I’m honestly tired of the weaselly and cowardly evasions that, to date, are the protestations I hear from the non-freakish Christians. The cold hard fact is that, if the fundamentalists are as small a minority as you say they are, and if their ferocious version of Christianity is not what you believe in, then SHOW IT by policing your own religion and STOPPING THEM.
It’s up to you — and your fellow non-freakish Christians — to do that, or not. Your choice, and yours alone. But what I conclude from your collective decision is MINE to make.
“Wrong opinions”? C’mon, man.
Please, this website is a vast exercise in name-calling and the misrepresentation of religious faith :). If you’re the site owner, Daniel, of course you can do what you want. I’m not on any kind of spiral. I’m just doing what I want. You do what you want. It matters not to me one way or the other what you choose. This is purely diversionary activity for me. I’m entertaining myself.
No, no one has to prove anything to me… but neither do I have anything to prove to anyone, not about the “quality” of Christian I am, not about the sincerity of my faith, and not about the emotional content of my life.
But, I’ve advanced factual claims, and no one has chosen to rebut them, or even really attempted to. They’ve simply cited undemonstrated credentials. If this is what passes for rational argumentation among atheists, then perhaps the site’s title is completely appropriate.
I am under no illusions that me being more or less of a “Christian” as an _atheist_ defines it will make any difference to anyone here.
Not the quality of Christian. The quality of person. We are used to Christians who are more humane, less vicious, more intellectually honest.
I’m sorry I was unclear.
Please :) If you think I’m being intellectually dishonest, that is the most definite sign of your ignorance yet. I wish there were better atheists around for me to get used to.
My compliment wasn’t intended to be backhanded, but you can take that or leave it as you will.
To the other respondent, no, I don’t particularly care about anyone being “nice.” I was describing what I could see of people _in their words_. It is a rare thing to be able to see a bit of a person through words on a message board. People tend to make this assumption far often than is warranted.
My compliment wasn’t intended to be backhanded…
Then you are very, very bad at it.
Ha…the nature of afundytheist interpretation of either the words of the Bible or anything else:
1. Pick the worst readings of the worst possible passages.
2. Insist that this reading is the only possible reading.
3. Characterize religious faith by this worst reading — what we say you believe must be what you believe. Never mind the actual history of your belief or the real emphasis that exists in your readings.
Nice to see the method applies across the boards. :)
And your MO – pick one thread, and insult everyone on it. How about you read through all of the other discussions before you pass judgements about people’s intelligence or sincerity.
PS thanks for being a mind reader. Did god tell you that I was lying or did you pass that selfish judgement all by yourself?
sorry, not selfish. I meant to say arrogant.
He’s not arrogant, he’s just unimaginably more awesome & intelligent than all of us. It’s actually a god who is communicating with us — we’re just too stupid to see it.
Ahh, so god is terrible, relentless, irrational, and blood thirsty. Now things are REALLY clear for me. Thanks for showing me the light.
I was being slightly entertained by all the posts Antiutopia was making, but after reading reworded assumption after assumption of our ignorance and lack of historical knowledge, its starting to get tedious and lose its “fun factor”.
Antiutopia, if all of us atheists are such intellectually dishonest people in general, perhaps you can enlighten us to some other character flaws that we possess instead of beating this same dead horse. A chance of pace in your discussion would be a welcome distraction from your constant argumentum ad personam…
Antiutopia,
Do you realize that you’re doing the exact same thing to atheism which you accuse other people of doing to Christianity?
Your current strategy:
“1. Pick the worst readings of the worst possible passages.
[Pick the worst incidents of history involving atheists.]
2. Insist that this reading is the only possible reading.
[Claim that this is the inevitable result of atheism.]
3. Characterize religious faith by this worst reading — what we say you believe must be what you believe. Never mind the actual history of your belief or the real emphasis that exists in your readings.
[Characterize atheism by these worst incidents - what you say we believe must be what we believe. Never mind the actual history of other more secular, more peaceful countries like Japan, Scandinavia, or most of western Europe.]
Nice to see the method applies across the boards. :)
[Nice to see that you have zero awareness that you're being a huge hypocrite.]
Teleprompter to antiutopia:
Oh, and lots of pure-opinion statements masquerading as facts, like s/he’s the authority on what “marriage is for”.
And *lots* of name-calling.
Daniel — thank you, you totally get me!
RandomGuy — I must have missed those posts :) However, true your inability to read or think, I never claimed that “homosexuality was universally absurd.” What I said was that it was inconceivable prior to the 20thC, even within cultures that accepted physical expressions of homosexual love. I cited Socrates as an example, who openly expressed sexual desire for other men, but was married to a woman (Xantippe) and had children with her. As a result, responding with a description of the acceptance of homosexual unions -today- (still among a minority of nations), is once again a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with my actual point.
While I didn’t specify, however, what I had primarily in mind RE: the general ignorance of atheists on this forum had more to do with knowledge of Christian belief and practice.
“RandomGuy — I must have missed those posts ”
Translation – La La La (fingers in his ears) I can’t hear you. La La La.
Antiutopia at Oct 28 9:32 A.M. – “but the idea of gay marriage, much less that it is a right, has been so universally absurd”
Antiutopia at Oct 30 2:32 P.M. – “I never claimed that ‘homosexuality was universally absurd.’ ”
That’s a little sad, your position is so indefensible that you have to misrepresent YOUR OWN WORDS to be correct. When you claim something is universally absurd, and we prove that it ISN’T universal or absurd it has everything to do with your point. Your banal attempt to dismiss it as a minority opinion or modern aberration is the closest you’ve come to admitting that you were wrong in your original post and we proved it.
The personal attacks are frankly quite boring at this point. A reasonable man would have admitted some error by this point. But your just a small-minded bully who, when cornered, hisses, spits, and throws filth. You have abandoned every pretense to honesty or civility, every word you speak does a disservice to your faith. In the now immortal words of Joseph Welch: “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
Daniel Florien:
Which was the whole point – which antiutopia was too obtuse to get – of your original article with its sign!
Ha…Random Guy, thank you for demonstrating clearly how easily one can lie about what someone has said even using direct quotations, and for a further demonstration of your own stupidity. Even in the very quotation you selected I said that the idea of gay marriage “has been” universally absurd. I was speaking past tense, which implies that the idea of gay marriage is not universally absurd in the present. Furthermore, I specifically said “before the 20th century” (perhaps even “before the mid-twentieth century”) in the post that you were quoting. So no, I never claimed that the idea of gay marriage is universally absurd _in the present_, or today. Obviously, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Again, that was the context of my disagreement with you, even if you choose to lie about it.
But, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at this point.
Garrett — yes, persons who are not Christians, including atheists, can be Christ-like in some ways. They can certainly be ethical. I’ve met a few. The truth of a belief has nothing to do with the perceived character of those who believe it, as our perception of a person’s character is usually biased in favor of our own beliefs.
At the same time, more people have been killed by atheist governments in the last 100 years (under the USSR and communist China) than in the name of Christ in the last 2000. Estimates in the USSR alone range up to 50 million. If you’re going to argue against Christianity on the basis of the fruits of Christianity, intellectual honesty requires a similar critique of atheism.
But, I’m not expecting that from the atheists here.
General response — the inability of you atheists to connect the dots in an argument should not astound me, but continues to do so, especially regarding the complaint that Christians “cherry pick” the Bible.
1. The history of Christian interpretation makes a distinction between civil, ceremonial, and moral laws in the OT. This history begins within the NT itself, as you’d see if you bothered to read the book of Acts. The major items under dispute were the need for Gentile Christians to get circumcised and keep kosher.
2. The history of Christian interpretation makes a distinction between allegorical, anagogical, moral, and literal meanings. This was the _only_ interpretive paradigm at work among educated Christians until the Reformation — from at least the time of Origen (2nd-3rd cent. BCE) — so for most of the first 1500 years of Church history.
3. Therefore, what the misinformed and ignorant atheists on this thread call “cherry picking” does in fact proceed from a consistent hermeneutic informed by a specific theology.
4. Therefore, the initial post that started this thread — the photograph — is rather stupid and ill informed. It’s a demonstration that atheist criticism of Christianity seldom rises above a cheap shot.
When I said that marriage was primarily to support procreation, I was _describing_ how pretty well everyone viewed marriage until the 19th or 20th century, explaining why _in the past_, the idea of gay marriage would have been considered absurd. I do believe this argument carries weight in the present, but not with the majority of people these days, so it’s probably ultimately irrelevant to the gay marriage debate in the US public sphere. I do support legally recognized civil unions between gay couples to guarantee hospital visitation rights, the extension of health insurance coverage, etc. I don’t see the point of gay marriage, though. Even heterosexual marriage has little to do with romantic love after the first 5-10 years or so. It’s more about the kids, the home, etc.
In light of the known facts that gOd and the bible were created by man, the reality is that everything that you have argued in this thread can be easily be dismissed as moot.
More idiotic “reasoning” from an atheist. The fallacy this time? Begging the question.
Because atheism is true, everything a theist says is incorrect.
No, it is not a “known fact” that “God” was created by “man.” No one who knows how to think at all believes that claims for or against the existence of an immaterial being can be substantiated by making reference to material reality.
Next, in general terms, what you say is a non-sequitur regarding my specific claims about the history of Christian interpretation, because even if God does not exist, what I am saying about the history of Christian thought is in fact historically true. Any atheist scholar of Medieval or Christian history would agree — my claims about the history of Christian interpretation are matters of -fact-, not interpretation. I have listed primary texts and provided names of authors with dates.
I am not speaking here as an offended Christian. What I find offensive here is an offense to knowledge, reason, and common sense. I could be an atheist who knows better and be just as offended at the ignorance and stupidity I see being advanced here.
That the atheists who do know better aren’t speaking up speaks worlds about their fundamental dishonesty.
Dude you’re just a veritable plethora of love and warm fuzzies, I can feel the vibes from here…
Thanks John. I was really feeling it too while writing.
I was actually taking bets on whether Antiutopia was John C’s angry alter-ego…
More nasty, hate-filled name-calling from a self-styled “loving christian”.
Here is a fuller quote from above “… but the idea of gay marriage, much less that it is a right, has been so universally absurd — even to cultures that accepted homosexual love — that I can’t believe you can imagine attempting any historical or legal argument for its support.”
You were not using ‘has been’ in the past tense. From the context of your quote its clearly in the present perfect continuous tense. You were saying that gay marriage always has been and is currently ‘universally absurd’. You even preemptively dismissed any historical or legal arguments for justifying it in the present. I also like the projection, its not you who can’t imagine those arguments, you can’t believe that we can imagine them, essentially saying its not beyond your grasp so it must be beyond ours. I never lied in this exchange, you said something foolish, I called you on it. Later you misquoted yourself to attempt to make me look hyperbolic, I called you on it. Now your saying I’m too stupid to understand the tense of what you were saying, and again I am calling you on it.
More hissing, more spitting, more filth, and healthy dose of back-peddling (of course he didn’t mean the things he plainly typed out in black and white). You really are incapable of posting without directly insulting someone aren’t you?
” ‘cherry picking’ does in fact proceed from a consistent hermeneutic informed by a specific theology.” – thanks for conceding our point (unintentionally) yet again. The cherry picking of theists has always been very consistent. If the bible says something moral commendable then it is the infallible word of god. If it says something morally abhorrent then it is a product of its time and requires an allegorical interpretation. Of course what is morally acceptable comes from culture, not the bible, which is why the whole cherry picking process begins in the first place. You fail to realize that the bible is judged on an a cultures morality rather than being the source of it. It follows that if the bible is always judged by a set of changing amorphous external rules then it is useless as a moral authority.
“I do support legally recognized civil unions between gay couples to guarantee hospital visitation rights, the extension of health insurance coverage, etc. I don’t see the point of gay marriage, though.” – after everything else you have said this just baffles me.
If you want to grant them all the same legal protections then what the hell have you been arguing for? If it is in effect the exact same thing what does it matter what it is called? Or is this one of those things where you want to give them some rights, but not all like adoption? Another separate but (not entirely) equal policy?
Antiutopia, I believe the kiddies call this “getting pwned”.
Wow, a spokesman for “pretty much everyone” in the last two centuries!
Without anything to back it up.
Antisense,
It sure seems to me like Christians tend to be far more racist, misogynistic, heterosexist, war-mongering and the like than atheists and agnostics and deists tend to be.
As for atheist governments, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. And I don’t think you do either. A government can be non-theocratic without being atheistic.
I think it’s time to stop feeding the troll.
How about banning the troll?
Why use a banhammer when poking him with a stick is so entertaining?
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUULLLLZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!
Nope, you and Custador might have just convinced me away from banhammering the idiot. All I have to do is read a post from Antiintellect and treat it as high comedy. Thanks, guys!
PsiCop –
Much appreciation for your serious attempt at an intelligent response. General methodological points and some attempts at clarification of terms follows:
1. Definitions from general use dictionaries aren’t very useful in a debate such as ours. All those dictionaries do are record the number of different ways words are used. The word “Fundamentalist” in general use ranges from a specific religious identifier to just a really bad insult. Better definitions are found in field-specific dictionaries — those paying close, specific attention to cultural phenomena, in this case, varieties of religious movements. That is why I made reference to “sociologists of religion” for my definition of fundamentalism, which by the way came from a theological dictionary, not a general one.
2. Your definition of a fundamentalist in these terms: “Authority of the Scriptures or sola scriptura states that the Bible is the only authoritative source of God’s truth and any view that cannot be directly tied to a scriptural reference is generally considered to be based on human traditions rather than God’s leading.”
Would effectively define all Protestant denominations as fundamentalist. That’s simply not true.
The churches that make up the SBC are not “mainline” churches. Mainline churches are those that follow from the major Reformation religious traditions: Calvinist and Lutheran.
From Wikipedia:
<>
I know some idiot here is going to comment on my use of Wikipedia. It’s just an easily accessible source, and I’m citing it where it reflects what I know from other, more reliable sources. But if you don’t even know what’s on Wikipedia, you’re apparently not even as good as that.
Note that the Southern Baptist Convention is not listed as a mainline denomination.
3. Next, there are divergent readings of history. We agree on the basic facts, though. Yes, I am aware of the history of violence associated with disputes over Christian doctrine. The fact is, there’s nothing in the NT or the teachings of Christ that advocates the use of violence against those who do not agree with sound doctrine. Even expressions of God’s wrath in the NT are understood as _God’s_ wrath exercised directly by God, not the wrath of the church. So it’s very difficult to reasonably ascribe this violence to Christianity itself, at least as a movement which follows (or is supposed to) the teachings of Christ.
It’s rather unsophisticated to read about these disputes, battles, wars, persecutions, whathaveyou, and think that doctrine was the only cause or motive, however. Accounts such as Bede’s history and similar records create the distinct impression that everyone under a specific king’s rule was expected to follow the king’s religion. There’s no sense of freedom of conscience or belief yet in most places, and certainly no division between “religion” and “politics.” So these doctrinal wars really proceeded from the same basis as every other war — these were fights for power, influence, and resources. The same thing happens everywhere at all times, including within and among atheist nations.
4. As a result, the identification of the majority of past believers as “fundamentalists” is frankly ridiculous. Fundamentalism didn’t exist until the 20thC. Historians of religion attribute it to the influence of a publication titled “The Fundamentals.” Just looking at Wikipedia’s page you’d see that the word “fundamentalism” didn’t appear in the OED until the 1950s, and the word “fundamentalist” until 1989. The fundamentalism page on Wikipedia generally relates the history of the term and the movement as I have read it in other sources (such as theological dictionaries), so you can read it for yourself there.
5. Yes, there are fundamentalists within Catholicism, but again, they are a pitifully small minority, and that was not my point. My point was that the Catholic church itself is not fundamentalist. If so, they’d be very odd fundamentalists, who accept the theory of evolution, emphasize the Church’s authority over the Bible (which violates one of your conditions/definitions for fundamentalism), etc.
6. I’d like you to pay close attention to your post. On the one hand, you descry the violent persecution of Christians of one stripe by Christians of another. On the other hand, you condemn the failure of the majority of Christians to “restrain” the behavior and actions of a minority of Christians (fundamentalists). What exactly do you expect us to do, hmm? Take away their freedom of speech and of the press? Take away their right to vote, hold public assemblies? Do you realize how ridiculous you’re being on this point?
You don’t have a problem with Christianity here. You have a problem with democracy. It is a fact that in a democracy, every member of the democracy has the right to try to turn their republic into anything they want — if they can convince the majority that their goals are desirable. Like it or not, fundamentalists are free to pursue any political agenda they want and free to hold any opinion they want, and free to exercise all the power they can, and free to express their opinions and goals publicly.
Tis truly a pity that you have such a problem with the existence and functioning of a democracy. You’d have made a great Stalinist, atheism and all.
Finally, it is true that traditional forms of Christianity have believed that homosexuality is sin. Homosexuals have had it hard in the majority of world cultures the majority of the time for the majority of history. Sometimes they are hated, mistreated, persecuted, killed and beaten. All too often. This is a terrible fact of world history that I regret. But opposition to gay marriage does not mean support for every abuse that every homosexual has ever suffered for all time. It is a lie to assert otherwise.
I believe physical expressions of homosexual desire are sin. I also support civil unions for gays. I am not the only person who thinks this way.
The Wiki def. of “mainline” didn’t come through because I put it in carets. Here it is:
The mainline (also sometimes called mainstream) or mainline Protestant denominations are those Protestant denominations that were brought to the United States by its historic immigrant groups.[1] The largest of these are the Episcopal (from British Anglican), Presbyterian (Scottish), Methodist (English and Welsh), Lutheran (German and Scandinavian) and Dutch Reformed (Dutch and French) churches.
Tis truly a pity that you have such a problem with the existence and functioning of a democracy. You’d have made a great Stalinist, atheism and all.
This, right here, is why nobody here takes you seriously.
This, right here, is one of the many reasons nobody here takes you seriously.
I’ve corrected your post for you Nope …
Fair enough.
If one were to write out the reasons why no one here takes him seriously, all the books in the world wouldn’t contain them…
Seriously though, when someone starts out responses with “Random Guy, grow a brain,” they don’t deserve to be taken seriously.
But Daniel! He’s simply trying to give us mean, unfair, unsophisticated, totally ignorant of anything regarding the Bible, or early Christianity, or anything having to do with religion in general, stoopid atheists some much-needed edumacation. Clearly, from his trenchant posts on various and sundry other threads that have nothing to do with homosexuality, Antiutopia (see how cleverly he has internet named himself?) has much to offer us savages, who are but one roll of toilet paper and an 56kbps modem away from utter barbarism. If only we could see past his ad hominem attacks and walls of text wherein he references Tertullian and Origen to see the Truth of his utterances!
Tertullian and Origen also knew nothing of modern science.
Good luck using them to defend Christianity from that!
Oh, but they knew Jesus (they were probably drinking buddies or some such), so I guess that’s enough. Screw science!
“If one were to write out the reasons why no one here takes him seriously, all the books in the world wouldn’t contain them…”
What?
You mean it could be longer than this?
“You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As they say in Texas. I’ll bet you couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A sore that won’t go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you.
You’re a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.
You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.
I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformation. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you smell?
Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it more rapidly.
You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.
You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You’re a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won’t have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot.
And what meaning do you expect your delusional self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease, you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meat slapper.
On a good day you’re a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.
You smarmy lager lout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock. You grotty wanking oink artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You gormless crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill.
You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go away.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I’m sorry. I can’t go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don’t have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.
The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well… it didn’t really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective… Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us “normal” people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are “challenged” persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn’t have been “right”. Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.
P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim, crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, clueless, and generally Not Good.
(yes, I’m done now)”
credit where credit is due. http://www.lindqvist.com/index.php?ID=222
Ha…gad…what I love most about this is that it came from “Sunny Day.”
Thanks for the laugh. I’m mildly disappointed that you didn’t write it all yourself, but at least it was well-applied.
“I believe physical expressions of homosexual desire are sin. I also support civil unions for gays. I am not the only person who thinks this way.”
This exactly what the poster in the picture was pointing out. The bible clearly states that homosexuals should be put to death. By not accepting that your saying that your morals have a source independent of the bible.
The only thing the nonbelievers on this site have been trying to get across is that if you can so easily toss out a death sentence, why not toss out the idea that its wrong or sinful in the first place? Why as a modern human being should you adhere to the rules of a bunch of superstitious bronze-age shepherds?
Re: “Definitions from general use dictionaries aren’t very useful in a debate such as ours.”
Interesting position.
Re: “It’s rather unsophisticated to read about these disputes, battles, wars, persecutions, whathaveyou, and think that doctrine was the only cause or motive, however.”
It’s also fairly rash … and even nonsensical … to assume that the raging sanctimonious violence of the past is dead and buried. I don’t see that it is. When people get up at “town hall meetings” and SCREAM that Obama is not a citizen, and when they arrive at them fully-armed, that tells me this anger is NOT a thing of the past.
Re: “As a result, the identification of the majority of past believers as “fundamentalists” is frankly ridiculous. Fundamentalism didn’t exist until the 20thC.”
Believe it or not, I realize this is the case. And I said so. If you’ll notice I said, “Various kinds of irrational thinking about Christianity (of which modern fundamentalism is but one sort) have been part of its history almost from the beginning.” I clearly identified fundamentalist Christianity as “modern,” and also as “but one sort of irrational thinking about Christianity.” I don’t know how I can have been any clearer but apparently I wasn’t.
Re: “On the one hand, you descry the violent persecution of Christians of one stripe by Christians of another. On the other hand, you condemn the failure of the majority of Christians to “restrain” the behavior and actions of a minority of Christians (fundamentalists).”
I have also stated previously I am NOT advocating the application of violence to stop them. I have — many, many times now, so many that I will not bother quoting myself because I said it several times already now — that what Christians need to do, above all else, is to STOP ceding political power to the fundamentalists. Continuing to empower them is the equivalent of agreeing with them. You cannot keep granting them power but then say they don’t represent you. It’s either one or the other. Choose.
But you must also lack creativity if you think that violence, or political emasculation, are the only ways to stop them. There are MANY ways to do it. Those are limited only by your own imagination. Speaking up works. Taking out counter-advertising works. Beyond that there are even more ways to deal with them. Infiltrate their churches to find out what they’re saying and what up to. Investigate their preachers and their political candidates, look for dirt, and expose them in the media.
Really, however, it’s not my job to come up with ways to deal with them. It’s yours. They’re part of your religion. Police it yourself. If Gandhi could push the British out of India by non-violent means, surely you can reform Christianity in the US in a similar way.
But then, maybe you don’t actually want to rein the fundies in? Maybe you agree with them, even if you claim not to?
Re: “You don’t have a problem with Christianity here. You have a problem with democracy.” Wrong. I have a problem with hypocrites like yourself, who put the fundies into power in order to make the country run the way your religion says it should be run … then, when someone points out your support for them, says, “It’s not me, I’m not a fundie, the fundies are a tiny minority.” Sorry but you can’t have it both ways. That said, this kind of hypocrisy isn’t only my problem. It’s yours, because Jesus himself told you not to engage in hypocrisy … ever.
Re: “Tis truly a pity that you have such a problem with the existence and functioning of a democracy.”
You’re wrong about that, but unfortunately, your raging hypocrisy prevents you from understanding what I’m telling you. It seems you DO want it both ways. You DO want to have the country run according to your metaphysics, and you’ve put people in power who are willing to do it, but you haven’t the courage to admit you put them there, and when caught in your hypocrisy, haven’t the fortitude to admit it. Instead you make claims about me that aren’t true.
Re: “But opposition to gay marriage does not mean support for every abuse that every homosexual has ever suffered for all time.”
Actually it does. The point of gay marriage is a little thing called “equality of opportunity.” You cannot say you “love” gays — or even that you don’t want them harmed — but then claim they should have less opportunity than others. That’s another example of the kind of hypocritical thinking that Jesus told you not to engage in.
Another aspect of gay marriage … at least, what’s important for me, anyway, since I’m not gay myself … is another little thing called “freedom.” I like freedom. I like people being able to live how they want if it doesn’t harm anyone else. Unlike all the Religious Right folks who CLAIM that they don’t like government meddling in people’s lives, I think it actually ought to BE that way. The way I see it, if gays don’t have freedom, then maybe I’m next to lose mine. And that’s not a pleasant thought.
I will repeat what I have said many times already, which apparently has whistled right by you each time. If you want me to believe that fundies are an insignificant minority who do not represent Christians in the US, then Christians in the US need to STOP giving them political support.
I will say it again, this time bold and italic in case you’re not seeing it right: If you want me to believe that fundies are an insignificant minority who do not represent Christians in the US, then Christians in the US need to STOP giving them political support.
Antiutopia wrote, “It is a fact that in a democracy, every member of the democracy has the right to try to turn their republic into anything they want — if they can convince the majority that their goals are desirable.”
If only we had a democracy. Unfortunately, we in the US have a plutocracy. So, majority rule does not apply. If it did, we’d have universal, single-payer health care.
Random Guy, grow a brain:
The full post:
***
It’s rather stupid, Random Guy, to think the US Constitution clearly and plainly addresses all possible concerns without need for interpretation or application. What a waste of time the US Supreme Court is! Why did the founding fathers invent such a thing? And, of course, I know you have historical evidence for the founding fathers’ support of gay marriage. Surely they merely forgot to include explicit mention in the bill of rights.
The fact is, the widespread legalization of gay marriage in the US will greatly change US culture, a culture in which we all participate. Gays are trying to shape US culture into what they want, fundamentalists Christians into what they want. Framing a “rights” argument is to frame a “moral” argument, but the idea of gay marriage, much less that it is a right, has been so universally absurd — even to cultures that accepted homosexual love — that I can’t believe you can imagine attempting any historical or legal argument for its support.
The Socrates of Plato’s dialogs openly desired other men, but was married to a woman, Xantippe, and had children with her. Marriage is to support procreation and nothing else.
***
First paragraph: reference to founding fathers.
Second paragraph: “has been..” “even to cultures that accepteD…” “attempting any historical…”
Third paragraph: Reference to Socrates. He’s been dead over 2000 years.
I am describing the -past-.
I had also said in a previous post:
***
The idea of marriage as a civil right, like the right to free speech, is purely a late 20th century invention to my knowledge, at least as the idea is widely disseminated. Anyone with information to the contrary would have my appreciation if they provided it.
***
But, you’re not really interested in understanding what someone thinks, just what you can make out of what they think.
One of the more ridiculous notions you present Anti is that civil unions are somehow okay, but gay marriage isn’t. Do you not see the inherent contradiction in your argument–especially regarding your framing of marriage (I’ll leave the illogic of your argument about marriage as a procreative covenant or arrangement or what have you to another post)?
But of course there’s no distinction between civil and religious marriage — marriage is a religious institution, Roger – that’s why atheists can’t marry and everyone else can only get married in a house of worship!
/sarcasm
Roger:
No, I don’t think that the US gov’t should be a theocracy.
Yes, I do think politically expedient solutions are sometimes the best.
Sometimes these are compromises.
Yes, I have said in the past that morality has nothing to do with civil rights.
No, you’re neither thinking through what I’ve said, nor your responses to me.
What I’ve come to expect…
Your response clearly shows that you haven’t thought through the implications of your “politically expedient solution.”
What I’ve come to expect (from Anti, that is)…
antiutopia, grow some ethics.
Liars for jesus don’t need ethics.
That post makes no mention of modern gay marriage, or your new found support for civil unions. How are we supposed to read your mind and know what when you say ‘the idea of gay marriage, much less that it is a right, has been so universally absurd’ you weren’t applying the same reasoning to modern times? It took you nearly four days just to say you supported civil unions, how the hell were we supposed to infer anything else from that comment? You made a poorly worded and foolish statement, and despite your feeble efforts to prove otherwise, I am not convinced you didn’t mean those words when you typed them.
So again your going to misrepresent your own words. Even after posting them in full. All that stuff between and around those ‘…’ is the context that indicates a present perfect continuous tense. You can pretend that it said something else, but everyone who read that post interpreted it the same as I did. But if your game for chopping up posts so am I:
Antiutopia said in the above post.
“Random Guy… I know you have… evidence for the.. support of gay marriage…”
“The fact is… Christians… can’t believe… any… argument for its support.”
“The idea of marriage as a civil right… is widely disseminated.”
When you get rid of context anyone can say anything!
What are you speaking as? (Besides a hate-filled, hostile name-caller, I mean.)
What were you hoping to accomplish? I know what you have accomplished: name-calling, hostile provocation, the general impression that you missed the point that xians do lots of cherry-picking from the bible, and alienating people. But what were you attempting to accomplish? Whatever it was, you failed. (Unless you intended to name-call, provoke with hostility, name-call, etc.)
Convert people to your particular brand of chosen mythology? By force? By hatred? By hostility? By attacking them? That would be a stupid thing to attempt even if you didn’t spew your hate and vitriol.
(I fully expect you to rant that that is name-calling. It is not; consider the definition of “stupid” behavior, something with a presumptuous, misguided, ulterior motive, done with actions that will certainly not produce the results you want to accomplish – no matter how immoral or ulterior – and look at it, how you match the definition.)
Just out of curiosity, were the atheists who lived 2000 years ago wrong about their atheism because they were ignorant of modern science?
God = immaterial reality.
modern science = close attention to and concern for material reality.
Gad, people, pull your heads out.
Reading many insubstantial posts here. Even Wikipedia is more documentation than anyone else here is attempting to provide. For being someone who’s not taken seriously, I sure get many, many responses, requests that I be banned, etc.
Yep :)
But am I using the words of atheists who lived two thousand years ago to defend my beliefs now?
That’s what you’re doing, using Christians who lived two thousand years ago to defend your current beliefs.
Nice, Antiutopia, you just completely missed the point of everything I said.
“God = immaterial reality” and yet you seem oddly comfortable believing this God cared about or commanded tribal warfare over 2000 years ago. Odd.
Dear Claid:
You asked:
What are you speaking as? (Besides a hate-filled, hostile name-caller, I mean.)
ehm, did you even read one more sentence down? I answered your question immediately after the sentence you quoted in your post. Is it that hard to see why I think most people here are rather idiotic?
Your post with the next sentence included:
I am not speaking here as an offended Christian. What I find offensive here is an offense to knowledge, reason, and common sense.
Nope, still unhelpful.
Just to clear up one fallacy of thought that has a semblance of rationality:
No, because I believe religious wars were fought for social and political power and resources, and not really over doctrine, that does not mean that I think that they are “alright.”
The point is that religion is not the source of war, but competition for power and resources. Religion is at most a pretext or war or a means of manipulating an ignorant populace to fight. But you don’t need religion for this.
Again, just ask Stalin.
Antiutopia, read what you just wrote, but apply it to atheism:
“No, because I believe [atheists like Stalin led persecutions] for social and political power and resources, and not really over doctrine, that does not mean that I think they are “alright”.
The point is that [atheism] is not the source of war, but competition for political power and resources. [Atheism] is a most a pretext for war or a means of manipulating an ignorant populace to fight. But you don’t need [atheism] for this.
There, I fixed it for you.
When you remember that Mao and Stalin aren’t the only atheists that have ever lived, then you will have some semblance of credibility – that is, when you stop applying logic only when it helps your side of the conversation, then I may begin to respect you.
Lets just call him Torquemada. At least Anti and him have the same handbook which is closer than any of us get to Stalin.
As was already pointed out to you by Teleprompter, you can replace “religion” with “atheism” and make that statement true.
And, yes, even those people who do evil (Hitler, KKK, Dubya, et. al) in the name of Christ are truly driven by greed and the accumulation of resources. But the fact is they are using religion as a tool to gain massive support. You don’t see people doing that in the name of atheism.
Who would have thought a post of a photo of a poster would get this many comments?
It was a very colorful poster.
In other news, I’m painted up like Jack Skeleton from The Nightmare Before Christmas right now and am wearing a dinner suit. Just left a not particularly entertaining Hallowe’en party in order to be entertained by a frothy-mouthed Jeebus creep on here instead. It really was a very dull party.
I am unfortunately stuck at work until 3 AM. I do have candy, though.
That made me laugh.
Well you know it tends to happen when people start letting them bible verses fly. There’s no argument like an argument where everyone’s wrong.
Teleprompter:
Thank you for stating my point for me.
However, the parallel you draw between religion and atheism does not quite obtain, because there is no moral stance implicit in atheism (ever read Max Stirner?), while there is a clear moral stance demanded by the teachings of Christ. So you can accurately point out how often the church has failed in following the teachings of Christ, but you can’t say that it was following the teachings of Christ in its actions at these times.
However, while an atheist can choose to be moral (in traditional senses of the word), an atheist cannot reason from his or her atheism to any specific morality. Or rather, and probably more accurately, an atheist Can reason from atheism to Any morality.
Random Guy:
1. You still can’t read, because my reference to the Founding Fathers in the opening paragraph and Socrates in the closing one should have been enough “context” to establish that I was discussing the _past_, and
2. You still don’t get my point about the history of Christian interpretation. The imposition of capital punishment upon homosexuals in the OT is an instance of -civil law.- The belief that homosexuality itself is a moral wrong is an instance of -moral law-.
3. My support of civil unions is not “new found.”
Elemnope:
So, you’re telling me that the this sentence:
“What I find offensive here is an offense to knowledge, reason, and common sense.”
Isn’t enough to tell you that I’m speaking here as someone concerned with reason, knowledge, and common sense?
Roger: your response might be meaningful if you’d spell out the implications you don’t think I’ve considered. If you mean the eventual acceptance of homosexual marriage, ah, you’re probably right. That’s probably going to come along eventually anyway.
I missed the poster’s name, but one person asked a good, honest question: if I don’t interpret Genesis literally, how do I interpret it? (If I recall the question).
Well, comparing ancient creation mythologies yields some interesting results. Hesiod’s Theogony and a number of semitic creation accounts have a number of features in common with Genesis, which include the idea of a progression from Chaos to Order through acts of division/differentiation between elements. The scholarship I’ve read tends to emphasize the influence of early semitic mythologies upon Greek and Hebrew thought (Kirk, Raven, and Scofield, The Presocratic Philosophers — 3rd ed. of this text). The process usually continues from a state of social disorder to a state of law. So Genesis is hardly unique in this sense. In fact, some scholars read Gen. 1:1 as a later addition to an otherwise rather typical creation account for its time and place.
What is unique, however, is the theology behind Genesis. In other mythologies, you don’t have a god or gods creating matter, but dominating a pre-existing matter. If anything, the most sophisticated reading of Hesiod’s Theogony is not its record of epic battles between gods and titans, but of a record of a transition of worship of elemental forces of nature (embodied in the Titans) to the worship of the psychological forces that come to dominate elemental forces of nature (embodied in the Greek gods).
But what you have in Genesis is the presentation of a God who pre-exists nature, creates it, gives it its meaning, and most importantly, declares that it is “good.” So I read Genesis as telling us about who God is and what the world is. I don’t see Genesis as telling us much detail about the creation of the world as it happened. Hebrew doesn’t have the vocabulary for this, and I’m not sure any language based upon the current material universe could possible have a vocabulary for this.
If you want to see a range of allegorical interpretations of Genesis, just look up “allegorical interpretations of Genesis” on Wikipedia. It has relevant passages from Origen, Augustine, etc. I’ve read this stuff in the original sources. Don’t complain about Wikipedia unless you can prove it inaccurate on the specific points under discussion from better sources. I’m just using it because it’s easy and accessible to everyone here.
I did find full translations of Origen’s On First Principles, but they’re somewhat awkward as they list translations of both the Latin and the Greek texts.
Isn’t enough to tell you that I’m speaking here as someone concerned with reason, knowledge, and common sense?
Not really, no. It does not describe who you are, only what (emotional) state you are in. You said that you are offended. That tells me almost nothing about who you are except your propensity for offense when you discover what you consider to be a violation of three areas (reason, knowledge, and common sense).
Considering that, what you are feebly attempting to inoculate against is the argument that you are offended because your beliefs are being attacked: You are not here as an offended Christian, because you are offended for other reasons. Which strains credibility in light of your responses (esp. your propensity for citing ancient and medieval Christian authors for authority about contemporary matters).
1. “universally absurd”
Universal: adj. (1) Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide (2) Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration (3) Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations (4) Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic. (5) Knowledgeable about or constituting all or many subjects; comprehensively broad. (6) Adapted or adjustable to many sizes or mechanical uses. (7) Logic Encompassing all of the members of a class or group. Used of a proposition.
(1), (2), and (3) all apply to the phrase you used. Even if you meant something else (which at the time I don’t think you did), given the grammatical construction of the sentence and the words that you used it is impossible to reach another conclusion than the one that I did, what you said in other paragraphs has no bearing on that. English provides a near infinite combination of ways to express the idea that ‘gay marriage was ridiculous before modern times’ (there is one). You didn’t use any of them. You stated it was “universally absurd”. Thus is the power of (in)effective prose.
2. The history of christian interpretation is the problem. You can’t claim divine authority and admit to a human editing process.
3. It took four days of getting flayed for your position on gay marriage to even mention it. If it isn’t new, its very convenient.
And the laughs just keep on coming….
Yep, the worst atheists are former fundamentalists, because they have no way to conceive of, or understand, any form of Christian belief but fundamentalism.
And, for another respondent I’ve missed, yet another thing that Christians have believed for centuries is that the Bible is not the only word of God. The Bible is the word of God written, then there’s the word of God in our conscience, and then the word of God in nature. This has been common Christian belief since the time of the fathers as well.
So no, only Christian minority groups — like fundamentalists — believe that the Bible is the only place we can get moral knowledge.
Random Guy, the Roman Catholic Church has believed in the divine inspiration of Scripture AND human editing for as long as its been in existence. Again, you respond like a former fundamentalist. You had an ignorant and ill-informed Christianity which has blossomed into an ignorant and ill-informed atheism.
I know it’s inconceivable to you that I could have an opinion of these topics apart from our dumb little discussion on this dumb little website, but I have in fact supported civil unions for gays for some years now. I only mentioned it in this discussion because, I think, either you or someone else directly asked me what I thought about gay marriage.
Elemenope — stupidest thing you’ve said so far. I’m very disappointed. No, I really don’t care that anyone here agrees with me. Being the sick, sadistic, evil failure of a human being that everyone says I am, I’m only here because I enjoy the fighting. I am a troll, doing my trolling thing. I’m probably here under two or three different names, actually, so that I’m a sock puppet troll.
It is a matter of fact that atheism was a required belief for anyone who wished to participate in the Soviet Union’s political system. All doctrinaire communism -requires- atheism. The USSR had an actively, dogmatically _atheist_ government that murdered tens of millions of its own people. Even Hitler wasn’t that bad, not in sheer numbers.
Most of those communists were also dogmatic Lamarckians, but who’s blaming Lamarck for their atrocities?
Well, because everybody who’s anybody knows it was the Lysenkoists’ fault!
I’m very disappointed.
I’ll let your disappointment wash over me like a warm citrus-scented bath.
Mmm.
No, I really don’t care that anyone here agrees with me.
Then you were full of it when you said you were offended by everyone’s logical and historical fallacies. If you actually didn’t care there would be no room for offense.
In your particular brand of pseudo Christianity do they ever mention strange and foreign words like kindness, humility, compassion, love, dignity, honor? Or should we leave such ascendent virtues to the realm of the unattainable in this life?
…the Roman Catholic Church has believed in the divine inspiration of Scripture AND human editing for as long as its been in existence.
Which, (begging pardon of all Catholics out there), simply makes the RCC a very silly institution on that point. If such an august body as the Holy See sees fit to endorse many impossible things before breakfast, it does not make them less impossible (or specifically in this case, less contradictory).
Antiutopia wrote…
> It is a matter of fact that atheism was a required belief for anyone who wished
> to participate in the Soviet Union’s political system. All doctrinaire communism
> -requires- atheism.
Right, and this is evidence that the root of the problem isn’t a particular belief-system (religion or atheism or whatever). This problem comes from people who want to force any belief-system on others, through government laws or other coersive means.
Holding silly beliefs is little threat to society… as long as the believer respects the right of others to believe differently, and be left alone. Trying to persuade others that your beliefs are superior is fine. It’s not fine to impose a belief-system through force, including the extreme force of government power.
Dingdingding! That’s it entirely. Believe you what you want. Go to it and good luck. Do not, however, think that you have any right to hold anybody else to account violations of your beliefs, and do not for one second think that you have any right to enforce those beliefs on so much as a single other human being. You don’t.
“Again, you respond like a former fundamentalist. You had an ignorant and ill-informed Christianity which has blossomed into an ignorant and ill-informed atheism.”
Hey where’s that guy who was complaining about ad hominem attacks? Oohhh… awk-ward.
Actually I had a very weak religious upbringing, we were Methodist.
Yeah I know Christianity has a long tradition of apologetics. But you can take that courtier’s reply elsewhere, because the truth is that the foundation of your faith must ultimately rest on the bible itself. All of the excuses and debate in the world doesn’t change the fact that it is the holy document of Christianity and you either accept what it says or do mental gymnastics to pretend it doesn’t say what you don’t like. Unfortunately most Christians take the bible very literally (the parts of it they bother to read). Ultimately your faith is in a document not a god. Once you realize one is a human creation it becomes obvious the other one is too.
On one side, you’ve got religious types who want the government to impose a particular definition of marriage on everyone. Their definition comes from scriptures or religious traditions. Of course they don’t want to force everyone to get married… but they do want the government to recognize that particular marriage-definition, and attach to it privileges that we’re all forced to honor. E.g., if people in a government-recognized marriage get tax breaks or legal recourses that AREN’T available to other, non-marriage partnerships, then everyone who doesn’t get those tax breaks etc is implicitly paying a price.
Lefties generally take exactly the same stance… except that they’ve got a DIFFERENT definition of marriage that they want the government to recognize and enforce.
Lost in the struggle between these extremes is the most reasonable alternative. How about if the government just stays out of whole issue of marriage, to the greatest extent possible, as they do with many other religious/personal issues? If people want to create a partnership (sharing finances etc, making binding agreements), let them use existing contract law, with all definitions of “marriage” left out of the equations. Different individuals and communities can agree on whatever marriage-definitions they like… with no one forced to recognize the definitions unless they choose to.
It’s a tempting solution, but it turns out to be impractical. Marriage is used not just by two people to establish a legal relationship, but also by the structures of society to determine what a person who is married may do with their spouse. It would, for example, be very difficult for hospitals to figure out who had legal visitation rights (especially if the patient is unconscious) if marriage were not a standardized institution.
Elemenope wrote…
> It would, for example, be very difficult for hospitals to figure out who had legal
> visitation rights (especially if the patient is unconscious) if marriage were
> not a standardized institution.
No, it would be very easy. Why not let people choose (in advance if they like) who can visit them when they’re hospitialized?
If someone wants to choose a friend to have visitation rights, where’s the problem? Why should your beliefs infringe on their decision to choose WHOEVER they like?
Why not promote a standardized contract/agreement to cover hospital visitation and a host of other issues? There’s no reason at all to restrict such agreements to anyone’s definition of “marriage.”
You missed the part about the patient being unconscious. That is, clearly incapable of communicating their wishes.
That is what the choosing in advance is about. Let them have a simple legal form that shows the hospital that they should be admitted. What if I am single, with both parents dead, and want my best friend to be able to make medical decisions when I am unable to? Many hospitals refuse to acknowledge such things as medical powers of attorney because they only allow those they have predetermined (i.e. spouses and relatives) to have that power. Do I not have the right to trust my friend? What if I just want my friend to be able to make decisions when my spouse is overseas in war or otherwise unavailable? The problem with government sanctioned marriage is that it regulates who you are allowed to give certain powers to. I live with two of my best friends. I have two young children whom they help me raise. If I died then my ex-wife would be granted custody of them even though she hasn’t seen them in two years and had child services take them away from her (and give them to me) simply because I am not allowed, by the government, to say that I want my friends to raise the children in the event of my death. Why does the government have the right to do this?
Unfortunately getting rid of marriage is quite unlikely. That is why we fight for equality in marriage.
Actually, I agree with you. Marriage is a silly outdated institution. Screw it.
Though, no matter how silly, if it exists, it should be for everyone.
Stuart: “How about if the government just stays out of whole issue of marriage, to the greatest extent possible, as they do with many other religious/personal issues?”
So it would be okay for me to marry my dog? Or a chimp? Or 3 women and two men?
Your idea is absurd.
…
OK, that was just silly, VidLord. It’s the exact same argument that people against homosexual marriage use: that it’ll descend into chaos, blah, blah, blah, people will marry their dogs next, blah.
The thing people forget is that marriage is a contract and a contract may be signed by anyone who can legally consent. So while you cannot sign a contract with your dog, a chimp or a child, you can enter in a contract with three women and two men if all parties consent. Why shouldn’t you be able to marry more than one person? Really?
Seriously. The only reason why marriage causes such drama is because there’s a sexual aspect implied in it. Throw that away and suddenly there are no biases whatsoever, against anything. It tells more about how our society perceives sex and sexual conduct than about the legal aspects of it.
Beat me to it. :)
Given that marriages are contract relations, under even the most permissive law, a marriage would have to be between (at least) two people who are competent to contract. Thus, the dog and the chimp are out. And one of the rules may be that regulation to the least extent practicable means restricting the contract relation to couples, thus excluding the polygamous arrangements.
Sorry, before this discussion continues can I just say: The antonym of utopia is dystopia. It’s not Antiutopia. I suspect that’s a name you’ve made up because you’re too stupid to type “utopia” and “opposite of” into Google.
Depends on what sense. A dystopia is an attempted utopia which has failed to provide (either by design, or because Humans are Bastards) actually positive conditions. It does not really cover the state of actively attempting to block the attempt in the first place.
Antiutopia is still a made-up word.
Thanks Elemenope :-) By common usage, though, a utopia is a place where perfect conditions exist and a dystopia is a place where conditions are ‘orrible. Pretty sure that’s the dictionary deffinition in a nutshell.
But the point is, Antiutopia is both a made up word and a gigantic phalus.
But the point is, Antiutopia is both a made up word and a gigantic phalus.
So, what you’re saying is…he’s an American?
Now, now! That’s racialism, you know. We’ll have none of that without a thin disguise or at least a precursor of “I’ve got loads of (group noun) friends, but the thing about (group noun)s is…..” or at least “I’m not (group noun)ist, but….”
Gad, you know, I explained the meaning of my screen name here, and I mean what it says. The dopes thinking I got it wrong lack both intelligence AND creativity. Pity.
I actually do in fact have the right to attempt to impose any and all beliefs upon everyone that I wish, as I see fit. Democracy is a wonderful thing, isn’t it? :)
Declaring the content of Catholic doctrine about the inspiration of Scripture “irrational” because it doesn’t fit fundamentalist dictation theories of inspiration once again reveals a deep ignorance of Christian beliefs about the inspiration of Scripture. Again, I suspect even Wikipedia does better than this.
I actually do in fact have the right to attempt to impose any and all beliefs upon everyone that I wish, as I see fit. Democracy is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?
Well, no actually. Unrestrained democracy leads to terrible things…primarily because, as has been mentioned before, humans are bastards. Successful implementations have structural limitations on the scope of democracy (such as a constitution, or a charter of rights), so that certain things are in fact outside the reach of the majority to implement.
Declaring the content of Catholic doctrine about the inspiration of Scripture “irrational” because it doesn’t fit fundamentalist dictation theories of inspiration once again reveals a deep ignorance of Christian beliefs about the inspiration of Scripture.
I did not mention, nor did I reference any fundamentalist theories of scriptural dictation. It is a more basic problem: either scripture proceeds from God (and was written by God) or it proceeds from human beings. There is no way to get around this dichotomy without God forcing the hands of humans thus absolving humans of any real role in the process. You can couch it any way you like (inspiration, or whatever), but in the end if God manipulated the editing process, the final product is God’s doing, not man’s. The Catholic Church, in attempting to split the difference in order to have its cake and eat it too, has depended and continues to depend on a fundamentally irrational doctrine.
My previous post was not exclusively a reply to you, Elemenope, but it may as well have been. Even the Assemblies of God, which is scraping the bottom of the theological barrel, works around the “dichotomy” you describe by saying that only the “original monographs” are “inerrant, inspired, and infallible,” and that as a result we must rely upon the Holy Spirit for guidance in understanding an imperfectly transmitted text. They also affirm that the Bible is simultaneously the word of God and man.
The RCC is more sophisticated than this.
If you really want to comment intelligently on Christian belief, you really should read more.
You misunderstand. It’s not that I don’t “get” the various mental gymnastics that different theologians have contorted themselves through to arrive at the conclusion that the text is both Godly-authored and edited by human hands.
I just think they are counter to logic and manifestly silly.
There’s nothing worse, more unChristlike (and deserving of harsh rebuke) than a haughty, self exalting “religious” spirit. You may be “well read”, but you are not yet a spiritual man for the adamic nature is (obviously) firmly entrenched on the throne of your (exalted) heart. And it’s ugly, real ugly. Step aside and let Him reign in peace and righteousness…for all our sakes…please.
John C,
Off topic, but I’m curious to know if you have (or have ever had) any association with The Family? Some of the things you say remind me of what I’m reading about The Family in Jeff Sharlet’s book.
Back to the topic, what exactly makes one Christ-like? Surely you don’t think anyone on the so-called Religious Right are Christ-like, so I’m curious who might qualify.
Garrett…thanks. No, I have no prior history with The Family, not familiar with them or the author you mentioned but will look him up afterwards.
Unfortunately, Christlikeness is a rare commodity (not that I have fully arrived myself by any means, nevertheless I press on). In my own circle of friends, I know a number of authentic, Christlike individuals who exhibit and manifest His true (selfless) nature in all their dealings resulting in great peace and fruitfulness. All their motives are pure and sincere in heart. They always defer to and prefer others above themselves and their own wants and needs. These are beautiful people to be around, to know. Typically, they are mature believers who really know their God and are “settled” in Him, in His life in them and have often “journeyed” along for some time to reach that high ground.
The best description of Christlikeness is, well Christ. Those who have come to know and trust Him in union life (John Chapters 14-17) essentially abdicate their own life’s self governing rule affording Him the preeminence in all things so that as Paul taught in Galatians 2:20 “its no longer I that lives (that’s doing the living) but Christ is now living through me”.
Then and only then can the nine fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control), the essential attributes of His nature be fully manifested in a believers life. It’s His life in us, it takes Christ to live the Christian life. So self effort is self defeating in this regard, its more an utter resignation of one’s self and own (selfish) ambitions deferring all to Him. Of course this makes no sense (seems quite foolish) to unbelievers but is actually a beautiful liberty and the secret to fruitfulness once you know and trust Him, His nature and heart toward us.
If I had to name a couple modern day “true” Christlike believers as you requested I suppose I would say…Heidi Baker and her Zimbabwe ministry for one, she is for real. I also think Wayne Jacobsen has it right, reflects Christ’s true nature. From the past I think George Macdonald’s writings across various genre’s are also true words (even the fiction which employs our imaginations to “see” into the unseen realm of the spirit).
Concerning anti and his type, I have much more patience and understanding for unbelievers than I do professing Christians who make a mockery of His name and (true) nature displaying behavior contrary to Him and the fruits of the spirit. Christ is never haughty, prideful. “JC Himself said that “we would know them (His true InChristed followers and spiritual family) by their fruits” meaning the fruit of their lives. JC reserved the harshest rebukes for the “religious” types who were merely hypocrites (and quite content to stay that way). It’s all about love and selflessness.
I hope my attempts to answer your questions were helpful to you, I tried. All the best to you on your journey Garrett.
Dear members of the illiterati:
You mean “phallus.”
And yes, I am :)
Stuart –
Yours is an intelligent solution and had been used for some time before gay marriage started being passed by various states. I think the couple incorporates, actually, and assigns one another legal rights. The problem is that the solution is cumbersome and expensive. You need to hire a lawyer to do it right. Not quite the same as just paying for a license that grants pre-assigned rights.
Random Guy, you sound more and more like a fundamentalist every day. You really missed your calling.
No doubt that at your level of understanding (and Elemenope’s), any shade of nuance or sophistication will seem like “mental gymnastics,” that anything other than strict literalism and belief in the direct dictation of God is not real belief.
But, it’s really not what most Christians have believed for most of Christian history. Just a minority of fundamentalists.
But, you’re not really concerned with an accurate understanding of Christian belief anyhow… or the truth about much anything else, I suspect.
That an answer is nuanced or sophisticated does not improve its chances of actually being right if the nuances and the sophistication still rest upon a foundation of logical contradiction. If the foundation is unsound, it really does not matter what sort of edifice you build atop it.
Courtiers reply number 2.
“But, it’s really not what most Christians have believed for most of Christian history.”
Bull. Why do over half of American Christians believe in angels and the devil? Why do less than half of them believe in evolution? They don’t read Thomas Aquinas, they read the Left Behind series. You can try to defend Christianity from an ivory tower, but the truth is the Christianity that’s in the streets is nothing like you. They babble in tongues while writhing on the floor of a tent revival. They send Pat Robertson a thousand dollars just because he says god will bless them. When someone defaces a communion wafer, they don’t write elegant opinion pieces for the paper, they send death threats.
The truth is most Christians take the bible far more seriously than you do. You’ll edit and water it down to say whatever you want it to. But them? They actually believe it as its written. I don’t know whats worse, the crazy commoners, or the poser intellectuals that try to cover for them.
Do you also believe that most Republicans watch Fox News diligently?
I would venture to say YES but I’m not following you – why do you ask?
Well, for all of our sakes, I hope you’re wrong. :D
John C -
Yes, you are right, I am all those things. Thank you.
The others may not, but I recognize you, know who you (really) are.
John C — you’re saying the exact same thing they are :). So if you know me, really and truly, so do they.
Elemenope — please clearly describe the logical contradiction, then. It’s eluded me.
The logical contradiction -
The bible is in someway divinely inspired. -> Man can reinterpret the bible to alter its literal meaning. -> If the bible is open to interpretation then its divine commandments are indistinguishable from man-made ones and thus arbitrary. -> If the bibles commands are arbitrary then its divine inspiration must be called into question.
The Church created the Bible. Since the Church is made of humans, either one of two thing occurred: either those humans formed the Biblical canonical text using their own ideas and prejudices and criteria, or those humans’ wills were subordinated to God who dictated through them the criteria to use.
One or the other. Not both.
Lowrack:
Deut. 22:28:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
It’s not that he “gets” to marry the girl. It’s that he has to. I’ve already explained the social context in which a woman’s only option was marriage — Israel is a nomadic society at this point. It’s not like she could just “move out of town” and “get a new job.” This marriage, as horrible as the circumstances are, is the only means for the woman’s provision.
Depending upon the circumstances, the man could be put to death for raping a woman.
I don’t understand the assumption that the husband can treat the wife any way he wants. I don’t think you all completely understand the nature of the community you’re writing about. We’re talking about a closed network of people in which the wife’s family was still active and watching. If the husband was unhappy with his wife, there were procedures for divorce.
I really, don’t understand the point of this discussion, at any rate. This is an obscure point of Israelite civil law which has no bearing upon the practice of Christianity. Again, proceeds from the stupid assumption that all Christians must accept all of Scripture on the same terms — if any of it is binding in the present, all of it must be. I’ve already addressed this assumption repeatedly. Try to get the point…for once.
Random Guy, just go look up the American Religion report that PsiCop posted not long ago. Most American Christians are not fundamentalists, and most Christians throughout history have not been. I think the majority in the US are Roman Catholic — which means they believe the church created the Bible. It is possible to believe in the literal existence of angels and demons, by the way, and still have the beliefs about Scripture that I described.
“It is possible to believe in the literal existence of angels and demons, by the way, and still have the beliefs about Scripture that I described.”
Do you personally believe angels and demons exist? If so could you please cite some of the in depth reading you’ve done to back this up? Thanks.
And maybe antiutopia could cite what the hell s/he is even attempting to accomplish.
Random Guy –
Thanks for your direct answer about the contradiction you perceive:
The bible is in someway divinely inspired. -> Man can reinterpret the bible to alter its literal meaning. -> If the bible is open to interpretation then its divine commandments are indistinguishable from man-made ones and thus arbitrary. -> If the bibles commands are arbitrary then its divine inspiration must be called into question.
I’m going to try to be fair and serious in my response to you. Given my previous responses, of course I don’t expect you to take me seriously here, but I am going to try.
I think your reasoning breaks down when you move from “open to interpretation” to “arbitrary.” One of the central assumptions of the Christian faith is that revelation is progressive. God did not fully reveal himself at the very beginning, it is believed, but progressively revealed himself in a series of revelations.
So you could understand God as having revealed a very limited set of truths to Adam and Eve, something more to Noah, more yet to Abraham, still more to Moses, subsequent revelations through the prophets, and in the Christian view, the fullest and final revelation in Christ.
Now, it’s not that each new revelation invalidates the previous one, but it takes it up into itself and takes it to a higher level. Each new revelation, therefore, also entails a new understanding of previous Scriptures, new ways of understanding and reading it.
So what you have are successively different interpretations that are not arbitrary, but proceed from what is believed to be God’s revelation in the present.
If you think this is all very contrived, you should perhaps consider that it (in part) provided the template for Hegel’s philosophy — his dialectic — and has passed on to western philosophy through Hegel, esp. in the figure of Marx.
This view of progressive revelation was then coupled with Socratic thought by the early church, so that different ways of reading Scripture were associated with different levels of spiritual development. Literal readings were for the most immature, ethical readings for those who had grown some, spiritual or allegorical readings for the most mature. Ideally, all three should be going on at once, but the spiritual was clearly privileged.
You should note at this point that access to the spiritual interpretation was the product _of the individual reader’s spiritual insight_, not the words on the page. Since that spiritual insight was the product of the illumination of the Holy Spirit, it was ideally shared by all those who were similarly mature, so not arbitrary, but still not readily accessible to everyone.
Now of course all this presupposes the existence of God. My point here is not to argue for or against this mode of interpretation, or even to argue for the existence of God (how pointless an enterprise that is), just to explain the logical coherence of Biblical interpretation _given the premises_ — and to explain those assumptions.
Where to start? First of all you did nothing to disprove the contradiction. If the bible has multiple valid interpretations then selecting any one of them invalidates the bible as an authority. Then there are the dozens of baseless assumptions you have to make; that these biblical figures existed, that god directly communicated to them, that despite not having been written down for centuries their stories were somehow accurately maintained through retelling.
I mean just to believe that Adam and Eve received commands from god, you have to believe in an Adam and Eve! That means god shaped a man out of clay, breathed life into him, took a rib and made a woman, then a talking snake gets them kicked out of paradise. I’m sorry I’m just not going to believe such an extraordinary claim that without some significant evidence. It takes eleven days to walk across the Sinai peninsula, and I’m supposed to believe that Moses spent 40 years walking from Egypt to Jerusalem with thousands of Jews in tow without leaving a trace of archeological evidence? Then there is issues like the crossing of the Red Sea comes from a known mistranslation, but it keeps getting reprinted just because people like the story better that way. How is it not arbitrary to chose a literal reading of Genesis vs. an allegorical one? Take it one step further and go by the real world evidence, then its not an allegorical story its just wrong.
There is another thing, why is the bible just plain wrong on so many issues? Demons don’t cause disease. Why didn’t Jesus just to tell people to wash their hands? If he can get people to believe in miracles why not get them to believe in germs? Why is god never smarter than the authors of the bible?
Now your throwing this whole spiritual evolution bit, that somehow literal and allegorical interpretations of the bible are both correct at the same time. But they are not, literally the bible is flat out wrong many times. Allegorically the bible has some terrible moral lessons with lots of arbitrary death and violence. God kills all the first born of Egypt after the Pharaoh shoots down Moses’s demands, even though god hardened his heart to make him refuse the demands. God made Pharaoh say no, just so he could kill Egyptian children, the only thing worse than an allegorical reading of that story is if it turned out to be true!
All of these reasons and more are why I have such a hard time taking you for real when you think that any biblical interpretation is logically coherent. You say your not a literalist but you began the post with talking about how god revealed things to various mythical figures. Ultimately no matter what interpretation you choose you have to realize that your religious beliefs in there entirety begin and end with that book.
Elemenope:
If Christians believe that Jesus was simultaneously God and human, being fully both, then it stands to reason they would believe the same thing of Scripture, that it is simultaneously the words of God and man. _Given acceptance of the incarnation_, the belief that the Bible is simultaneously the words of God and man is not a logical contradiction.
At any rate, most educated Christians throughout all time have not accepted a dictation theory of Scripture, which is only one theory of inspiration among many.
Again, the Wikipedia page on Biblical Inspiration could give you some background for the variety of Christian belief about the divine inspiration of Scripture.
At any rate, most educated Christians throughout all time have not accepted a dictation theory of Scripture, which is only one theory of inspiration among many.
Most Christians throughout all time (heck, most people throughout all time) have not been educated much at all. So, this fact, even if true, would reveal next-to-nothing about Christianity as it has been actually practiced by Christians throughout history.
Given acceptance of the incarnation, the belief that the Bible is simultaneously the words of God and man is not a logical contradiction.
Well, sure. From a contradiction anything follows, hence the comment about foundations and their shoddiness propagating upwards through any structure built atop them. If you are willing to toss logic in order to embrace a contradiction such as the Incarnation (as described in the creeds), then you can bring yourself to believe pretty much anything else with no bother. It doesn’t make anything that follows alethically efficacious in the slightest, just easier for people who already have broken that piece of logic in their brains an easier time of believing it.
PsiCop–
About this –
“Believe it or not, I realize this is the case. And I said so. If you’ll notice I said, “Various kinds of irrational thinking about Christianity (of which modern fundamentalism is but one sort) have been part of its history almost from the beginning.” I clearly identified fundamentalist Christianity as “modern,” and also as “but one sort of irrational thinking about Christianity.” I don’t know how I can have been any clearer but apparently I wasn’t.”
You were perfectly clear. I missed your point. However, there are many varieties of irrational thinking, and it’s not clear to me that the violence you describe in Christian history was necesarily an expression of irrationality. It may have been a perfectly rational way to secure their goals. You may disagree with the goals or the methods, but if the methods achieved their goals, even if the goals were immoral and the methods worse, it was probably not irrational.
The people shouting at meetings are doing so because they’re not getting their way — that is a signal of irrationality.
About the rest:
What a string of nonsense!
I have done nothing to put fundies in power and, in fact, they are not at present in any position of power — unless you believe Obama is a fundie and the Democrats in Congress. The Neocons were not fundies. They were too smart to be fundies, and they were primarily concerned with exporting liberal democracy by force. They probably have more in common with the leaders of the French Revolution than with the founders of the Moral Majority.
Political alliances are sticky things. People will shake hands with the devil if it’ll help them get votes on the issue they’re worried about now. Doesn’t mean they don’t think it’s the devil that they’re shaking hands with, though. And once the issue is over with, the alliance is over too.
I do argue with them when I am around them. They don’t like being around me, though.
It is simply ridiculous to equate opposition to gay marriage with support of violence against homosexuals. Among logical fallacies, this is called a “slippery slope.” Equality of opportunity can be achieved through civil unions.
“They don’t like being around me, though.”
Have you noticed a common theme here?
Re: “I have done nothing to put fundies in power and, in fact, they are not at present in any position of power — unless you believe Obama is a fundie and the Democrats in Congress.”
Wrong. The Religious Right … commanded by the Christian fundamentalists … has something like 200 seats in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate they number c. 30-35. That’s about 45% of the House and 30-35% of the Senate. These numbers are disproportionate to their actual portion of the population … which I still say is c. 25%, but you say is 1 or 2%. It doesn’t matter which you accept, they STILL have FAR more control than they ought to have.
If you voted for anyone who’s in the Religious Right, then you HAVE supported them.
Re: “The Neocons were not fundies.”
Nuancing all the various varieties of Rightism, just allows one to rationalize evading the responsibility for having put them into power. It doesn’t matter if Neocons are fundies or not — what does matter is that they worked to put fundies into power.
Again, you keep throwing up evasions and excuses instead of taking responsibility for what YOU — and the Neocons and all the other varieties of Rightists — have done. The cold hard fact is that all of them, together, have granted the fundies an inordinate amount of power. You can say you aren’t a fundie … you can say the Neocons aren’t fundies … you can say anything you want about who is or isn’t a fundie … but all of these people campaigned and voted for — you guessed it! — fundies!
Take responsibility for that choice, instead of weaseling out of it. An upstanding conservative who agrees with the credo that “character counts” and who claims to have integrity and sound morals, can and should be able to admit to what s/he has done. Either do so, or not. But whichever choice one makes, shows one’s character … or lack thereof.
Re: “It is simply ridiculous to equate opposition to gay marriage with support of violence against homosexuals. Among logical fallacies, this is called a “slippery slope.” Equality of opportunity can be achieved through civil unions.”
The idea that certain people ought to be “less free” than others, based on who they are, is NOT a “slippery slope.” It is a philosophical determination that you — and many others — have made. The slippery slope here, if there is one, is in wondering who’s next on the list to lose their freedoms. I can’t answer that. I can’t even assume anyone would be next. I only said it’s possible that someone else could be next to lose their freedoms, and for all I know, that could be me (godless heathen agnostic that I am).
That said, the “slippery slope” doesn’t even matter here. That you think the freedom of some ought to be limited because of who they are … even if no other people are ever selected to lose any freedoms … that’s STILL a reprehensible decision. And I submit it’s not one that the Jesus who mingled with tax collectors and harlots and all sorts of other sinners, would have made. HE wasn’t bothered by what sorts of people his followers and hangers-on were. Why does it matter to you? Why do you even care if someone else is gay?
But then, that’s just me. And what do I know, being a godless heathen agnostic?
All @ antiutopia:
A definite pattern is becoming detectable.
It’s a loving christian.
wow – had no idea the amount of personal insults…and here i thought this guy was inspiring debate lol
“wow – had no idea the amount of bullshit…and here i thought this guy was inspiring us to point and laugh lol”
Fixed.
Antiutopia: you have made an impression. Well done. Talk to us. Enlighten us if you can. Debate amongst only ourselves is nothing. We need you – to challenge us. Please stay. We can challenge ourselves forever and accomplish nothing. Don’t disparage us, but rather challenge us – that is what we seek. Knowledge….
You, Antiutopia, have a significant problem with your quibbling over the bible and morality.
Let us walk together through the logic.
Christianity is an inspired religion. This means, in short, that knowledge of the religion comes from an outside source i.e. God. God must communicate with humanity somehow. The accepted route for this communication is the scriptures. The bible was written by the prophets (we are going with the Christian view point, so please don’t argue as to whether the bible was in fact written by prophets) after they received the word of God. This agrees with you in your determination that God also speaks to humans via divine revelation. When a prophet of sufficient holiness, wisdom, insight, or whatever the criteria is, speaks his words are written down in the bible. This is why the words of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Hosea are in the bible. Those whose words were not backed up by the will of God, like the Gospel Thomas, did not get included in the bible. For this reason inclusion in the bible has become the metric that prophetic and revelatory figures are measured by. Since the catholic church has not seen fit to include any figures after revelations one can only assume that their revelations are secondary to the bible. This is why we take the bible as the true measure of what Christianity is.
You claim that one must take certain passages of the bible literally, while others are taken metaphorically. How does one determine which passages should be interpreted which way? The reasoning you gave for this:
“The ideal in this tradition is that literal and spiritual interpretations coincide, but if the literal sense is offensive to common sense, reason, or morality, an allegorical reading is possible. This hermeneutic is still used by the Roman Catholic Church and is reflected in their most recent catechism.”
You quickly sidestepped this one by saying that nature and our conscience also gives us a view of God and morality, thus allowing us to determine which passages to interpret allegorically. While nature doesn’t change, our understanding of it certainly does. Morality and conscience have continually evolved over time. What does this mean then? God determines what is moral. God speaks to us via nature, conscience, and the bible. The bible advocates slavery, nature gives us no statement on this, but our modern conscience tells us that it is wrong. Therefore it is wrong for us to keep slaves. Let us look back 200 years. The bible advocated slavery (it hasn’t changed), nature again gives no statement (also having not changed appreciatively), however mass conscience in 1809 said that slavery was moral. So was slavery moral in the 1800′s but not moral in the 2000′s? If not then why did God not speak to people and tell them so (via conscience). If it was moral then why is it not moral now?
This can only lead us to two conclusions. Conclusion one is based on absolute morality. If morality is absolute then what it moral today was moral 1000 years ago. What is immoral today was immoral 1000 years ago. Absolute morality is the basis that most people adhere to, even if only unconsciously. It is under absolute morality that one begins to find problems with the bible. If the bible is true, if any of the histories of the old testament are to be taken as truth, then God has taken many actions that would be considered immoral by today’s standards. The most common of this is the genocides in the bible. If taken literally then God commanded genocide. If taken figuratively then God is still commanding genocide only metaphorically. I am at a loss to see what metaphorical message one could take from the rampant genocide other than “it is good to kill in the name of God”. The bible is replete with these ideas. Again take the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham begins to sacrifice his son Isaac. God stops him and rewards Abraham. Taken literally this means that God will reward you if you are willing to sacrifice even your own children. This is the thinking that causes Christians to murder their children in the name of God (bath tub drownings, refusal of medical help, etc.). If these are meant to be taken metaphorically then God is saying we must be willing to sacrifice absolutely everything, including our children. This encourages people to abandon their family, friends, and even rationality because they were told to by God. It would be okay to drop your child off on a neighbor and go join the priesthood. God will somehow provide for the child. Both of these positions are immoral by today’s standards. These are just two examples. So, back on topic. If morality is absolute then God violates our morality. Since morality must come from God then the position states that genocide, slavery, child sacrifice, etc. are all moral positions. God approved of them once, so we must approve of them now as well. This is the logic that non-Christians use to attack Christians. We, rightfully, point out that God has committed atrocities, and if God is all good then Christians must consider these atrocities moral.
There is of course the inverse of this opinion, that morality is instead fluid and relative. In the time of the bible it was moral to sacrifice children (only to YHVH though of course), commit genocide, and hold slaves. Now it is immoral to do any of these things. This is the actually the position of evolutionary morality. If this is the case then both the bible and nature can be discounted from morality. The reason they can be discounted is because they are unchanging. A changing morality cannot be based on unchanging entities. The only changing voice of God is our conscience. Therefore any changes must be based solely in our conscience. This drives the bible into irrelevance on the subject of morality. This is why it is impossible for a Christian to claim that one must obey the biblical laws against homosexuality but does not need to pay attention to the biblical laws on stoning ones disobedient children or (if you insist on the new testament) forcing wives to be silent in church and submit to their husbands completely
Ephesians 5:22-33 22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Remember here that submitting to God has included child sacrifice and genocide. So if your husband tells you to kill your children and then go on a shooting rampage at the mall you must obey him as you would the Lord (i.e. God)
If you say that homosexuality is a sin you must have something to back this up. If you claim that “the bible says so” then we show you what else the bible says. If you then say that those parts are no longer true then we must ask why homosexuality being a sin is still true? Is is democratic? Will homosexuality no longer be a sin when the majority of people are okay with it? How far does this extend? Is homosexuality a sin in the Netherlands where they have legal same-sex marriage? Is it the pope that determines what is moral? So what happened on 18 November 1302 when Pope Boniface VIII issued the Papal bull “Unam sanctam” stating that one could only be saved through Catholicism and all earthly rulers must submit to the Pope? Did the people who were being saved outside Catholicism suddenly lose their salvation? Once you decide that morality is relative then you have no power to claim your position of morality as superior. You are reduced to what atheists must do, which is arguing a point based on its actual merits on not using outside appeal to authority.
To summarize, there are two views of morality; relative and absolute. If it is absolute, and based on the bible then it cannot change and anything advocated in it (including all atrocities) must be moral. Therefore you cannot have homosexuality as a sin without child sacrifice to God being holy. If morality is relative then you cannot use the bible, or any other book, as a determiner of what is and is not moral. That being the only foundation to base your objections on you can no longer argue it’s immorality with any ability.
So please inform us, how is it that you justify these positions?
“At my signal, unleash hell.”
-Gladiator
‘Bastard virtues’; that indeed know not their fathers, and therefore have no names.
-The Two Gentlemen of Verona by William Shakespeare
It was so putrid I couldn’t take my eyes off it.
-The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
antiutopia has left the building.
@StareClips…no, scripture was never intended to be “read from a philosophical perspective”. The (adamic) mind is actually opposed to scripture, can not comprehend or appreciate spiritual words. “As many as are led by the Spirit, these are the sons (spiritual offspring) of God” Romans 8:14. When we try and deduce the spiritual journey into a logical sphere, we get way off course.
As far as Moses goes…you must understand that He is not a mere historical (meaningless) figure, but rather a type and foreshadowing of Christ (Liberator, Emancipator). Time to go deeper friend, time to “pierce the veil” (of the flesh) Heb 6:19 and enter into the realm of the spirit-that’s where we find the real life He intended for us. All the best.
@John C,
I disagree.
Colossians 1:16-17
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Colossians 2:3
in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
John 1:4
In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
John 1:9
The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
There are many examples equating that wisdom and knowledge come from God. That Jesus is an example of how we should be. And that Jesus was wise and knowledgeable. That you suggest that Christians should be adverse to wisdom and knowledge suggests that you think otherwise.
“The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.
But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.”
StareClip…we can only “know” Father (who is Spirit, John ch 4) via our own spirit man where He is one with us (1Cor 6:17). A logical, heady approach to Him is fruitless and will keep you bound up in religion (ie knowing something “about” God) by the a mere textual ascent. But if we are to really “know” Him (look it up in scripture, it has an intimate meaning) it must be from the deepest aspect of our being, our spirit man.
I wish you all the very best, journey along.
I understand this… I wasn’t suggesting that only purely scientific logic need be applied… in fact, if you read everything else I’ve typed, I already talk about this.
What I meant was that we are not meant to follow through blind faith alone… but are meant to apply wisdom and knowledge to our lives.
What is the evidence for the “perfection of God”?
Why would a person believe that a creator, if it exists, is perfect?
God is perfect because he is God. He created everything. Plus, the Bible says he is.
Open and shut case.
Again, you’re dealing with semantics. It is apparent that you and I are just using different definitions of the word.
You ignore the fact that language is fluid… bear can be an animal, or to endure something. These words are just words and have no meaning unless put into a much larger context.
When I say “perfect” I am referring to “that which God intended”. Imperfection is sin.
You ask for evidence of the perfection of God, but that presupposes that the definition of “perfection” you are using has nothing to do with God.
If your definition of “perfection” pertains to human understanding, then by asking the question you are only putting God into a “box” to be defined by humans. What you would then be arguing about is a man-made God. That is not the God I speak of. I speak of the God that preceded man. The Creator of all things.
If “perfect” only means “that which God intended” then it is a pointless term. If God is all powerful then everything is “that which God intended”. Additionally if perfect no longer means “being without defect or blemish” or unable to be improved by any means (the definition of a perfect God that St. Augustine and the vast majority of other christian philosophers use) then it becomes completely possible that God is a nasty, vindictive, petty, greedy, arrogant, spoiled little child who only wants to get his way. If perfection or even morality are defined as god-like then to say God is either perfect or moral is as pointless as saying that Bob is Bob. If the statement is completely circular then God is neither moral nor perfect. Why should we worship a God who is even more petty and immoral than your average human?
If “perfect” is “being without defect or blemish”, then how are “defect” and “blemish” decided? By vote. When is a birth mark a beauty mark? When is is a defect or blemish and something which adds beauty, when some people even using makeup to simulate?
When is a “mutation” in DNA determined to be “good”, when it is determined to be “neutral”, and when is it determined to be “bad”? A disease is abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions. At what point can a disease simply be seen as “part of an organism’s bodily function” and, thus, no longer be a disease?
You see, this problem exists outside of religion, where scientists and other collectives are making arbitrary decisions about what is “natural” and what is “unnatural”. After all, if a human is nothing more than another life form in the Animal Kingdom… and the human brain is simply more advanced, with greater capacity for complex communication and a better skill-set for manipulating tools… we simply build mechanical devices, just as any animal might use resources to build a dwelling or to capture food… and with these mechanical devices, we can build nuclear weapons. Therefore, if we are from nature, and nuclear weapons are from us, then are nuclear weapons not simply natural? If not, then what makes a bird’s nest natural?
These kinds of philosophical debates are not owned or created by religion. Instead, it is these kinds of philosophical debates which might lead someone to God.
If we define “natural” versus “unnatural” using our own whim, then essentially we are declaring ourselves gods. We are declaring ourselves in charge of defining and deciding the fate of forces that existed prior to us… exist along side of us… and will continue to exist despite us. What makes us so arrogant to think that we can define what is or isn’t natural? What is or isn’t perfect? What is or isn’t right? If we make that determination alone, not through mere common observation, but through our own logic and way of thinking that is different than the way of thinking of all life forms on this planet, do we not run the risk of being arrogant… and only “correct” where the definition of “correct” is “what we all agree on”?
I don’t feel we’re at the top… I feel that the definition of what is natural and what is unnatural was around before we even existed… exists along side us… and will exist despite us. I believe that the nature of God is this “nature” that we are able to observe… as well as the supernatural that we are unable to observe, but which is responsible for all of Creation. It makes sense, then, that perfection… true perfection, outside of our own choice of dictionary definition… existed before us… exists along side of us… and will continue to exist despite us.
The idea of God being perfect only falls apart if you assume that God is on the same playing field as us… that we are His equals… we aren’t. He’s in charge. We are His Creation. If perfection exists, and you believe in God, then God must be perfect… or else, there is a point where you could be perfect when God is not. If this were the case, He would not be God at all.
Nothing is “unnatural”. The very concept is a flawed conceptualization of humans trying to place themselves above and separate from animals. Anything that exists in nature is natural. We, being animals, exist in nature and therefor anything we do is natural.
Your blemish may be beautiful, but it is still an imperfection. Of course that is not exactly what I am going for though. One of the basic theological arguments for God is the ontological argument.
1. God is perfect by definition.
2. To exist is superior, and therefore more perfect, than to not exist.
3. A God which did exist in reality would be superior, and therefore more perfect, than a God which existed only in thought.
4. Therefore God, being absolute perfection, cannot have the flaw of not existing.
Now of course the argument is ridiculous, however it one of the many facets of perfection that God has been given over the centuries. The bible also speaks of God’s perfection. In God’s perfection there are actual traits. There is his perfect and absolute knowledge, his perfect and absolute presence, his perfect and absolute power, and his perfect and absolute love. These are also known as omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.
What I was arguing though is that by defining perfect as “like God” or anything similar robs the word of its power to describe God. How can one gauge the perfection of God if he is it’s definition? If we measure the redness of a particular red we are compare it to something else, the archetypal red. If we measure how Bobness of Bob we compare it to archetypal Bob.
Calling God perfect, while defining perfection based on God is redundant and purposeless. If this is the case then if God is genocidal, evil, and loves to torture people that is perfect.
We can be compared to God. God shares all of our traits, only amplified. That is the problem with creating an anthropomorphic God. God gets angry, jealous, has wants, wishes for things to be different, has to ask questions about reality, feels compassion, punishes the innocent, uplifts those he agrees with, etc. etc. God, as described in the old testament of the bible, is exactly like any other human who is given extraordinary power.
God in the new testament begins heading towards the non-anthropomorphic God, much like Taoism. However Paul and others then begin to drag him back down into having desires and wants. You cannot have an anthropomorphic God and then claim that he is nothing like humans. What is it that separates him from us? I say it is no different than animals and humans, a division created in your mind that has no bearing on reality. If God is just like us, only more powerful, then we have every right to judge his actions. Furthermore, by examining the actions of God we are examining the actions that those who follow him consider commendable. Even more than examining God, we are examining Christians to determine what values your religion says you should hold. When those values are atrocious we have every right to claim so. As long as you follow a book filled with barbarism and try to convince others that this book is actually positive, we will continue to point out that your book, and your God, are in fact evil.
“God gets angry, jealous, has wants, wishes for things to be different, has to ask questions about reality, feels compassion, punishes the innocent, uplifts those he agrees with, etc. etc. God, as described in the old testament of the bible, is exactly like any other human who is given extraordinary power.”
Very well said. People can’t disconnect their idea with God from the anthropomorphic God. A loving father figure is just so appealing.God loves you has such a nice, comforting ring to it. When someone tells me “That’s what God wants” it is the equivalent of them saying “Look at me – I can fly!!!”
“Why would a person believe that a creator, if it exists, is perfect?”
Because it says so, right on the label.
Stareclips – you obviously enjoy debating and can speak well for yourself however it’s pretty clear we’re not going to convince you of anything and you’re not going to convince us. As soon as you say things like “God wants”, as if you know the “wants” of the omnipotent being or that such a being would “want” anything, you lose credibility – at least with me. It boggles my mind how thinking, intelligent Christians cannot read about God getting angry (exhibiting human emotion) and not instantly conclude it’s a made up story!
I didn’t feel that the intention of anyone here was to convince me of anything. Also, I did not come here to convince anyone else of anything. I came here for two reasons:
1) The quote in the picture had been taken out of context.
2) I am a Christian and I believe same-sex marriage should be legalized.
These were two facts that some here were apparently oblivious to, so I was enlightening them. In turn, my faith was attacked by taking more quotes out of context. So, the cycle continued.
To me, the discussion was similar in nature to one where people may argue about the true pronunciation of the word “zoology”. I am a purist, so it bothers me when even zoologists sound out “zoo” in the word. Yet, I recognize enough, that language is fluid and that the “proper” pronunciation (and in some cases, spelling) is only dictated by the most common use. So, even if my pronunciation is right… as long as the majority is wrong, I now become wrong, because in language, the majority wins.
Most of the discussion based around these types of semantics and could take place with any healthy philosophical debate. I enjoyed it. Not so much the attacks on my faith or the attacks on my intelligence or the occasional name-calling by the drive-by poster… but all in all, it was an interesting discussion. (And still will be, if it continues.) If I didn’t feel it was worth my time, I would have stopped a long time ago.
That is a poor analogy. There is no objective truth of correct pronunciation; language is an artificial construct, the rules are whatever we agree on, or anyway whatever authority you choose to respect. But there is objective truth about whether there are gods: there either are, or there aren’t. A universe with gods is very different from a universe without gods! Claims about gods are claims about reality, far removed from mere opinion. “Flaccid is correctly pronounced FLAK-sid*” and “I like chocolate” are opinions. “God exists” is not an opinion, it is either a fact or falsehood, true or false.
It’s not a semantic debate. You choose to characterize objections to supernatural claims as “attacks on your faith”. That is about as appropriate as saying abolitionism was an “attack on slavery”. Technically true, but terribly misleading. Religious ideas shouldn’t get Automatic Respect any more than any other ideas. I don’t respect religious ideas, I think they are irrational and dangerous.
* double-Cs are always make hard kuh sounds, like success, accept, accommodate…
Rather than “God exists”, since you don’t accept this is an opinion. Then, how about “I believe that God exists.” as an opinion. And, “It is my opinion that you are wrong.”
:D
Been absent for awhile, partly from the flu, partly from intense busyness. Yes, I will Invite a Cheap Shot: I came down with H1N1, and let me tell you, that is the Absolute Worst Flu I Have Ever Had. I am serious. If you can get vaccinated, get vaccinated. Wasn’t available in my area.
Let the stupid swine jokes begin! Even their very predictability won’t prevent them.
Did see some attempts at rational answers. Very disappointed in those who have been following me the longest, as they demonstrate a unique obtuseness toward understanding an argument that incorporates some very simple ideas, such as:
1. The progression of revelation.
2. The progressive nature of Biblical covenants.
3. The resulting idiocy of identifying every Mosaic law as necessarily binding in the present.
(What if Divine revelation told you that Divine revelation was progressive? — the promise of a new covenant and another prophet was indeed part of the Mosaic law, O Blblical Illiterates and Xenophobic Criticizers of a Religion You Have Never Understood, Even if You Once Had It).
Ignorant Christians who lose their faith turn into ignorant atheists.
I also see a unique obtuseness and horrifying ignorance among those who identify these as -my- ideas, instead of seeing them as elemental parts of the oldest Christian traditions — especially since I’ve cited texts and authors.
The other problem is that newer respondents, some of whom are attempting reasoned responses, can’t reasonably be expected to go back and reread everything I’ve already posted. Unfortunately, the net result of newer, possibly intelligent respondents and older, idiotic responses is that I am forced to keep repeating the same points. It’s not worth it.
However, Elemenope keeps bringing up the notion of contradiction. I will assume the fundamental contradiction she sees in Christianity is the idea of Jesus being fully human and fully God.
Yes, that is indeed a conceptual contradiction. On the nature, function, and necessity of that conceptual contradiction to Christianity as a faith-based religion, I would refer you to Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript.
However, the fact of a conceptual contradiction tells us nothing about the _nature of reality_
Reality is not obligated to fit neatly into our concepts. Sometimes, concepts have to bend to meet reality. So proving the existence of a fundamental, conceptual contradiction within Christianity has nothing to do with the _existence of God_. If a thing exists, it exists. If our concepts can’t explain its existence, that doesn’t make it exist any less.
Because I agree that a conceptual contradiction lies at the root of Christian belief, I have not yet made any attempt to prove the existence of God. That is only something you can come to accept by experiencing it for yourself, and frankly, I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Instead, I’ve devoted my time to demonstrating the fundamental ignorance of atheists about the history, nature, and facts of Christian belief, but I have not made a single attempt to rationally demonstrate the existence of God. I take Kant’s critique of the traditional proofs of God’s existence in Critique of Pure Reason as successful — the arguments/evidence work both ways, so no argument can lead us to a conclusion.
I’ve attempted instead to demonstrate how Christians have reasoned in the past about these historic beliefs. And no, it doesn’t matter that most Christians in the past were not educated, O Remarkable Moron Who Made This Brilliant Observation, since they were all TAUGHT by those who were, You Incredible Misser of the Obvious in an Attempt to Score a Cheap Shot.
Oh, and just another fact for you — not all right wingers are “fundamentalists.” I’ve never heard anything so stupid in all my life. By that reasoning, every atheist here shares direct responsibility for the 50 million or so murdered under Stalinist Russia, and the millions murdered in communist China, both of which were/are doctrinally atheist states that demand atheism of those who would participate in state machinery.
And yes, we all do still get to vote, and yes, we all still do have the right to shape the polis into anything we want. Sorry you all have such trouble with this basic human right, but, well, hard to believe you’re so concerned with gay marriage as a right when you demonstrate no concern for the political rights of those who wish to oppose it.
I’ve read some very intelligent atheists. They’ve taught be a great deal. Wish I was learning more here — instead, you all are just driving me into theism with your stupid responses, forcing a delusion upon me. How can you do that to me and live with yourselves?
Only a few points on this.
I don’t know about everyone else, but the major problem I have, what I see as the fundamental flaw with religion; is that it says that absolute obedience to a higher power (God and his priesthood) is commendable. Blind obedience is never commendable, it is a character flaw, not a virtue. The blind obedience is the cause of every single atrocity that has been perpetrated in the name of Christianity, all other religions, and even atheist regimes like Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China. Any revealed religion, of which Christianity is one, cultivates and depends on blind obedience. Something out there has the answers. To discover them we just have to ask and then trust in the answerer. Rationalism requires that we actually investigate the answer for ourselves and don’t trust anything or anyone without sufficient evidence.
There is no right to discriminate. You have the right to hate me, but you do not have the right to take away my rights because you hate me. That is why we live in a constitutional republic. Our founding fathers realized that if given the chance the majority would violate the rights of the minority. No one has the right to take your basic human liberties away, including the liberty to associate with whomever you wish to. So no, people do not have the right to shape the polis into anything they desire. If they did then I would have the right to take away your freedom of religion. Hell, we would even have the right to declare that certain groups are okay to kill. I mean, if that’s what the majority wants then it must be right…right?
D’n
At no time prior to the mid-20thC was marriage considered a “right,” at least not to my knowledge. Priests, judges, ministers, etc., always maintained the right to refuse to perform a marriage. Defining marriage as a right in the gay marriage debate is begging the question, as of course if it is a right (like the right to free speech) it cannot be denied.
But the state is not allowed to show favoritism and bigotry because we are all equal under the eyes of the law, are we not? It’s not dissimilar from what happened with the mixed race marriages.
There are no criteria to sign a marriage contract that cannot be performed by consenting adult homosexual people. If there was, demonstrably, such a criteria – and no, procreation is NOT part of said criteria, as elderly and infertile people are allowed to marry and there’s nowhere saying that the contract is founded on procreative capacity – there might be a case, but there isn’t. The only criteria is differenciation of a given group of people, for no particular reason other than tradition and fear.
Again: the state is not allowed to discriminate based on tradition, customs or religious bias. That it does so up to this date is disgusting and immoral.
Loving v. Virginia in 1967. The supreme court in its 9-0 decision stated “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Here is where the courts first established that everyone has a right to marry.
Also you are using the logical fallacy of Appeal to tradition. You are saying that just because something has always been done some way that it is right. We know this is not true because slavery was not considered wrong until the late 1700′s. If the fact that marriage was not considered a right for thousands of years makes it not a right, then slavery, also acceptable for thousands of years is acceptable. Your fallacy doesn’t work.
When you accuse me of begging the question you are wrong. The fallacy of begging the question is when ones conclusion is buried in ones premise. Marriage as a right is a different premise entirely. If you want I can lay that one out for you. I had thought you were intelligent and well learned enough to know that marriage has been a right in our country for over 40 years. Apparently I was wrong. Once it is established that marriage is a right then it follows that one cannot deny marriage.
1. Marriage is a natural right.
2. No government or group of people has the right to deny natural rights to another group of people.
3. Therefore no government or group of people has the right to deny marriage to another group of people.
You can argue the truth of my first premise, but you can’t accuse me of logical fallacies. I’m a philosopher (degreed), I know my fallacies.
You want the basic argument for the right of marriage?
1. The United States is based on a secular constitution that explicitly “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Respecting a religion is giving it preferential treatment in comparison to other religions, including the lack of religion.
2. The United States sanctions marriages with many secular benefits.
3. The only arguments brought forth against gay marriage are religious in nature.
4. Because of premise 1 and premise 2 the United States cannot deny marriage based on any religious qualifications.
If you really want to understand the concepts of freedom and natural rights you need to read Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Thomas Paine (three of the most influential men in the formation of natural rights.) Natural rights are the basis of our system of government and our constitution. Until you can understand what rights are, please refrain from spreading your ignorance.
Some things just need to be shared…
http://satireandcomment.com/0208toast.html
Translation: We’ve been Poe’d.
Very amusing, I laughed.
D’n:
According to Robert Solomon’s Introduction to Philosophy, the ontological argument for the existence of God has been demonstrated to be a logically valid proof for the existence of God. It needed to be slightly rephrased from its original construction, but it has been subject to not only the scrutiny of many logicians but also computer analysis.
The existence of a logically valid argument for the existence of God does not in fact mean that God exists, as existence and human reason need not coincide at any point.
The rest of your recent posts are sheer stupidity. Very disappointing, I was hoping you were one of the smart ones. No, the Christian and Jewish religions do not demand unquestioning obedience to all perceived divine commands. But I guess the book of Job and Christ’s last words on the cross were left out of every Bible you’ve read…
…you’re still talking??
“The existence of a logically valid argument for the existence of God does not in fact mean that God exists, as existence and human reason need not coincide at any point.”
Beautiful!
funny you mention Christ’s last words. There are 3 different versions – from supposed eyewitnesses. But I’m sure you conveniently ignore that.
“The rest of your recent posts are sheer stupidity. Very disappointing, I was hoping you were one of the smart ones”.
It’s still You talkin’ Anti, and that’s the problem friend. Won’t you (finally) die to Self and let Him love thru you? Time to grow up (in Him) bro.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Wait, are you serious?
The ontological argument stands up to computer analysis?! How would one even begin to examine such an inane statement as this. Computers don’t understand language yet. We haven’t reached that level of A.I. Unless you have HAL from 2001 hidden in your room you can’t claim that any logical argument has been tested by computers. Maybe you just meant that you spell checked it in Word.
The ontological arguments died in the middle ages. Do you really need me to refute the various forms of the argument? Should I bring up the perfect Island? Or maybe I should bring up the inherent flaw in Descartes “I believe in God and so he must exist” argument (only used so that he could begin to actually believe in reality). Do you propose the inanity that laws of science require meta-laws of science which require meta-meta-laws of science? Do you propose the unmoved mover argument which is utterly demolished by an understanding of time as a dimension and Hawkings 4th dimensional spherical universe? Are you going to pull out the lame necessary being argument claiming that God is required for the universe to exist which is also being constantly refuted by scientific discovery?
Have you ever read the book of Job, or Christs last words? Let’s start with Jesus. Matthew 26:39 “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.” shows Jesus submitting to the will of God. Let’s compile all of the last words here:
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”
“It is finished.”
Let’s examine these. One-”My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus is upset with God for making him go on the cross. Jesus refused to flee the city (exemplified in the cup quote) and thus submitted to God’s judgment and forsaking.
Two-”Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” Jesus gives himself up to God. How is this not submission again?
Three-”It is finished.” This is a reference to the plan for salvation and fulfilling prophecy. Again Jesus submitted to this plan. I fail to see how any of these quotes tell us to defy supernatural authority.
Job, you really bring up Job. The book begins with God telling Satan that Job is “blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil”. Satan then convinces God to allow him to torture Job to see if Job will turn against God. After being tortured by Satan, listening to his friends tell him that he must be secretly and evil man, Job finally asks why God would punish him when he has been righteous all his life (as God also claimed in the beginning). God then comes down in a whirlwind and chastises Job for ever questioning him. God claims his authority via power (mentioning corners of the earth and leviathans). Once Job apologized for questioning God and then God gives Job back his money and some more children. Job was punished for no reason, then when he questioned why he was punished God threatened to strike him down for insolence until Job apologized.
You seriously need to choose your examples better.
Check. Your move.
D’n… logical arguments are parsed into equations and can be analysed with computers, though humans still do it faster.
the weakness of the Ontological argument is not in its construction, but in its assumptions, such as that existence is more perfect than nonexistence.
The equations only verify validity not soundness.
Ah, VidLord, a little bit of knowledge is an amazing thing.
Christ spoke in Aramaic.
The Gospels are written in Greek.
You read them in English translation.
And you think variations in language are…meaningful? What a dumbass.
I knew your response would have no substance whatsoever.
Words: They mean whatever Antiutopia wants them to mean.
What a dumbass.
Only a person who speaks no other languages could possibly come out with a steaming pile like that. I mean it. When you translate, you don’t just translate words. Sometimes there is no equivalent foreign word and you have to attempt to describe what the word means. Other than that, langauges come from different roots and have all kinds of different gramatical rules and structures. When you start talking about English and Latin, you’re into languages which have tenses that most other languages don’t even have – So yes, I think VidLord is absolutely 100% correct to say that stories which were originaly written in dead languages like ancient Aramaic (as distinct from modern Aramaic) and then translated into Greek (by scribes who would alter things to fit their own interpretations as they went, by the way) in documents like the Codex Sinaiticus (which you can view online in its entirety here if you want to examine the 20,000 differences between the oldest known bible and the King James version) and from there into Latin (a nightmare language all on its own), then German (a language with words that other languages can’t even attempt) and then English (another nightmare language with things like future-perfect tense to deal with among others).
Knowing all of that, I hope you’ll agree that variations in language are HUGELY meaningful.
I realise that I didn’t actually conclude that fifth sentence; it got rather lost as it became longer. I think my point is clear, though.
Custador if you’re waiting for hope, you might want to pack a few extra lunches and update your will.
Variations in language are meaningless for Anti because only he is capable of understanding the will of his imaginary god. We’re just too stupid to accept his obvious masterhood of fantasyland.
“what a dumbass”. Dont you know bro that you lose all credibility (what little credibility believers have in unbelieving cyberspace) when you resort to name-calling? Wake up man.
Respectfully John, but nobody gives a rat’s arse what Antiutopia thinks or who he gives credibility to.
John C — Christ himself doesn’t have any credibility with these ignorant morons — do you think any Christian will? There’s little hope for arguing in good faith here. The best you can hope to do is illuminate the ignorance in case one of them happens to actually love the truth on its own terms.
Which none of them seem to do.
Siberia– again, calling the exclusion of gays from marriage “bigotry” and “prejudice” begs the question because it assumes marriage is a civil right. Marriage laws can be designed to support procreation (which they always have been) without requiring that every single married couple actually procreate.
I’d ask for demonstration that marriage was considered a civil right prior to the 19th or 20th C, or that gay marriage was even considered a possibility, but no one here is really interested in facts, history, or reason. If any of them were literate, they might find Ovid’s account of Iphsis in the Metamorphoses interesting, but even there, the gods intervened and a man married a woman in the end.
Ah, Custador, you can’t have it both ways. Identifying a contradiction requires _equivalences_ between languages, equivalences which VidLord assumes in order to claim a contradiction. You’re really arguing with the wrong person here.
A more intelligent response would have been about the specifics — Matt and Mark record “My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken me?”; John, “It is finished”; and Luke, “Into your hands I commit my spirit.” These are clearly not just differences in translation.
Never mind that VidLord’s observation was a rather stupid diversionary tactic to begin with, about how religion is about blind obedience and unquestioning belief.
Matt and Mark also record that Christ “cried out with a loud voice” — which makes it possible that this account registers that Christ said one of the two other phrases, but that his words were unintelligible to the author of Matt. while they may not have been Luke or John. Most traditional readings assume that Christ said all three phrases at the end. Differences in detail in eyewitness accounts make the eyewitness accounts more credible, actually, rather than less, because each eyewitness will notice different details, observing the scene from a different point of view. There really is no clear contradiction here — but if it comforts VidLord to think so, that’s fine.
Note that even in traditional ascriptions of authorship, only Matthew and John are direct eyewitness accounts. Mark is assumed to have received most of his information from Peter and Luke claims to have interviewed eyewitnesses.
“Matt and Mark record “My God, My God, Why hast Thou forsaken me?”; John, “It is finished”; and Luke, “Into your hands I commit my spirit.” These are clearly not just differences in translation.”
Well, no! They’re clear evidence that at least two and possibly all four of them were (what is technically known in linguistic circles as) making this shit up as they went. How can you point out inconsistencies over something so huge and central to the genesis of Christianity and yet still maintain that it isn’t significant? The mental contortionism required is just baffling, and surely not healthy!
Custador:
I’m talking about the basic realities of any historical study. If you think any study of history has a very neat and seamless relationship to its sources, you just haven’t studied it much. There are no contortions involved in my reasoning in my previous post, and I am unaware of any internal evidence from the Gospels that indicate they’re just “making it up as they go along.” Most scholarship has assumed the general dependence of Matthew and Luke upon Mark and all three about a sayings source, usually called Q.
If you think religious faith proceeds directly from the literal sense of Scripture and nothing else, then you haven’t been following this thread very long.
John C:
Cliche pieties aren’t holiness, and you’re not even thinking about what you’re saying. On the one hand, you complain that “I’m” not being taken seriously because of how “I’m” responding, then you reply again with banalities about how there’s no “I” anymore with you — in a response that’s completely about yourself, and clearly intended to demonstrate to me how Christian you are.
I prefer honest hostility to pious duplicity.
Is it possible for a dead man to be offended? Of course not. But that’s what’s going on when you reply to unbelievers (and me) with name calling, retaliation, etc. We are only offended to the degree that we are still alive to ourselves and not unto Him. You know something about God (which typifies religion) but it’s all external and “logical”, historical book stuff.
It’s his nature that must be formed in us Anti, all the best friend.
“If you think religious faith proceeds directly from the literal sense of Scripture and nothing else, then you haven’t been following this thread very long.”
Without the Scripture you have nothing – absolutely nothing to base your belief system on. It is the foundation upon which all the tradition etc you exclaim comes from. As elemnope put it, if that foundation is set in sand – no amount of tradition or logical hoop jumping can prop it up. It is precisely the Scripture itself that must withstand criticism. In this particular case – it cannot and simply never will – no matter what words or justification you care to put effort into making it so.
^+10
Anti, you talk as if you know what it is to be a historical scholar, but you clearly don’t. Most historians concede that the bible has value in interpreting subsequent English literature, but as a historical source it’s complete crap. Whether you like it or not, that;s what your faith is ultimately based on- the bible. If you can’t believe what it says, then your faith is meaningless or insanity, one or the other.
Anti-no, “I” dont have any credibility either but the difference is that “I”m not looking for it or expecting it because “I” died with Christ on the cross, Romans 6.6, that is my old, inherited, faulty adamic self and nature and now its “no longer “I” that’s doing the living in me but Christ, His nature is living thru me” Gal 2:20. Like Paul instructed “I” have “reckoned” myself dead and buried. Your problem is that you’re still assuming an independent self and that’s why you still manifest your old dead nature that went to the cross with Him. That old man that died…dont resurrect him, he has nothing to offer this world, let him go, lose your life…for His.
Scripture says “Christ who IS our life”. Christ is not now an historical, physical man as in the gospel stories, its Christ IN you that Paul revelated and called “the mystery of all time”. He wants to manifest His life and nature in and through you, but first you have to follow Him to the cross…and die. Then you can experience union life and the lie of an independent Self is vanquished. Ahh…peace.
Wow, thanks, VidLord, for demonstrating once again complete ignorance of any Christian tradition but the most extreme of post-Enlightenment Reformed Christianity…
Thanks, John C. You’ve really changed my life. Really.
How can you claim it’s extreme Christianity to base your faith on the bible?! Anti, your position is ludicrous!
This thread has gone to plaid.
Positively tartan.
D’n –
Thank you for providing a source for marriage as a civil right prior to the mid-20thC; i.e., 1967. Not exactly big on math? Since marriage laws are determined on a state by state basis, you cannot of course argue that a decision by one court in one state is binding for all people at all time. And the point is that _legal precedent_ actually does in fact have a little bit to do with how courts should rule, so my argument from “tradition” is not a fallacy at all in this case.
I’ve said many other things too, of course. That if the polis supports it, it’ll become law. Etc. But if you want to make legal or moral arguments in support of gay marriage, you really don’t have much to go on except however individual states rule.
No, it’s not true that all arguments against gay marriage are “religious in nature.” I’ve been advancing some non-religious arguments here.
Furthermore (and again if you knew anything about history), the separation of church and state has _nothing_ to do with the separation of IDEAS but the separation of INSTITUTIONS. The context is Puritans fleeing a Great Britain in which the head of state was also the head of the church, in this case the King of England. Test and Incorporation Acts were passed requiring that one subscribe to a body of doctrine in order to be a civil servant. THAT’S what the separation of church and state was designed to prevent and…oh yes… arguments for it were religious in nature.
City of God and City of Man? Martin Luther? “Render unto Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar, unto God what belongs to God”? Have you guys read Anything written before 1950? Or do you just read the nonsense that supports your position?
On another note, I am not claiming perfect historical veracity for every event in the Bible. I am saying you all are remarkably, stupidly ignorant of the history of Christian INTERPRETATION of the Bible, stupidly identifying fundamentalist readings of Scripture with “default Christian” readings of Scripture.
This is not a debatable point to any knowledgeable person.
You all are not knowledgeable people.
There were same sex marriages in ancient Rome until it was outlawed in 342 CE.
Legal precedent was created in 1967. Guess what, every legal precedent had to start at some point. By your argument I can claim that since the Magna Carta didn’t exist in 1000 CE that it has no legal value. History and tradition do not make something true.
No, the polis is not allowed to make any law they desire. Constitution, do you even understand our system of government. Constitutions prevent legislatures and the polis from taking away rights. Maybe it will become law, but just because something succeeded doesn’t mean it was right or legal.
Name one non-religious argument that can’t be shot full of holes in seconds. As for your protection of procreation, that is not the point of marriage at all. The point of marriage is to allow two people to share their lives. It allows them medical rights, legal rights, and economic rights as a unified entity.
Yes, we are separating institutions. We are separating religious dictates (from the institution of the church) from legal dictates (from the institution of the government).
When reading the bible we simply claim that the words mean what they mean. You are the one who has to constantly revise what your God said because you don’t agree with it anymore.
On another note, I am not claiming perfect historical veracity for every event in the Bible.
Does your Bible have asterisks for the parts you should take with a grain, or is it a more modern Bible with “j/k” printed in the margins every third paragraph or so?
I am saying you all are remarkably, stupidly ignorant of the history of Christian INTERPRETATION of the Bible, stupidly identifying fundamentalist readings of Scripture with “default Christian” readings of Scripture.
This is not a debatable point to any knowledgeable person.
You all are not knowledgeable people.
Epic.
D’n –
You are such a remarkably ignorant jackass you amaze me.
All verbal formulas can be translated into formal logic, which does in fact look very much like advanced math.
Never mind the fact that there are plenty of computer programs out there doing textual analysis.
I cited a source. Robert C. Solomon, Introducing Philosophy, A Text with Readings (7th ed.) Harcourt College Publishers, 2001. P. 140 explains modern reformulations BY CONTEMPORARY LOGICIANS of the ontological argument that gets around Kant’s critique (existence is not a predicate) and does lead to the conclusion, “God exists.”
But, doesn’t matter, no one here is really interested in reason.
The most famous of which was Goedel’s modal version.
Which didn’t work.
Plantinga’s is also entertaining. And wrong.
It’s not that we’re aren’t aware of these language and logic games. It’s that we’re aware that they’re games.
Well, I seem to have left my copy of Robert C. Solomon, Introducing Philosophy, A Text with Readings (7th ed.) Harcourt College Publishers, 2001. in my other pants so I can’t actually read what it says. Do I then have to just believe you that it has defeated all arguments and proven God? Sorry, it doesn’t really work that way.
I find Kant to be a little crazy for me. Thus when he states that existing isn’t a property I put it in the same category as him saying that we can’t really determine that cause and effect are in any way linked. It is interesting as a mind stretching exercise but nothing more.
Okay, you could possibly use computers to check the validity of logical arguments. i.e. if A=B and B=C then A=C. However that does not in any way assert the truth of the argument. If A does not in fact equal B then the argument is Valid (mathematically correct) but is unsound (untrue).
Besides, if you show me even one ontological argument that relies on God being the greatest possible then I can show you six people who would each have a different view of the greatest possible being. Unless God is all of these different beings at the same time (even though most of them will require him to be not any other form of being) then God can’t be the greatest possible being.
So, citing a page out of a book that we don’t have access to doesn’t prove or show anything. My claim is that the argument out of your book is refutable.
Yep — the words of the Bible are plain and simple and mean what they mean. Like the words of the Constitution — plain and simple, they mean what they mean, they only mean one thing, and can only mean one thing.
Some people never quit being fundamentalists.
Being a legal scholar, correct me if I’m wrong: I thought the Constitution could be ratified. Yes, we can bring back slavery with a Constitutional Amendment if we wanted to. It would be wrong, but we could do it.
The constitution is a guideline, a basis for formulating our government. The purpose of the constitution is to limit powers. The constitution does not formulate the entirety of our government. The basic formula of the constitution is “natural rights of the people protected from the government”. The basic formula of the bible is “obey God in all things”. The basic formula of the constitution is sound, the basic formula of the bible is unsound. We quote the bible to show you its unsoundness.
Yes, we CAN (as in “have the ability to”) amend the constitution to bring back slavery. We CAN also amend the constitution to require that all people over 6 foot tall must be boiled alive in hot oil. However both of these go against the basic formula of the constitution. The purpose of a constitution is to prevent the majority from infringing upon the liberties of the minority. By putting constitutional amendments that destroy the right of two people to share their lives the amendments are violating the defining purpose of the constitution and thus rendering it garbage. If the constitution cannot protect the minority from the polis then it is dead.
And yes, one does pretty much read the constitution as it is written. When it says “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” we don’t try to interpret if they really meant no religious tests, or maybe they only metaphorically meant no religious tests. If we did start allowing our government to take the constitution metaphorically you would see a lot of police officers saying “we take the 4th amendment protection against search and seizure metaphorically in that we should consider it strongly before we strip search you.” Now, I will admit that sometimes the government does seem to take the constitution a bit metaphorically. However they are acting against the constitution when they do this.
” I am saying you all are remarkably, stupidly ignorant of the history of Christian INTERPRETATION of the Bible, stupidly identifying fundamentalist readings of Scripture with “default Christian” readings of Scripture.”
“Yep — the words of the Bible are plain and simple and mean what they mean. Like the words of the Constitution — plain and simple, they mean what they mean, they only mean one thing, and can only mean one thing.”
You are so full of shit that you must crap every time you hiccough.
Custador, your satire detector must have died :-p
OMG you guys are still arguing with this jerk?
I admit, I have a problem letting stupidity and lies just stand. It’s an addiction I know. Maybe one day I’ll get around to attending those meetings. :)
I don’t like it any better, but some people are not worth arguing with. He’s one of them IMO. But if you can’t stop yourself… ;)
I would say that some people have more times on their hands than others … oh and I’m still not convinced that anti- isn’t a troll anyway. Can anybody really be as daft as anti- seems to be?
this Antiutopia guy reminds me of someone from a different site. must be because all trolls behave alike.
Perhaps you have not completely developed your ability to be fully empathetic.
StareClips! (this a very, very late comment)
Curious, are you aware of the youtubers TheoreticalBullshit and DasAmericanAtheist? They are well-versed in The Bible and objective, not-so-snarky debators and I’d love to see if you could reboot any of their arguments.
Just sayin’!
-C
Cucumber –
Don’t know how closely you’ve been following this thread, but “knowledge of the Bible” isn’t the issue. Any moron can read the Bible and make it mean anything that they want, and then blame Christianity for their idiotic reading of Scripture. There’s been plenty of examples of that. Someone truly knowledgeable would be aware of -the different ways that the Bible has been interpreted by different Christians over time, and why-. No one here has demonstrated any of that kind of knowledge.
At any rate, I doubt that the YouTube contributors that you cite are really saying anything new. They just sound smart because they seem to know more than you do.
…it’s baaaaaack…
Ha :) So long as there are ignorant atheists posturing as knowledgeable and intelligent, I’ll be there :)
To make us look good in comparison? Why, you shouldn’t have!
“Knowledge”… I don’t think that word means what you think it means…
Hahaha… no more rhyming, and I mean it.
As usual, the idiots in the peanut gallery make accusations and offer no evidence, no citations of texts, etc. Before you accuse me of doing the same thing, read my comments in this thread. I’m not going to bother repeating myself. Anyone who has read knows that I know what I’m talking about…
“No evidence”… From Mr. Christard 2010…. “No evidence”…. Just…. Wow. You fail at reading as hard as you fail at life. And intelligence. And critical thinking. And a basic understanding of the nature of evidence. And facts. And knowledge. And, oh, a whole raft of other things!
Meh, he’s not fun anymore. It is impossible to fathom what brought him back to his thread of shame, but I’m certainly done with him.
It was Cucumber. Cucumber brought him back.
On a side note, this whole discussion made me think of a t-shirt slogan. I wonder if it has already been used.
My Logic Is More Logical Than Your Logic
Dear Custador -
Pull your head out of your arse and point to a single recent post of yours that presents any evidence for any thing.
Intelligence and knowledge does indeed make one a troll in a forum dominated by the ignorant.
The Dumb is strong with this one.
This thread long ago lost its usefulness, at least it reads that way to me. It has degenerated into an exchange of insults that makes all the participants smell the same. Get over it, let go, move on.
It’s more like a watching a Geek (Antiutopia) at a old fashioned carnival sit down and eat bugs, and glass, and mud pies, wads of used toilet paper and Bite the heads off chickens in a gory display. Trying to get a little human attention to fill the void of loneliness which defines his existence.
We thank thee, O Mystic Tourist, for thy words of deep concern and haughty derision.