You Can’t Have It Both Ways: Part 2
The Split Personality of Christianity
Philosophical vs. Fundamentalism
Christianity has had this split personality for some time now. On one hand you have the obsessive fundamentalist side that is aggressive in nature. On the other hand you have the calm and steady philosophical or cultural (PC) side that has made positive contributions to society. Why should this duality be ignored by skeptics and perpetuated by Christians? If Christians were to "clean their house", I think a reasonable case for a sustainable Christianity could be made.
An Episode of Christian Rivalry: A Brief look at Yale
Back in the day, one of my favorite Homiletics (the study of preaching) writers was a Christian man that was often referred to as a Christian humanist. I am referring to Phillips Brooks, his excellent book is called “Lectures on Preaching”. This book is only one jewel from a source that will surprise many of you. This 1876 lecture was the sixth annual discourse in The Lyman Beecher Lectureship on Preaching presented by the Yale Divinity School in New Haven, Connecticut. One of these lecturing men, Matthew Simpson, participated in the funeral of former US President, Abraham Lincoln. This lectureship series still continues up until the present day.
One of the early presidents of Yale, Timothy Dwight, was the grandson of the heralded revivalist preacher Jonathan Edwards whose famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” garnered historical significance. Timothy Dwight accepted the presidency of Yale college in 1795. Dwight’s grandson, also named Timothy, later accepted the Yale presidency in 1886 and under his direction the college became a university.
The question might be asked, why speak so much about Yale and what role does the university play in this article? The purpose is to briefly touch upon the history of an Ivy League School in order for the reader to get a glimpse into an enduring struggle within Christianity. In 1795, when the elder Timothy Dwight took his leadership role, most Yale men scoffed at the idea of divine revelation. He battled the many forms of skepticism in his day (Mr. Dwight was the Professor of the Divinity School as well as President of Yale College at the same time).
Fundamentalism was abandoned by men of learning, while Philosophical or Cultural Christianity survived
The point being made is that well over 200 years ago, educated men struggled about what role Christianity will play in society. Should Christianity be viewed as today’s’ Fundamentalists desire, or as a philosophical or cultural Christian consideration?
Needless to say, men of learning abandoned the Fundamentalist version of Christianity a very long time ago. Some people within the Fundamentalist persuasion aware of this fact caution young men today about the dangers of a Christian Seminary education, they prefer to refer to it as a cemetery of once well intentioned men and women. Many of today’s Christians would have to be classified as a Philosophical or Cultural (PC) Christians. They would laugh at you if they thought that you thought they actually took the Bible literally.
Philosophical or Cultural Christians (PC) usually don’t get offended when skeptics make fun of Christianity, many times it just isn’t personal! These same Christians can also distance themselves from the Biblical position of creation and identify themselves holding to an evolutionary viewpoint and not see this as any compromise with Christianity.
Checkmate: Fundamentalism Looses
The greater skeptical movement when properly focused can virtually destroy the bible because it is morally perverted, internally inconsistent, historically incorrect, and scientifically wrong. If this were a chess game, someone would have already proclaimed checkmate! When the “truth” of the Bible is destroyed all you have left of Christianity is a philosophical view that the PC holds. I will later point out, that this view isn’t all bad.
It seems that all a fundamentalists can really do is harass a skeptic. They can argue about evolution, decry abortion, wave the flag, and write off people in frustration because the Holy Spirit has not enlightened us heathen to their many crazy views. It appears to me that the best a fundamentalist viewpoint can offer is to incite hatred, divisions and to foment war. Christian Fundamentalism needs to be put away!
Cultural or Philosophical Christians
Several have speculated that the recent atheist surge is due to atheist anger in response to Christian fundamentalists meddling in society. Maybe they are correct, most Christian fundamentalists are certainly annoying. If we could conceivably get rid of fundamentalism, then we would still have the PC Christians to deal with. Funny thing is that most PC’s dislike fundamentalism almost as much as I do. Although I have never heard one say it, they seem to view the fundamentalist as a bastard sibling and are embarrassed to admit that they are actually part of the family.
I strain myself to recall having any conflict with the PC crowd due to religion. My wife holds to a PC position, so I might go with her to church enough to fulfill the PC attendance quota of 1-2 times a year just to be a good sport! Otherwise once an atheist and PC answer the baptism question of their infant child (we didn’t baptize), the remainder is normally smooth sailing. Several Christians dance between the PC and fundamentalist positions when it serves their best interest to do so. Politics, business, and religion do make strange bedfellows, don’t they?
I have vacillated between the two positions of: 1) Trying to destroy Christianity 2) Being passive about PC Christianity. When I survey my thought history, it seems that it is always the fundamentalist position that disturbs me. The PC position only disturbed me when I was a fundamentalist. By no means do I speak for all atheists, atheism is only a reply in answer to an inquiry about theism. The view I am about to present is a “voice in the crowd” about my thoughts concerning PC Christianity. To present this viewpoint, I will need to tread upon some controversial and delicate subject matters!
Don't blame the depravity of communism on atheism
I detest communism. Having lived in Latvia now for sometime, it is hard to dismiss the many negative aspects that communism deposits upon a society. Latvia having had its freedom taken away has had a full generation plus that endured communism up until 1991 when it regained its sovereignty. People need to realize that communism is an economic system as well as a totalitarian position. Many throw atheism into the mix when communism is discussed, but in Latvia’s case Christian churches were allowed during the Soviet occupation. The media never mentioned churches; most of the pre-existing churches were used for other functions during the occupation. Churches were almost non- existent, and those who went to church took risks and problems usually followed those that did attend. Especially if they were communist party members. Schools taught that a belief in any “god” was crazy. They taught that people should do what is best for the Communist party and then for themselves. So atheism wasn’t proclaimed as a position, rather it was presented as a lack of belief in the foolish position of some god existing. With this understanding, you can properly see how atheism existed and functioned.
From Experience: I Would Rather
Live in a “Christian” Society
Let me be the first to label those who would want to “sound bite” my thoughts about rather living in a Christian society as divisive and shallow if they only mention the above heading in discussion. In reality, society is a collective look at a group of individuals and their apparent personal character. Economically when poor people are so close to the “bottom line” of surviving, it is easier to understand why they would lie, cheat and steal for a better life for themselves and the ones that they love. I have noticed that these survival skills of the parents are often either caught or taught by their children. Things you take for granted in a prosperous country can be but a dream in a poor one. Life within a poor country often isn't as enjoyable as one with a history of a good economy is.
Latvia is still a poor country; life isn’t easy for the common man here. My heartbreaks when viewing the elderly, they really struggle! I am trying to raise awareness and the desirability of community building projects for both the elderly and the youth. My plea so far has fallen upon deaf ears. This point is relevant to this discussion because when a generation plus has lived in this type of environment, who is reaching out to help them now? Under communism, the past focus was to give to the party and that the party would take care of you when you got older. The elderly whose prime wealth building years and labor have now come and gone, they were not able to build any meaningful personal reserves for retirement. So who is left to care for them now since their cries to a non-responsive government are unheeded? It has to come from humanists and from the PC Christians. I respect this giving aspect from PC Christians that give as Jesus taught them to give. I think that both atheists and Christians should acknowledge each others positive contributions within our communities. Fundamentalists do send missionaries here, but the focus is upon building the Christian kingdom, not humanitarian reasons. Thus they contribute nothing of community value.
Which society is better, Atheist or Christian?
Now if one were to look at Norway, the world could get a fair assessment of the above question. Norway has done quite well for itself as a secular nation! I understand this due to my wife graduating with a Masters in Economics from a Norwegian University. When people ask which society is better, Atheism or Christian, I think the question is bogus without consideration and including a study of the economic facts. It is difficult to give when you are so close to your own bottom line of survival. People usually give more readily when they have excess in which to give. In Norway’s case, I’d rather live in a secular "atheist" nation. In Latvia’s case, I would rather live in a "Christian" nation (I can only compare to my native USA). American’s are quick to volunteer and give to those in need when they are able. Latvia’s pace is much slower due to economics and the absence of good moral instructions as you would find in PC Christianity. PC Christianity normally chooses the positive values that Jesus’ taught, amongst these are the value of the individual and for human life. Latvia has had its own holocaust, a terrible story that I will probably address at a later date. I cannot help but think, what if that totalitarian government had valued individual life? Yes, I would concede the point that Christianity could have made a difference here, but this we would never truly know.
A Case for a Sustainable Christianity
So when I am tempted in anger to seek the destruction of Christianity, I keep some of the ideas I have mentioned in mind. With this said, I can better see a more rational approach. I would love to see Fundamentalism go away and leave the edifice of PC Christianity in place. I would love to see it reduced from a religion to a philosophy with the positive teachings of Jesus being retained. Then let us place the Bible in either the literature or philosophy section of our libraries and bookstores. Since a PC doesn't accept the Bible literally yet still clings to the facade of Christianity, I wish to coin a phrase about your Bible belief:" If your Bible isn't literal, then it must be literature".
Christianity needs to shed its split personality and say good-bye to fundamentalism. For too long now, it has gotten away with having it both ways. I am just one man seeking those who are rational to examine my proposition. I wouldn’t mind if a sustainable form of PC Christianity survives. My message to Christians is clean up the mess that you have made because you can’t have it both ways!
Brian Worley
Exminister.org
March 1, 2008 revised on March 15, 2008
All rights reserved.
Brian said:
ReplyDelete"If Christians were to "clean their house", I think a reasonable case for a sustainable Christianity could be made."
Of course from an atheist's point of view, "a sustainable
christianity" is not a plausible idea. We don't believe in gods or supernatural beings therefore christianity has no merits whatsoever. The problems it causes are too large to ignore.
The big three religions of the middle east are an immense problem which could cause the destruction of the world as we know it.
The sustainable christianity
Brian speaks of would have to be an organized "cherry picking " of the bible's scriptures. It is my belief
that you have to "poop or get off the pot". Trying to
appease the one group of delusional people over another will not work.
Does anyone really think that Christianity or any other religion will ever be wiped out? Decisions like the value of religion (& etc.) have throughout history always been made in esoteric type of societies. This will always be their call to make. Anyone who doubts this, in my opinion, doesn't understand history well enough. I don't ever see this changing. However, I will do whatever I can to facilitate religion losing its potency.
ReplyDeleteI am not afraid to bring up such ideas like my articles sometimes raise. It takes courage to be a critical thinker and I am willing to take the criticism that does with the territory. I realize that many will perhaps strongly disagree with me. I admit a reluctance sometimes to tread upon certain territory because our community often wants to go for the kill. I certainly am not trying to appease anyone. Religion is detrimental and I do believe that the world would be better off without it!
My understanding of history indicates to me that we will always have to learn to live with religion, I don't really like it, but that is just the way that it will always be! Now with all of this said, I wrote this to show the division within Christianity. Fundamentalism is what is so terrible, it needs to be irradicated from the globe. I am going for the kill on this Fundamentalist aspect of Christianity!
PC Christianity needs to be reduced to a PHILOSOPHY or just plain LITERATURE. In reality, it is already at this point but nobody is saying this publically.
When you have experienced a non-American view of poverty and difficult living as I have witnessed here in Latvia, you might then be able to comprehend and appreciate the contributions made by those PC Christians. Should those down and out say, "well look I don't care for your religion and I for damn sure don't want any handouts from you (Christian)? No, they will take what they can get and usually be appreciative that someone cares about them!
Our collective anger towards Christianity is justified. From my vantage point, the anger stems from Fundamentalism. I think that we should "pin the tail on the right donkey", if you know what I mean. I do think that anger begets anger. It took me some time to get past my own anger, and sometimes still I have to re-examine myself. Anger doesn't always have to be destructive. If properly understood properly, anger can produce many good things because it moves us from a state of inertia. My hope is that you the audience will examine my proposition here and listen to a different type of perspective that I sought to communicate in the latter part of this article.
Hello Brian,
ReplyDeleteThere is no argument, Christianity as a whole, as a collective unit and individually, has made many grievious mistakes. Inhumane, inexcusable mistakes. I am a Christian, and I admit to an organization that has espoused great ignorance and done ignorant things. And I'm no exception.
We can't clean our house if we don't know its filthy. How can we get smarter if we don't admit to ignorance? Yet, I'm a Christian.
I'm not saying this because I want to be a target on your ex-Christian blog. But I'm seeing life through the eyes of the Bible and I don't see the inconsistencies others see. I see a very literal book outlining in some detail life very much like what we see today. And in that book I hear very outspoken opponents to the corruption of the day. Those opponents were called prophets and many suffered or died for what they had to say. Brave, great men, men who would rather suffer than sell out.
But, admittedly, this is not the normal, steady-state life in Judeo-Christianity. The Bible's history clearly shows this and also predicted more of it. Every New Testament writer predicted abundantly on this matter. I going to presume you've read the Bible and know this.
We shouldn't be surprised at the sad state we see today in Christianity, especially in Fundamentalism. And anger is authorized. But, in your previous reading of the Bible during your pre-ex-Christian days, don't you remember a similar situation in the gospels between Christ and the fundamentalist religious leaders of the day? The situation then lays perfectly over the one today.
Maybe this isn't new to you, but it helps me understand what's going on around us today. Its evidence like this that keeps me being a Christian, and an amateur scientific Bible student.
Brian,
ReplyDelete"I would love to see it[Christianity] reduced from a religion to a philosophy with the positive teachings of Jesus being retained."
That would be an ideal situation if it could be achieved.
But would people want to believe that Jesus was only a human being who died long ago, notwithstanding what you call his "positive teachings"?
For one thing, there were, and there still are, many other positive teachings from many people, including knowledge gained from science.
For another thing, Jesus claimed to be "One with the Father"; he claimed to be the Son of the malevolent, destructive god of the Old Testament.
Hence one cannot separate belief or worship in Jesus from belief or worship in the malevolent, maniacal, Old Testament God, can they?
But the big question is: Does the Old Testament god exists, or just pure human imagination?
Once you have decided that God/god is only a figment of human imagination, then you will have to scrap all accounts written about him [she or it or whatever] as pure mythology.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi David,
ReplyDeleteI only have a few minutes now to respond. I am glad you are thinking and reading. I think you should read Part 3 (now on exminister)of this series when I discuss perhaps the greatest of the OT prophets Jeremiah. I suggest this when you say you see a very literal bible. Before you can even get to the NT discussion as you suggest, I think that you have to question the validity of what the OT writers gave you. I wouldn't expect you to be able to answer while this is still posted here, it might take some time to absorb what was said in Part 3. Also, John Tiffany's article should be read. I just think discussing your NT question at this point is premature. No disrespect intended here towards you, but I think what Jeremiah said can't be dismissed.
I will read the article on Jeremiah. Thanks Brian.
ReplyDeleteDavid...Every New Testament writer predicted abundantly on this matter. I going to presume you've read the Bible and know this.
ReplyDeleteDear Christian guest "David",
Yes, most of us know the bible... many, perhaps better than most "Christians". That said, if we scratch beneath the surface of these alleged NT "prophesied" events, it becomes apparent to me, and others, that the NT writers were either rewriting history, or shoe-horning events to fit past "predictions".
But we should give you the benefit of the doubt. That said, feel free to provide one or two of these "predictions" that show a clear-cut case of the fore-telling of the future.
David...We shouldn't be surprised at the sad state we see today in Christianity, especially in Fundamentalism. And anger is authorized. But, in your previous reading of the Bible during your pre-ex-Christian days, don't you remember a similar situation in the gospels between Christ and the fundamentalist religious leaders of the day? The situation then lays perfectly over the one today.
Maybe this isn't new to you, but it helps me understand what's going on around us today. Its evidence like this that keeps me being a Christian, and an amateur scientific Bible student.
When you say "evidence", I wonder, what specifically are you refering to?
Secondly, why is an understanding, and/or, a belief in the "gospels" necessary to have an understanding of "what's going on around us", in 2008? 'Just curious.
Telmi,
ReplyDeleteI gave been thinking about how to answer you. The PC position is so difficult because they don't make commitments like the fundamentalists do. As I had said before in another article, "what do you do with a man who doesn't believe what he says he believes in?" The things that they do believe changes like a kite does in a windstorm. I had revised this article to include the line about "if your Bible isn't literal, then you are reading literature" just for the PC's sake.
I think all of us skeptics should really "hammer" away at these PC's with this "literature line" because they want things both ways. We need to make them commit to a position. When they don't commit, we "pin" them with the LITERATURE position. WHEN IT IS LITERATURE THEN IT ISN'T RELIGION. This is fair and it should drive them crazy. We should address them not as religious people, but as literature students.
So this is how I would answer you. Us skeptics aren't interested in keeping a religion around, but all of us should welcome them doing something positive in our communities. I know it seems that I have avoided your question, but why should we be interested in what they pick and choose to keep? If we entertain this idea about what they should keep then basically we are acquiescing to keeping PC as a religion. So, I would say let them make their own philosophy or literature.
With PC reduced to literature status, we can then focus ALL of our attention towards fundamentalism. I have always thought that fundamentalism was easier to destroy. Knowing what to say to PC's has always been a mystery to me until now.
Brian Worley said:
ReplyDelete“Does anyone really think that Christianity or any other religion will ever be wiped out?”
Realistically? No. It will always be with us in some form or another, perhaps too small to be noticed by a mainstream society but there none the less. There will always be people who need it, the comfort and promises and the hope it engenders. Some people never learn to deal with the negative aspects of life and need religion as their haven. (This is not to discuss the political necessities behind theology.)
There is a helplessness that can threaten to overwhelm us when we are confronted with problems outside the scope of our experience. We have all, without exception, experienced this. Some of us are able to reason our way through it, others look for a shield and still others are overwhelmed. Religion helps with the all three in that regarding the first, parables can be found, both in the problem(s) and the resultant solution(s). This does not change the fact that reason is used for the solution; it’s the source for inspiration that differs. The shield concept is an obvious one in that the pious “hide” from the issues that may threaten them, with the belief that their god will take care of it. In the last, the most powerful of inducements, religion provides emotional support that is generally not available in a more open forum, i.e.: the general public. (The powerfulness of this can be seen with a cursory examination of history, i.e.: the 911 incident and the populaces’ mass turning to the church in general afterwards. History is replete with such examples.)
“Our collective anger towards Christianity is justified. From my vantage point, the anger stems from Fundamentalism.”
I don’t know that that is entirely true, at least not for me, however I will allow that fundamentalism is by far the greatest motivation. For myself, I tend to feel anger when the obvious reality is ignored in favor of a fantasy, as when credit due is given to someone or something else. For example, parents of an injured child pray extensively and profoundly while their child is in surgery and when the operation is a success, credit is given to their god, not the people responsible. If the doctors, nurses and technicians (not forgetting you xrayman!), had not been there, then the prayers would not been “answered” no matter how devoutly and desperately delivered. This is just one example of what can set me to anger. I do not wish to list them all.
David said:
“How can we get smarter if we don't admit to ignorance?
Well said David! I have no argument with that because that is truth for everybody. I do wonder how you can read the bible and see no inconstancies. They are there and have been thoroughly documented through its history. And it doesn’t follow that because someone suffered and died for their strong beliefs, they were “brave, great men”. Sometimes they were just very foolish. People suffer and die for their beliefs everyday in this world. Is a muslim who wraps himself in explosives and tries to kill as many infidels when he pushes the button a “brave, great man”? But I do admit that this is a subjective viewpoint, as a great many in the Islamic world would consider such to be heroic. To use a direct analogy, most of us believe that Adolf Hitler was a monster, but a great many in the Middle East consider him to be a hero whose only fault was the he did not go far enough. Are we right because of our sanctimoniousness? Or is it because the true god is on our side? (But of course, all sides in an armed conflict believe that their true god is on their side and will help them to smite their enemies. It is the primary method by which populations are goaded into fighting wars in the first.) Or are we right because we were on the winning side?
Of course there are parallels and predictions in the bible concerning the social, theological and political states today. I can make the same somewhat vague descriptive prophecies concerning the same for the human race that will take place in the indeterminate future and I will be right. Corruption in some form or another will always exist and so will people ready to fight it.
I am not “targeting” you David, simply replying to some of your statements.
I just got an email from someone about my anger problem. I said to myself, "What was this woman reading that gave her this idea?". Then I read Huey's comment and looked at my reply to Aspen's comments and found where I failed to communicate properly.
ReplyDeleteObviously, I failed in my ability to convey my thoughts. I had just expressed that we should appreciate PC's contributions to the needy (Imagine an atheist admitting this!). After this, I was referring to the general collective anger of all skeptics towards all Christians. I am not upset with PC Christianity, I just think the position should be classified as literature. Now, on the other hand, fundies are a menace to society and yes I am upset/angry with them. I do think that it is good to have anger towards injustice and ignorance.
I have always remembered something that Martin Luther wrote about what it was that motivated him. He said. "To get angry, and the love of a good woman". Since reading that quote, I have always thought that good anger moves us from the state of inertia to do good things, and the love of someone special can keep us from doing something stupid due to runaway bad anger.
I do make judgements, some fundamentalists are good people, just misguided in my estimation. For example, last year I actually helped two different Christian groups who needed something from me last year. One of them, and I, got off to a bad start. Later we met and discussed things agreeing that we both misunderstood each other. Neither of us tried to convert the other. I do have respect for the guy. Why, might you ask? He looked me in the eye and said that if he was to find that Christianity wasn't true he would walk away from it. I believed him. Small world, but I actually have met some people in his home church in California. I will again help these groups if they ask me again like they did last year. To me every fundamentalist/PC is an individual. If they are a good person, though misguided in my judgement, I could like them. It is the position of fundies that I DO NOT LIKE.
Boomslang,
ReplyDeleteWhen I speak of evidence in this case, I refer to a description of the fundamentalist work of religious leaders and a lay group to control the religious masses and to destroy any dissenters (Jesus and the apostles as well as Theudas and Judas mentioned by Gamaliel and some unnamed individuals upon whom a tower fell, recorded by Luke.) To me, this is evidence of the real life experiences of real people in the Bible.
It also gives me guidance on what to look out for. You have discovered the dishonesty of people you call "fundies." These were the same folks who were often the enemies throughout the Bible. As anti-fundamentalists, you are fighting the same battle as Bible personalities fought. But its an old battle, as described in the Bible.
And concerning the prophecies, (and I'm really going out on a limb here,) but maybe you take issue with them because you misunderstand them. Is this possible?
This is not an insult, just an offer.
David...When I speak of evidence in this case, I refer to a description of the fundamentalist work of religious leaders and a lay group to control the religious masses and to destroy any dissenters (Jesus and the apostles as well as Theudas and Judas mentioned by Gamaliel and some unnamed individuals upon whom a tower fell, recorded by Luke.) To me, this is evidence of the real life experiences of real people in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteWell, okay, so Gamaliel, a doctor of Law, or "Pharisee", was a real person with real-life "experiences", as discribed in the bible. Fine. Now, how exactly does this lend credence to the supposition that the bible was/is "Divinely inspired" by the supposed "Creator of the Universe"? Let's cut to the chase, can we? After all, it eventually boils down to the supposed claims of the supernatural that become the "deal-breaker"......at least, in my experience. Then there's internal philosophical inconsistancies, as well...i.e.."omniscience" and "omnipotence", coexisting simultaniously.
David...It also gives me guidance on what to look out for.
Honestly, is it any astonishing revelation that a person, or group of persons, who claim to have a monopoly on "Truth", would get questioned/doubted along the way? I mean, is it something to necessarily "look out" for?...or is it simply something to expect? In my view, it's the latter.
David...You have discovered the dishonesty of people you call "fundies."
First and foremost, I've discovered that religious people, in general - whether "fundie", liberal, or whichever affiliation - are quick to compartmentalize, which is a form of intellectual dishonesty....yes. I know, because I was one of them. Mind you, I'm not claiming Universal truth here; I'm merely claiming that skepticism is the surer way to truth.
David...And concerning the prophecies, (and I'm really going out on a limb here,) but maybe you take issue with them because you misunderstand them. Is this possible?
Yes, yes, of course it's possible! And perhaps I'm a Prophet in my own right, as I predicted that you, like so many other Christians I encounter and disagree with, might say that I "misunderstand" scripture.
But let me ask you---do you admit to the possiblity the bible might not be Divinely inspired at all?... but instead, the works of those ancient mortals who had a religious AGENDA? After all, I'm sure you recall where the bible says that it is written so that ye shall believe.....yes?
This is not an insult; just a question.
First of all, would somebody please explain to me how you italicize the comments you copy/paste. Excuse my lack of computer literacy here! I've see the HTML tag "i" but I don't know how to use it. In the meantime I will copy/paste without italics.
ReplyDeleteBoomslang-Well, okay, so Gamaliel, a doctor of Law, or "Pharisee", was a real person with real-life "experiences", as discribed in the bible. Fine.
When you say, "Fine," does that mean you assent to it as the truth? This may not answer the bigger ideas of an infinite God, but it adds credence to the Bible being more than just a fairy tale. So also does all the dates and outside personalities included in the Bible to date Bibical events so that we aren't just taking the writer's word on pure blind faith.
Must we disbelieve something happened because it didn't make the big news? So Jesus was born at the time Octavius taxed the whole Roman world and Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Was that just name dropping, attaching a fairy tale on to the coattails of a real event? Or was the birth of Jesus deemed such an insignificant event at the time that it never could have gotten news coverage? It seems probable that the latter could have happened since no one cared about the poor, which was the condition with Joseph and Mary.
I'm not an expert in all the ways of proving/disproving things. But I want to be careful to not throw out good facts in the search for truth. Down the road it could really add up to a big divergence from the truth.
Maybe this doesn't nail down the so many Biblical events that described their date settings, but it should give evidence toward an objective look at them. The unprejudiced mind will consider them.
Boomslang-Honestly, is it any astonishing revelation that a person, or group of persons, who claim to have a monopoly on "Truth", would get questioned/doubted along the way? I mean, is it something to necessarily "look out" for?...or is it simply something to expect? In my view, it's the latter.
Anyone can question, and should. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." We are free moral and intelligent agents, from age 0 to death. The Bible recognizes this. But obviously, a murderer or a thief can question the laws of the land but should surrender their unlawful inclinations. Otherwise, no one or their property would be safe.
But should the thief fight all the reasoning that clear-headed, conscientious, law-abiding citizens give for ceasing to steal? No, but he might anyway. Does he have this right? Yes, he does, and he will bear all the responsibility for his right. He might bring all the intelligence he possesses to the debate of whether or not its OK to steal and still judge it reasonable to take other people's property. Therefore, there must be an overriding conscience to govern the reasoning powers.
Is that conscience instinct actuated or trained? Boomslang, you know where I'm going with this. Intellectual analysis is not enough to arrive at truth. The conscience is one of the decision makers in our minds. Love must guide the training of the conscience. But human love is inconsistent and insufficient. We must have a love that never changes. We must have a love that is deep and unchangeable. Otherwise, we are children tossed about by every wind of doctrine.
Boomslang-First and foremost, I've discovered that religious people, in general - whether "fundie", liberal, or whichever affiliation - are quick to compartmentalize, which is a form of intellectual dishonesty....yes. I know, because I was one of them. Mind you, I'm not claiming Universal truth here; I'm merely claiming that skepticism is the surer way to truth.
But, by disclaiming any connection to the Bible as a possible source of truth, aren't you compartmentalizing? Is it possible that the Bible says something your former fundamentalist teachers weren't telling you or that you couldn't see because of the wrong glasses you had on? Now that you are free and clear of those previous prejudices, take another objective look at the Bible alone. It may look very differently now, depending on your objectivity.
You mentioned, "Let's cut to the chase, can we?" We are moral as well as intelligent agents. There is no way to break us from the moral aspect built into us. Morality is so inherent that to try to rid ourselves of it creates monsters. We cannot trust someone who has no conscience. They are plotting our destruction while they smile and talk peacefully with us. Amorality is a cancer to the stability of individuals and societies.
The transgression of morality is what is named "sin" in the Bible. Sin is defined as transgression of God's law. It's rebellion. Rebellion against morality is nothing but destructive and at times incurable. The "church" has often been the greatest offender of morality.
But can we blame the Bible for this especially when "the church" of the Dark Ages did everything to destroy the Bible and anyone who tried to bring it back to light? And can we blame the Bible when the Protestants who later had the Bible didn't teach it correctly because they kept some of the old horrendous falsehoods from the violent anti-christian "church" of the Dark Ages?
I can't blame honest hearts and minds today for discounting the whole religion thing because of outrage over what became of Christianity, but, I have to say that the Bible is not responsible. The responsibility lies on the heads of those who stole education and literature from the populace of Europe from the AD 600's and on, driving it into depravity and ignorance and then ingeniously distorted the Bible and used it to the church's immoral ecclesiastical advantage. The responsibility also falls on those who continued to further those falsehoods if they knew better.
Boomslang-But let me ask you---do you admit to the possiblity the bible might not be Divinely inspired at all?... but instead, the works of those ancient mortals who had a religious AGENDA? After all, I'm sure you recall where the bible says that it is written so that ye shall believe.....yes?
I think I've already answered this but I copied it here to make a small but important correction. Where does the Bible say "shall believe"? I looked and found places where things happened or were said so that the people "might" or "may" believe. I don't mean to split hairs, but to say "might" or "may" comes across much less domineering and browbeating than "shall." Boomslang, please allow for a strong sub-conscious difference there.
Boomslang, thank you again for your good and genuine conversation.
Previously, I said: "Well, okay, so Gamaliel, a doctor of Law, or 'Pharisee', was a real person with real-life 'experiences', as discribed in the bible. Fine."
ReplyDeleteDavid responds...When you say, "Fine," does that mean you assent to it as the truth?
What I mean, is that it may, or may not, be "truth"---but in this particular case, I grant it as possible, for the sake of argument. 'Follow?
To be crystal clear---I'm granting that, where historical literature is concerned, second-hand "revelation" stands a chance of being true. However, only in terms of it being offered *unconditionally...and, **so long as its claims don't enter into the realm of the supernatural.
*When I say "unconditionally", I mean, in terms of accepting that of any other ordinary literature as truth, unconditionally.
Take for instance, the life and times of George Washington. Such is a source of revealed "history"..i.e.."revealed knowledge". We can never know it absolutely. Additionally, we are perfectly free to accept, or deny, such sources as "truth", especially without threat of bodily harm.
**And when I say "supernatural", I mean that while one may accept the historical revelation for Washington's existence, we, as reasonable, educated adults, can dismiss the supernatural claims attached to that "history"---such claims as Washington having thrown a rock across the Potomac, which is more than a mile wide at its narrowest width. We can hopefully see that it is much more plausible that the men who documented that "history", were likely embroidering the truth, because, again, they had a political agenda to "sell" Washington, and thus, they likely attempted this by exaggerating his physcial strength.
Does any of that seem unreasonable to you? If "no", then I ask--- does it seem unreasonable that men who had a religious agenda might likewise embroider/embellish the truth concerning the figurehead that they were "selling"?..i.e.."walks on water"?
David...I'm not an expert in all the ways of proving/disproving things. But I want to be careful to not throw out good facts in the search for truth.
What makes a fact "good"? Again, we are talking revealed knowledge, here... and I hopefully addressed this adaquately, above.
David...Anyone can question, and should. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." We are free moral and intelligent agents, from age 0 to death. The Bible recognizes this.
We now reach one of those philosophical inconsistancies. You speak of "free", and "intelligent", however, if we are "intelligent" we should see that we only have the illusion of "free will", that is, if biblegod is "omniscient". One, or the other, must "give". Need I explain it?
David...Intellectual analysis is not enough to arrive at truth
To know "truth", absolutely, one must be omniscient. In other words, none of us will ever know the all-encomposing, Universal Truth. Meanwhile, whether "intellectual analysis" is "enough", or not, it is currently the best way for determining what we can "know" about a mind-independent reality....that is, unless you feel that there is a better methodolgy for this, in which case, I'd be curious to hear that. Actually, you could win a Nobel Prize if you have such knowledge. This is exciting.
David...But, by disclaiming any connection to the Bible as a possible source of truth, aren't you compartmentalizing?
When did I disclaim "any"(all) such "connection(s)"?
Please listen closely: I have, in two separate posts now, granted you that it's "possible" that the descriptions of people's "real-life" experiences(in the bible..or any other source of literature) may have had a referent in reality. We cannot know with absolute certainty. David, I won't say it again, as I feel you know exactly what my position is on "natural" VS supernatural. I have no desire for "cat and mouse" games, David.
Let's qualify it to avoid such games...
Supernatural:
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
ref: American Heritage
Back to your original question--I disclaim the "supernatural" claims, of not just the bible, but all religions. That, my friend, is not to "compartmentalize"; it is across the board.
Now, how about yourself? There may be some "poetic truths" in the Holy Qu'ran, yet, don't you "disclaim" the supernatural feats of "Allah"? Or do you you reject all of it? 'Listening.
David...I can't blame honest hearts and minds today for discounting the whole religion thing because of outrage over what became of Christianity...
This is remarkable, because while you, a mortal being, don't "blame" those who are honestly skeptical, the god of the Christian bible not only blames, but punishes those who are skeptical. Do you see a problem with this? We are expected to accept the bible as "truth", a priori.
David......but, I have to say that the Bible is not responsible.
To my knowledge, there are 12,000-plus, denominations/sects/split-offs of Christianity, each claiming that their interpretation of the bible is the One True interpretation. Certainly, if the bible was "inspired" by the Creator of the Universe - mind you, a being who is presumably "omniscient" - then surely "it" had the foresight to see that its "creation" had the propensity to "misinterpret" the language therein.
For this, I would then blame the "author" of said document, in a situation where it was shown that such a being exists. However, until such evidence is put forth, I meanwhile put the responsiblity on the primitive, largely ignorant men who wrote the bible... as well as the people of today who can't distinguish fact from fiction when reading the bible.
David...Where does the Bible say "shall believe"? I looked and found places where things happened or were said so that the people "might" or "may" believe. I don't mean to split hairs, but to say "might" or "may" comes across much less domineering and browbeating than "shall."
Admittedly, I paraphrased that from memory, which is why there isn't quotations around it. I'll look for it.
Meanwhile, let me ask you---why would it be so undesirable to you if the bible were to suggest that people "shall" believe? Goodness gracious, non-believers are threatened with hellfire, for cryin'-out-loud. Call me crazy, but it seems to me that that's pretty indicative that one "shall" believe it. Or am I missing something?
Clarification on the above post---it was a "silver dollar" that G.W. allegedly pitched across the Potomac.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteI am very curious, how would you classify your church's position, PC or Fundamentalist? I can tell you that a Fundamentalist wouldn't allow the Seventh Day Adventist to claim their position or share it. I couldn't help but notice that your profile list several of Ellen G. White's works as your favorites. I had become familiar with a few Seventh Day Adventist churches while I lived in California. You are probably familiar with Modern Manna Ministries, aren't you? I think also the Truth for Today radio(I may have this wrong)?
David, I in no way am trying to patronize you, but how can you deny your own church denominations history in reguards to William Miller??? In Walter Martin's, The Kingdom of the Cults has a section about the Adventists. According to Martin, page 411, Miller predicted that Jesus would come in about the year of 1843 or 1844! Either we all missed the rapture or he was a false prophet. I am being "nice" here, we all know that Jesus said NO MAN KNOWS THE TIME. White was converted due to Miller's ministry influence.
I do not wish to be unkind. I would have to say that Adventists were some of the best people of Christianity in my recollections. The health things from Modern Manna is interesting to me, keep in mind that I in no way am recommending them. Also McKee's Bakery and the Little Debbie oatmeal pies is a very good product. This bakery hired many Tennessee Temple students and those that I spoke with spoke kindly about them. But this isn't about feelings, this is about the quest of truth and the difference that it makes in the lives of men and women. I am saying this with no sarcasm, I feel Christianity robs men of their lives and we only get to live it once.
I don't wish to go around and around with you, I am just asking you to think for yourself, independent of the influences of Adventism or White.
Hey everyone,
ReplyDeleteI had asked or pondered a million dollar question in this article. So I will ask you for some input. Do you think that Christianity would have made some difference in a country that had endured a holocaust or genocide?
David,
ReplyDeleteYou silence is speaking to us. It would be considered a polite jesture to properly excuse yourself from the "conversation". It seems you concealed your motives in joining us. Adventists often do this. Frankly, when skeptics ask you the questions that you as a believer should be asking we expect you to at least think about things. I hope that you didn't use us to propogate your hidden agenda. I must tell you, if you can't defend your position then you probably shouldn't claim to hold it. Things like this reflect upon your personal character.
Hello again Boomsland and Brian,
ReplyDeleteI didn't drop out of the conversation. I got real busy at work and didn't have the time. Tomorrow I will answer more, maybe I will tonight.
Sorry for the mispell--boomSLANG
ReplyDeleteboomSLANG and Brian, I will try to answer your comments together on one reply. I will not copy/paste because I think each of you will recognize an answer to your comment. Saves space. And as I read over my previous comments, some unintentionally came across as being antagonistic. If they were perceived that way, I didn’t mean it. And thanks for not blasting me like I saw done for other xtian commenters.
ReplyDeleteI haven’t followed this atheistic vs. xtian controversy very long. So forgive me if I use examples to explain myself that are old as the hills. If I’m just wasting your time, let me know. I’m sure boomSLANG won’t mind doing that.
Miracles and the supernatural. Does this have to mean the unexplainable? In reference to the American Heritage definitions:
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world:
Does this mean the outside universe? Certainly there must be life outside planet Earth. Even the Bible refers to “the worlds.” Does the definition refer to existence outside the realm of matter and mass, the observable? But can scientists say they understand all that there is? Can there be non-mass?
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces:
Did anyone understand harnessing electricity until it was done? How about nuclear power? How about sending a man to the moon? Those things would violate natural forces in the minds of the world until these events moved from the birth of the idea to the accomplishment of them. To make the Earth stop rotating for a day is yet to be understood how it could be done.
3. Of or relating to a deity:
Uh oh. This one’s going to be harder. I can’t convince you of the I AM. That battle is not mine, and I’m glad for that. Its His and He is well able to do it. This is not ducking the question.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous:
Once again, to say there is not power beyond what humans can muster or have observed, is arrogant. To not allow for a greater display of power than has been shown up to this day is to blind ourselves. Miracles are simply unexplainable to man, not unexplainable. The mechanics of them are not unobservable, just unobservable to man. Man is not all in all. He is not as great as he thinks he is. Man is not God. Not an easy thing for our pride to accept.
I look into my dog’s eyes. I wonder what he’s thinking, but he’s probably not doing the same for me. He’s probably wondering when we can keep walking so he can mark some more territory. I ponder the ants on the ground, busy going about their day’s labor. I watch them and analyze them. But it is doubtful they do the same to the humans. I have yet to see an ant looking back at me.
We are so much more complex than they. We reason, our emotions are fuller. Our loved ones die and we sorrow for the loss; they die and the closest ant picks up the carcass and throws it onto a pile in an ant junkyard. No emotion, no memories, no love.
The Bible has a great IF-THEN. “If ye then…how much more shall your Father which is in heaven …?” If we love and reason and search out knowledge, how much more does our Creator? Especially when we are in His image? In His image, yet as puny and mechanical as the ants by comparison to His Majesty.
Unconditional acceptance of all literature as equal sources of truth: We weigh what we read automatically. If its Wikipedia we may not put much weight in it. If its Encyclopedia Brittanica, we do. One is verified and updated more than the other. And everyone is prejudiced. We get that way by having information fed to us by sources we believe credible. We therefore never have unconditional, unprejudiced acceptance of all sources of truth.
We also believe what we want to believe. This may be admitting a lot concerning faith in a Creator, but the statement also stands concerning faith in evolution. I wasn’t there on day One of creation when God spoke and it was, He commanded and it stood fast. Neither were you there on second 10 to the negative 30th power when the big bang cosmic inflation occurred, when all the mass that exists in a universe, which we can’t begin to comprehend, was all located in an area smaller than the head of a needle. I’ve read that the best computers in a million years will never quantify the mass of the universe even inside the event horizon, yet we find it all existing in the head of a needle at some point in the past. Speak of miraculous! Observable? Repeatable in a lab with a control group? Scientific? Each view takes faith. Which takes more? Each person must decide for himself.
I believe that man, with all his brains combined, doesn’t know it all. So how can we unconditionally believe him or all his literature? I know that sounds arrogant, but it leads me to find someone bigger and smarter than man to trust in. This is not to earn a Nobel prize, but to find out how to live this one lifetime in peace with my brother and neighbor.
If love is the answer, how can I love more? How can I have more self-sacrificing, self-denying, self-deprecating love? Who will teach me this? Philosophy won’t. Psychiatry and psychology can’t. Financial freedom or government handouts don’t do it. Legislation won’t. Altruism is hit or miss. Who will deliver me from this body of death?
On “revealed knowledge” as the only source of good facts. Is this, revealed by just the scientific and philosophical communities? Must we limit our knowledge to them? I protest.
On the subject of free will and divine omniscience, I’m not sure how you understand this. Please do explain. As I understand it, we are free moral and intelligent agents regardless of God’s omniscience. I can search out the big world and universe and God has placed it all out there for me to do this. Solomon watched the water cycle and tried to figure it out. David observed the heavens and was amazed at what he could see with the naked eye. Neither were told not to do this. Although neither were given special scientific insight, they were given the freedom to explore the “reason of things.” I don’t see the philosophical inconsistancies.
Concerning absolute truth, Moses said to the people, “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.” What small part of total truth we are given is our duty to hold on to and pass down forever, and we are to ever strive to gain a larger part of total truth.
Nevertheless, all truth will come through righteousness. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” “The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.”
All reality is “mind independent.” But for it to be of any benefit to us it must get into our mind, what part of the total reality we may grasp. Nevertheless, without a conscience trained in fairness and love, that reality goes through corrupting channels before it gets to the logical part of the brain. When that happens, we get people who blow themselves up in order to kill others on their way out, and we also get unconscionable masterminds. The smartest becomes dominant, and not necessarily the best.
Concerning other religions and the Noble Qu’ran, I haven’t read their books, except a little from the Qu’ran and the Book of Mormon. It is my opinion that they both have tried to copy the Bible somewhat and ended up with greatly inferior products. In fact there is evidence that all the major world religions copied from either the Bible, or from the Hebrew scriptures (if the copying occurred prior to Christ.) The leaders of those religions did this because they saw the superiority of those scriptures and the power of the gospel in the Old and New Testaments. The adopting worked and the amalgamating kept the people attached to the old religion. Yet the pure gospel would have done a superior work in uplifting those nations.
About non-believers being threatened with hellfire. The reality is that the first shall be last and the last first. As a bonified honest person, you may be safer from hellfire than the televangelist. No one is scared into heaven. Another big misunderstanding of the Bible and its God. But does He stand for justice? Yes. He also stands for mercy. He takes everything into account. He knows what chased people from Him. He knows the corruption in the groups that profess to serve Him. He knows that today they are like the Jews in Christ’s day, “ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.”
He also says, “when He putteth forth His own sheep, He goeth before them, and the sheep follow Him: for they know His voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.” As an honest person, you might be distaining the voice of strangers and following the voice of the Good Shepherd, and not realize it.
To classify my church’s position, PC or Fundamentalist: That’s hard to do. I’ve heard some denominations boil it all down to liberals and conservatives, but that doesn’t hold water in my thinking. The SDA denomination is neither. To compare us to those groups is apples and oranges.
To be a Fundamentalist is to be extremist. To be PC is to be lukewarm. Spiritually speaking, we aren’t where we need to be. I prefer to see us as “prisoners of hope.” We look forward to a revival of “primitive” godliness. This revival will be characterized by self-sacrificing love in obedience to God's law and will be the preparation for the time of trouble which will cause a shaking in the church. Persecution will cause some to be shaken out, and others to be shaken in from outside the church.
I’m being out in the open about this because I see the big trouble already on the way. In the attack on the separation of church and state we have the stirrings of huge trouble. And since Bible prophecy will be fulfilled, in particular Revelation 13, America will adopt the rules of the Roman Papacy for its own. That will mean big trouble for everyone not loyal to Rome. That’s all the honest people in the world, xtian and non-xtian. That means big trouble for the honest x-xtians too. And the Fundamentalists and PCs are the ones currently doing the leg work for the Papacy behind their enemy’s lines (America). What would it take to change the American Constitution? The U.S. Supreme Court? White House? Congress? The Fundamentalists and PCs are filling up those positions steadily and quickly.
Thanks for not patronizing me. William Miller was an 1812 Army Captain turned farmer turned quiet Bible student turned Baptist preacher. True, he preached Christ second coming in 1843. This was based on Daniel 8:14. The time-table worked amazingly well. Unto 2,300 days and the sanctuary would be cleansed. Of course, he knew that no man knows the day or the hour of Christ’s return. But the new information jumping out of the Bible made him think that it was time for the “day and hour” to be revealed. How else could the world get ready?
But, even though the time-table was correct, the event itself was based on a popular fallacy. That is, that the Earth was the sanctuary. Later, after the “Great Disappointment,” further Bible study showed that there is a sanctuary in heaven of which the Mosaic sanctuary was a rough copy. It was “cleansed” each year at the end of the year. That is Yom Kippur as we know it. It was “judgment day” for the nation to see if their repentance had been real and to see if God’s presence would remain with them. Each day blood was brought into the “Holy Place” of the sanctuary because of their sins, which finally needed to be cleansed at the end of the year. On that day, blood was brought into the “Most Holy Place,” which was an innermost section of the sanctuary where the Ark of the Covenant sat and where God’s shekinah glory rested.
After this “Day of Atonement” the Mosaic sanctuary was “cleansed.” This William Miller never understood to the day of his death, about 4 years after the disappointment. But he woke America up, while other men, completely disconnected from Miller, preached on the same subject around the world at the same time.
I believe something did happen. A few years later gold was discovered out west and the American population piling up at the Mississippi river overran it and everything has been speeding up ever since. I believe we are in a preliminary judgment prior to the literal, personal return of Jesus in power and great glory. The whole world is being brought to the test of whether or not they will be loyal to the government of heaven or rebel against it.
The stakes are high and getting higher as we near the time of trouble. Already the Papacy is gathering all the world religions under its wing. It has absorbed the teaching of evolution in its effort to woo the secular community. One day it will reveal its final tool. The Inquisition. There are rumblings from that quarter already. This may all seem far-fetched, but as time goes on, it will all get clearer.
I do think for myself. I’m not a parrot. I served my country in the U.S. Navy. I haven't lived in a religiously protected environment all my life. It wasn’t easy in the Navy, but after all is said and done I am glad I did it. I believe what our country stands for, not as an emotional Fundamentalist, but as someone who appreciates the freedom it offers to everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. And I’m going to enjoy its liberties while they last, knowing they aren’t going to last forever.
Thank you both for your time.
David wrote:
ReplyDelete2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces:
Did anyone understand harnessing electricity until it was done? How about nuclear power? How about sending a man to the moon?
----
David,
While things like electricity and nuclear power might SEEM to defy the laws of nature and feel like a miracle to those of days-gone-by, we know they do not defy natural laws.
It was once believed man couldn't travel faster than 30 MPH (the speed of a horse), so the folks back then would have seen such a feat as something miraculous.
In all our technological/scientific discoveries, have we concluded today that anything is surely a miracle, or do we just say that things unexplained, are just unexplained so far.
Regardless of the above, where are the miracles today that seem to defy the laws of nature and at the same time, afford some benefit to humankind?
Xtians lay claims to miracles that defy natural laws, are coming from god and benefit them.
If we discover some force that appears to defy those natural known laws and it doesn't benefit one of you xtians directly, then there is no connection to your god.
If that same defying force benefits everyone, then what purpose is there to believe in your god?
First you have to prove a force that you believe exist, defies known natural laws.
Then you would have to correlate that force to some sect of Christianity, in order to show it's your bible god/jesus that is responsible for that special force.
Take lightning for example:
Before it was understood that lightning is nothing more than high voltage static electricity traveling through the air, it was believed by xtians to be that your bible god was tossing around those bolts.
Oddly enough, it was the churches in the 1800's that were set on fire far more often than other structures. The reason was because of their common use of steeples of significant height, that made them an easy conductive target.
When it was suggested (by Ben Franklin) that lightning rods be installed to protect those churches, the believers felt that would be defying god's will, and so god's churches continued to burn to the ground.
Should we suppose that god was being vengeful against all the sects that were 'wrong', or do we use common sense and know god had nothing to do with the forces of lightning and it's nature?
If the earth actually had been made to stand still by your god, we have some obvious problems to overcome here.
Even if god's hand was strong enough to stop the earth from spinning and then spin it up again, we have other huge problems here to deal with.
Think about the oceans and land masses and what would happen to them if the earth suddenly was stopped cold. What about every object on the earth, including humans, who are traveling in a circle at 1000 MPH. It's bad enough to hit a wall at 60 MPH with a car, so what would 1000 MPH do to us then?
Then when you're all done with the stopping, you have to spin the earth back up to speed again.
Given this spectacular event would have been worldwide, why are we lacking any history outside the bible of this event.
Why don't scientist see any evidence that would have surely resulted in the physical earth, that it had once gone through these great stop/start forces of god's hand?
The point you are missing David, is that if god is presently performing miracles, then it should be OBVIOUS to everyone he is doing so.
We may not directly see him doing a miracle, but surely the results of these miracles would not only be obvious, but would greatly lean towards some sect of your xtians.
Can you show us ANY sect of xtians that routinely benefits from god's miracles towards them?
No, I'm not talking about hearsay things, or such things like prayers that only seem to fix people for a short while or only fix things that might have fixed themselves regardless.
Instead, we should see severed arms and legs being restored by your god and other such non-disputable miracles, but do we?
Your bible book speaks of all types of miracles. Miracles that went on for what, a few thousand years, and yet, we never see any miracles from your god in our modern era..WHY?
Why doesn't he part the red sea anymore?
Why doesn't he stop and start the earth spinning anymore?
Why hasn't a single soul that has laid dead for days, ever returned to life these days?
The miracles of your bible were nothing different than the million other legends we have from those ancient times. Sorry about that David.
If your god is real and still alive today, then he's off in some other galaxy sending his son down to some other 'earth' to suffer and die for that alien population.
Therefore, he's too busy it seems to care anymore about his former play toys on this earth..aka US.
The ONLY evidence you xtians have for your bible god, resides SOLELY within your own minds and nowhere else I'm afraid.
Oh, and not to mention, if your god were real, he'd have the mind of a bratty two year old, as he's certainly no more mature than a toddler in his actions.
You would do yourself a huge favor David, to crawl outside your god bubble and see the universe AS IT IS, and not how you wish it to be from your emotions, or your brainwashing.
ATF (Who thinks David needs to remove his god filter in order to see the logical flaws of his god belief)
Dear David,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but each of your respective counterpoints on the definition of "supernatural" attack a strawman. No one - that is, not ONE Atheist here - is claming that they are omniscient, and/or, that they know all there is to know about the Universe. Again, you are attempting to set up, and attack, a strawman.
Notwithstanding, supposing that there IS life elsewhere unbeknownst to us, as you suggest, and that on some planet yet to be discovered, there are snakes, donkeys, and various fauna and vegetation that speak the human language in one dialect, or another.
Now, supposing further, that one day we discover that planet, and we see FOR OURSELVES, that this disclosure validates the biblical claims of such things. Okay, fine and dandy....but then, mind you, those things are NO longer defined as "supernatural"..or metaphysical. 'Get it? They are either a part of All that exists, or they are not a part of All that exists, and if the latter, then they don't exist. The point being, if we are witnessing these things with our physical senses, and measuring the nature of said things, then they CANNOT be meta-physical...i.e..beyond the physical realm. 'Follow?
I'll go over just a few of the other types of fallacious arguments:
In regards to definition 3, "Of or relating to a deity:"...you said:
Uh oh. This one’s going to be harder. I can’t convince you of the I AM. That battle is not mine, and I’m glad for that. Its His and He is well able to do it. This is not ducking the question.
No, it's not ducking the question. It is, however, committing the fallacy of bare assertion, a form of "existential fallacy".
In any event, "supernatural" pertains to a "deity" in your case, whether you can offer evidence for such a being, or not. And for future reference, to assert things such as, "He[God] is able" to do this, that, and the other thing, is NOT evidence for anything. So, can I kindly ask you to refrain from that type of thing throughout this discussion? Thanks---it's annoying, distracting, and a waste of your time to write it, and my time to read it.
In regards to definition 5., "Of or relating to the miraculous:"...you said:
Once again, to say there is not power beyond what humans can muster or have observed, is arrogant.
Once again, no one said any such thing, and this is the "strawman" you errected, and are now attacking. Please stop it, okay?
You continue...To not allow for a greater display of power than has been shown up to this day is to blind ourselves.
Strawman(continued)
You...Miracles are simply unexplainable to man, not unexplainable.
Um, pardon me, but if "miracles" are "unexplanable to man", then who, or what, are they "explanable" to?..and why would it be relevant to man, if he cannot comprehend them? Could you kindly refrain from such blatant contradictions in future posts? That'd be great.
You...The mechanics of them are not unobservable, just unobservable to man.
You are simply asserting that there are "mechanics" behind these supposed "miracles". You completely leave out the possibility - and likelihood - of improbable coincidence. In other words, what is more likely in a scenario where a jet-liner of 300 people crashes, and one person survives:
a) That 299 people had to perish because a divine overseer had a "miracle" planned for one person?
or
b) That one person got lucky?
Think!
You...Man is not all in all. He is not as great as he thinks he is. Man is not God.
1, 2, and 3 strawman---with another assertion fallacy thrown in for good measure...i.e.."Man is not God".
Look, David, "man is not Santa"; "man is not Shazam"; "man is not Allah"..man is not a bazillion other things for which there is no evidence. So what? Such simplistic statements are MEANINGLESS.
You...Not an easy thing for our pride to accept.
Speaking of---'not an easy thing for our "pride" to accept that this life might just well be all there is.
You continue...I look into my dog’s eyes. I wonder what he’s thinking, but he’s probably not doing the same for me. He’s probably wondering when we can keep walking so he can mark some more territory. I ponder the ants on the ground, busy going about their day’s labor. I watch them and analyze them. But it is doubtful they do the same to the humans. I have yet to see an ant looking back at me.
Yet, neither "ants" nor "dogs" have to smear sunblock on when hanging out in the sun. Why not?Neither "ants" nor dogs have to use a walker in the last stages of life. Why not? If, as you imply, humans are "God's" crowning jewel, this, simply because they can reflect and have self-awareness, then why are lower forms of life more suited to our environment? Why, if the earth is 2/3rds water, do we not have gills?
Again, if we are "God's" crowning acheivement, then you'd think the "Designer" would've made sure we have "top-of-the-line" everything...not just reasoning skills.
And BTW, what say you about that fact that up to 20% of the baby-boomer genration will LOSE those reasoning skills to Alzheimers? A perfect "plan", is it??
You...Unconditional acceptance of all literature as equal sources of truth: We weigh what we read automatically. If its Wikipedia we may not put much weight in it. If its Encyclopedia Brittanica, we do. One is verified and updated more than the other.
Yet, you will not find "condition clauses" is either source. As I've already stated, one is free to reject, out-of-hand, or otherwise, that type of revealed knowledge. Conversely, this is not true of many religious sources of revealed knowledge, specifically, the Holy bible. 'See the difference, now? Let me know.
You...We also believe what we want to believe. This may be admitting a lot concerning faith in a Creator, but the statement also stands concerning faith in evolution.
::thinks to self::..."Oh brother, nOT this bullsh*t again!?"
David, the Theory of Evolution is both theory, and fact. It takes no more "faith" to believe that we evolved from lower life-forms, than it takes "faith" to believe in gravity. Might I suggest that you stop getting your info' from ministers, Christian friends, and apologetic websites? And besides, if our "great-great- Grandparents" were presumably made out of dirt, I would think that "dirt" constitutes a "lower life-form", yes?
You...I wasn’t there on day One of creation when God spoke and it was, He commanded and it stood fast. Neither were you there on second 10 to the negative 30th power when the big bang cosmic inflation occurred, when all the mass that exists in a universe, which we can’t begin to comprehend, was all located in an area smaller than the head of a needle.
PRECISELY!!!!!! NO ONE was there...and that means YOU. So the only honest answer is NO ONE knows with absolute certainty what went down, or how it went down.
So my question then becomes---why do you, David, rely on a 2000 yr-old book of revealed knowledge as absolute truth? "GOD DID IT" answers NOTHING, David. It explains NOTHING, David. Furthermore, such a hypothesis amounts to question begging---HOW did "God" do it????..and who, or what, created "God"????? Waiting to be enlightened.
You...Observable? Repeatable in a lab with a control group? Scientific? Each view takes faith. Which takes more? Each person must decide for himself.
Your attempt at leveling the playing field is predictable, and seriously flawed.
We witness micro-evolution. We witness infant human beings coming from adult male and female human beings, and later evolving into adult human beings, themsleves. But interestingly, we don't see any forms of life "materializing" before our eyes. None. We don't see teenagers, a'la "Adam & Eve", being constructed out of dust, or dirt. Yes; which takes more "faith".
You...This is not to earn a Nobel prize, but to find out how to live this one lifetime in peace with my brother and neighbor.
Irrelevant premise.
News flash: Millions of non-christian Theists, as well as millions of non-religious people, altogether, have figured out - WITHOUT the help of the Christian handbook - how to get along with their neighbors.
You..If love is the answer, how can I love more?
Um, by loving more? Love is love; love is not some other "abstract thing". It is not necessary to be superstitious to exude "love". Again, 'flawed premise.
You... Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Good grief!..are you a Nihilist? Who told you that you have a "body of death"? That is a pathetic outlook.
You...On “revealed knowledge” as the only source of good facts.
Where did I say that? I asked YOU what makes a "fact" a "good" fact. 'Listening.
You continue...Is this, revealed by just the scientific and philosophical communities? Must we limit our knowledge to them? I protest.
Yes, by all means!....protest all you'd like! In the mean time, did you have a better, more effective/efficient way of determining truth? Please enlighten us now.
You...On the subject of free will and divine omniscience, I’m not sure how you understand this. Please do explain. As I understand it, we are free moral and intelligent agents regardless of God’s omniscience.
As you understand "it". What "it"? ..you mean, what the bible tells you on the matter? Yes, of course that's what you mean....and that's the point---the bible's attributes to its "God" have blatant inconsistencies/contradictions.
YOU, David, cannot have "free will"... that is, if your biblegod knows the future set of all events; if "He" is "omniscient".
Here's why: If any personal being - in this case, the god of the Christian bible - knows the future outcome of all events, then "He" MUST know his future choices/decisions, a priori. 'Follow so far?
Okay, if he knows what you and I are going to do, in advance, then that future is solidified and UNchangable, or else, said being didn't know the future to begin with. 'Get it? That means that you and I only have the illusion of "free will", as everything it determined because the future is FIXED. Furthermore, if the future is already "planned", then said being cannot exercise its alleged "mercy" and "justice", etc., where and when it wants to......thus, said being cannot exercise its "free will", thus, it cannot be "omnipotent".
You cannot have it both ways, David....not even "faith" can pull you out of this one. Something must give; either you and your biblegod's "free will" goes, or its "omniscience" goes. Pick one. OR, if you 'd like, investigate yet another option, and that is that no such being exists to begin with, and thus, yes!.. we have "free will".
You...Concerning absolute truth, Moses said to the peopl[EDIT!]
Your reasoning is circular. You are operating from the premise that whatever is said in the bible is the absolute truth, simply and solely because the bible says it's the truth. Try again.
See non sequitur, BTW.
You blather on...Nevertheless, all truth will come through righteousness. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” “The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.”
More irrelevant, inadmissable bible quotes. Perfect. A perfect waste of everyone's time, that is.
For time sake, and because I see a half a mile more of fallacious reasoning, I stop at this point.
David: I'm underwhelmed at your responses. I may bow out. You have offered not one drop of convincing evidence that the Christian worldview has the monoploy on Universal truth that it claims.
BTW, if you are suggesting that the bible hasn't "borrowed" from other religious sources that predate it, you are definitely a "prisoner of hope", as you call it. Good luck with that.
David,
ReplyDeleteI agree that most of what you said was far-fetched. The source you "fetched" it from starts with the Bible. Diagnosing what you have said so far, I don't see you making any significant points, I do see you dancing around sound reasoning that Boom has articulated so well (and ATF).
I can identify with your heart and what you are trying to do. As a Christian, I once stood up and asked several questions to John Shelby Spong at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, CA. You know why I did it? I did so because I really believed what I believed, no other Christian cared to join me! I was open, but only understood a small part of the arguement. Today it is different. You know why? Because the arguements are crystal clear. You don't have to buy my book or someone elses' it is free to those interested in looking critically at their belief system on websites like others and my exminister.
I do not think you are open minded, you want to believe what you believe. I have witnessed your fight for your faith here. How anyone can come to exminister and read about the problems of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and still hold to divine inspiration? I do feel that you are "parroting" somebody elses' views, I just don't know who.
If you want to do something good, and I think that you do. Start or keep reading those that you disagree with. If the Bible is true and your source, it can withstand anybodies scrutiny. I once felt like this. This is why I felt like I could read any skeptic because they were weak and the Bible was strong. My problem then was finding critics of the Bible, today there are many readily available! In time, if you are honest, I think you will reach many of the same conclusions that others here at ex-c and myself have reached. Then the roles would be reversed, and you could put the great courage that I see within you to a higher purpose! I wish you well!
Brian,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your candor. Like I said, I never was a minister, although I started into it. After one semester I realized it wasn't for me. But I think I got a good education anyway, some of it during a 13 year sabbatical from the Bible and religion, etc.
Maybe that makes me look hopelessly deluded. What I mean is, that the time away ended up counting for further convincing that I needed to understand the Bible better to discover this "Unknown God," the God who advertises Himself as love.
I will continue to read more on x-c.net. Some of it I've heard before. Some of it is new. And in much of it I hear sincerely honest people who couldn't stomach what they were being fed. And I can very much appreciate that, really. I also see people on both sides of a coin half-heartedly trying to save the soul of the other. I guess its the only being humane.
When I say "they were being fed," I don't mean they were being mindless. I see that they threw it all out because they weren't mindless.
But when we are submerged in information, it's going to soak in. So even if one tries to look at the Bible objectively, all that soaked-in info, which is involuntarily put in the memory banks due to the complexity of the brain, is still playing in the background. This makes an objective look at the Bible very difficult. And hypocrisy just adds to the problem.
You will undoubtedly conclude that the same can be said about my own involuntarily subjective look at the Bible. Alas, no one can escape it. So, I guess that means the race is on; the winner takes all.
I highly respect your stance. You've been honest on both sides of the issue. I don't know what those questions were that you raised in the university or who Mr. Spong was, but it tells me you thought on your own and were brave enough to stand apart and challenge. That ranks high in any circle.
Brian, I guess we will agree to disagree and to be open-minded. I will keep reading. Thanks again.
David(Christian guest), said to Brian...I guess we will agree to disagree and to be open-minded.
ReplyDeletePardon the interuption, but---'care to go over one or two of the specific points that you cannot agree with? It seems that if you consider yourself open-minded, etc., that you'd be open to discussing such things, especially since you evidently plan on sticking around.(on an EX-christian website)
To the best of my recollection, we've already gone over, and agree on, how the "organized" part of Christianity propagates ignorance on many levels. Notwithstanding, you evidently have a unique interpretation of the bible, and I presume, one that leads you to believe it is the objective truth that it claims to be, or else, you wouldn't call yourself a "Christian". Is that a fair and reasonable assessment?
To review, a few people - myself included - responded point-by-point to the post you made on March 21. We put quite a bit of time into our rebuttals, but for some reason, you are seemingly content to ignore those, and simply leave things as "we agree to disagree", as if we all would be equally content and over-joyed that you hang around here "disagreeing" in silence.
Your move.
boomSLANG said
ReplyDeleteWe put quite a bit of time into our rebuttals, but for some reason, you are seemingly content to ignore those, and simply leave things as "we agree to disagree"
----
I second that motion Boom',
I for one would like David here to reply to the MANY points, all of us made on his behalf.
If for no other reason, I'm most curious how David can reconcile our points with his biblical beliefs.
To me at least, it would be impossible to do so.
ATF (Who thinks one should be willing to stand up for their stated opinions)
"ATF (Who thinks one should be willing to stand up for their stated opinions)"
ReplyDeleteWord to the mutha
e.g.."I agree", Toothfairy.
boomSLANG,
ReplyDeletePlease list the statements I didn't address. I thought I got them all. And, by the way, you didn't answer my comments, point by point. You kind of got half-way and blew the rest off. Athiesttoothfairy, I didn't see you because I was looking for boomSLANG's response. I will read yours.
David. Stop it. I got more than "half way".
ReplyDeleteOf course, instead of providing good, sound rebuttals to the counter-arguments that I did respond to, you not-so-shockingly decided to focus on what I didn't respond to. Fine. I'll go back up when I have time, and finish where I left off. In the mean time, here, again, are my counter-arguments to your post on March 21....that is, up until I admittedly became exhausted/frustrated looking ahead at some of the arguments of yours that followed where I had decided to stop:
I said..."I'm sorry, but each of your respective counterpoints on the definition of 'supernatural' attack a strawman. No one - that is, not ONE Atheist here - is claming that they are omniscient, and/or, that they know all there is to know about the Universe. Again, you are attempting to set up, and attack, a strawman."
and...
"Notwithstanding, supposing that there IS life elsewhere unbeknownst to us, as you suggest, and that on some planet yet to be discovered, there are snakes, donkeys, and various fauna and vegetation that speak the human language in one dialect, or another."
AND...
Now, supposing further, that one day we discover that planet, and we see FOR OURSELVES, that this disclosure validates the biblical claims of such things. Okay, fine and dandy....but then, mind you, those things are NO longer defined as 'supernatural'..or metaphysical. 'Get it? They are either a part of All that exists, or they are not a part of All that exists, and if the latter, then they don't exist. The point being, if we are witnessing these things with our physical senses, and measuring the nature of said things, then they CANNOT be meta-physical...i.e..beyond the physical realm. 'Follow?"
then...
In regards to definition 3, "Of or relating to a deity:"...you[David] said:
Uh oh. This one’s going to be harder. I can’t convince you of the I AM. That battle is not mine, and I’m glad for that. Its His and He is well able to do it. This is not ducking the question.
To which I responded..."No, it's not ducking the question. It is, however, committing the fallacy of bare assertion, a form of existential fallacy'."
and...
"In any event, 'supernatural' pertains to a 'deity' in your case, whether you can offer evidence for such a being, or not. And for future reference, to assert things such as, 'He[God] is able' to do this, that, and the other thing, is NOT evidence for anything. So, can I kindly ask you to refrain from that type of thing throughout this discussion? Thanks---it's annoying, distracting, and a waste of your time to write it, and my time to read it."
Then...
"In regards to definition 5., 'Of or relating to the miraculous:'...you said:"
Once again, to say there is not power beyond what humans can muster or have observed, is arrogant.
To which I responded...
"Once again, no one said any such thing, and this is the 'strawman' you errected, and are now attacking. Please stop it, okay?"
You continue...To not allow for a greater display of power than has been shown up to this day is to blind ourselves.
My response: "Strawman(continued)"
You...Miracles are simply unexplainable to man, not unexplainable.
Me..."Um, pardon me, but if 'miracles' are 'unexplanable to man', then who, or what, are they 'explainable' to?..and why would it be relevant to man, if he cannot comprehend them? Could you kindly refrain from such blatant contradictions in future posts? That'd be great."
You...The mechanics of them are not unobservable, just unobservable to man.
Me..."You are simply asserting that there are mechanics' behind these supposed 'miracles'. You completely leave out the possibility - and likelihood - of improbable coincidence. In other words, what is more likely in a scenario where a jet-liner of 300 people crashes, and one person survives:
a) That 299 people had to perish because a divine overseer had a 'miracle' planned for one person?
or
b) That one person got lucky?"
You...Man is not all in all. He is not as great as he thinks he is. Man is not God.
Me...1, 2, and 3 strawman[arguments]---with another assertion fallacy thrown in for good measure...i.e..'Man is not God'."
I continue...
Look, David, man is not Santa'; 'man is not Shazam'; 'man is not Allah'..man is not a bazillion other things for which there is no evidence. So what? Such simplistic statements are MEANINGLESS."
You...Not an easy thing for our pride to accept.
Me..."Speaking of---'not an easy thing for our 'pride' to accept that this life might just well be all there is."
You continue...I look into my dog’s eyes. I wonder what he’s thinking, but he’s probably not doing the same for me. He’s probably wondering when we can keep walking so he can mark some more territory. I ponder the ants on the ground, busy going about their day’s labor. I watch them and analyze them. But it is doubtful they do the same to the humans. I have yet to see an ant looking back at me.
Me..."Yet, neither 'ants' nor 'dogs' have to smear sunblock on when hanging out in the sun. Why not? Neither 'ants' nor 'dogs' have to use a walker in the last stages of life. Why not? If, as you imply, humans are 'God's' crowning jewel, this, simply because they can reflect and have self-awareness, then why are lower forms of life more suited to our environment? Why, if the earth is 2/3rds water, do we not have gills?"
and...
Again, if we are 'God's' crowning acheivement, then you'd think the 'Designer' would've made sure we have 'top-of-the-line' everything...not just reasoning skills."
continuing the counter...
"And BTW, what say you about that fact that up to 20% of the baby-boomer genration will LOSE those reasoning skills to Alzheimers? A perfect 'plan', is it??"
You...Unconditional acceptance of all literature as equal sources of truth: We weigh what we read automatically. If its Wikipedia we may not put much weight in it. If its Encyclopedia Brittanica, we do. One is verified and updated more than the other.
Me..."Yet, you will not find 'condition clauses' [in] either source. As I've already stated, one is free to reject, out-of-hand, or otherwise, that type of revealed knowledge. Conversely, this is not true of many religious sources of revealed knowledge, specifically, the Holy bible. 'See the difference, now? Let me know."
You...We also believe what we want to believe. This may be admitting a lot concerning faith in a Creator, but the statement also stands concerning faith in evolution.
Me..."David, the Theory of Evolution is both theory, and fact. It takes no more 'faith' to believe that we evolved from lower life-forms, than it takes 'faith' to believe in gravity. Might I suggest that you stop getting your info' from ministers, Christian friends, and apologetic websites? And besides, if our 'great-great- Grandparents'['Adam & Eve'] were presumably made out of dirt, I would think that 'dirt' constitutes a 'lower life-form', yes?"
You...I wasn’t there on day One of creation when God spoke and it was, He commanded and it stood fast. Neither were you there on second 10 to the negative 30th power when the big bang cosmic inflation occurred, when all the mass that exists in a universe, which we can’t begin to comprehend, was all located in an area smaller than the head of a needle.
Me..."PRECISELY!!!!!! NO ONE was there...and that means YOU. So the only honest answer is NO ONE knows with absolute certainty what went down, or how it went down.
So my question then becomes---why do you, David, rely on a 2000 yr-old book of revealed knowledge as absolute truth? 'GOD DID IT' answers NOTHING, David. It explains NOTHING, David. Furthermore, such a hypothesis amounts to question begging---HOW did 'God' do it????..and who, or what, created 'God'????? Waiting to be enlightened."
You...Observable? Repeatable in a lab with a control group? Scientific? Each view takes faith. Which takes more? Each person must decide for himself.
Me...Your attempt at leveling the playing field is predictable, and seriously flawed.
We witness micro-evolution. We witness infant human beings coming from adult male and female human beings, and later evolving into adult human beings, themsleves. But interestingly, we don't see any forms of life 'materializing' before our eyes. None. We don't see teenagers, a'la 'Adam & Eve', being constructed out of dust, or dirt. Yes; which takes more 'faith'(?)."
You...This is not to earn a Nobel prize, but to find out how to live this one lifetime in peace with my brother and neighbor.
Me..."Irrelevant premise.
News flash: Millions of non-christian Theists, as well as millions of non-religious people, altogether, have figured out - WITHOUT the help of the Christian handbook - how to get along with their neighbors."
You...If love is the answer, how can I love more?
Me..."Um, by loving more? Love is love; love is not some other "abstract thing". It is not necessary to be superstitious to exude "love". Again, 'flawed premise."
You...Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Me..."Good grief!..are you a Nihilist? Who told you that you have a 'body of death'? That is a pathetic outlook."
You...On “revealed knowledge” as the only source of good facts.
Me..Where did I say that? I asked YOU what makes a 'fact' a 'good fact'. 'Listening."
You...Is this, revealed by just the scientific and philosophical communities? Must we limit our knowledge to them? I protest.
Me..."Yes, by all means!....protest all you'd like! In the mean time, did you have a better, more effective/efficient way of determining truth? Please enlighten us now."
You...On the subject of free will and divine omniscience, I’m not sure how you understand this. Please do explain. As I understand it, we are free moral and intelligent agents regardless of God’s omniscience.
Me..."As you understand 'it'. What 'it'? ..you mean, what the bible tells you on the matter? Yes, of course that's what you mean....and that's the point---the bible's attributes to its 'God' have blatant inconsistancies/contradictions."
YOU, David, cannot have 'free will'... that is, if your biblegod knows the future set of all events; if 'He' is 'omniscient'.
Here's why: If any personal being - in this case, the god of the Christian bible - knows the future outcome of all events, then 'He' MUST know his future choices/decisions, a priori. 'Follow so far?
Okay, if he knows what you and I are going to do, in advance, then that future is solidified and UNchangable, or else, said being didn't know the future to begin with. 'Get it? That means that you and I only have the illusion of 'free will', as everything it determined because the future is FIXED. Furthermore, if the future is already 'planned', then said being cannot exercise its alleged 'mercy' and 'justice', etc., where and when it wants to......thus, said being cannot exercise its 'free will', thus, it cannot be 'omnipotent'.
You cannot have it both ways, David....not even 'faith' can pull you out of this one. Something must give; either you and your biblegod's 'free will' goes, or its 'omniscience' goes. Pick one. OR, if you 'd like, investigate yet another option, and that is that no such being exists to begin with, and thus, yes!.. we have 'free will'."
You...Concerning absolute truth, Moses said to the peopl[EDIT!]
Then I elaborate...
"Your reasoning is circular. You are operating from the premise that whatever is said in the bible is the absolute truth, simply and solely because the bible says it's the truth. Try again."
You...Nevertheless, all truth will come through righteousness. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” “The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.”
Me..."More irrelevant, inadmissable bible quotes. Perfect. A perfect waste of everyone's time, that is."
Again, waiting on rebuttals to my counter-arguments.
Picking up where I left off in the wake of David's accusation that I "blew off" his comments, David previously said...
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, all truth will come through righteousness. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” “The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.”
In case I haven't made it crystal clear in the past, quoting biblical scripture is irrelevant and inadmissible as objective evidence, simply because it assumes true the very premise that is it seeks to prove..i.e.."God" exists because the bible says so; the bible is true because "God" says so. See the circularity? Look really hard.
David said...All reality is “mind independent.”
This isn't entirely true. Objective reality is "mind-independent". For instance, existence exists, whether we perceive it/believe it, or not. It's the Law of Identity in play. Conversely, personal truths don't always "hold hands" with objective reality. For example, illogical concepts only exist as "reality" because the human mind compartmentalizes in order to reconcile these illogical concepts as "reality".
David...Concerning other religions and the Noble Qu’ran, I haven’t read their books, except a little from the Qu’ran and the Book of Mormon. It is my opinion that they both have tried to copy the Bible somewhat and ended up with greatly inferior products.
If you admittedly haven't investigated other religions that also claim Universal Truth, then I would have to wonder what your "opinion" that those religions plaigarized/emulated Christianity is based on, other than Christian apologetics and/or a priori bias. I mean, I sincerely hope you don't think that a "savior", "virgin birth", "world-wide flood", and "blood sacrifice" are concepts unique to Christianity. If so, you should educate yourself on the subject. Start with the Epic of Gilgamesh(that predates Christianity)
David...About non-believers being threatened with hellfire. The reality is that the first shall be last and the last first.
The "reality" is that you haven't yet shown that the concept "hellfire" has a referent in reality. Remember?..we're debating this issue. If you'd like to discuss such a thing as a concept only, then that's a different story.
David...As a bonified honest person, you may be safer from hellfire than the televangelist.
I'm "safe" from "hellfire" because there is no such place.
David...No one is scared into heaven.
Did you say, "heaven"?
News flash: I don't believe in any such place. However, if you'd like to discuss the concept of "heaven"---then no, of course people aren't "scared into heaven"; however, they're scared out of the only alternative, that being "hell". You are being equivocal.
Look, if the concept of "heaven" is such an alluring, promising, and ultimately desirable place to be, then why "hell" in the first place? Why not, those who want to go to "heaven" can do so, and those who don't, can simply perish into the abyss of non-existence? Such options don't hamper our supposed "free will" in the least bit. 'Care to elaborate?
David...Another big misunderstanding of the Bible and its God.
Yes, yes!... those who don't simply see the Christian perspective the way David sees it, are "misunderstanding". 'Got arrogance?
David...But does He["God"] stand for justice? Yes.
But do you have evidence for this "God"? No.
However, again, if you'd like to discuss the Christian concept of "justice", then let's.
Okay, simply put---if you think/believe that the whole of mankind should be held responsible for the actions of two individuals; if you think/believe that one person can pay off someone elses debt in their stead; if you think/believe that finite trespasses warrant infinite punishment, then I'd say that you make an utter mockery of the word "justice", and further, I recommend that you revisit its definition, and how we mortal beings apply it in our daily lives.
David...He["God"] also stands for mercy.
But as I pointed out(on more than one occasion), an omniscient being cannot employ/demonstrate any such "mercy", because said being knows the future, in which case(ad nauseam), the future is fixed AND UNCHANGABLE, or else, said being never knew the future set of events in the first place....::hic'p::...in the first place....::hic'p::...in the first place....::hic'p::...in the first place.
Once more, if you obstinately insist that your biblegod can exercise its "mercy", "love", and "justice", etc...then fine, but said being CANNOT know the future...thus, said being has no "plan"; it plays things by ear, like any other mortal being...in which case, it is not worthy of my worship, even if such a being existed.
David...He takes everything into account.
Marvelous, and so does Santa.
David...He knows what chased people from Him.
If "He" exists and carries the attributes that Christians assign to "Him", then "He" also knew before we ever came into existence what would "chase" us from "Him". And if "He" knew this information, then no one, not even "Him", has the power to change that future fact.
Is the contradiction starting to sink in yet? Golly, I sure hope so.
David..He knows the corruption in the groups that profess to serve Him.
By "corruption", that wouldn't be what you Christians refer to as "Sin", would it? Regardless, all people fall short of "God's Glory", so all people must "Sin" to some degree, whether they "profess to serve Him", or not.
So, really, the "corruption" is entirely irrelevant. At the end of the day?... it is only "belief" in "Him", that is relevant. That's an odd "system" of justice, if you ask me. 'You?
And then this gem...To be a Fundamentalist is to be extremist.
As for "extremist", I'll give a list of what I would consider "extreme", and then you tell me if you agree. How's that?
Here we go....
- People who kill other people, even their own family members, if those people should lead them away from their religious beliefs.
- People who shun homosexuals, and regard them as an abomination to society.
- People such as the KKK, who believe there is only one superior white race
- People who treat women as the inferior sex
How'd I do? Extreme, right?
If you agree with me, then you may be shocked to know that the doctrine you extol as Universal Truth, condones ALL of the above. There is nothing "extreme" about it; there are only those who attempt to "water down", or completely ignore, what the doctrine actually says.
So then, ironically, it's the "extremists" who are the more honorable and genuine "Christians".
David, there's more. I might get to it; I might not. Nonetheless, you have your work cut out for you. I await your well-thought-out rebuttals.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteboomSLANG,
ReplyDeleteMy comment looks pretty unreadable. It looked much better on Word before I moved it over into the blog comment box. Its almost midnight. Forgive me for my comment being hard to follow. Have a good day.
P.S. In one place "could" came out as an unintentional "occult."
David wrote:
ReplyDeleteMy comment looks pretty unreadable......Forgive me for my comment being hard to follow. Have a good day
---
David,
Part of the reason it's tough to follow, is because you attributed the wrong authors to some parts that you were attempting to re-state from previous comments made.
i.e. you mixed up 'you' and 'me' several times.
I would suggest you might want to fix your post up and re-post it, then delete the 'bad' one, if for no other reason than to let other readers see continuity in it.
Boomslang,
I really tried HARD to digest David's very lengthy exchange with you, in this last post of his.
While I believe I have a great deal of patience for such exchanges, this one has exceeded even my own limits.
It's like, I can only swallow just so much 'bad medicine' before I have to push it away.
I will say that unlike most fundies who post here, David knows how to write and obviously reads more than just his bible book.
Alas, he is yet another prime example of a "smart person believing in dumb things, for non-smart reasons".
(Quote from Mike Shermer)
It never ceases to amaze me how much 'wiggle' reasoning power these believers of the supernatural can muster up to try and escape the real world they live in.
I guess the more intelligent one's have no choice but to become the gold medal winners of 'wiggle-reasoning', in order to maintain their faith in the mystical things that their emotions demand from them.
Perhaps David will eventually use his obvious intelligence one day, to benefit humankind in the here&now, instead of wasting it on the fictional there&later (i.e. heaven after death)
ATF (Who thinks "A [intelligent] mind is a terrible things to waste" on unsupported ancient propaganda)
webmaster, I've tried to fix the syntax problems in my previous reply to boomSLANG. Hopefully its easier to follow. If you would, please delete the previous comment. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteboomSLANG…“David. Stop it. I got more than "half way".
Me…Boom, when you write like that, are you being funny? Demanding? Or trying to treat me as a kindergartner? I can assure you you’re not the only adult here. Do you believe that only atheists are scientific and sophisticated? I love science. Please, for the duration, refrain from the browbeating language. What’s wrong with exchanging ideas like the mature adults that we are?
---
Boom said..."I'm sorry, but each of your respective counterpoints on the definition of 'supernatural' attack a strawman. No one - that is, not ONE Atheist here - is claming that they are omniscient, and/or, that they know all there is to know about the Universe. Again, you are attempting to set up, and attack, a strawman."
Me… I wish I knew what I said to call atheists omniscient. My counterpoints are not a strawman. The supernatural is way ahead of anything humans know or can conceive of.
If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it or anything to detect it, did it make a sound? A whole fleet of US Navy sonarmen say, “No.” That means molecules didn’t collide, disrupting the air and so on. Modern science works that way. Because it can’t detect something, that event did not occur and couldn’t happen until science invents something to detect it. Civilizations did not exist until archeologists unearthed their evidence. It has happened on several occasions where the Bible recorded an event of a nation that science flatly denied. Then in God’s providence, the archeologist community ended up with egg on their faces decades later when they discovered artifacts with those Biblical names on them. But the Bible record was a fairy tale until science detected the nations mentioned in it. Thus the Bible remains untrustworthy until science blesses it. Which means the Bible will never be trusted, because science is so behind the times.
---
boom…"Notwithstanding, supposing that there IS life elsewhere unbeknownst to us, as you suggest, and that on some planet yet to be discovered, there are snakes, donkeys, and various fauna and vegetation that speak the human language in one dialect, or another."
Me…All animals think and communicate. All that lacks is our abilities to understand each other. Be that as it may, Satan spoke through the serpent (“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Revelation 12: 9). ([Edit?] Boom, you made a flagrant assertion that I needed to clarify.) The talking vegetation, was the Son of God assuming a humble shrub as His visible apparatus, similar to His assuming the human body and nature later on. “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”
---
Boom…AND...Now, supposing further, that one day we discover that planet, and we see FOR OURSELVES, that this disclosure validates the biblical claims of such things. Okay, fine and dandy....but then, mind you, those things are NO longer defined as 'supernatural'..or metaphysical. 'Get it? They are either a part of All that exists, or they are not a part of All that exists, and if the latter, then they don't exist. The point being, if we are witnessing these things with our physical senses, and measuring the nature of said things, then they CANNOT be meta-physical...i.e..beyond the physical realm. 'Follow?"
Me…I follow. So it takes faith until they are discovered? Or are you saying they don’t exist until we see/measure them? The atom was believed by the Greeks approx. 2500 years before an atom was detected. Probably every new discovery in science was first only on paper and believe in an unprejudiced mind. But what if we never discover them? What if funding runs out? Does that mean they don’t exist? What if the subatomic particles making up the quarks are never split off and analyzed and labeled? What if the smaller subatomic particles of those unlabeled unsplit particles are never able to be split? Does that make it all metaphysical because we can’t measure them? Or must we say the particles of the quarks are the God particle?
This is not a straw man. The supernatural exists, its simply not measurable by modern technology. Discovering the essence of the supernatural would be like discovering plasma when we only had known of the three earth bound states of matter. It would certainly make the news. But I think I hear a big [EDIT!] coming.
---
Boom…"In any event, 'supernatural' pertains to a 'deity' in your case, whether you can offer evidence for such a being, or not. And for future reference, to assert things such as, 'He[God] is able' to do this, that, and the other thing, is NOT evidence for anything. So, can I kindly ask you to refrain from that type of thing throughout this discussion? Thanks---it's annoying, distracting, and a waste of your time to write it, and my time to read it."
Me…Sorry for annoying. I don’t mean to.
---
Boom…"In regards to definition 5., 'Of or relating to the miraculous:'...you said:"
Once again, to say there is not power beyond what humans can muster or have observed, is arrogant.
To which I responded...
"Once again, no one said any such thing, and this is the 'strawman' you errected, and are now attacking. Please stop it, okay?"
You continue...To not allow for a greater display of power than has been shown up to this day is to blind ourselves.
My response: "Strawman(continued)"
You(David)...Miracles are simply unexplainable to man, not unexplainable.
Me(Boom)..."Um, pardon me, but if 'miracles' are 'unexplanable to man', then who, or what, are they 'explainable' to?..and why would it be relevant to man, if he cannot comprehend them? Could you kindly refrain from such blatant contradictions in future posts? That'd be great."
Me…Why do you call “power beyond what humans can muster or have observed” a strawman when your big point is that there can be no Creator? I am only rebutting your fallacy. Miracles are not comprehendable by man. You find it hard to believe man is not able to comprehend all or invent something to detect all.
---
Boom..."You are simply asserting that there are mechanics' behind these supposed 'miracles'. You completely leave out the possibility - and likelihood - of improbable coincidence. In other words, what is more likely in a scenario where a jet-liner of 300 people crashes, and one person survives:
Me…And you assert there aren’t mechanics behind the miracles.
Again, man is not all in all. He is not as great as he thinks he is. “Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of ?” (Is. 2:22). (How dare God say that of us!) [Edit!]
---
Boom…"Speaking of---'not an easy thing for our 'pride' to accept that this life might just well be all there is."
Me…Pride is the worst tool for learning. Learning requires correction and pride cannot be corrected.
---
Boom..."Yet, neither 'ants' nor 'dogs' have to smear sunblock on when hanging out in the sun. Why not? Neither 'ants' nor 'dogs' have to use a walker in the last stages of life. Why not? If, as you imply, humans are 'God's' crowning jewel, this, simply because they can reflect and have self-awareness, then why are lower forms of life more suited to our environment? Why, if the earth is 2/3rds water, do we not have gills?"
Me…Its better to have awareness of the universe than awareness of an ant hill even if an ecto-skeleton is thrown in for a bennie.
We don’t need gills when we have lungs, and never did need gills. And before the flood there was a lot more dry land than we have today.
---
You…Again, if we are 'God's' crowning acheivement, then you'd think the 'Designer' would've made sure we have 'top-of-the-line' everything...not just reasoning skills."
Me…We don’t need top of the line alligator skin or fur when we’ve been given inventive skills to make use of their top of the line everything. Why should an Eskimo tote his food for miles when his dogs love to pull? God made a beautifully adaptive world .
---
You…"And BTW, what say you about that fact that up to 20% of the baby-boomer genration will LOSE those reasoning skills to Alzheimers? A perfect 'plan', is it??"
Me…Disease is on the rise because God’s laws of health are being disregarded in lieu of a smarter man-made health program. Got milk?
---
You..."Yet, you will not find 'condition clauses' [in] either source. As I've already stated, one is free to reject, out-of-hand, or otherwise, that type of revealed knowledge. Conversely, this is not true of many religious sources of revealed knowledge, specifically, the Holy bible. 'See the difference, now? Let me know."
Me…You can reject the Bible—to your regret. We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. Go ahead and commit fornication or homosexuality. You will pay. God gives you perfect freedom to live like there will be no final judgment or that Christ will never return.
The great appeal of God through Moses was, “Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law. For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life: and through this thing ye shall prolong your days in the land.”
---
Boom..."David, the Theory of Evolution is both theory, and fact. It takes no more 'faith' to believe that we evolved from lower life-forms, than it takes 'faith' to believe in gravity. Might I suggest that you stop getting your info' from ministers, Christian friends, and apologetic websites? And besides, if our 'great-great- Grandparents'['Adam & Eve'] were presumably made out of dirt, I would think that 'dirt' constitutes a 'lower life-form', yes?"
Me…I never though of dirt as a lower life form. Xtians will stop listening to their ministers when ex-xtians stop listening to theirs.
I wasn’t there on day One of creation when God spoke and it was, He commanded and it stood fast. Neither were you there on second 10 to the negative 30th power when the big bang cosmic inflation occurred, when all the mass that exists in a universe, which we can’t begin to comprehend, was all located in an area smaller than the head of a needle.
---
You..."PRECISELY!!!!!! NO ONE was there...and that means YOU. So the only honest answer is NO ONE knows with absolute certainty what went down, or how it went down.
Me…Did you get this from Stephen Hawking?
---
You, continuing…So my question then becomes---why do you, David, rely on a 2000 yr-old book of revealed knowledge as absolute truth? 'GOD DID IT' answers NOTHING, David. It explains NOTHING, David. Furthermore, such a hypothesis amounts to question begging---HOW did 'God' do it????..and who, or what, created 'God'????? Waiting to be enlightened."
Me…Big bang” answers nothing either. As you put it so well, “NO ONE knows with absolute certainty what went down, or how it went down.” I will admit, creation is as beyond human comprehension as all the mass that exists in a universe, which we can’t begin to comprehend, all located in an area smaller than the head of a needle.
---
Boom…We witness micro-evolution. We witness infant human beings coming from adult male and female human beings, and later evolving into adult human beings, themsleves. But interestingly, we don't see any forms of life 'materializing' before our eyes. None. We don't see teenagers, a'la 'Adam & Eve', being constructed out of dust, or dirt. Yes; which takes more 'faith'(?)."
Me…Boom, that attempt to explain evolution by gestation got the Big Bang by scientists many moons ago.
---
Me...This is not to earn a Nobel prize, but to find out how to live this one lifetime in peace with my brother and neighbor.
You..."Irrelevant premise.
Me…Knowledge and technology are insufficient to maintain a society. The Bible deals so much with patience and tolerance because those are the big deficits in maintaining our planet.
---
Boom…News flash: Millions of non-christian Theists, as well as millions of non-religious people, altogether, have figured out - WITHOUT the help of the Christian handbook - how to get along with their neighbors."
Me…Douse the news flash. Why all the wars and wealthy lawyers? We haven’t figures out how to love.
---
You..."Um, by loving more? Love is love; love is not some other "abstract thing". It is not necessary to be superstitious to exude "love". Again, 'flawed premise."
Me…I wasn’t saying love was abstract. But real, 100% selfless love is out of our reach.
Who will deliver me from this body of death?
---
You..."Good grief!..are you a Nihilist? Who told you that you have a 'body of death'? That is a pathetic outlook."
Me…It’s a body of death because of our unable to be medicated self-centeredness. It’s a realistic outlook.
---
Me...On “revealed knowledge” as the only source of good facts.
You...Where did I say that? I asked YOU what makes a 'fact' a 'good fact'. 'Listening."
Me…I misunderstood your term “revealed knowledge.” By that you mean divinely inspired? I back-pedal. I have already covered “good facts” by broadening the detection equipment to include the Bible if it is allowed to interpret itself.
Is this, revealed by just the scientific and philosophical communities? Must we limit our knowledge to them? I protest.
---
You..."Yes, by all means!....protest all you'd like! In the mean time, did you have a better, more effective/efficient way of determining truth? Please enlighten us now."
Me…A knowledge of holiness; departing from evil.
---
You..."As you understand 'it'. What 'it'? ..you mean, what the bible tells you on the matter? Yes, of course that's what you mean....and that's the point---the bible's attributes to its 'God' have blatant inconsistancies/contradictions."
Me… “It” means, as I understand “the subject.” “As I understand the subject”—an innocuous enough phrase.
---
Boom…YOU, David, cannot have 'free will'... that is, if your biblegod knows the future set of all events; if 'He' is 'omniscient'.
Here's why: If any personal being - in this case, the god of the Christian bible - knows the future outcome of all events, then 'He' MUST know his future choices/decisions, a priori. 'Follow so far?
Okay, if he knows what you and I are going to do, in advance, then that future is solidified and UNchangable, or else, said being didn't know the future to begin with. 'Get it? That means that you and I only have the illusion of 'free will', as everything it determined because the future is FIXED. Furthermore, if the future is already 'planned', then said being cannot exercise its alleged 'mercy' and 'justice', etc., where and when it wants to......thus, said being cannot exercise its 'free will', thus, it cannot be 'omnipotent'.
Me…As I understand it… (Don’t get jumpy, Boom). As I understand it, God gives us free will, just as we give it to our children. We say to our children, “Be home by 5 because we’re eating supper at 6.” 5 p.m. rolls around and Suzie and Johnny aren’t home. Calls are made, but no Suzie or Johnny. Finally at 5:55 they walk through the front door. There’s a family conference on how to obey Dad/Mom’s orders and a punishment of some kind, and supper is delayed a little. They eat at 6:05, Suzie and Johnny gained a new understanding of what it means to watch the time and be responsible. They sit down and have good conversation around the table. Suzie and Johnny love Dad and Mom because they have rules and schedules but allow free will.
---
Me…Concerning absolute truth, Moses said to the peopl[EDIT!]
Nevertheless, all truth will come through righteousness. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” “The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.”
Boom…In case I haven't made it crystal clear in the past, quoting biblical scripture is irrelevant and inadmissible as objective evidence, simply because it assumes true the very premise that is it seeks to prove..i.e.."God" exists because the bible says so; the bible is true because "God" says so. See the circularity? Look really hard.
Me…Nature also says God exists. Look really hard at the amazing wisdom in “instinct.” Its all pre-programming. How every little act throughout the animal kingdom for its continuous, vast, and intricate existence, could not happen by chance. All the systems working together in the human body is beyond happenstance..
---
Boom…If you admittedly haven't investigated other religions that also claim Universal Truth, then I would have to wonder what your "opinion" that those religions plaigarized/emulated Christianity is based on, other than Christian apologetics and/or a priori bias. I mean, I sincerely hope you don't think that a "savior", "virgin birth", "world-wide flood", and "blood sacrifice" are concepts unique to Christianity. If so, you should educate yourself on the subject. Start with the Epic of Gilgamesh(that predates Christianity).
Me…The copying began long before Christianity. The epic of Gilgamesh was a humanistic glamorization of a god that included a corrupted version of Noah’s flood. One of the many versions found in almost every culture, all of them corrupted from the original verbally memorized and learned account passed down from Noah to Heber to Abraham, etc.
---
You…The "reality" is that you haven't yet shown that the concept "hellfire" has a referent in reality. Remember?..we're debating this issue. If you'd like to discuss such a thing as a concept only, then that's a different story.
Me…Hell is a referent in reality as much as is capital punishment. Capital punishment need not be -discussed as a concept; neither should Hell.
---
Boom…I'm "safe" from "hellfire" because there is no such place.
Me…Hell is no specific place set aside. It doesn’t exist at this time. It will happen in the future judgment, but it won’t burn forever. It will be done and over with. “Ashes under the souls of your feet.” (Mal. 4:3).
---
Boom…News flash: I don't believe in any such place. However, if you'd like to discuss the concept of "heaven"---then no, of course people aren't "scared into heaven"; however, they're scared out of the only alternative, that being "hell". You are being equivocal.
Me…If the Hubble or a radio telescope can’t detect it, it must not exist. We already covered this.
---
Boom…Look, if the concept of "heaven" is such an alluring, promising, and ultimately desirable place to be, then why "hell" in the first place? Why not, those who want to go to "heaven" can do so, and those who don't, can simply perish into the abyss of non-existence? Such options don't hamper our supposed "free will" in the least bit. 'Care to elaborate?
Me…There must be justice on the damage sin has caused. No sinner ever should have been part of this because Jesus already took it all. But because sinners refuse to let God’s grace free them from their pet sins, they cling to them to the end and when Satan is destroyed for the destruction he has caused, sinners will be destroyed too. The final destruction of sin and sinners will leave an everlasting impression on every redeemed mind.
---
Boom…David...Another big misunderstanding of the Bible and its God.
Yes, yes!... those who don't simply see the Christian perspective the way David sees it, are "misunderstanding". 'Got arrogance?
Me…Its not arrogance to say that many misunderstand capital punishment, especially the last, great capital punishment.
---
Boom…Okay, simply put---if you think/believe that the whole of mankind should be held responsible for the actions of two individuals; if you think/believe that one person can pay off someone elses debt in their stead; if you think/believe that finite trespasses warrant infinite punishment, then I'd say that you make an utter mockery of the word "justice", and further, I recommend that you revisit its definition, and how we mortal beings apply it in our daily lives.
Me…As a father, I should feel responsible for any negative effects I’ve had on my kids. They will certainly pay for what evil I’ve handed down to them. They will also pay because they will perpetuate it to their children. And so on to the third and fourth generations and beyond. This is easier to see exemplified in life. Its harder to find someone who takes the blame or sentence of someone else, mainly because it is rare. But it happens. A mother take the drunken father’s abuse toward the child. A fall-guy willingly accepting his role for the sake of his friend.
By infinite punishment, do you mean eternal writhing in flames? This is a horrendous misunderstanding of the Bible. It never said such a thing. That is not God’s character, its Satan’s. He has won so many adherents to his doctrine and stolen them from eternity with a God of love, a God you were pushed away from because of the devastating LIE about an eternally burning hell.
---
Boom…David...He["God"] also stands for mercy.
But as I pointed out(on more than one occasion), an omniscient being cannot employ/demonstrate any such "mercy", because said being knows the future, in which case(ad nauseam), the future is fixed AND UNCHANGABLE, or else, said being never knew the future set of events in the first place....::hic'p::...in the first place....::hic'p::...in the first place....::hic'p::...in the first place.
Me…Too much Alka-seltzer? The future is fixed with many contingency plans. Jonah tells Ninevah they will be overthrown like Sodom. They repent and weren’t destroyed, God not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. The future isn’t fixed like you put it. Adam dies, just like God said. But not right away, as it would have happened without instituting the plan of redemption. Was all this known by God? I don’t know, all I know is it works. Why analyze it into being impossible? Because you don’t want it to be possible? (Those aren’t trees; that’s nothing but cellulose. I don’t see any tree.)
---
Boom…Once more, if you obstinately insist that your biblegod can exercise its "mercy", "love", and "justice", etc...then fine, but said being CANNOT know the future...thus, said being has no "plan"; it plays things by ear, like any other mortal being...in which case, it is not worthy of my worship, even if such a being existed.
Me…That “biblegod” is your best friend. But you don’t know what a true friend is, one with commandments. A commanding, warning, counseling father-friend.
---
Boom…If "He" exists and carries the attributes that Christians assign to "Him", then "He" also knew before we ever came into existence what would "chase" us from "Him". And if "He" knew this information, then no one, not even "Him", has the power to change that future fact.
Me…Boom, “biblegod” gives you the power of choice to make everything happen. King Manasseh went from worst king to pretty decent king. Don’t get hung up on omniscience. Manasseh was out of control; maybe he overdosed of religion; God brought in the enemy who dragged the king through the thorns; in captivity said king had time to reflect. He made the right choice. Maybe it was something his father Hezekiah has said to him.
---
Boom…Is the contradiction starting to sink in yet? Golly, I sure hope so.
Me…There is no contradiction. In Manasseh’s case, God was able to successfully get through to him. Its too bad it didn’t happen more often throughout Israel’s history. If it weren’t for the stubborn unbelief of people, there would be more good news than bad news in the sacred record.
---
boom…David..He knows the corruption in the groups that profess to serve Him.
By "corruption", that wouldn't be what you Christians refer to as "Sin", would it? Regardless, all people fall short of "God's Glory", so all people must "Sin" to some degree, whether they "profess to serve Him", or not.
Me…No, the corruption is what Paul referred to as those “who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” They know what’s true but change it to fit in better with the crowd.
---
Boom…So, really, the "corruption" is entirely irrelevant. At the end of the day?... it is only "belief" in "Him", that is relevant. That's an odd "system" of justice, if you ask me. 'You?
Me…The corruption refers to the corruption of the apostolic church and its doctrines through the adopting of pagan practices which brought in Easter, Christmas, Sunday worship, and a host of other anti-biblical ideas. It resulted in a church that only took the name Christianity but operated 180 degrees out from the Bible. All that you hate about the Bible is because of this corrupting and brutal organization, and its lies that slowly got removed in Protestantism, over a long period of time. Did Protestants witch-hunt and hate Jews? Yes, they still believed a theocracy was carried over into the apostolic church, which wasn’t the case. But filters still remained on their eyes, even though they were physically separated from “the Church.”
---
Boom…And then this gem...To be a Fundamentalist is to be extremist.
Me…And you want Fundamentalists in charge of our Constitution? Don’t think you’ll be safe from the guillotine. Anarchy ushered in the age of reason in 1796 and anarchy will usher it out.
---
Boom…As for "extremist", I'll give a list of what I would consider "extreme", and then you tell me if you agree. How's that?
Boom…Here we go....
Boom…- People such as the KKK, who believe there is only one superior white race
Me…God allowed the dusky mixed multitude to leave Egypt with Israel, but in a large part they led Israel into desertion and complaining about the difficult training the wilderness provided and worked to undermine the leadership and to undo the Exodus. Israel may have been white and succumbed to prejudice against darker skin colors. But God didn’t teach them to do that.
Boom…- People who treat women as the inferior sex
Me…There was to be a chain of command in the families and in the nation, the husband having final say in family decisions. Generally speaking, women naturally love to support and keep bonds tight within the family, rather than to dominate. This is seen worldwide outside Judeo-Christian religions. We are designed this way, and to deviate from it is to fight nature. Yet, Israel was ahead of the nations in giving freedoms and even leadership positions to women, i.e. Deborah, the judge.
Boom…- People who shun homosexuals, and regard them as an abomination to society.
Me…Any form of self-indulgence can appear to be genetic, but can be removed with care and compassion. People who immediately go on the attack against homosexuals aren’t following Christ’s example.
Boom…- People who kill other people, even their own family members, if those people should lead them away from their religious beliefs.
Me…Boom, sometimes you sound like you would like to kill xtians for leading people away from your religiously held beliefs.
The laws given to Israel taught a nation of ignorant slaves how to be civil and good to their neighboring nations once they entered the land of Canaan and overthrew the grossly licentious pagan nations living there. And there weren’t allowed to enter until they learned the lesson.
Boom…How'd I do? Extreme, right?
Me…No, not when views in the right light.
---
Boom…David, there's more. I might get to it; I might not. Nonetheless, you have your work cut out for you. I await your well-thought-out rebuttals.
Me…Yes, Boom, a workoutit was . Thanks for having me. Sorry for taking so long.
Transcelation, I haven’t forgotten about you.
David asked:
ReplyDelete"If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it or anything to detect it, did it make a sound? A whole fleet of US Navy sonarmen say, “No.” That means molecules didn’t collide, disrupting the air and so on"
---------
David,
The first thing one must do, is define the meaning of 'SOUND', so here is how I would define what sound means.
From Wikipedia:
Sound is the vibration of matter, as perceived by the sense of hearing.[1] Physically, sound is vibrational mechanical energy that propagates through matter as a wave.
I think we can agree that if a tree fell in an airless vacuum, that it would not make a sound, regardless whether anyone was listening or not?
If you only see 'sound' as existing when someone/something is actually around to 'hear' it, then one could say the tree didn't make a sound when it fell.
However, that would be a limited definition of sound waves, as clearly, sound waves are a physical property and if they were loud enough, they could cause damage to matter, whether someone was there to hear it or not.
Also, if one includes ultrasonics in the sound spectrum in question here, then obviously just because humans can't hear that upper range of frequencies, doesn't mean they can't be detected by other means (dogs, electronic instruments etc.).
Keep in mind that the science would not discount spectrums of sound/light not being possible, just because humans can't hear/see those forms of energy.
Such forms of energy waves would have to defy some known laws, for science to reject such a possibility.
So yes David, a tree would indeed makes a sound, with or without a human there to hear it and I highly doubt any Navy Sonar operator would deny an object having made a sound, just because their particular instrument didn't pick it up, so I don't know why you infer that?
>>Modern science works that way. Because it can’t detect something, that event did not occur and couldn’t happen until science invents something to detect it
I think you are trying to force science into a unwarranted 'corner' here now.
If some type of yet unknown sound is hypothesized to exist by someone, science would first acknowledge that it hadn't ever detected such a sound.
It would then seek evidence to see if such a sound has a possibility of existing, within accepted known natural laws.
Science may decide that it was highly improbably that such a sound could exist, while stating that such a particular sound would not defy natural laws, or, it may go one step further and say that to have such an unusual sound would indeed defy some known natural laws.
So what you are asking here, is for science (and us) to ignore that something like your god (or his heaven/hell schemes), would defy natural laws, but at the same time give them some credence that such things have a far better chance of existing than the tools/knowledge of science would warrant of such.
So, if science determines that a claim is in clear defiance of our natural laws, then that claim moves in the supernatural realm, yes?
Having moved into such an unproven realm, it is then up to the person(s) making such an extraordinary claim, to provide some evidence for their claim.
No scientist worth his salt, is going to chase after pots of gold at the end of rainbows, just because some Tom, Dick or Harry insist they exist.
So science right now is saying that an entity with the characteristics that most render unto your god being, firstly defy all known natural laws, and secondly, that such a being in all probability could not exist for just that reason.
Some would then would go one step further in some cases and ask for evidence of that claim. It then would be determined if the type of evidence being provided was empirical or merely hearsay etc..
Evidence based on hearsay and/or emotions alone, would never convince science that it actually exists.
Bascially, all the proof for your god is from emotions and hearsay evidence alone and nothing else.
It is never testable, repeatable, or even shown to skew expected statistics across the demographics of the many religions and/or religious population centers versus the non-religious one's.
So while anyone can foster a claim to say that some 'thing' supernatural exist, science is not about to go chasing after every single claim for such or it would spend all it's time doing so.
However, certain specialized segments of our population do take it upon themselves to seek proof for anything supernatural.
Mike Shermer and James Randi are two of the best known in seeking proof for such extraordinary claims and after all the time they've been searching and testing, they have yet to come up with even a single piece of credible evidence to bolster some unnatural claim.
One has to wonder if so many of the claimed aspects of the supernatural world truly exist, then why are they so perfectly elusive in letting a skeptical person find them?
While science can't disprove your god's existence, it also can't disprove a million other gods or unreachable/untestable extraordinary claims either.
Should we suppose that all these claims are valid then?
If not, should we just assume a certain percentage of them are valid and the rest invalid?
Should we just assume that your personal god exists, just because you have a personal experience where you can FEEL this god INSIDE your mind, or because you wish to attribute some chance event in your life to the hand of such a god?
Sorry David, but until your lazy god gets off his butt and decides to provide something tangible, or at least circumstantial, then you have no case to be made for such a god being.
Anyone with a learned critical mind is not going to fall into the trap of believing a 'thing' exist just because they might have feelings of wishful thinking for such a thing to exist.
Your god exists for YOU David, simply for one reason and one reason alone, you wish him to exist for you, just that simple.
Allah exists for those who wish that god to, and the many gods of our human past also existed for a time when their followers also wished them to.
You can write as many storybook tales you wish to, that concoct an entire belief system around a mythical god, but stories of such, are nothing but legends at best.
Without real proof of your god, then the ONLY tool available to you god believers, is the one of brainwashing, which is exactly what has been done for thousands of years now in that regard.
You can twist your 'reasoning' to Boomslang into all sorts of pretzel shapes that you wish to, in an attempt to justify your belief system, but without any proof, all you have done with all this twisting is to convince your own mind of a false reality you WISH to perceive.
The problem as I see it, is that you didn't first go looking for proof for your god, then concluding later that it exists, but decided FIRST that god MUST exist for you, then trying your damndest to cherry pick evidence to hold up your god claim.
Heck, I could make up a thousand pretend supernatural beings in my mind, then head out and seek evidence for them. If I then add in some benefits of an afterlife in some wonderful heaven that this being will offer me, well, that is some heck of a carrot to push me hard in the direction of believing, rather than using a skeptical mind of science to determine reality with.
If I then add the benefits of this god providing me with some advantages while I'm still alive, over and above those who do not believe in it, then that is some magnet to pull many minds into that false reality.
Either some folks in your life held out such a god carrot to you, that you were brainwashed with, or you had some need in your life for a god to help you and thus, such a mythical god was determined to exist by you, but not with evidence, but from your own emotional needs alone.
The reasons most of us here escaped a belief in your xtian god is because we gained an inner strength to realize that we could make it on this earth without such a god-crutch, or, we used our heads and realized such a god is impossible, as the bible advertises it to us.
I do HOPE that one day you'll soon realize the same !!!
ATF (Who thinks David needs to give up his fantasy god, before he waste his life away)
Hey Toothfairy, I share your pain and frustration, trust me. David's most recent post is quite a lengthy barrage. I shall offer counter-arguments in segments, both for the economy of time..and, to reassure David that I'm not "blowing off" any of his comments, as he has accused me of in the past.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of, here is part of that very conversation, where
previously, David(Guest Christian) said...
boomSLANG, Please list the statements I didn't address. I thought I got them all. And, by the way, you didn't answer my comments, point by point. You kind of got half-way and blew the rest off.[bold added]
To which I responded....
"David. Stop it. I got more than 'half way'."
David's responds:
Boom, when you write like that..
David, when I write like what!?!? You mean, when I give reasoned explanations to your charges?
David continues...are you being funny?
Are you being evasive?
[are you being]Demanding?
Are you being deliberately reading-challenged?
Or trying to treat me as a kindergartner?
No---I'm merely treating you like a person who should have evidence to back his or her fantastic claims, as well as a person who should presumably be able to untangle any contradiction that may be found in what he or she believes to be the Universal Truth, hopefully, by way of sound, philosophically consistant arguments. Thus far, you've failed, IMO.
David continues...I can assure you you’re not the only adult here.
Okay.
Now--evidence for "God", please?
You...Do you believe that only atheists are scientific and sophisticated?
No, and unless you can reference where I have ever implied anything remotely like that, I ask you to refrain from such strawman arguments. In other words, please stay ON track, and stop with the "tap dancing". Thanks.
You...I love science.
Fantastic! Unfortunately, a vast percentage the religious doctrine you adhere to conflicts with what we now know via science.
You...Please, for the duration, refrain from the browbeating language.
Lol. Good grief, where have I "browbeat" language? I'm merely trying to get you to agree to the common definitions of words found in the English language; I'm trying to get you to define your terms, consistantly. For instance, you evidently have a problem with the common definition of "supernatural", as every time you attempt to expound on the subject, you contradict yourself.(more on that later)
You...What’s wrong with exchanging ideas like the mature adults that we are?
Nothing's wrong with it---however, if one is only giving out "ideas", and not taking any in, then there's obviously no "exchange". For the record--I'm fully ready, and able, to admit that I am mistaken. And do you know what?.... when I see objective convincing "ideas" that there exists a "God", I'll do just that. And before you go "there"--I seriously hope we are far enough along that you won't ask me to "prove" that a "God" doesn't exist. In other words, I hope that you won't attempt to shift the burden of proof. If you will go "there", I ask you, in advance, to please include evidence for the NON-existence of "Quetzacoatl".
Previously I said....."I'm sorry, but each of your respective counterpoints on the definition of 'supernatural' attack a strawman. No one - that is, not ONE Atheist here - is claming that they are omniscient, and/or, that they know all there is to know about the Universe. Again, you are attempting to set up, and attack, a strawman.
You respond..."I wish I knew what I said to call atheists omniscient."
To review, when discussing the definition of "supernatural", you have implied that "science" cannot know everything there is to know[paraphrased]. Here are your original comments regarding the provided definition of "supernatural:
David: "But can scientists say they understand all that there is?"
and...
"Once again, to say there is not power beyond what humans can muster or have observed, is arrogant. To not allow for a greater display of power than has been shown up to this day is to blind ourselves. Miracles are simply unexplainable to man, not unexplainable. The mechanics of them are not unobservable, just unobservable to man. Man is not all in all. He is not as great as he thinks he is. Man is not God. Not an easy thing for our pride to accept."
Again--NO ONE has said ANY of that. Thus, you attack a STRAWMAN.
I simply said that no one on this thread(which largley consists of Atheists)has said any such thing..i.e..that they do, or can, "know everything". To know "everything" would pass as "omniscient". In case you are really that unattentive, instead of giving us evidence for something "supernatural", you concentrate all of your energy on attacking a position that isn't even there in the first place, as if that will "default" your position as "true". Once more---STRAWMAN.
You conclude... My counterpoints are not a strawman.
YES....yes, they most certainly are.
You...The supernatural is way ahead of anything humans know or can conceive of.
This is remarkable, firstly, because you still attack a strawman. Secondly, if knowledge of the "supernatural" is "ahead", or beyond anything we humans can "conceive", then will you shut up about it? Will you STOP trying to convince other humans that you, a HUMAN, "know" one single thing about "the supernatural"? It is a blatant contradiction. Do we have a deal?(I suspect not)
For some strange, irrelevant reason, you continue...
All animals think and communicate. All that lacks is our abilities to understand each other. Be that as it may, Satan spoke through the serpent (“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Revelation 12: 9). ([Edit?] Boom, you made a flagrant assertion that I needed to clarify.) The talking vegetation, was the Son of God assuming a humble shrub as His visible apparatus, similar to His assuming the human body and nature later on. “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”
What you are boldly asserting is that an evil spook, i.e.. "Satan", a character from the bible, shape-shifted into a "snake", and had a conversation with a Caucasian set of "proto-type" humanoids.
Tell me, is this not an display of the supernatural? Yes..it is, isn't it? Of course!... so then, you cannot POSSIBLY know that any of this ever had a referent in reality, because of course, it is "beyond" our human understanding. What is the option, then? Well, said document must therefore be the rantings of ignorant, mortal, and limited "man"..in his blundered attempt at explaining the "unexplanable". SOLD!!!!!!!