Christian_40085703: im in a minority on the internet, because most people that stay on all the time and research this kind of thing arent christian
Christian_40085703: so i get this thing all the time
Me: Doesn't that bother you?
Me: People who actually do research disagree with your beliefs?
Me: People who actually test things and do research come out with a different conclusion so they MUST be wrong?
Christian_40085703 no, i feel sorry that they dont believe this
Me: lol
Christian_40085703: you would to if you were a christian
Why is it that people will question someone's rationality when it comes to this subject, but would surely take it for granted on any other. If these same persons of intelligence said that they were seeing a pattern emerging in something, we would all for the most part sort of say "Huh... interesting." and probably not even deeply question or examine the issue. But when it comes to faith, all of a sudden we surmise that they were probably irrational at the time of the statement.We therefore should not assume that just because Niels Bohr might have believed in a god, doesn't mean that he was being rational when he made that decision.
I don't think so. I think the rational is more like "Since you cannot disprove something, you should not simply dismiss it's existance".It's a common Christian argument to say: "Since you cannot disprove something completely, it must be true."
Originally posted by: Netopia
Why is it that people will question someone's rationality when it comes to this subject, but would surely take it for granted on any other. If these same persons of intelligence said that they were seeing a pattern emerging in something, we would all for the most part sort of say "Huh... interesting." and probably not even deeply question or examine the issue. But when it comes to faith, all of a sudden we surmise that they were probably irrational at the time of the statement.We therefore should not assume that just because Niels Bohr might have believed in a god, doesn't mean that he was being rational when he made that decision.
If we follow Occam's Razor, wouldn't it be easier to believe that these men typically maintain their rationality instead of instantly second guessing them and saying that there was a good chance that in this instant they were suddenly being irrational?
Originally posted by: melchoir
The following is an excerpt taken from a conversation I had last night. The name has been changed to protect the innoc..err ignorant.
Christian_40085703: im in a minority on the internet, because most people that stay on all the time and research this kind of thing arent christian
Christian_40085703: so i get this thing all the time
Me: Doesn't that bother you?
Me: People who actually do research disagree with your beliefs?
Me: People who actually test things and do research come out with a different conclusion so they MUST be wrong?
Christian_40085703 no, i feel sorry that they dont believe this
Me: lol
Christian_40085703: you would to if you were a christian
The above is typical Christian logic at its finest!
Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Originally posted by: Mith
Aye sign me up! As an ex-Christian I might have something good to contribute!
An ex-Christian??? Please share your story...I'm sure we'd all love to hear about your "Agnostic walk."
Valsalva
I would walk about so piously and condemn people and then i realized that's not what I wanted. Then I thought some more and I had an epiphany, all of my proselytizing and condemnation was basically what I myself abhorred. All this in the name of a God.
Originally posted by: Athanasius
In short, some hold that science is the father of reason. It is not. Reason is the father of science.
One supposed tenet of rational discussion is that the principle that explains the rule at that same moment supersedes it. By this principle, I would hold that there is something transcendent about reason (and human consciousness in general) that is not rooted ultimately in merely the interconnected realm of biochemical processes or what we call "this universe." The very fact that our minds are able to conduct scientific experiments suggests to me that there is something transcendent about our minds that science (under its current parameters) will never be able to explain.
Valsalva ridiculed my thesis that personality is greater than matter by focusing on the actual definition of matter. I admit that my use of "matter" was sloppy. Of course personality is greater than matter in that strict sense. Otherwise there would be no such thing as personality. I was using "matter" as a kind of shorthand for "the entire history of the universe."
For example, previously in the thread the discussion touched on "serotonin or God?" It is hard to say which came first in any specific individuals' thought process. It probably varies from individual to individual and even within individuals from experience to experience.
But I would still infer that, at the root of it all, it seems to me more rational that Mind produced this universe than that somehow this universe, devoid of any transcendent Mind, produced mind. That there is a Mind that predates the entire history of the Universe and that the Universe is rooted in that, not vice versa.
But if the reverse is true and this universe did produce mind, then why do we presume that one sides' thoughts are intrinsically more rational than the other? It is as if I assume that some part of my mind is truly independent from nature and able to think objectively and reach a truly and purely rational conviction. But if I assume that about my own mind, then why would I draw the conclusion that there is no Mind out there that is far more objective than mine? And why would I suggest that people who believe that are intrinsically irrational?
You suggested that I was quoting "experts" in fields where they were not qualified to comment, and that such a thing was a logical fallacy. But that isn't what I did. These "experts" were not making any specific comment about the nature of God, how the Bible should be interpreted, or some point of theological discussion. They were simply stating that, as they had reached the pinnacle of their fields, they found the question of God just as relevant, or maybe more relevant, than ever. My point was to illustrate that it is not irrational to believe in a non-corporeal Mind/Logos that guides the Universe, or to suppose that such a Mind would have something in common with our own thoughts and reasonings.
And there are "experts" in a wide variety of sciences that find themselves unable to eliminate the God question. That doesn't make them experts in theology and religion; it means that the religious questions that touch on all of us actually do touch on all of us and are not currently answerable by science.
The other is a biologist, with two advanced degrees, who worked in the private sector and traveled the globe consulting with governments about plant pathology and the insights such studies can give us in our own struggles with harmful bacteria. An agnostic/atheist in greaduate school, he suddenly stunned himself with the awareness that atheistic evolution took as much faith (or more) than theism.
I don't mention these cases to cite "authorities" and then get their opinions about God. I cite them to reveal that belief in God is not inherently childish or irrational.
I say this because of the excessively literal interpretation of Genesis that you insist all Christians must believe. Yet by no means have all Christians taken such a view of Genesis, nor have they throughout church history.
It is such tactics that give an appearance of hypocrisy or a double standard.
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I would walk about so piously and condemn people and then i realized that's not what I wanted. Then I thought some more and I had an epiphany, all of my proselytizing and condemnation was basically what I myself abhorred. All this in the name of a God.
Interesting how similar this sounds to Jesus condemning the Pharisees.
I've always wondered how so many Christian leaders never even pause to consider how they might relate to the Pharisees. Somehow the Pharisees have been minimized as some particular group of hypocritical Jewish leaders. But it is clearly obvious that Jesus' comments apply more universally. The hypocrisy of being judgemental religious zealots is in no way limited to ancient Jewish leaders.
Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Essentially you're saying that I "have no business" debating religion because I am not a religious scholar -- that, on its own, should sound illogical to even the most casual observer who just so happend to have half his cerebral cortex resected...but apparently, logic has eluded you once again. But we'll let that one slide.I suggest that you go look up fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority and try to understand why I called it. It is unacceptable for a physicist to state the likelihood of God's existence because that is not an area of his expertise...however, it would certainly be permissible for said physicist to discuss the topic by invoking various references and arguments. There's a huge difference. My job here isn't to educate you in reasoning...(nor is it the Church's, apparently).
I have never shown disdain for Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. at any point. Therefore, I'm not sure where you get
off concluding that I have "disdain for religion." Either you think that a) Christianity is synonymous with religion,
meaning that Christianity is the one true religion and if I do not agree with Christians, I must hate all religions
or b) you are drawing more conclusions that have no bearing on reality (i.e. delusions).
Thank you for the unsupported handwaving remark. However, I would dare say that your ignorance of basic logic and
ineptitude at rational thought prevents you from recognizing what areas I am familiar with and what areas I am not.
I have not seen you address ANY of my points directly...only respond with useless malarkey and inane comments.
If you re-read the comments I responded to in this post, you will recognize that you contributed absolutely nothing
to this discussion and thread.
I like how you borrow one of my argument structures consisting of a list of statements and a request to "pick one."
Really, mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery, but hey, can we try to be a little original here? Unfortunately,
even your pathetic attempt to establish me as a hypocrite falls flat on its face because you clearly do not understand
the fallacy I pointed out, yet you try desperately to throw it back at me -- and sounds even more incompetent in the
process. The ironic part is that YOU are attempting to comment in an area that you're OBVIOUSLY not familiar with -
basic logical reasoning.
It goes both ways.
"God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because God says so."
Originally posted by: petrek
I'm not sure what you mean by it goes both ways...but surely you're not suggesting that the passage "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" endorses the type of slavery that was seen in early America, as well as other places, and which is still seen today. It is fairly obvious ( at least in my estimation, but then I'm not trying to find excuses not to trust the Word of God ) that the type of slavery seen in early America is anything but Godly. To treat another human as merely a piece of property is without a shadow of a doubt unbiblical.
Leviticus 25:42 God commands that fellow Israelites must not be sold as slaves but in 25:44 God commands "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21)
"Masters, be fair and just in the way you treat your slaves. Remember that you too have a Master in heaven." Colossians 4:1
"obey your human masters in all things" (Colossians 3:22). "Slaves are to submit to their masters and please them in all things. They must not answer them back " (Titus 2:9). "Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling; and do it with a sincere heart, as though you were serving Christ" (Ephesians 6:5). "Slaves submit to your masters and show them complete respect, not only to those who are kind and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. God will bless you for this, if you endure the pain of undeserved suffering because you are conscious of his will." " (1 Peter 2:18).
"Those who are slaves must consider their masters worthy of all respect, so that no one will speak evil of the name of God and of our teaching. Slaves belonging to Christian masters must not despise them, for they are the brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their work are believers whom they love." (1 Timothy 6: 1-3)
There is no condemnation of slavery in the Bible. Even evangelicals such as the popular British author John Stott admit this ("Scripture regulates but nowhere condemns slavery" Issues facing Christians Today 1984 p195). Moreover, in the Old Testament the Israelites are given explicit permission to buy and own slaves for life, even to will them to their children. The Ten Commandments implicitly accept the validity of neighbours owning slaves without question. (10th commandment God commands that one should not covet one's neighbour's property including his slaves (or indeed anything that belongs to the neighbour). The fact that someone has a slave is taken for granted without any moral objection. The validity of one's neighbour owning a slave (like owning his ox or donkey) is implicitly accepted. ) And in the New Testament we discover that early Christians owned slaves (unlike the Essenes) and far from condemning this (as the Essenes would have done) the New Testament teaches that slaves owned by such Christian masters "must consider their masters worthy of all respect". As Richard Holloway, the present Anglican Bishop of Edinburgh put it to a British newspaper recently "We have recently abandoned the text's tyranny over women as we abandoned its justification of slavery" (Sunday Times 11-10-98).
If the Bible really was the word of God we would at the very least expect it to condemn the ownership of one person by another, and we could expect it to be far more humane and enlightened than any human source of morality. But this simply isn't the case. The Bible not only accepts the practice of slavery without question - it even falls well short of the best human thinking about the subject. The Bible can't possibly be the infallible word of God.
Originally posted by: petrek
I'm not sure what you mean by it goes both ways...but surely you're not suggesting that the passage "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" endorses the type of slavery that was seen in early America, as well as other places, and which is still seen today.
It is also interesting to ponder what God might think is meant by "loving one's neighbour". In Leviticus God commands Moses and the Israelites to "love one's neighbour" but then shortly afterwards in Deuteronomy he commands the Israelites to kill their neighbours such as the Hittites and other tribes without mercy. "You must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy" Deuteronomy 7:2. "Do not leave alive anything that breathes" Deuteronomy 20:16. A curious way of loving one's neighbour. When I've pointed this out to Christians I've been surprised by the willingness some have shown to defend such teaching. Yes it was right and proper to kill them all - all the women, slaves, children, babies and animals. They were wicked. The irony that it might actually be rather wicked to kill without mercy seems to have escaped some Christians. But it shows that their own concept of "loving one's neighbour" is so elastic as to be meaningless. Incidentally, for anyone who believes that the Hittites really should have been exterminated I invite them to read the entry "Hittites" in the Encarta CD Rom .
THE STORY OF THE FLOOD
The story is contained in the book of Genesis in chapters six to nine. Ch 6 tells us that: "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." (6,5). God was apparently greatly upset by this and his response to this was to say to himself : "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and the birds of the air, for I am grieved that I have made them." (6,7).
God's method of wiping out mankind was to create a flood. Ch 7 tells us that God said: "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." (7,4). Later we are told : "For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished - birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had breath of life in its nostrils died.
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. ? (7,17-24)
Later on ?"By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the Ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry." God then tells Noah to leave the Ark "So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons wives. All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds - everything that moves on the earth - came out of the Ark, one kind after another. Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." (8:13-21)
EXAMINING THE STORY
Several features of this story need close scrutiny. We are told that man had become very wicked, and this seems to be the justification in the story for God's act of mass killing. However Christians have always asserted that God is all powerful and all knowing. But if God is all knowing then why did he start off creating man as he did, knowing that he would soon kill all but a very few of the people he had created? It is a very bizarre act indeed to create something knowing full well that you are going to destroy it in the near future.
We are told that God is very upset by the wickedness of man, but does this justify God's subsequent behaviour? We are not told what this wickedness is, but to answer the question I have just posed we could consider how we as human beings deal with wrongdoing. The most extreme form of wrongdoing in all human societies is considered to be taking the life of another human. And how do we as human beings deal with this extreme? In most civilised societies we refuse to kill the wrongdoer, instead we imprison them. So even in the most extreme case of "wickedness" we do not believe as civilised people that we are justified in punishing the guilty party by death. Yet in the Genesis story God punishes all humans for their "wickedness", whatever that "wickedness" is, by killing each and every human but for Noah's family.
The matter cannot be left there however. It is not only adult humans that God kills, because of course the method of mass killing he chooses to use kills all life, including all children and babies. One is left to wonder what great "wickedness" these babies and children have committed to deserve being killed too.
We should consider carefully the method God uses. Anyone who has nearly drowned will testify that it is a quite terrifying experience. Furthermore God not only kills all humans, from babies to grannies, in an unpleasant way, he also kills all other animals on earth. So because of man's "wickedness" millions of animals are subjected to a terrifying and cruel death, even though they have nothing to do with man's "wickedness".
JUDGING GOD'S BEHAVIOUR
The story in Genesis portrays an act of mass killing. Over the past decade I have debated this story with numerous Christians. All have, like the letter writers to the Independent, insisted that the story in Genesis is true however unlikely it is scientifically. Yet none had considered the really rather obvious moral dimension to the story until I pointed it out. Having done so, the response from Christians has been a revelation. I note here several responses, which deserve particular consideration.
?But God established a covenant with Noah!?
It is quite true that God promises "And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done" (8:21) and "I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth" (9:11). So what bearing does this promise have on the morality of the act that God has just committed? If a person was to commit an act of mass killing, but then subsequently promises not to repeat the act, that does not excuse or legitimise the mass killing. It is quite disturbing that Christians could suggest that a promise from God to refrain from an act of mass killing in the future somehow excuses or legitimises the cruelty and mass slaughter of humans and animals involved in the flood. Incidentally, God's promise does not stop him commanding the Israelites in Deuteronomy (7:1-5 & 13:12-16) to commit genocide against other semitic groups.
?God didn't enjoy the killing?
On pointing out to a sweet little old lady that the story did actually portray an act of wanton mass killing the sweet little old lady responded with the above comment. Poor God. God may not have enjoyed his act of mass killing but then one doesn't suppose that the humans (including children and babies) and the many animals he was cruelly killing enjoyed it either.
?Its rather strong to call it evil?
Another Christian listened carefully to the argument I have outlined above, and was unable to provide any counter arguments. I then asked her if she thought the act of mass killing was evil. She was quite upset by this and said that the word evil was rather strong to use. Let us consider how Christians respond to behaviour they disapprove of. I offer three examples:
In the spring of 1997 a number of churches in Northern Ireland and the South West of England were set alight. No one was hurt or killed in these fires. A number of priests gave various comments to the media about the fires. Words such as "evil" were used.
At Christmas 1995 a Bishop of the Church of England described the prize money in the National Lottery as "obscene".
In 1991 the House of Bishops of the Church of England published a report "Issues in Human Sexuality" which referred to "the evil of promiscuity" (p43).
These examples are just a few of many one could use. So if sleeping around is evil, if burning a valued building without loss of life is evil, then how do we describe the act of mass killing? What I have highlighted is the fact that some Christians have tended to seriously devalued words such as evil, but that when it comes to condemning the behaviour of their God many Christians become remarkably coy. The story of Noah's Ark and the flood is a story of quite remarkable evil, which deserves to be condemned in the very strongest terms because quite simply it is an act of genocide. It is also an act of quite incalculable cruelty towards, and mass killing of, innocent animals.
"God sent the people he drowned to heaven afterwards"
I suspect that some Christians advance this idea because they do feel very uncomfortable with God actions. But there is no comfort to be had from the story. The story explains in detail what God does, both before the flood and afterwards, but nowhere does it say that the people he has drowned are then sent to heaven. This is just a bit of wishful thinking.
And as someone has pointed out to me, given that God considered these humans "wicked" who had "evil all the time" in their hearts, and given that humans who are "wicked" and unrepentant are supposed to go to "hell", if God was going to send them anywhere it would be to hell rather than heaven.
?Its symbolic, and represents God's love?
Very many Christians believe that the story of the flood is a real story. Some Christians do believe that the story is myth or symbolic. However that does not resolve the moral dimension of the story, only the scientific dimension. Whether the story is factual or symbolic does not alter the moral dimension. Does the story encourage or promote virtues such as justice or respect for life? It does not. It remains a story of great evil and sets an appalling example as a story, be it real or symbolic.
"God would have sent those who were innocent to heaven"
As I've already noted, nowhere does the story say that people will be sent to heaven after being killed by God. Moreover, reading the story carefully, there is no mention of any person being seen by God as "innocent" other than Noah. Rather the opposite is true. As the narrative tells us "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time" (6,5) and Noah was "blameless among the people of his time" (6:9). The narrative also says of humanity "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21).
This particular response also implies that those who were "wicked" deserved to be cruelly killed by God. As civilisation has gradually developed we have increasingly rejected the use of killing as a punishment, but for the extreme case of murder (and most civilised countries reject even that). Yet God who is supposed to be "all powerful and all good" resorts to killing as a punishment for any "wickedness". God's standards actually fall well below the most civilised human standards. And God's disrespect for the sanctity of life is shocking.
There is another, even more profound objection to the suggestion. If you argue that God's killing of innocent people is acceptable if they are then sent to heaven what sort of example does this set to humans? That life here on this planet is of no consequence? That acts of killing on this planet can be justified or simply don't matter because the victims are going to go to heaven? That intense suffering through drowning is really OK? An anti-Semitic might say that if Jews were going to go to heaven after the Holocaust - then why get bothered about the suffering, cruelty and loss of life involved in the Holocaust.
These type of excuses for God's behaviour also overlook the fact that he also cruelly killed the entire animal kingdom but for two of each species. As I've already noted, anyone who has nearly drowned will testify that it's a terrifying experience. Although God is supposed to be "all powerful" (so he could have chosen any method to do his killing) the method he chooses to wipe out humanity involves terrifying and needless cruelty to millions of animals and then the needless killing of these animals, who are entirely innocent of man's supposed "wickedness".
"Who are we to judge God"
This particular sentiment has been expressed to me quite a few times - though this particular comment is the most polite way it's been said. Most have been rather less polite - normally personally abusive or insulting.
In fact Christians judge God as well. After all they tell say that God is "all good" and people have personally told me how wonderful God has been to them. They are therefore making a judgement about God. And since some Christians frequently ask other people to follow this God it is only reasonable that we should make our own judgement too.
Some people might want to close their eyes to needless acts of mass cruelty and killing but that doesn't mean to say the rest of us should too.
Conclusions
God?s act of flooding the earth in order to kill mankind, like some cosmic Saddam Hussein, ought to be condemned unreservedly so perhaps the last word on the flood should go to the only letter to the Independent newspaper which addressed this moral dimension. The letter was written by Ronald Gray from Emmanuel College, Cambridge:
"Those who think the Deluge really happened might try imagining it with the eyes of Leonardo da Vinci, whose notebooks describe in detail the scene as the waters rose continually for 40 days; the hills crowded with people fighting for their lives against each other, and against wild beasts that had also made for the high ground, the starvation, the thirst, the parents killing their children to save them from further suffering. What had this "pitiless slaughter", as Leonardo calls it, "genocide", as we might say today, to do with any notion of justice??. Leonardo was, of course, centuries ahead of his time. Seeing how many still believe this moral, or rather immoral, fable to be true, I ask myself how many more centuries will be needed before he makes his mark." Independent 14-4-97.
While slavery of any sort is CLEARLY immoral, that does not mean it is not in the bible.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leviticus 25:42 God commands that fellow Israelites must not be sold as slaves but in 25:44 God commands "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21)
"Masters, be fair and just in the way you treat your slaves. Remember that you too have a Master in heaven." Colossians 4:1
"obey your human masters in all things" (Colossians 3:22). "Slaves are to submit to their masters and please them in all things. They must not answer them back " (Titus 2:9). "Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling; and do it with a sincere heart, as though you were serving Christ" (Ephesians 6:5). "Slaves submit to your masters and show them complete respect, not only to those who are kind and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. God will bless you for this, if you endure the pain of undeserved suffering because you are conscious of his will." " (1 Peter 2:18).
"Those who are slaves must consider their masters worthy of all respect, so that no one will speak evil of the name of God and of our teaching. Slaves belonging to Christian masters must not despise them, for they are the brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their work are believers whom they love." (1 Timothy 6: 1-3)
There is no condemnation of slavery in the Bible. Even evangelicals such as the popular British author John Stott admit this ("Scripture regulates but nowhere condemns slavery" Issues facing Christians Today 1984 p195). Moreover, in the Old Testament the Israelites are given explicit permission to buy and own slaves for life, even to will them to their children. The Ten Commandments implicitly accept the validity of neighbours owning slaves without question. (10th commandment God commands that one should not covet one's neighbour's property including his slaves (or indeed anything that belongs to the neighbour). The fact that someone has a slave is taken for granted without any moral objection. The validity of one's neighbour owning a slave (like owning his ox or donkey) is implicitly accepted. ) And in the New Testament we discover that early Christians owned slaves (unlike the Essenes) and far from condemning this (as the Essenes would have done) the New Testament teaches that slaves owned by such Christian masters "must consider their masters worthy of all respect". As Richard Holloway, the present Anglican Bishop of Edinburgh put it to a British newspaper recently "We have recently abandoned the text's tyranny over women as we abandoned its justification of slavery" (Sunday Times 11-10-98).
If the Bible really was the word of God we would at the very least expect it to condemn the ownership of one person by another, and we could expect it to be far more humane and enlightened than any human source of morality. But this simply isn't the case. The Bible not only accepts the practice of slavery without question - it even falls well short of the best human thinking about the subject. The Bible can't possibly be the infallible word of God.
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor" is clearly a contradiction.
Quote
It is also interesting to ponder what God might think is meant by "loving one's neighbour". In Leviticus God commands Moses and the Israelites to "love one's neighbour" but then shortly afterwards in Deuteronomy he commands the Israelites to kill their neighbours such as the Hittites and other tribes without mercy. "You must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy" Deuteronomy 7:2. "Do not leave alive anything that breathes" Deuteronomy 20:16. A curious way of loving one's neighbour. When I've pointed this out to Christians I've been surprised by the willingness some have shown to defend such teaching. Yes it was right and proper to kill them all - all the women, slaves, children, babies and animals. They were wicked. The irony that it might actually be rather wicked to kill without mercy seems to have escaped some Christians. But it shows that their own concept of "loving one's neighbour" is so elastic as to be meaningless. Incidentally, for anyone who believes that the Hittites really should have been exterminated I invite them to read the entry "Hittites" in the Encarta CD Rom .
Lets see what else is morally wrong from the Bible shall we? How about the Great Flood?
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE STORY OF THE FLOOD
The story is contained in the book of Genesis in chapters six to nine. Ch 6 tells us that: "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." (6,5). God was apparently greatly upset by this and his response to this was to say to himself : "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and the birds of the air, for I am grieved that I have made them." (6,7).
God's method of wiping out mankind was to create a flood. Ch 7 tells us that God said: "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." (7,4). Later we are told : "For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished - birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had breath of life in its nostrils died.
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. ? (7,17-24)
Later on ?"By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the Ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry." God then tells Noah to leave the Ark "So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons wives. All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds - everything that moves on the earth - came out of the Ark, one kind after another. Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." (8:13-21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMINING THE STORY
Several features of this story need close scrutiny. We are told that man had become very wicked, and this seems to be the justification in the story for God's act of mass killing. However Christians have always asserted that God is all powerful and all knowing. But if God is all knowing then why did he start off creating man as he did, knowing that he would soon kill all but a very few of the people he had created? It is a very bizarre act indeed to create something knowing full well that you are going to destroy it in the near future.
We are told that God is very upset by the wickedness of man, but does this justify God's subsequent behaviour? We are not told what this wickedness is, but to answer the question I have just posed we could consider how we as human beings deal with wrongdoing. The most extreme form of wrongdoing in all human societies is considered to be taking the life of another human. And how do we as human beings deal with this extreme? In most civilised societies we refuse to kill the wrongdoer, instead we imprison them. So even in the most extreme case of "wickedness" we do not believe as civilised people that we are justified in punishing the guilty party by death. Yet in the Genesis story God punishes all humans for their "wickedness", whatever that "wickedness" is, by killing each and every human but for Noah's family.
The matter cannot be left there however. It is not only adult humans that God kills, because of course the method of mass killing he chooses to use kills all life, including all children and babies. One is left to wonder what great "wickedness" these babies and children have committed to deserve being killed too.
We should consider carefully the method God uses. Anyone who has nearly drowned will testify that it is a quite terrifying experience. Furthermore God not only kills all humans, from babies to grannies, in an unpleasant way, he also kills all other animals on earth. So because of man's "wickedness" millions of animals are subjected to a terrifying and cruel death, even though they have nothing to do with man's "wickedness".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGING GOD'S BEHAVIOUR
The story in Genesis portrays an act of mass killing. Over the past decade I have debated this story with numerous Christians. All have, like the letter writers to the Independent, insisted that the story in Genesis is true however unlikely it is scientifically. Yet none had considered the really rather obvious moral dimension to the story until I pointed it out. Having done so, the response from Christians has been a revelation. I note here several responses, which deserve particular consideration.
?But God established a covenant with Noah!?
It is quite true that God promises "And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done" (8:21) and "I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth" (9:11). So what bearing does this promise have on the morality of the act that God has just committed? If a person was to commit an act of mass killing, but then subsequently promises not to repeat the act, that does not excuse or legitimise the mass killing. It is quite disturbing that Christians could suggest that a promise from God to refrain from an act of mass killing in the future somehow excuses or legitimises the cruelty and mass slaughter of humans and animals involved in the flood. Incidentally, God's promise does not stop him commanding the Israelites in Deuteronomy (7:1-5 & 13:12-16) to commit genocide against other semitic groups.
?God didn't enjoy the killing?
On pointing out to a sweet little old lady that the story did actually portray an act of wanton mass killing the sweet little old lady responded with the above comment. Poor God. God may not have enjoyed his act of mass killing but then one doesn't suppose that the humans (including children and babies) and the many animals he was cruelly killing enjoyed it either.
?Its rather strong to call it evil?
Another Christian listened carefully to the argument I have outlined above, and was unable to provide any counter arguments. I then asked her if she thought the act of mass killing was evil. She was quite upset by this and said that the word evil was rather strong to use. Let us consider how Christians respond to behaviour they disapprove of. I offer three examples:
In the spring of 1997 a number of churches in Northern Ireland and the South West of England were set alight. No one was hurt or killed in these fires. A number of priests gave various comments to the media about the fires. Words such as "evil" were used.
At Christmas 1995 a Bishop of the Church of England described the prize money in the National Lottery as "obscene".
In 1991 the House of Bishops of the Church of England published a report "Issues in Human Sexuality" which referred to "the evil of promiscuity" (p43).
These examples are just a few of many one could use. So if sleeping around is evil, if burning a valued building without loss of life is evil, then how do we describe the act of mass killing? What I have highlighted is the fact that some Christians have tended to seriously devalued words such as evil, but that when it comes to condemning the behaviour of their God many Christians become remarkably coy. The story of Noah's Ark and the flood is a story of quite remarkable evil, which deserves to be condemned in the very strongest terms because quite simply it is an act of genocide. It is also an act of quite incalculable cruelty towards, and mass killing of, innocent animals.
"God sent the people he drowned to heaven afterwards"
I suspect that some Christians advance this idea because they do feel very uncomfortable with God actions. But there is no comfort to be had from the story. The story explains in detail what God does, both before the flood and afterwards, but nowhere does it say that the people he has drowned are then sent to heaven. This is just a bit of wishful thinking.
And as someone has pointed out to me, given that God considered these humans "wicked" who had "evil all the time" in their hearts, and given that humans who are "wicked" and unrepentant are supposed to go to "hell", if God was going to send them anywhere it would be to hell rather than heaven.
?Its symbolic, and represents God's love?
Very many Christians believe that the story of the flood is a real story. Some Christians do believe that the story is myth or symbolic. However that does not resolve the moral dimension of the story, only the scientific dimension. Whether the story is factual or symbolic does not alter the moral dimension. Does the story encourage or promote virtues such as justice or respect for life? It does not. It remains a story of great evil and sets an appalling example as a story, be it real or symbolic.
"God would have sent those who were innocent to heaven"
As I've already noted, nowhere does the story say that people will be sent to heaven after being killed by God. Moreover, reading the story carefully, there is no mention of any person being seen by God as "innocent" other than Noah. Rather the opposite is true. As the narrative tells us "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time" (6,5) and Noah was "blameless among the people of his time" (6:9). The narrative also says of humanity "every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21).
This particular response also implies that those who were "wicked" deserved to be cruelly killed by God. As civilisation has gradually developed we have increasingly rejected the use of killing as a punishment, but for the extreme case of murder (and most civilised countries reject even that). Yet God who is supposed to be "all powerful and all good" resorts to killing as a punishment for any "wickedness". God's standards actually fall well below the most civilised human standards. And God's disrespect for the sanctity of life is shocking.
There is another, even more profound objection to the suggestion. If you argue that God's killing of innocent people is acceptable if they are then sent to heaven what sort of example does this set to humans? That life here on this planet is of no consequence? That acts of killing on this planet can be justified or simply don't matter because the victims are going to go to heaven? That intense suffering through drowning is really OK? An anti-Semitic might say that if Jews were going to go to heaven after the Holocaust - then why get bothered about the suffering, cruelty and loss of life involved in the Holocaust.
These type of excuses for God's behaviour also overlook the fact that he also cruelly killed the entire animal kingdom but for two of each species. As I've already noted, anyone who has nearly drowned will testify that it's a terrifying experience. Although God is supposed to be "all powerful" (so he could have chosen any method to do his killing) the method he chooses to wipe out humanity involves terrifying and needless cruelty to millions of animals and then the needless killing of these animals, who are entirely innocent of man's supposed "wickedness".
"Who are we to judge God"
This particular sentiment has been expressed to me quite a few times - though this particular comment is the most polite way it's been said. Most have been rather less polite - normally personally abusive or insulting.
In fact Christians judge God as well. After all they tell say that God is "all good" and people have personally told me how wonderful God has been to them. They are therefore making a judgement about God. And since some Christians frequently ask other people to follow this God it is only reasonable that we should make our own judgement too.
Some people might want to close their eyes to needless acts of mass cruelty and killing but that doesn't mean to say the rest of us should too.
Conclusions
God?s act of flooding the earth in order to kill mankind, like some cosmic Saddam Hussein, ought to be condemned unreservedly so perhaps the last word on the flood should go to the only letter to the Independent newspaper which addressed this moral dimension. The letter was written by Ronald Gray from Emmanuel College, Cambridge:
"Those who think the Deluge really happened might try imagining it with the eyes of Leonardo da Vinci, whose notebooks describe in detail the scene as the waters rose continually for 40 days; the hills crowded with people fighting for their lives against each other, and against wild beasts that had also made for the high ground, the starvation, the thirst, the parents killing their children to save them from further suffering. What had this "pitiless slaughter", as Leonardo calls it, "genocide", as we might say today, to do with any notion of justice??. Leonardo was, of course, centuries ahead of his time. Seeing how many still believe this moral, or rather immoral, fable to be true, I ask myself how many more centuries will be needed before he makes his mark." Independent 14-4-97.
Originally Posted by:petrek
This life is temporary, Heaven and Hell are eternal!
Originally Posted By:petrek
As I stated a few posts above, the part of my quote you left out, "Anyone who honestly believes that the biblical use of the word slave can be replaced with the early American view of a slave needs to read through the biblical passages containing the word slave as well as the surrounding verses ( for a better understanding of the context ) to understand the biblical view."
Originally Posted By:petrek
Anyone who is interested in understanding the situation should read more than just the Encarta CD Rom. When the Jews do not kill their enemies, their enemies are more than happy to kill them.
any more righteous. They are told explicitly to not even try to make a treaty(to keep the peace)."You must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy" Deuteronomy 7:2. "Do not leave alive anything that breathes" Deuteronomy 20:16.
Originally Posted By:petrek
If it is a bizarre act to create something that you know will die, (and as others have argued by so doing you are responsible for their death), it is a wonder that any child is born at all.
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut
Essentially you're saying that I "have no business" debating religion because I am not a religious scholar -- that, on its own, should sound illogical to even the most casual observer who just so happend to have half his cerebral cortex resected...but apparently, logic has eluded you once again. But we'll let that one slide.I suggest that you go look up fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority and try to understand why I called it. It is unacceptable for a physicist to state the likelihood of God's existence because that is not an area of his expertise...however, it would certainly be permissible for said physicist to discuss the topic by invoking various references and arguments. There's a huge difference. My job here isn't to educate you in reasoning...(nor is it the Church's, apparently).
For the most part Athanasius has already explained to you why you're incorrect in this but I'll add a few more minor points.
First off you say it's not a scientists job to speak to the likelihood of God's existence because that's not an area they're trained in.
But on the other hand you dismiss people who have studied the bible and comment on their belief in God because they lack proof. So the simple question would be who is qualified to comment on God's existence in your opinion?
You won't listen to science because it's not their field and you won't listen to christians because they lack proof. Never mind the fact that you've stated you don't belive and you also lack proof to back up your beliefs.
So it would seem that no matter who state's their beliefs in God you're determined not to listen. I think it would be more fitting if you simply said that you'll dismiss anyone who states their belief in God because they're not fit to render judgment on that subject. At least that would be honest.
Second point deals with how you stated that it's apparently not the church's job to educate me in reasoning.
Now, I've already made it clear several times (or so I thought) that I'm not a Christian. I did say that I belive in God but that I don't attend church or subscribe to any particular religion. Therefore your implication is incorrect. It would appear that you only hear what you'd like to hear and "draw conclusions that have no bearing on reality" to use your words. So I ask you, delusions?
I have never shown disdain for Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. at any point. Therefore, I'm not sure where you get
off concluding that I have "disdain for religion." Either you think that a) Christianity is synonymous with religion,
meaning that Christianity is the one true religion and if I do not agree with Christians, I must hate all religions
or b) you are drawing more conclusions that have no bearing on reality (i.e. delusions).
Perhaps I should have been more clear and just said you had disdain for Christianity. Even so Christianity is a religion. Unless you'd like to argue that of course? So, unless I'd said that you had disdain for all religion, which I didn't, my original comment is still correct. Not as clear as it should have been apparently but still correct.
You have shown a lack of understanding for some of the key areas of christianity several times.
Apparently it's more comfortable for you to attack a person personaly that it is to admit that you're incorrect though. Whatever works for you I guess.
And you believe yourself guiltless of the same thing? What is name calling? Constructive!?Certainly, what you wrote above is noncontributory to the rest of what you have to say.
WHAT?!?! We uneducated, ignorant masses can follow what Athanasius wrote but you can't follow it?None of what you wrote makes sense and it's very difficult to follow your reasoning...
No, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a transcendent process going on, and neither does it EXCLUDE the possibility that the process is transcendent, which seems to be your perspective. It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as a believer; in my opinion it takes more.It doesn't necessarily mean that there is a transcendent process going on...it just means that there are limitations to what can be determine by scientific testing and objective observation.
LOL!!!! You mean like building a premise on the name Jesus and expecting people to think you generically meant God and then get bent because people tell you your premise makes no sense. Is that the kind of "redefining" you're talking about? You REALLY do maintain two sets of rules, do you? One for you and one for anyone who disagrees with you. Your inconsistancy is illogical and irrational if your intent is to convince anyone that you may be right.Yeah, my friend, no offense, but your argument made absolutely no sense. I'm sorry, but you can't include a critical word in your argument, secretly redefine it so that you and only you know its new definition, then expect people not to ask "what the hell is this guy talking about?"
That isn't what he said at all! Are you incapable of reading and understanding anything that goes against your entrenched beliefs? Here... lemme break it down for you. He's saying that it makes more sense that intelligence existed and created the universe than to believe that out of total chaos the universe randomly produced intelligence. He was saying that intelligence existed before the universe and not the other way around. Was that really so hard?ALMOST a good argument, but I realized at the last minute that you are equivocating...here's why:
You seem to suggest that in order for there to be a universe, there must be a human mind to acknowledge and describe such a universe, yet the universe must have existed first in order to create the human which has the mind. This doesn't work because while it is necessary for a mind to exist in order to "know" or acknowledge that there is a universe, it is NOT necessary for humas to "know" or acknowledge said universe for the universe to exist. That is, if we killed all the humans simultaneously, the universe would still be there, despite the absence of human minds.
He never said that. He basically said that these very logical, rational and learned men all saw trends in their own areas of studies that made them start to lean toward there being a universal intelligence of some kind who many call God. I think Athanasius even states that none of these people were believers! You guys are trying to twist his words and say that these people were irrational when the "believed in God", but they didn't. They observed and made conclusions based on the evidence that they had... isn't that what scientists are SUPPOSED to do? In stead of playing ring around the rosie with this, why not just admit that one can be totally rational and believe that there is an underlying intelligence that cannot be measured by science? Admitting that does NOT infer that if one doesn't believe the same thing that they are irrational, so you don't have to be afraid of labelling yourselves as irrational. If these men simply see what they perceive to be intelligent design.... why are you so threatened by it?Thank you for clarifying that. So now you're stating that these scientists believed in God...
And you educational background in the area to prove your ability to interpret it? Hold yourself to the same standards as you do others. To use your own words, in regard to listening to you about what Genesis means and what its proper interpretation is .... "Those statements reflect fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority..." You have no authority in this area, why should we listen to or give any weight to your statements in this area? Don't be a hypocrite... use the same standard for everyone.Oh, I'm sorry...the last time I checked, the entire belief system of Christianity is fundamentally based on the bible.
Sorry friend. Morals (ESPECIALLY IF THERE ISN'T A GOD) are defined by people in a society. If a society all argreed that every third baby should be eaten, then eating those babies in that society would not be immoral to members of that society. While you and I believe that slavery is immoral, we cannot pass judgement on those who lived in a different time/place/society than we. One other thing people are overlooking is the Roman practice of slavery versus the early American practice. In Roman days a slave could even be adopted into a family as a legal member of the family.... while I disagree with the concept of slavery, I would still suggest that those who are using it as an argument do a little historical research first in order to have a better understanding of what is being addressed.While slavery of any sort is CLEARLY immoral, that does not mean it is not in the bible.
So if anyone can materially measure and quantify the immaterial, you'll accept that as proof? Surely you see the silliness of what you demand. It would be like me asking you to tell me my weight based on my hair color; on has NOTHING to do with the other.However, if ANYONE wants to make a rational argument, composed of premises and conclusions, to support the notion that God exists, that would be ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC!!!
Or maybe you don't read very fast and don't have the time. If you're going to make a premise you'd better be willing to allow for all the variables, including your own inadequacy!...and I certainly am not as obsesssed as Netopia to raed through all of your 600+ posts.
You must be your own God, for you surely are quick to forgive your own wrongs! TRIVIAL AREAS??? You are nearly totally ignorant of what the Bible teaches about salvation, the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF CHRISTIANITY! You talk about others and yet your own understanding of this issue only measures up to a very elementary, children's Sunday School teaching! What you did was like someone who says they are a master at Physics but who at the same time lacks a fundamental knowledge of the laws thereof. The more I read what you say the more I see your blindness to your own folly.I may have shown an absence in knowledge of maybe one or two TRIVIAL areas of Christianity.
Originally posted by: Netopia
I pray that today is Valsalva's day of Independance from the blindness of his own thinking.
Joe
By your own reasoning, we should ignore everything you've said here since you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about in any way, shape or form.As we know, Newton was a famous physicist. If he were to be quoted as saying this, it would carry a lot of weight in argument. However, if Newton were to say "I believe God exists blah blah blah," then that would NOT be acceptable to use because drawing a conclusion from his unqualified statement would be fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority. Remember, Brother Newton was NOT trained in the appropriate areas to be able to make such a blanket statement.
*sigh* This is nearly useless you realize? A person who is not looking for enlightenment will most likely not find it. Anyways, I tried that crap man and it pretty much never worked. Good luck in your beliefs.
Originally posted by: Netopia
And you educational background in the area to prove your ability to interpret it?Oh, I'm sorry...the last time I checked, the entire belief system of Christianity is fundamentally based on the bible.
Hold yourself to the same standards as you do others. To use your own words, in regard to listening to you about what Genesis means and what its proper interpretation is .... "Those statements reflect fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority..." You have no authority in this area, why should we listen to or give any weight to your statements in this area? Don't be a hypocrite... use the same standard for everyone.