Robert G. Ingersoll on the Bible

Every sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed His will to man. To each reader the bible conveys a different meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation, there have been ages of war and centuries of sword and flame. If written by an infinite God, He must have known that these results must follow; and thus knowing, He must be responsible for all. Link.

172 comments:

Bluemongoose said...

Perhaps it's a testament to the fact that He won't step on our free will? Ask me why.

John W. Loftus said...

The fact is Blue, that in the Bible he did just that. Plus, I don't think you've considered the nature and value of free will.

And you would have to suppose that believers down through the centuries willingly rejected the clear revelation from God, which is highly dubious.

Greg Mills said...

Bluemongoose -- Because in the bible (a book) we have the same flaw we see most other books (misinterpretation ), we should assume that has more to do with a general weakness with books.

Jim said...

Exodus 7:3:

But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt he will not listen to you


So much for free will . . .

Jerry D. McDonald said...

If I write an article and five different people read it, and all five people come to different conclusions about what I meant by the article, is it my fault, or is it the fault of the people who are reading? After all, the article only says one thing to everyone.

Mark said...

Every author that writes about a complex subject will have some of their readers disagree about exactly what meant. Even disagreements about non-biblical writings have caused wars and other atrocities. So will you be holding Charles Darwin accountable for the injustices of eugenics?

You seem to overlook that the Bible is clear on the fact that humanity is broken, hence the "ages of war and centuries of sword and flame."

You are going to have to a lot further to justify your point that knowledge of subsequent events, is the same a culpability for those events.

Also, are you implying that "ages of war and centuries of sword and flame" is a evil thing? If so, how do you ground concepts like good and evil?

Perhaps you are saying that God could not have written the Bible, because of the controversy about what it says? This presumes that you could know what an infinite god's intentions for his writings would be. This is just another tedious permutation of the "If I were God, I would have done/or not done such and such".

If I were John W. Loftus, I wouldn't have made a post like this, so therefore he must not exist. It must be just a horribly improbable glitch in the blogging software.

Bluemongoose said...

John, why do you assume God steps on our free will? Are you saying that just because there is the threat of punishment for wrong doing that that means God violates free will?

A.N. Weisberger jumps to conclusions. We don't have to automatically maintain that evils which result from the exercise of free will are justified. The issues are separate and apart. But where there is free will, there is the potential for evil.

Then Weisberger wrongly assumes suffering is God's fault. Go ahead and ask me why.

Finally, ANW goes on about the atrocities and evils of this world. But ultimately we must ask this question: If there is no God, then why should we say evil exists at all? Doesn't the admittance of evil mean that there are definitive boundaries on right and wrong? And if we live in a relative world, where every individual does what works for himself/herself, then there can't be any solid lines on anything, let alone morality.

So, ultimately, if relativism has the day, who cares? Your definition of evil doesn't mean a hill of beans to the next person.

Bluemongoose said...

Greg:

I loved your comment. Good discussion point.

What if the misinterpretation is a a weakness on the part of humans?

Bluemongoose said...

Jim:

You are such a smarty! Good topic.

What if this verse just illustrates that Yahweh was answering from a perspective that could see into the future and already knew what Pharaoh would do, as opposed to messing with free will?

bob said...

If I convey some very important information to my son, and he misunderstands the content of what I tried to say, and I KNOW he misunderstood, I would hold myself responsible for any harm that would come from my sons misunderstanding.

Communications comprises of sender and receiver. The one sending the message has to make sure the receiver understands. If he doesn't, he would be a complete asshole to hold the receiver responsible for any misunderstanding.

Thankfully, the instructions for rocket science do not come from a 2,000 year old religious text. If it did, in 2050, our astronaut would still be sitting in a wheelbarrow, speaking in tongues, as some member from launch control pushed him down a dirt path, really fast, as the count-down proceeded.

bob said...

Bluemongoose said..."Jim What if this verse just illustrates that Yahweh was answering from a perspective that could see into the future and already knew what Pharaoh would do, as opposed to messing with free will?"

Perhaps Yahweh didn't make it very clear...?
I would say, it says what it says, but for those who don't like what it says, they can always make it say what they want it to say...like you just did :)

deusdiapente said...

These are the types of mental gymnastics that happen when you start off with the assumption that god can do no wrong. When Moses commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Midianites and keep the Midianites' virgin daughters as sex slaves it was for the "greater good" I assume?

There's no evidence that god has written anything. There's plenty of evidence that humans have written things and simply attributed them to their gods. Saying that the current Christian Bible is the word of god is based on an unfounded assumption that doesn't fit the evidence of what we should see of a loving, all knowing god.

However, if the Bible is simply the product of humans who thought they were speaking on behalf of their gods, and it's lead to a multiplicity of different interpretations and wars (just like every other human book written, e.g. Darwin) then it more than likely is simply the product of human minds with no god involved at all.

And for the record, I don't think "evil" exists per se. But I do know when something is wrong due to our innate empathy; and the only time when "evil" exists is when people disregard their empathy and divide the world into us ("good") and them ("evil").

Jerry D. McDonald said...

So when the book on Rocket science is written and published, it is assumed that it will be understood by one and all, correct?

AndreLinoge said...

>>>"So when the book on Rocket science is written and published, it is assumed that it will be understood by one and all, correct?"

Not likely, since the book on rocket science won't be written by an omnipotent god, to whom all things are possible (such as imparting understanding to his readers without the possibility of misunderstanding).

bob said...

I have my doubts that there will be "the book on rocket science". But if there ever is a single authority on rocket science, and he wrote "the book", he would be a complete asshole if he held his underlings responsible for misunderstanding what he wrote...I would say.

Bluemongoose said...

Hey, Bob!

How do you know I make the verse say what I want it to say?

Jerry D. McDonald said...

Soooo...no matter what God has all the responsibility and man has none? That's the idea that I get from some of you!

Owlmirror said...

«"What if this verse just illustrates that Yahweh was answering from a perspective that could see into the future and already knew what Pharaoh would do, as opposed to messing with free will?"»

Because that's adding your own narrative to the bible based on nothing more than your own skewed opinion.

Owlmirror said...

«"Soooo...no matter what God has all the responsibility and man has none?

Actually, it pretty much follows from logic:

1) Power and knowledge confer responsibility

2) God has all knowledge and all power

3) Therefore, God has all responsibility.

Bluemongoose said...

Howdy, Deusdiapente!

What verse in the Bible says the Hebrews kept the virgin daughters as sex slaves?

Why do you assume God hasn't written anything? Are you professing to have infinite knowledge on this issue? Allow me to give you an illustration that might help you: When you write a letter, does the pen write it or do you? Certainly the pen is just the instrument.

Why do you put human parameters on Yahweh? If God is who He says He is, then why wouldn't He be able to protect the Bible? Why would it be possible for humans to "pull one over" on Him?

Unfounded assumptions. I could flip that around on you, DD. I could say the atheist dogma is nothing but unfounded assumptions.

Why do you assume we can use the bad actions on the part of the finite to judge the infinite? Can I use the actions of your siblings as an indication of your character?

But why should anything be wrong at all, DD? You're still saying there is something authentic from which there is a departure. why can't we just say these things are a result of illness (mental or physical)? Are you advocating for selective relativism with your empathy illustration?

Bluemongoose said...

Owly! I missed you. Glad you're back.

Prove what I've brought is merely my opinion. Again, your follow-ups are conveniently missing. And you still can't come up with any interesting dialogue on your own. You're still regurgitating my stuff.

So, again, whose logic are we using as the standard? Your personal brand?

Jerry D. McDonald said...

"Actually, it pretty much follows from logic:

1) Power and knowledge confer responsibility

2) God has all knowledge and all power

3) Therefore, God has all responsibility."

Well...thank you for being so honest and admitting that you are not going to take any responsibility for how you read the scriptures. Go ahead and blame God, for such a time as you can, but the time will come when you won't be able to.

Carbon Based said...

"Perhaps it's a testament to the fact that He won't step on our free will?"

Why do christians use that excuse for why god doesn't make herself know to modern people. When clearly god had no problem in "stepping on" free will as told in the bible?

Carbon Based said...

"What if the misinterpretation is a a weakness on the part of humans?"

Then an all knowing, all powerful, all good god would not be all knowing nor all powerful, nor all good if he foresaw this and took no steps to correct it. It would seem rational to make his message more clean or through some other non-confusing way ensure that his message would not be misinterpreted.

So your saying god is incompetent.

Jerry D. McDonald said...

In my 1991 debate with Farrell Till I asked him if he was absolutely sure that the Midianite virgins were used for sex slaves and he answered "No, but I am very very sure that they were." He was not absolutely sure, but he was very very sure. My argument then was the same as it is now, if God punished the Israelites for committing adultery with the Midianites (which is what happened) and he was destroying the Midianites for committing adultery with the Israelites, why would he turn right around and have his people commit adultery with those very same people?

And what about the little boy virgins? Surely, if God was that evil there were some homosexuals in the bunch, why not allow the little boys to live to satisfy the homosexuals?

Carbon Based said...

"So when the book on Rocket science is written and published, it is assumed that it will be understood by one and all, correct?"

No not correct. A book on Rocket Science isn't written to be understood by "all". Just other rocket Scientists.

Lets face it even if a "general" book on rocketry were written. Due to varying inteligence levels of humans not everyone will, nor are expected to get it.But thast is not the claim by christian of the bible, it's suppose to deliever a universal message accessable to everyone. but it fails.

Walter said...

31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Gee, I wonder what they were kept for?

Walter said...

"Lets face it even if a "general" book on rocketry were written. Due to varying inteligence levels of humans not everyone will, nor are expected to get it.But thast is not the claim by christian of the bible, it's suppose to deliever a universal message accessable to everyone. but it fails."

Actually, that would be a Protestant belief. Catholics believe that the bible can only be properly interpreted through the Magisterium. They don't believe that lay people can come to the right interpretations.

Jerry D. McDonald said...

"Then an all knowing, all powerful, all good god would not be all knowing nor all powerful, nor all good if he foresaw this and took no steps to correct it. It would seem rational to make his message more clean or through some other non-confusing way ensure that his message would not be misinterpreted."

Just how could God have written it to where it could not be misinterpreted? Because if just one person misinterpreted it, again God would get the blame even if all the others understood it properly. With man being free to believe however he wants there is no way for God to write it to satisfy everyone. The only way is to take away free will. Then you have nothing but a prison.

Bluemongoose said...

Hi there, Carbon Based!

Why do you assume God hasn't been revealed to modern people? Jeremiah 19:13 says, "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all youre heart." In John 17:3, Jesus says God is knowable. Notice how the present tense is used.

Show me where you believe the Bible illustrates God steps on free will.

God's parameters. Why do you assume God took no steps to correct it? Show me where it says that.

Non-confusing ways. You're blending lines on issues here. You can make something as clear-cut as possible; but b/c humans are imperfect, there will always be someone who misunderstands the communications. The great thing about God is when we get off track, He has the ability to get us back where we need to be. Allow me to give you an illustration. When you come across a math problem that you do not understand, does your confusion automatically make the algorithm invalid?

God is incompetent, or people mess up the receiving end of the communication? For God to force His understanding on us would trully mean taking away our free will.

Bluemongoose said...

Walter, you can imply until the cows come home. But one could just as easily construe from that verse that the slaves were just ordinary house slaves.

Walter said...

"Just how could God have written it to where it could not be misinterpreted? Because if just one person misinterpreted it, again God would get the blame even if all the others understood it properly. With man being free to believe however he wants there is no way for God to write it to satisfy everyone. The only way is to take away free will. Then you have nothing but a prison."

The fact that it can be interpreted so many different ways shows it to be a poor medium for God to use to reveal himself to mankind. How can an outsider to Christianity know which version of Christianity to "leap" to?

Is salvation by faith alone? Some say works are required. Has God predestined some and not others?

All denominations feel that they are the true church and that the Holy Spirit has led them to correct belief. So who represents REAL Christianity?

Bluemongoose said...

Walter:

Protestant v. Catholics issue. Somebody has a wrong interpretation here. Why? Because how can two completely opposite things both be true at the same time? So now we must ask, How do we decipher which view is correct? Also, again, can we use the actions of the finite to judge the infinite?

Walter said...

"Walter, you can imply until the cows come home. But one could just as easily construe from that verse that the slaves were just ordinary house slaves."

Could be. Virgin girls must make for better "workers".

Walter said...

"Protestant v. Catholics issue. Somebody has a wrong interpretation here. Why? Because how can two completely opposite things both be true at the same time? So now we must ask, How do we decipher which view is correct? Also, again, can we use the actions of the finite to judge the infinite?"

I am assuming that you believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura: the use of scripture to interpret scripture?

How well is that working out? How many denominations of Protestant Christianity are there today?

Carbon Based said...

Jerry & Blue

Try thinking out of the box will ya. ;)

Why does it have to be a book or involve writing?
I could think of a couple of ways to reveal himself so as to not be misinterpreted.

Jerry D. McDonald said...

"Jerry & Blue

Try thinking out of the box will ya. ;)

Why does it have to be a book or involve writing?
I could think of a couple of ways to reveal himself so as to not be misinterpreted."

Like?????

Bluemongoose said...

Walter:

Great questions! I like your style. So how does an outsider know which version of Christianity to "leap" to? By studying and just bluntly asking Yahweh to help you.

Salvation is something Jesus did for us by being the ultimate sacrifice for us and forever breaking our bonds to sin and death. (We can get into a discussion later about those who believe they have committed no sin, but this serves our purpose for now.) We just have to accept the gift given. Sometimes salvation and sanctification get confused. Sanctification is the process after you are saved (throughout your life afterwards) in which God molds you into the image of Jesus.

Works are an "outworking" of your salvation. Salvation is not dependant on works. This is intentional b/c that karma train is crazy. Who wants to constantly be bogged down with issues of "Have I done enough good deeds to be considered a good person" and "Which good deeds cancel out which bad deeds"?

Predestination. Why do you see this as an either/or scenario?

Real Christianity. Study, study, study. Not just the Bible, but get some independent books and look at all sides. And talk to God; ask for His help. You don't have to be attached to any specific religion before you can talk to Him.

A good formula to use is this:
Think of boats in the water. Every worldview (boat) has to answer these three questions:

1) Why am I even out here (purpose)?

2) How do I keep from bumping up against other boats (What do you do when your worldview is in direct contrast to another worldview)?

3) How do I stay afloat (relevancy and truth)?

Carbon Based said...

"Non-confusing ways. You're blending lines on issues here. You can make something as clear-cut as possible; but b/c humans are imperfect, there will always be someone who misunderstands the communications."

Again god is supose to be all powerful, all knowing and all good and your trying to convince me that it's the fault of imperfect humans? Thats rich. Then god is not all knowing, all powerful nor all good.

as one poster pointed out it's gods resposibility to make sure his message is clear.

If you think the bible is clear despite the hundreds of varying inteperttions. Your god must be very small indeed.

certainly not worth worshiping

Bluemongoose said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bluemongoose said...

Walt, you assume incorrectly. But don't worry, I'm not mad at you.

Ah, so it's the circular reasoning argument, is it? I could flip that around on you. Why do atheists use only human reasoning as a way to verify reason?

Bluemongoose said...

Walt:

Inferences. What if it was a purity issue? I mean, you do recall that ancient Hebrews were real big on purity, right?

Jerry D. McDonald said...

So you can't really think of a couple of ways can you?

Bluemongoose said...

Carbon Based:

Why do you assume Jerry and I are the ones not thinking outside of the box?

Why do you assume the Bible is the only way God reveals Himself?

Think of it this way: having something scribed is a good way to document past events. Scribed doctrine serves as an anchor so people aren't pulling their morality foundations from every which way.

However, how come you don't give your high school history books the same kind of scrutiny as you do the Bible? After all, secular textbooks are man-made...

deusdiapente said...

Why do I assume god hasn't written anything? I haven't assumed that... that's my a posteriori conclusion, not an assumption. If I had access to at least one document that was written by "god" then I would update my knowledge about the subject. However, I have yet to come across anything that was unambiguously written by god.

I consider my conclusion about god not having written anything, yet human beings writing a whole lot of nonsense and attributing it to god a pretty good inductive argument. But it's still just a progress report. I don't pretend that my knowledge is a static, unchanging thing.

Why do you put human parameters on Yahweh?

Funny, I can ask the same about you. Why do you assume "god" has to be jealous (human parameter), loving (human parameter), compassionate (human parameter) etc.?

Unfounded assumptions. I could flip that around on you, DD. I could say the atheist dogma is nothing but unfounded assumptions.

It's the height of irony that you attempt to "flip [assumptions] around" by assuming I'm an atheist.

Why do you assume we can use the bad actions on the part of the finite to judge the infinite? Can I use the actions of your siblings as an indication of your character?

Actually that would be a good, albeit weak, indicator of yourself if I've never met you and had no other information to go on. Families are "family" for a reason.

Bluemongoose said...

Carbon Based:

God's parameters. Just b/c God is omnipotent, doens't mean He will force His understanding on us. Again, that trully would be the definition of a despot. So are you saying the only god you'd worship is one that takes away free will?

Making sure the message is clear is one thing, your willingness to listen to it is another. Why do you believe the validity of the Bible is based on fallible humans interpreting it?

Yes, your right that the god you defined is not worth worshipping.

Jerry D. McDonald said...

Every way that God has ever revealed himself to man has either been denied or confused by those who don't accept him. When Christ came in the flesh the Jews and Gnostics refused to accept him regardless of the signs and wonders he did. God has revealed himself in creation, but man has confused that with evolution. God has revealed himself in his word, but man has confused that. So, again, I ask "Just how could God have revealed himself so that no one would have confused him for someone else or misinterpreted the Bible.

Walter said...

"Making sure the message is clear is one thing, your willingness to listen to it is another. Why do you believe the validity of the Bible is based on fallible humans interpreting it?"

Who is to say that Allah is not the one talking and you are not listening to him?

Maybe the Jews are correct and Jesus was just a man? Maybe the Deists are right?

What evidence can you give that Christianity is TRUTH versus other world religions?

Bluemongoose said...

Deusdiapente:

Posteriori conclusion. Really? So would you mind elaborating on that, or do you just not like to do follow-ups? Merely stating something doesn't make it so.

Access. Then we have to find out what definition you are using for the phrase "document written by God" or "unambiguous".

Your conclusion. DD, when you write a letter, does the pen write it or do you? Right. The pen is the instrument you used to write the letter. Your statements here also assume humans can "pull one over" on God. But if God is who He says He is, why think that is possible?

Why do you assume emotions are limited only to humans?

Why do you assume I thought you were an atheist? Did you glean that from my general statement about atheists?

Families. If you really believe what you espouse here, then are you willing to got to jail and pay fines if your brother gets a DUI or some other drug conviction?

Walter said...

"Just how could God have revealed himself so that no one would have confused him for someone else or misinterpreted the Bible."

For starters, He could actually show up and talk to us right now instead of using the medium of history to reveal himself to us. He supposedly talked to Paul; He supposedly gave the disciple Thomas physical proof. All we get are stories written in a time of superstition, and we are told that we must accept them on "faith". Plus, every Tom, Dick, and Harry has a different interpretation of what God's "inerrant" scripture really say.

Bluemongoose said...

Walt:

Good questions! My answer: Study, study, study. Use that formula I gave you. Put every worldview you come across to the test. Gather up various resources and read. Hope you have a library card.

Bluemongoose said...

Walt, would you believe someone if they came up to you and told you they just verbally spoke to Jesus ten minutes ago? How likely would it be that if God verbally spoke to you directly, you wouldn't just blow it off as a hallucination, too much cold medicine or too much spicy food? And, if you did believe it when God spoke to you, how would you convince other skeptics that you were being truthful?

Tom, Dick and Harry. Why are you still relying on human verification to be your ultimate evidence of proof? Go to the source...

Walter said...

"Good questions! My answer: Study, study, study. Use that formula I gave you. Put every worldview you come across to the test. Gather up various resources and read. Hope you have a library card."

I have read the bible from cover to cover. My conclusion is that it is the words of men and not the Word of God.

I, also, believe the New Testament gospel stories are Hero fictions that are embellishments of what the historical Jesus did in his lifetime. Further, I believe that Jesus was strictly human, and not 1/3 of a Trinity. I believe that the early Jewish Christians were mostly adoptionists: they believed that the human Jesus was adopted by the spirit of Yahweh.

I do not feel that the so-called 'orthodox' Christianity of the 21st century is the same animal that emerged out of Judaism some 1900 years ago.

Jerry D. McDonald said...

"For starters, He could actually show up and talk to us right now instead of using the medium of history to reveal himself to us. He supposedly talked to Paul; He supposedly gave the disciple Thomas physical proof. All we get are stories written in a time of superstition, and we are told that we must accept them on "faith". Plus, every Tom, Dick, and Harry has a different interpretation of what God's "inerrant" scripture really say."

And when he did, people still didn't believe. As Abraham told the rich man, "if they won't believe Moses and the Prophets, neither will believe if one went back from the dead."

So even if God was to come to earth and speak to you, it would not cause faith. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17)

Walter said...

"Walt, would you believe someone if they came up to you and told you they just verbally spoke to Jesus ten minutes ago? How likely would it be that if God verbally spoke to you directly, you wouldn't just blow it off as a hallucination, too much cold medicine or too much spicy food? And, if you did believe it when God spoke to you, how would you convince other skeptics that you were being truthful?"

There lies the crux of the problem, Blue. It is only a revelation when God speaks directly to us; everything else is anecdotal, hearsay evidence.

An omnipotent God could speak to every being on this planet simultaneously; and this being could give us unequivocal answers. You will say that this would destroy our free will, but would it? Better information would allow us to make a better choice. Besides, God had no problem giving Paul and Thomas better evidence than He gives us. Did he stomp on Paul's free will when He knocked Paul to the ground?

Bluemongoose said...

Walt:

Notice how you preference your statements with things like, "My conclusion", "I believe", and "I do not feel". This indicates you argue solely from your own perception and human opinion. Why is this important? B/c if there is no God, then there are no absolutes and everything is left up for individual interpretation. So what you "believe" and "feel" has no affect on another individual, and you cannot say something or someone is absolutely incorrect b/c parameters on right and wrong are relativistic in this context.

Bluemongoose said...

Oops. Sorry, Walt, I met preface, not preference.

Walter said...

"Notice how you preference your statements with things like, "My conclusion", "I believe", and "I do not feel". This indicates you argue solely from your own perception and human opinion. Why is this important? B/c if there is no God, then there are no absolutes and everything is left up for individual interpretation. So what you "believe" and "feel" has no affect on another individual, and you cannot say something or someone is absolutely incorrect b/c parameters on right and wrong are relativistic in this context."

Of course I can only argue from my own education and experiences. All that we know is based on probabilities and "plausibilities". The only absolutes would be logical or mathematical axioms.

Only I can assess the evidence for any claim and determine whether the claim is plausibly true or not.

Cromm said...

This indicates you argue solely from your own perception and human opinion.

This would be as opposed to Blue, who argues from the perceptions and opinions of other people, so they as they conform with his or her own perceptions and intuitions.

Why is this important? B/c if there is no God, then there are no absolutes

Awfully nice of you to state your assumptions so nakedly. And why, exactly, are there no absolutes without a god?

bob said...

Bluemongoose said... "Why do atheists use only human reasoning as a way to verify reason?"

"Why do you put human parameters on Yahweh?"

"...can we use the actions of the finite to judge the infinite?"

What other reasoning would you expect from a...HUMAN?
If you want anything other than human reasoning, you need to take up a dialogue with Thor or Zeus.

Owlmirror said...

«"Prove what I've brought is merely my opinion.

Easy. It contradicts the text. God says "I will harden", not "He will harden". Pharaoh is not Yahweh.

«"And you still can't come up with any interesting dialogue on your own. You're still regurgitating my stuff.

I agree that your stuff is regurgitated and unoriginal.

Owlmirror said...

«""Actually, it pretty much follows from logic:

1) Power and knowledge confer responsibility

2) God has all knowledge and all power

3) Therefore, God has all responsibility."

Well...thank you for being so honest and admitting that you are not going to take any responsibility for how you read the scriptures.


Since the logical conclusion is that God is responsible, how can I possibly be?

Doesn't God have to take responsibility as well?

«"Go ahead and blame God, for such a time as you can, but the time will come when you won't be able to.

Interesting. Do you have no better response than that to the syllogism? Do you, like Bluemongoose, reject basic logic?

Cromm said...

When boxed into a logical hole, theists will insist that they were playing Calvinball all along. It's the only recourse when impaled on the horns of their own logical dilemmas.

It's just fun watching them twist and turn, as they slowly realize that their beliefs must be defended in the same terms one must use to defend any sort of magical bullshit.

Carbon Based said...

"However, how come you don't give your high school history books the same kind of scrutiny as you do the Bible? After all, secular textbooks are man-made..."

We do they are fact checked. And corrected when found lacking the bible is not. Nor is there any method to correct it.

"The great thing about God is when we get off track, He has the ability to get us back where we need to be. Allow me to give you an illustration. When you come across a math problem that you do not understand, does your confusion automatically make the algorithm invalid?"

Poor analogy: If I don't understand a mathamatical forumule I can ask a flesh and blood isntructor to explain it not rely on my imaginary friend. If that is insuffecient I can ask several flesh and blood real instructors to explain it and guess what they will all give me the same answer/explination. It's not up to the individual instructor to explain it a different and contradictory way.

Mathamatics only works one way it not interpetded. 2+2 always equals 4 not 5 for catholics and 6 for mormans and 3 for calvinist etc.

Owlmirror said...

«"And when he did [actually show up and talk to us right now], people still didn't believe.

Obviously false -- your religion started because people did believe. But were they right to believe? Was what they believed true?

«"As Abraham told the rich man, "if they won't believe Moses and the Prophets, neither will believe if one went back from the dead."

Christians keep regurgitating this line, yet it's obviously fallacious. They themselves don't believe everyone who called themselves a prophet. Do you believe the prophets Muhammed and Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard?

The second half has never been tested by people coming back from the dead and saying that Christianity is true -- but just from curiosity, if every Muslim came back from the dead and insisted that Muhammed was correct, would you convert to Islam? How about if your own family came back from the dead and insisted the same? If you would not be convinced, why not?

«"So even if God was to come to earth and speak to you, it would not cause faith. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17)

The verse you cite contradicts your first sentences. Which is correct?

Bluemongoose claims that God speaking would be "trampling on free will". You cite a verse from Luke that says that a dead person coming back to life would not convince at all, then strengthen this by saying that God speaking would not convince at all either -- but I note that Abraham is not God. The verse from Romans 10:17 says that God speaking would indeed bring faith.

Which is correct? This is a three-way contradiction.

And as for myself, I have repeatedly said that if God spoke to me and convinced me that he was real and omniscient, I would listen. God has never taken me up on that.

Carbon Based said...

"So you can't really think of a couple of ways can you?"

Jerry just because I don't answer you on your time schedule doesn't mean that I'm ignoring you or I don't have an answer. I have a real life dontcha know.

He could appear in every town/village/city square same time each generation and give us his message in the language that would be understood in that location and time period by everyone present.

I'm sure if this happened it all over the world that it would be required viewing.

Since the same message would be heard by all without regard to language and could be dusscussed across various languages/peoples we would know that he is who he claims to be.

It would ensure clarity. There would be no arguing about what he meantsince the same message repeated over and over again by the apparition.

That would be one way.

Carbon Based said...

Blue:
Since you’re so hung up on god not interfering in free will. How is a child’s free will interfered with by parents that indoctrinate them from birth until they are of an age to make their own choices not interfering with that child’s free will?

It would seem that christian indoctrination IS interfering with a child’s free will. So again why can’t god?

Owlmirror said...

(scrolling back up a bit)

«"Just how could God have written it to where it could not be misinterpreted?

One way would have been to avoid contradictions and inconsistencies. It certainly would have at least helped.

«"Because if just one person misinterpreted it, again God would get the blame even if all the others understood it properly.

Someone that perverse needs a little more convincing. How about God talking to him directly? If he's perverse for a logical reason, then God could use logic. If he's perverse for an illogical reason, then God could fix the problem.

«"With man being free to believe however he wants there is no way for God to write it to satisfy everyone.

So God is just going to throw up his hands and leave the contradictions and inconsistencies in there?

«"The only way is to take away free will. Then you have nothing but a prison.

Would you rather be imprisoned in a palace with your every whim attended to, or imprisoned and tortured forever and ever?

If those are the only alternatives, and a truly loving God was in charge of the alternatives, that loving God would choose to imprison rather than torture, since the imprisonment without torture is clearly more merciful.

Jerry D. McDonald said...

"Jerry just because I don't answer you on your time schedule doesn't mean that I'm ignoring you or I don't have an answer. I have a real life dontcha know.

He could appear in every town/village/city square same time each generation and give us his message in the language that would be understood in that location and time period by everyone present.

I'm sure if this happened it all over the world that it would be required viewing.

Since the same message would be heard by all without regard to language and could be dusscussed across various languages/peoples we would know that he is who he claims to be.

It would ensure clarity. There would be no arguing about what he meantsince the same message repeated over and over again by the apparition.

That would be one way."

No, because there would be those who would refuse to accept that God was speaking to them. There would still be different interpretations because the message may not give everyone what they want to hear. Not everyone is going to want to hear from God even if he did speak to everyone at the same time, in that person's language. On the day of Pentecost the Apostles stood up and spoke in tongues and the people were amazed because they heard these men speak in their own languages. However, out of the 10's of thousands that were there that day only about 3000obeyed the gospel. What happened to all the rest of the thousands of Jews that were there that day?

I apologize I thought you had already answered.

Owlmirror said...

(Scrolling up some more)

«"In my 1991 debate with Farrell Till I asked him if he was absolutely sure that the Midianite virgins were used for sex slaves and he answered "No, but I am very very sure that they were." He was not absolutely sure, but he was very very sure. My argument then was the same as it is now, if God punished the Israelites for committing adultery with the Midianites (which is what happened) and he was destroying the Midianites for committing adultery with the Israelites, why would he turn right around and have his people commit adultery with those very same people?

Because God did not punish the Israelites for committing adultery with the Midianites. God punished the Israelites for worshipping Ba'al rather than Yahweh. The Midianite adult women offered sex and Ba'al religion. The Midianite virgins were just for sex and/or slavery.

«"And what about the little boy virgins? Surely, if God was that evil there were some homosexuals in the bunch, why not allow the little boys to live to satisfy the homosexuals?

In the OT, God is murderous and homophobic. Why would he do anything to satisfy homosexuals?

Owlmirror said...

«"No, because there would be those who would refuse to accept that God was speaking to them.

So what? You keep giving excuses for God's failure to speak for himself. Why does God need a fallible mortal to speak for him?

«"There would still be different interpretations because the message may not give everyone what they want to hear.

If there are different interpretations, God can repeat and clarify and make explicit what he means. That's what humans do when they are misunderstood.

«"Not everyone is going to want to hear from God even if he did speak to everyone at the same time, in that person's language.

Yet it would be a bigger and better miracle than permanent silence.

«"On the day of Pentecost the Apostles stood up and spoke in tongues and the people were amazed because they heard these men speak in their own languages. However, out of the 10's of thousands that were there that day only about 3000 obeyed the gospel. What happened to all the rest of the thousands of Jews that were there that day?

The Apostles were obviously not as convincing as God himself would be.

Richard said...

What's why worry about "understand it perfectly?"

I'd settle for "have most people in the same ballpark."

So, if I'm reading Griffiths' Intro to E&M, I might have a slightly different take on it than the person next to me. But the vast majority of his intent will be clear.

Scott said...

Bluemongoose wrote: What if the misinterpretation is a a weakness on the part of humans?

Blue, I'm impressed. You figured out that humans have cognitive biases despite not being omniscient or having created human beings in the first place.

Now, if we mere finite beings can figure this out, surely God would have realized this would be a problem when he designed us and when he communicated with us going forward. Yet, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Furthermore, communication is a two way street. I'd ask you to honestly reflect on this, as I'm sure you've experienced this first hand when trying to get your point across to others.

As finite beings, we're not always aware that we've been misunderstood. Nor do we always have the time to be thorough as we'd like. However, in matters of importance we expend extra effort to be clear when we realize we've been misunderstood. However, there are times that, regardless of how much we want to, we simply do not know how to get our point across.

Unlike us, God would know each and every time he's been misunderstood as he has complete propositional knowledge. Being infinite, God would have the time to clarify and even update information as necessary to meet minimum standards of understanding across every generation. Having observed human beings for tens of thousands of years (at a minimum), surely a God intelligent enough to create the universe from nothing would have a good idea as to how his communication will be received by human beings. In matters of salvation, he could make an extra effort to present a consistent choice from which we could accept or reject. Finally, having created us and possessing knowledge of each and every one of us, he'd have an inside track as to how to get his point across.

As such, while we would still share some of the responsibility, it's clear that, given God's knowledge and abilities, most of the responsibility lies with God.

Scott said...

Jerry McDonald wrote: if God punished the Israelites for committing adultery with the Midianites (which is what happened) and he was destroying the Midianites for committing adultery with the Israelites, why would he turn right around and have his people commit adultery with those very same people?

Jerry, you seem to imply God's actions always makes sense. However, this clearly isn't the case.

For example, God supposedly saved the Israelites from death at the hands of the Egyptians. Then he turned around threatened the Israelites with death at the hands of their own people should they not remember that he "saved" them by not working on Sundays.

Furthermore, the Israelites could simply to claim the Midianite women as wives. Problem solved.

Jerry D. McDonald said...

"Because God did not punish the Israelites for committing adultery with the Midianites. God punished the Israelites for worshipping Ba'al rather than Yahweh. The Midianite adult women offered sex and Ba'al religion. The Midianite virgins were just for sex and/or slavery.

In the OT, God is murderous and homophobic. Why would he do anything to satisfy homosexuals?"

You are wrong. God punished Israel for Idolatry it is true, but they were also punished for adultery as well (Num. 25:6-10). Where is your proof that they were used for sex? You have none!

The word "homophobic" shows fear and discrimination against homosexuals. God doesn't fear anyone, and he doesn't discriminate. In 1 Cor. 9:6-11 Paul informed those Christians that some of them had been homosexuals, but now they were washed, and justified. God doesn't hate anyone, he does hate the sin, but he does love all people

Jerry D. McDonald said...

"Jerry, you seem to imply God's actions always makes sense. However, this clearly isn't the case.

For example, God supposedly saved the Israelites from death at the hands of the Egyptians. Then he turned around threatened the Israelites with death at the hands of their own people should they not remember that he "saved" them by not working on Sundays.

Furthermore, the Israelites could simply to claim the Midianite women as wives. Problem solved."

All of God's actions do make sense. Their working on the Sabbath (not Sunday) was important because they needed to remember that they were to obey him to the letter. Had he not been strict the Israelites would have forgotten him sooner than they did.

The Israelites taking the Midianite virgins as wives is not the same as using them for sex slaves.

sconnor said...

bluemongoose

What are you doing here blue?

I thought you were bound and determined to address my arguments and comments.

You still have 52 comments and arguments to really address but you bailed without nary a peep.

Have you figured out that pesky circular reasoning thing?

I mean -- do you fully comprehend it's meaning and that ALL your arguments hinge on circular reasoning, which renders ALL of your arguments useless?

I was particularly interested for you to address god's evil character as portrayed by your holy book -- funny how you jumped ship.

I'll await your bullshit excuses as to why you bailed with your tail between your legs -- quitter.

--S.

Owlmirror said...

«"You are wrong. God punished Israel for Idolatry it is true, but they were also punished for adultery as well (Num. 25:6-10).

What are you talking about? You are wrong. Those verses say nothing about adultery. The priest murders the man and the woman. God stops the plague.

«"Where is your proof that they were used for sex? You have none!

Right. There is no mention of sex at all in your verses, let alone adultery. Why are you asking me to prove your claim? It's your claim -- you prove it.

«"The word "homophobic" shows fear and discrimination against homosexuals. God doesn't fear anyone, and he doesn't discriminate.

Yes he does -- come on, you just read the verses where God discriminates against Israel for worshiping Ba'al by sending a plague.

«"In 1 Cor. 9:6-11 Paul informed those Christians that some of them had been homosexuals, but now they were washed, and justified.

What are you talking about? Those verses say nothing about homosexuals.

«"God doesn't hate anyone, he does hate the sin, but he does love all people

Obviously God hates, if he orders the murder of children, and commits mass murder himself.

Owlmirror said...

«"All of God's actions do make sense.

No, they don't.

«"Their working on the Sabbath (not Sunday) was important because they needed to remember that they were to obey him to the letter.

See? That makes no sense.

«"Had he not been strict the Israelites would have forgotten him sooner than they did.

That makes no sense, either. You don't keep the Sabbath -- have you forgotten God? I suppose you must have, since God isn't strict with you.

«"The Israelites taking the Midianite virgins as wives is not the same as using them for sex slaves.

It is, because the girls were certainly not given a choice in the matter.

Walter said...

Jerry says..."God doesn't hate anyone, he does hate the sin, but he does love all people."

Not according to scripture:
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

This is the chapter that Calvinists use as 'proof' that God does indeed hate some people.

Bluemongoose said...

Howdy, Walt!

"All that we know is based on probabilities and 'plausibilities'". Walt, that statement in and of itself is contradictory and self-defeating. How can you "know" something, if the foundation is built on uncertain probabilities and plausibilities? So then why even say "logic" and mathematics are the only venues in which we find absolutes? Whose version of logic are you using? You're saying two opposite things here. On the one hand, you say what we know is based on probabilities. On the other you say certainties are only found in logic and math. Can two opposites both be true at the same time? Kind of ambiguous.

Your assessment. You're still stuck on the "truth is verified only through human reasoning" merry-go-round. Why do you assume this is the way we verify whether something is true or not?

Bluemongoose said...

Cromm:

Hey, buddy! Good to hear from you at this thread!

Why do you assume I argue from the perceptions and opinions of other people?

Absolutes. Great question, Cromm. So why are there not absolutes if there is no God? When you research other worldviews you find that they are based on human reasoning and verification. Humans are fickle and easily swayed by things like emotions, culture, society, environment, etc. So the worldviews rooted in human reasoning are also subject to the same flux.

Bluemongoose said...

Bob:

Why do you automatically assume the truth of any matter relies sloely on the verification of human reasoning?

Why do you compare the God of the Bible with Thor and Zeus? Certainly their parameters are dramatically different.

John W. Loftus said...

What we must realize is that during the late 16th century and early 17th centuries 8 million Christians killed each other. That's Catholics against Protestants, and Protestants against other Protestants. Germany was nearly decimated during these years during the Thirty Years War. There were also eight French Wars of Religion. The carnage was horrible. This problem is what I call the Problem of Miscommunication in my new book. Add to this the fact that the Holy Spirit did not properly illuminate his followers and this devastates the case that the Bible is the word of God. Again, that's brother in the faith against brother. I deal with eight major objections some of which have been commented here.

Ingersoll overstates his case but if communication is a two-way street then it's very reasonable to think God was at least partially to blame. Believers who try to exonerate God completely are not being honest with the facts. In any company if there is a lack of communication regarding the organization such that it is in disarray, the buck stops with the CEO. And if God knew we human beings are wicked he should also have been clearer in his revelation. Then the church as an institution could never have justified what they sanctioned from the Bible. Just think if God had consistently said: "Thou shalt not buy, own, or beat slaves," without the contrary statements. Let's even say he dropped the ritualistic command to honor the Sabbath day (which is not a moral command at all) and made this one of his Ten Commandments. Then the church could never have justified slavery as an institution.

I do not think believers can escape this problem except the most extreme intellectual gymnastics. The only logical conclusion is that God wanted what he got, which goes contrary to his stated commands for Christians to be untied as one, and also makes him a moral monster.

Cheers.

Rob said...

Mr Loftus,

Those people who were killing each other were not "in the faith" because the New Testament commands us to turn the other cheek, love our enemies, pray for those who persecute us, and not to repay evil with evil, and to overcome evil with good.

So the fact that they were killing each other shows that they did not have faith in God, nor the Bible, because they were in direct oppostion to God's NT directives.

bob said...

Bluemongoose said...Why do you automatically assume the truth of any matter relies sloely on the verification of human reasoning?

That is not what I am saying, but as a human, I have absolutely no other method to determine truth other than human reasoning. I can not employ alien reasoning, lizard reasoning, tree reasoning, or supreme being reasoning. I am a human. So, if you expect me to be reasonable, it will be by human reasoning.

Bluemongoose said...Why do you compare the God of the Bible with Thor and Zeus? Certainly their parameters are dramatically different.

I was in no way comparing the three. I just did not communicate my comparison, my intent very well. Sound familiar?
This was what I said: "What other reasoning would you expect from a...HUMAN?
If you want anything other than human reasoning, you need to take up a dialogue with Thor or Zeus."

I was simply pointing out that I am incapable of employing any reasoning beyond what my brain can do. How about you?

Bluemongoose said...

Owly:

I love your posts! If I wasn't married, I'd kiss you.

Have you ever been talking to a friend and prefaced a comment with "This will make you mad..." So, tell me, does the fact that you make this comment mean you are taking your friend's free will away, taking over their emotions? Certainly not. It's a prediction that what you're going to say or do will envoke a particular reaction from the other party. When debating this issue, make sure you don't leave out Exodus 8:15 and 32 where it's indicated Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Using my stuff. Again, you twist what was originally said. This is becoming a habit for you when your arguments tank...

Bluemongoose said...

Cromm:

Why do you assume theists play Calvinball? You must do your follow-ups and show us why you believe this to be so. Remember, merely stating something doesn't make it so. Also, why do you resort to such ignoble ways of defending what you believe, like cussing? It only proves you don't think your arguments can stand on their own merits, but, rather, they must be propped up by mudslinging.

Walter said...

Blue,

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

According to Paul we do not have libertarian free will.

Bluemongoose said...

Hey, Carbon Based!

Are you applying this standard to atheists as well? Are you saying it's bad for them to indoctinate their children with atheist dogma because it violates free will?

Walter said...

Blue: "Your assessment. You're still stuck on the "truth is verified only through human reasoning" merry-go-round. Why do you assume this is the way we verify whether something is true or not?"

Who's reasoning can I use but my own? Do you not use your own reasoning? Are you implying that the Holy Spirit guides you to the TRUTH?

How do you verify the truth of any claim? Do you pray for an answer and it pops into your head?

Walter said...

Let's examine who hardened Pharaoh's heart:


Exodus 4:21
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Exodus 7:3
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 7:13
And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Exodus 9:12
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

Exodus 10:1
And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:

Exodus 10:20
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.

Exodus 10:27
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.

Exodus 11:10
And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Exodus 14:4
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD.

Exodus 14:8
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel

Exodus 14:17
I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour.

Bluemongoose said...

Sorry, Carbon Based. I accidentally passed over your comments talking about history books.

Fact checked. By who? Other fallible humans? Uh-oh. This looks suspiciously like a double standard.

Your next statements assume the Bible is incorrect. You must show us why. Remember to do your follow-ups. So how much studying have you done on this issue? Mind you, I'm not talking about parroting out popular social mantras or just reading the Bible from cover to cover like a novel. I mean how much time have you spent dissecting this issue? Have you taken the same approach with biblical doctrine that you have with your secular studies?

Mathematical formula. Why do you assume secular concepts are not the imaginary ones? Why only theological concepts?

Asking one flesh and blood instructor and then asking many. Ah, so that's the key, right? Relying on not just one fallible human but multiple fallible humans for verification. Riddle me this: If all humans are equal and so are their opinions, what actually tips the scales in this instance?

2+2. I'm glad you see that relativism is bunk and absolutes must have the day.

Walter said...

@Blue

Are you infallible in matters of morals and faith? Are you infallible in your knowledge of God and his will for us?

Why should a fallible human, like myself, believe your claims, or the claims of your particular church which is populated by fallible humans?

Do you claim that your church is infallible in its teachings?

Bluemongoose said...

Scott:

Good to hear from you! Hope your hiatus was relaxing.

What God realized. I'm glad you understand that human fallibility and the possibility for us to misinterpret God's messages are problems. However, that doesn't mean they are problems w/o solutions. What if these issues can help us get a better perspective on God's personality? What if it shows that despite our screw-ups, God is patient with us, persistent and full of various ways to redirect us when we go down the wrong path in interpreting His Word or otherwise?

"Yet, this doesn't seem to be the case." Notice that the structure of you sentence indicates you're not sure about this.

Communication. Again, why do you need me to personally do anything to verify the truth of the matter? Did gravity require humans to acknowledge it before it became truth?

Finite beings. I'm glad you see the problem with relying on human reasoning to be the sole way to verify the truth of a matter.

What God knows. The way you phrased your comments here leads the reader to believe you assume God is not in the process of remedying the problem. Is this so, and why?

Getting His point across is one thing, forcing us to accept His point is another. You blend lines on issues.

Responsibility. Why do you believe there is a sliding scale for responsibility? If so, is it a 50/50 proposition, 60/40, 30/70? How do you know?

Bluemongoose said...

Walt:

Awesome question! I'm glad you asked that.

Romans 9:13 references Malachi 1:2 and 3. "When studying the Bible, it is critically important to always study the context of a particular Bible verse or passage." Here, Paul is using the name "Esau" to refer to the descendants of Esau, the Edomites. "Considering the context, God loving Jacob and hating Esau has nothing to do with the human emotions of love and hate. It has everything to do with God choosing one man and his descendants and rejecting another man and his descendants." Why did He choose? B/c one man was faithful and the other turned away from God.

Carbon Based said...

"Relying on not just one fallible human but multiple fallible humans for verification."

You do know that your argument is self defeating don't you? Your bible canon was voted on by fallible humans during the council of nicaea. So if humans are so poorly reliable then by extension so is the new testament since it was cobbled together from multiple conflicting documents.

Bluemongoose said...

Hey, SConnor! How have you been?

Your prior arguments. We had a good dialogue going and then you started frothing at the mouth, cussing and calling names -- basically going off the deep end. You wouldn't put up with that in real life, so why should I put up with it here? However, I don't see you holding John Loftus to your standard here. You say nothing when he drifts in and out of debates at his leisure.

Circular reasoning. What, you mean the circular reasoning skeptics and atheists use: The only way to verify reason is through human reasoning? I sincerely hope you're not implying a double standard is at work here.

B.S.? My, my, there you go again frothing at the mouth. Quitter? Again, do you hold John Loftus to that standard?

Walter said...

The Believer's Delusion of Infallibility

by Arnold Herman Kamiat

The devotee of a theological creed feels that his God has singled him and his party out from all the peoples of the world, to reveal the secrets of the universe unto. All other creeds are perforce lies, or partial truths at best. Even the tolerant believer holds to this view. He may regard differing creeds as containing a truth or two, but he retains the notion of the superiority of his own. He and his crowd see into the“divine” nature with an insight keener than that employed by all the other crowds. He and his crowd are“in tune with the universe.”

I like this quote.

Bluemongoose said...

John:

The problem of miscommunication. Notice how you preface your statement with "This problem is what I call...", indicating you argue from your own human perspective.

Properly illuminate. How do you know this? What if this was an issue of God not stepping on the free will of those who went to war? Can't wait to see where you go with this.

Again, God being clear is one thing. Whether or not humans accept the communication and by their own free will do what they want anyway is separate and apart.

Why do you believe the Sabbath commandment is not an issue of morality?

"I do not think belivers can..." There you go arguing solely your personal perception and implying it was a universal standard.

Logical conclusion. How do you know that was the only logical conclusion?

Bluemongoose said...

Bob:

Why do you believe you have no other method to determine truth other than human reasoning? Did E=MC2 before Einstein verified it? Does gravity require human reasoning to verify its truthfulness? Sure animal reasoning wouldn't be effective for you; but, again, why are you limiting yourself to human reasoning?

Why do you assume the ability to be reasonable is rooted in human reason?

Communicating comparisons. Are you implying that skeptics hve trouble with communication?

Why are you incapable of employing any reasoning beyond human reasoning? Again, where else might we find a way to verify truth, if not through human reasoning with all it's fallibilities and perception issues? You have to put this one together yourself. I can't give you the answer. Come on, I need you to participate...

bob said...

Bluemongoose said... Bob Why do you believe you have no other method to determine truth other than human reasoning?

This would all be very easy if you would just tell me what method of reasoning, other than my very own ability to reason as a human, I should or could employ.

Bluemongoose said: Did E=MC2 before Einstein verified it?

Sure, but Einstein used his human reasoning to discover it.

Bluemongoose said:Does gravity require human reasoning to verify its truthfulness?

This is silly, but if you must know, humans had to use human reasoning in order to discover gravity. Are you so blinded by your religion that you can't see even that?

Bluemongoose said:Sure animal reasoning wouldn't be effective for you; but, again, why are you limiting yourself to human reasoning?

Well, because I am a human, and like you, I can only employ human reasoning. Get it?

Bluemongoose said: Why do you assume the ability to be reasonable is rooted in human reason?

Human...HUMAN reasoning is rooted inside the human brain. Get it?

Bluemongoose said: Communicating comparisons. Are you implying that skeptics hve trouble with communication?

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Bluemongoose said: Why are you incapable of employing any reasoning beyond human reasoning?

Because, like you, I am human. Please, by all means, if you can switch back and forth from human to chimp reasoning, show us.

Bluemongoose said: Again, where else might we find a way to verify truth, if not through human reasoning with all it's fallibilities and perception issues?

I have no idea.

Bluemongoose said: You have to put this one together yourself. I can't give you the answer. Come on, I need you to participate...

Why can't you give me the answer?

Owlmirror said...

«"Have you ever been talking to a friend and prefaced a comment with "This will make you mad..."

No.

«"So, tell me, does the fact that you make this comment mean you are taking your friend's free will away, taking over their emotions? Certainly not. It's a prediction that what you're going to say or do will envoke a particular reaction from the other party.

Irrelevant.

«"When debating this issue, make sure you don't leave out Exodus 8:15 and 32 where it's indicated Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

That doesn't contradict that God says he will harden Pharaoh's heart, and does harden Pharaoh's heart, multiple times. God tramples on Pharaoh's free will.

«"Using my stuff. Again, you twist what was originally said. This is becoming a habit for you when your arguments tank.

I agree that you twist what was originally said -- both in the bible, and in other people's comments -- and that your arguments tank.

Bluemongoose said...

Walt:

You're on to something here! Recall my E=MC2 and gravity illustrations.

Holy Spirit guides you to truth? Yes!

"How do you verify the truth of any claim? We can use human verification on issues, but we must remember that this is not our sole source for verifying truth. Too many times people will say it's the only way to know something. Allow me to give you another illustration to help you along. We can't say that scientific verification gives us all the answers b/c you can't use science to verify things like love or art or music, etc.

God being the author of truth will answer you whenever you ask a question. So why should we go to Him for ultimate verification? B/c in Him you can find truth that never changes, unlike if you were to go to human reasoning. See Numbers 23:19 and Revelation 1:8

Owlmirror said...

«""When studying the Bible, it is critically important to always study the context of a particular Bible verse or passage."

In other words, it is critically important to study the context, except when you want to add your own narrative, or it is otherwise inconvenient.

«""Considering the context, God loving Jacob and hating Esau has nothing to do with the human emotions of love and hate.

In other words, your source -- a fallible human -- adds his own narrative to the text, and contradicts what it actually says.

«"It has everything to do with God choosing one man and his descendants and rejecting another man and his descendants."

Greek does have words for "chosen" and "rejected", and Paul could have used those words. Since he didn't, don't add your own narrative. Paul wrote "loved" and "hated".

«"Why did He choose? B/c one man was faithful and the other turned away from God.

In other words, God loved the one and hated the other. God does hate.

Bluemongoose said...

Bob:

Yes, it would be very easy if I gave you the answer, but it would defeat the purpose of what I'm trying to do here. Don't worry, though. Once the lightbulb comes on for you, you'll use it to illuminate what I'm doing.

E=MC2. You're blending lines on issues here, Bob. We were originally talking about whether E=MC2 was dependent upon human reasoning to make it true.

Gravity. You blend lines again. Humans "discovering" something is not the same as that something being dependent on the act of discovering for it to be valid. Are you so blinded by your skepticism that you can't even see that? Flipped that on ya, didn't I?

Why do you limit yourself only to human reasoning as the sole way to verify authenticity? You're almost there...

Reasonableness and human reasoning. Again, you're blending lines on two issues that are separate and apart. Almost there...

"I have no idea what you are saying here." Does that de facto mean I have not communicated something?

Chimp reasoning. Easy there, big fella. I know you're frustrated, but you must be able to continue the debate w/o resorting to propping up your arguments with mudslinging.

You have no idea. Just b/c you don't know the answer, does that mean there is no answer? You're so close...

Why I can't give you the answer. B/c there will be a certain effect that happens when you come to the conclusion on your own that is eliminated if I let you cheat and give you the answer w/o you working for it.

Bluemongoose said...

Owlmirror:

Why is my illustration irrelevant? Again, you conveniently omit your follow-ups. Owly, you knew I wasn't going to let you off that easy.

Exodus 8:15 and 32. Why are you "adding your own narrative"? Is it b/c you simply don't like what I've brought to the table?

And then you go on to continue in your weak, 7th grade "I'm rubber, you're glue" banter.

Check and mate. Thank you! Thank you! Don't forget to tip your waiter. Try the veal!

Owlmirror said...

«"God being the author of truth will answer you whenever you ask a question.

So ask God what the 1024-digit number is in my file randnum2 on my hard drive, and tell me. That will convince me that you're not a delusional liar.

«"B/c in Him you can find truth that never changes, unlike if you were to go to human reasoning.

What truth that never changes? God changes his mind all the time.

First he creates Adam and Eve and puts them in Eden. Then he changes his mind and kicks them out. Then he changes his mind about creating humanity, and drowns most of them (and most of everything else, too). Then he changes his mind again and decides that maybe drowning everyone was a bad idea, and swears to not kill everyone again. He sort-of changes his mind about that, and annihilates Sodom and Gomorrah. He tells Abraham to kill his own son, then changes his mind and says, no, don't kill him. He tells Abraham that he'll give the land to Abraham's descendants, then changes his mind and creates a drought that forces those descendants to Egypt. Then he changes his mind again and tells Moses to tell Pharaoh to free the Israelites. Then he forces Pharaoh to change his mind, ten times, so that he, Yahweh, can show off. Once the Israelites leave Egypt, God changes his mind again, and lets them wander around for 40 years. He gives the Israelites the torah at Sinai, which includes the line "Thou shalt not kill", then gives lots and lots of laws which includes the death penalty, and orders the Israelites to butcher various people, including specifically small children. He tells the Israelites that he is one, then (skipping forward a bit) changes his mind and tells people that he is actually three.

And skipping a bunch more... God curses Adam and Eve permanently, then changes his mind and decides that he'll become human, and be killed, and that will lift the curse -- only not really.

The bible is a record of God's fickleness.

Bluemongoose said...

Owlmirror:

"In other words..." Or do you mean, in your words?

Why is it that Paul would have had to use the Greek word for chosen? Just b/c it's not what you would have done doesn't mean it's invalid. But I guess that's the standard we all must abide by now, right? Supreme Leader Owlmirror's way or the highway.

"In other words..." Or do you mean, in your words?

Owlmirror said...

«"Why is my illustration irrelevant?

Because it has nothing to do with what the Bible says God says he will do.

«"Again, you conveniently omit your follow-ups.

I keep overestimating your intelligence. Sorry about that.

«"Exodus 8:15 and 32. Why are you "adding your own narrative"?

No, you're the one adding your own narrative. I'm going by what the text says.

«"And then you go on to continue in your weak, 7th grade "I'm rubber, you're glue" banter.

I agree that your banter is pathetic weaksauce.

«"Try the veal!

Why do you support the murder of baby cows?

Owlmirror said...

«"Why is it that Paul would have had to use the Greek word for chosen?

Why didn't you read what you copied and pasted? Your fallible human source added his own narrative and argued that "loved" meant "chosen" and "hated" meant "rejected". I argue that if Paul meant "chosen", he should have written "chosen", not "loved"; if he meant "rejected", he should have written "rejected", not "hated".

Don't you agree that people should write what they mean?

Bluemongoose said...

Walt:

"The Believer's Delusion of Infallibility." I love how your mind works. Awesome topic!

First, I must ask, can two (or more) opposing viewpoints both be true at the same time? Of course not. So this means we must find out which viewpoint is correct. From Ravi Zacharias' book, "Beyond Opinion":

"But how do we identify real Christians from the false Christians? The apostle Paul, when writing to the church in Galatia, was very concerned that they be able to make the distinction. He pointed out one of the ways to do that is by examining the fruit of people's lives. The word he uses for fruit is singular; there is one fruit to look for, but it has a complex taste. He then describes that fruit as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. What he is saying is that if you come into contact with people who taste like this, then it is a good indication that they are who they say they are. 'What is the fruit that you have tasted? If it has been poisonous and it has disillusioned you, it may well not have been Christian fruit at all.'"

We must also ask this question, if individuals have disillusioned you, then is there ultimately something authentic from which they depart?

sconnor said...

bluemongoose

Your prior arguments. We had a good dialogue going...

Ha! I had a good monologue going. All you offered were lame, trite responses that never really addressed the issues at hand just so you could say you responded.

...and then you started frothing at the mouth, cussing and calling names -- basically going off the deep end. You wouldn't put up with that in real life, so why should I put up with it here?

Er? Of course I put up with it in real life and here.

I don't care if people use profanity or or call me names -- It makes me want to argue my point all the more.

You -- on the other hand -- use it as a B.S. excuse.

However, I don't see you holding John Loftus to your standard here. You say nothing when he drifts in and out of debates at his leisure.

Oh -- so you agree, that what you are doing is unacceptable.

Circular reasoning. What, you mean the circular reasoning skeptics and atheists use: The only way to verify reason is through human reasoning? I sincerely hope you're not implying a double standard is at work here.


Oh -- again, you agree that circular reasoning is fallacious.

You are in essence arguing both ways of obtaining knowledge are untenable -- thanks for that admission.

Furthermore I suspect you still do NOT fully comprehend what circular reasoning is. It would do you well if you educated yourself on this particular subject.

B.S.? My, my, there you go again frothing at the mouth.

Oh po' little baby and her virgin ears. Again excuses, excuses, excuses.

Quitter? Again, do you hold John Loftus to that standard?

Doesn't detract from the fact that you bailed without ever really addressing my questions and comments.

Even if John and everyone of John's contributors were to quit every time that engaged with someone -- doesn't justify you quiting.

Your kindergarten defense of: "oh someone else does it and you don't hold them accountable, nah, nah, nah, na, na" is an infantile and fallacious argument.

Your circular reasoning defense is equally absurd. Because you have NO legitimate way of specifically defending your circular reasoning so you must resort to more sophomoric arguments like: "well human reasoning is also impotent, nah, nah, na, na, na, na" -- thereby admitting your circular reasoning is impotent as well. Again thanks for that.

Bottom line two wrongs don't make a right. Face it blue you got nothing but a massive delusion, coupled with infantile arguments.

I don't know what's more pathetic your use of these lame and infantile arguments or the fact you don't have a clue that they are lame and infantile arguments?

Additionally, I'll pick reason over the unreliable method of faith/belief any day, but let's put this to the test.

We'll both cross an extremely busy highway. I'll use reasoning to navigate the busy highway and you will only use faith or belief. Of course to assure you are to only use faith/belief you will have to where earplugs and be blindfolded, while I use my five senses to observe the world around me so I can make well reasoned decisions.

I wonder if human reasoning has the advantage here?

And once again I noticed you completely ignored the biblical evidence that your bible god-concept is evil. Now you are employing the ostrich defense by sticking your tiny head in the sand pretending like it doesn't exist.

You quiting and then regurgitating whiny excuses speaks volumes.

--S.

bob said...

Blue, your sarcasm and condescension is tiring, and rather pedestrian.
When I invited you to switch between human and chimp reasoning, the chimp part had no particular meaning. It was completely random on my part. I could have just as easily used horse, bear, jellyfish or angel. Perhaps you are just to sensitive?

Anyway, it would appear that we, you and I, are just not communicating. You accuse me of bending the lines, but we are just talking about two different things.

Suffice it to say, no, I do not believe that truth, (or fact) is dependent on human reasoning. But humans can only discover truth or fact by using their human reasoning. That is all I was trying to say.

Feel free to keep your little secret to yourself. I have a feeling that it isn't as earthshaking as you think it is.

Walter said...

Blue says..."Holy Spirit guides you to truth? Yes!"

Then why are there so many denominations and sects of Christianity? Is Satan deceiving some of the believers with false revelations from God? If so, how do you know that you have not been deceived by the devil? Do you not have to use human reasoning (which you denigrate) to evaluate the claims of the bible and your church?

With so many contradictory claims coming from believers, how do we determine if something is Truth or Heresy?

Consider this:
One of the foundations of Mormonism is its insistence that a person seek the truth by praying for a private, special revelation from the Holy Spirit.

What they receive is sometimes called a burning in the bosom as a confirmation of truth. Mormons frequently appeal to James 1:5 for this, especially given that their founder, Joseph Smith, claimed that this was the verse and method he used for finding the truth. This is often accompanied by the insistence that one suspend judgment of his or her religion (even in the face of its historical and theological problems) until he or she has read the Book of Mormon and received, by prayer, a special revelation from the Holy Spirit of its truthfulness.

Scott said...

Jerry wrote: All of God's actions do make sense. Their working on the Sabbath (not Sunday) was important because they needed to remember that they were to obey him to the letter.

The Israelites simply exchanged one form of bondage for another. Surely some method of remembrance could have been require that did not involve death.

Had he not been strict the Israelites would have forgotten him sooner than they did.

Following your logic, had God killed people who worked on the Sabbath himself, by making a grand supernatural spectacle for all to see, they would have remembered him even longer than they did. Yet he supposedly did not. Instead he made the Israelites kill their own people.

The Israelites taking the Midianite virgins as wives is not the same as using them for sex slaves.

Jerry, not all marriages are based on love. They can be marriages of convenience to "get around" the rules.

Scott said...

I'm glad you understand that human fallibility and the possibility for us to misinterpret God's messages are problems.

You're glad that I'm aware of human cognitive biases? I've mentioned this several times in the past. This is nothing new.

I can't help but notice that it sounds like I've called customer service and you're walking me though a scripted list of questions.

However, that doesn't mean they are problems w/o solutions.

Indeed. There are techniques we can use to compensate for cognitive bias. I'm glad you realize this?

What if these issues can help us get a better perspective on God's personality?

Such as God's personalty seems to be an awful lot like finite human beings?

What if it shows that despite our screw-ups, God is patient with us, persistent and full of various ways to redirect us when we go down the wrong path in interpreting His Word or otherwise?

Last time I checked, the 75% of the world who has gone "down the wrong path" are still going to hell when they die.

"Yet, this doesn't seem to be the case." Notice that the structure of you sentence indicates you're not sure about this.

So If I had felt 100% sure about what God had or has not done, and formed my sentence accordingly, then I'd be right, regardless of what I thought?

Again, why do you need me to personally do anything to verify the truth of the matter? Did gravity require humans to acknowledge it before it became truth?

Blue, that there is a true state of affairs in now way means you actually have knowledge of said state of affairs. For example, we do not have a working theory of what causes gravity. Surely there is some mechanism that causes gravity, but we currently do not (and may never) know it.

Of course, if YOU don't need to "verify" anything to have "knowledge" of it, then I'm sure you can save scientists and researchers centuries of time and reveal all of these truths directly. You could end world hunger, cure cancer, provide clean energy - the possibilities are endless!

And I noticed you completely ignored my question. Do you not agree that communication not a two way street?

Finite beings. I'm glad you see the problem with relying on human reasoning to be the sole way to verify the truth of a matter.

Why Blue, what other means could you possibly have in mind? (Am I following the script correctly?)

What God knows. The way you phrased your comments here leads the reader to believe you assume God is not in the process of remedying the problem. Is this so, and why?

My comment is designed to show how communication between two human beings and communication between a human being and God would be quit different. God's knowledge puts him in a unique position to know when he's been misunderstood. This knowledge comes with responsibility.

Imagine you knew someone had misread the instruction to using a gas grill and was about to cause an explosion, but you merely stood by and allowed them to injure themselves and others. Clearly, you had knowledge they did not, which could have prevented the accident. Would you not be partially responsible?

Getting His point across is one thing, forcing us to accept His point is another. You blend lines on issues.

You're presented a false dilemma, as God could give us clear choices yet not force us to accept either one of them.

Responsibility. Why do you believe there is a sliding scale for responsibility?

How do I know? For the sake of argument, I'm using your own definition of God. As such, he would obviously have significantly more knowledge and therefore bears significantly responsibility regarding it's success.

Jerry D. McDonald said...

"The Israelites simply exchanged one form of bondage for another. Surely some method of remembrance could have been require that did not involve death."

Sometimes the threat of death is the only thing that people remember.

"Following your logic, had God killed people who worked on the Sabbath himself, by making a grand supernatural spectacle for all to see, they would have remembered him even longer than they did. Yet he supposedly did not. Instead he made the Israelites kill their own people."

Yes, if God killed people who committed murder today you might say that this might stay with people longer, though I doubt it. God made the Israelites enforce the laws that he made because their kingdom was a theocratic kingdom.

"Jerry, not all marriages are based on love. They can be marriages of convenience to "get around" the rules."

These were not marriages of convenience to get around the rules. Arranged marriages have always been a part of the middle eastern way of life. No one was forced to do anything.

Walter said...

Jerry said...Arranged marriages have always been a part of the middle eastern way of life. No one was forced to do anything.

Some of the women from the Middle East might argue that point with you. Face it. Women were treated as possessions or second class citizens throughout the bible.

Yahweh is obviously not egalitarian.

Regardless of what the Midianite virgins were "used" for, there are still many examples of morally reprehensible commands from Yahweh in the O.T..

In fact, God's less than stellar behavior in the OT is a large part of what began my questioning of my faith.

Scott said...

Sometimes the threat of death is the only thing that people remember.

So they just end up resenting God instead of what he did for them?

Furthermore, the Israelites could not remember the way God intended when they were dead.

Yes, if God killed people who committed murder today you might say that this might stay with people longer, though I doubt it.

Jerry, surely you jest - right? If an omniscient God went around killing people who committed murder, this would have no effect?

God made the Israelites enforce the laws that he made because their kingdom was a theocratic kingdom.

Jerry, What you've done here is label what God did, in an attempt to deflect the question. We know that a theocratic kingdom is. This in now way actually answers the question.

These were not marriages of convenience to get around the rules.

And you know this how?

Gandolf said...

Walter said..."@Blue

Are you infallible in matters of morals and faith? Are you infallible in your knowledge of God and his will for us?

Why should a fallible human, like myself, believe your claims, or the claims of your particular church which is populated by fallible humans?

Do you claim that your church is infallible in its teachings?"

Bluemongoose said..."Walt:

Awesome question! I'm glad you asked that.

Romans 9:13 references Malachi 1:2 and 3. "When studying the Bible, it is critically important to always study the context of a particular Bible verse or passage." Here, Paul is using the name "Esau" to refer to the descendants of Esau, the Edomites. "Considering the context, God loving Jacob and hating Esau has nothing to do with the human emotions of love and hate. It has everything to do with God choosing one man and his descendants and rejecting another man and his descendants." Why did He choose? B/c one man was faithful and the other turned away from God."

Walt :), poor Blue just couldnt come up with a decent answer for you.He had to try reverting to the bible,while stupidly forgetting whats written there is only ever relative to other fallible humans written opinions/thoughts anyway.

Blue trys telling us again and again here on DC that with relativity,why should peoples thoughts/opinions ever be of any real use to us.

Yet the silly fool turns a blind eye to himself when he reads a book of thoughts/opinions written by other religious men.

L.o.L ...oh the joy of religious indoctrination and ignorance.

Jerry D. McDonald said...

"So they just end up resenting God instead of what he did for them?"

No they didn't just end up resenting God. However, they were reminded to keep his laws.


"Jerry, surely you jest - right? If an omniscient God went around killing people who committed murder, this would have no effect? "

I said that it would not make them remember longer. One thing I have learned about humanity is just how quickly we tend to forget.


"Jerry, What you've done here is label what God did, in an attempt to deflect the question. We know that a theocratic kingdom is. This in now way actually answers the question."

It does answer the question because Israel being a theocratic kingdom had to enforce whatever laws God enacted.

These were not marriages of convenience to get around the rules.

And you know this how?

Jerry D. McDonald said...

These were not marriages of convenience to get around the rules.

And you know this how?

From the Bible!

Carbon Based said...

Last word: If the bible is such a wonderful vehicle for a god to communicate to his creation. Why is it necessary to have 2000 yrs of christian apologetics?

Yo christians crack me up.

The God of Bluemongoose said...

Oh, no. My servant Bluemongoose is at it again...(sighs)

Bluemongoose sputtered:
"Yes, it would be very easy if I gave you the answer, but it would defeat the purpose of what I'm trying to do here. Don't worry, though. Once the lightbulb comes on for you, you'll use it to illuminate what I'm doing."

Blue, isn't that attitude a little condescending for a sheep of mine? I think my lightbulb of charity needs to turn on inside of you so you can illuminate your snide heart.

Blue then said:
"Are you so blinded by your skepticism that you can't even see that? Flipped that on ya, didn't I?"

Haven't you read Proverbs? You know I don't care for the proud.

Blue again:
"Chimp reasoning. Easy there, big fella. I know you're frustrated, but you must be able to continue the debate w/o resorting to propping up your arguments with mudslinging."

Blue...I could yell at you til I'm blue in my omniscient face. Shouldn't you be turning the other cheek by now?

Where has the love been in your dialogues, Blue? How shall they know that you are doing my work with your haughty attitude? Shouldn't this be an apologetic of love, not snarky pride?

(shrugs) I should have made sanctification a whole lot quicker.

- God of Bluemongoose

Gandolf said...

Carbon Based said..."Last word: If the bible is such a wonderful vehicle for a god to communicate to his creation. Why is it necessary to have 2000 yrs of christian apologetics?

Yo christians crack me up."

Yeah......Cause its a slippery slope when humans start delving into relativism.

:) Hmmmmm Blue ??

sconnor said...

Bluemongoose's god,

Not to be stepping on your omniscience and all but I'm sure you wanted to let bluemongoose see your choice verses from scripture to substantiate your divine message.

Better read and fully comprehend god's messages bluemongoose.

Matthew 7:3-5 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Consider your own faults rather than criticizing others, don't be a hypocrite and be meek and humble and turn the other cheek.

Matthew 7:12 Treat others as you want them to treat you. This is what the Law and the Prophets are all about.

Luke 6:37 Don't judge others, and God won't judge you. Don't be hard on others, and God won't be hard on you. Forgive others, and God will forgive you.

Romans 12:19 Dear friends, don't try to get even. Let God take revenge.

Philippians 2:3-4 Don't be jealous or proud, but be humble and consider others more important than yourselves. Care about them as much as you care about yourselves

Colossians 3:12-13 God loves you and has chosen you as his own special people. So be gentle, kind, humble, meek, and patient.

Titus 3:1-2 Remind your people to obey the rulers and authorities and not to be rebellious. They must always be ready to do something helpful and not say cruel things or argue. They should be gentle and kind to everyone.

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you. When someone slaps your right cheek, turn and let that person slap your other cheek.


--S.

Owlmirror said...

«""Jerry, surely you jest - right? If an omniscient God went around killing people who committed murder, this would have no effect? "

I said that it would not make them remember longer. One thing I have learned about humanity is just how quickly we tend to forget.


Believers say a lot of dumb things, and this is one of the dumber ones.

How could humanity forget when everyone who forgets would be stone cold dead?


"Hey, Sam, didn't you once tell me that someone in your own family was smitten by the Almighty?"

"Yes, I once had an older brother. He was practicing baseball one Friday afternoon, and lost track of time. We heard a boom, and found his corpse. The lightning strike burned the words 'Sabbath violator' into his skin, and signed it with the Tetragrammaton."

Scott said...

I said that it would not make them remember longer. One thing I have learned about humanity is just how quickly we tend to forget.

Jerry, just to be clear, you're suggesting that if God, who is omniscient and would have perfect knowledge of every crime, used a well defined, grandiose method of killing those who were guilty of murder, they would forget him?

Imagine the following, The sky gets dark and the killer finds themself outside in public view. A booming voice said, "Frank Smith, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David. Christ is my son. You've committed murder against John Doe" As God speaks a giant "jumbotron" appears in sky, visible for miles, which shows Smith actually killing Doe. God says "Your punishment is physical death." Smith is lifted 20 feet off the ground and a succession of sustained lighting bolts come out of the sky and strike him multiple times until he is dead. Clearly, it's not a pleasant experience as Smiths body is badly burned.

So, again, you're suggesting that should God do this, we humans would quickly forget him?

It does answer the question because Israel being a theocratic kingdom had to enforce whatever laws God enacted.

Jerry, I'm asking "why" it makes sense for God to have people their own people as punishment. You've merely given another name for the same thing as if that's an answer.

Imagine I say "John Smith was a outstanding moral citizen." However, you retort that "Smith murdered not one, two or three, but seven people! " Imagine if I replied, "Smith murdered those people because he is a Serial Killer - and Serial Killers murder multiple people in succession."

I've merely attempted to deflect your objection by indirectly describing what Smith did using a formal designation.

Yes, we know setting up a theocratic kingdom entails forcing people to hand out God's death sentences against each other. But this in now way absolves God from deciding to make the Israelites kill each other any amore that being a Serial Killer absolves Smith murdering seven people.

From the Bible!

Then you should have no trouble producing scriptiure that supports your specific position regarding the intentions of both the spared virgin "wives" who were conquered and husbands who did the conquering.

Jerry D. McDonald said...

Owlmirror has left a new comment on the post "Robert G. Ingersoll on the Bible":

«""Jerry, surely you jest - right? If an omniscient God went around killing people who committed murder, this would have no effect? "

I said that it would not make them remember longer. One thing I have learned about humanity is just how quickly we tend to forget."»

Believers say a lot of dumb things, and this is one of the dumber ones.

How could humanity forget when everyone who forgets would be stone cold dead?


"Hey, Sam, didn't you once tell me that someone in your own family was smitten by the Almighty?"

"Yes, I once had an older brother. He was practicing baseball one Friday afternoon, and lost track of time. We heard a boom, and found his corpse. The lightning strike burned the words 'Sabbath violator' into his skin, and signed it with the Tetragrammaton."

Another thing that I have learned is that atheists will say anything in an attempt to make a point. Even if they don't know what they are talking about.

Owlmirror said...

«"Another thing that I have learned is that atheists will say anything in an attempt to make a point. Even if they don't know what they are talking about.

I guess I'm overestimating your intelligence as well. Sorry about that.

What do you need explained for your intelligence level, and how much do you need me to dumb it down for you?

Jerry D. McDonald said...

Owlmirror has left a new comment on the post "Robert G. Ingersoll on the Bible":

«"Another thing that I have learned is that atheists will say anything in an attempt to make a point. Even if they don't know what they are talking about."»

I guess I'm overestimating your intelligence as well. Sorry about that.

What do you need explained for your intelligence level, and how much do you need me to dumb it down for you?

I don't know, How dumb can you get? Over the last 20 years I have debated people like Farrell Till and have seen them make statements they knew were false and they knew they could be called on, but they made them anyway. Sounds pretty dumb to me. So maybe atheists are just dumb, I don't know. I would rather stay away from ad hominem remarks, but if you want I can stack them up with the best of them.

Jerry D. McDonald said...

Scott said: "Imagine I say "John Smith was a outstanding moral citizen." However, you retort that "Smith murdered not one, two or three, but seven people! " Imagine if I replied, "Smith murdered those people because he is a Serial Killer - and Serial Killers murder multiple people in succession."

I've merely attempted to deflect your objection by indirectly describing what Smith did using a formal designation.

Yes, we know setting up a theocratic kingdom entails forcing people to hand out God's death sentences against each other. But this in now way absolves God from deciding to make the Israelites kill each other any amore that being a Serial Killer absolves Smith murdering seven people."

I am sure there is some logic in there somewhere, but being challenged as I am, I haven't been able to find it. Could you please point it out and show how the serial killer connects to the theocracy of Israel?

Owlmirror said...

«"I don't know, How dumb can you get? Over the last 20 years I have debated people like Farrell Till and have seen them make statements they knew were false and they knew they could be called on, but they made them anyway. Sounds pretty dumb to me. So maybe atheists are just dumb, I don't know. I would rather stay away from ad hominem remarks, but if you want I can stack them up with the best of them.

Well, I certainly agree that you have nothing but dumb remarks, and dumb ad hominem remarks, in your frothing rant above.

Say, I guess you forgot that today is the Sabbath. What's your excuse for violating one of God's ten commandments?

Jerry D. McDonald said...

Owlmirror has left a new comment on the post "Robert G. Ingersoll on the Bible":

«"I don't know, How dumb can you get? Over the last 20 years I have debated people like Farrell Till and have seen them make statements they knew were false and they knew they could be called on, but they made them anyway. Sounds pretty dumb to me. So maybe atheists are just dumb, I don't know. I would rather stay away from ad hominem remarks, but if you want I can stack them up with the best of them."»

Well, I certainly agree that you have nothing but dumb remarks, and dumb ad hominem remarks, in your frothing rant above.

Say, I guess you forgot that today is the Sabbath. What's your excuse for violating one of God's ten commandments?

I guess that does show how dumb you can get doesn't it? Otherwise you would know that the 10 commandments were given to the Jews under the law of Moses and that law was done away with at the cross (Col. 2:14-16).

Owlmirror said...

«"I guess that does show how dumb you can get doesn't it? Otherwise you would know that the 10 commandments were given to the Jews under the law of Moses and that law was done away with at the cross (Col. 2:14-16).

Oh, I agree that it's claimed that Paul wrote that. But Christians are not terribly consistent about the law, anyway. I suppose that's why you have no problem bringing false witness.

And after all, if the law was done away with, it is not against God's own law to deny that God exists, or to take God's name in vain. So God has no cause to damn atheists, and I have no reason to believe in your damned God.

Yet if God was going to do away with the law eventually, giving it to the Jews in the first place was utterly useless, and ordering the death penalty for violating any of it was ... just plain dumb, and also evil.

Walter said...


...Otherwise you would know that the 10 commandments were given to the Jews under the law of Moses and that law was done away with at the cross (Col. 2:14-16).


The law was not done away with according to the author of Matthew, but the Torah was not given to Gentiles anyway.

Owlmirror said...

«"I guess that does show how dumb you can get doesn't it? Otherwise you would know that the 10 commandments were given to the Jews under the law of Moses and that law was done away with at the cross (Col. 2:14-16).

Oh, and another thing: God, in the OT clearly says that the law will last forever (Deut 4:40). Jesus agrees (Matt 5:17-19). So if God and Jesus says one thing, and Paul contradicts them, who is right? God and Jesus? Or Paul?

Owlmirror said...

«"The law was not done away with according to the author of Matthew, but the Torah was not given to Gentiles anyway.

I've heard this before, of course, but it seems like special pleading to me. After all, if God exists, then God's law is a list of things that God thinks that it's important that people do or refrain from doing. If someone claims to actually believe in God, why would he make such an easy, facile excuse as to say that since God did not give the law to him, he doesn't have to follow any of it?

Walter said...

«"The law was not done away with according to the author of Matthew, but the Torah was not given to Gentiles anyway."»

I've heard this before, of course, but it seems like special pleading to me. After all, if God exists, then God's law is a list of things that God thinks that it's important that people do or refrain from doing. If someone claims to actually believe in God, why would he make such an easy, facile excuse as to say that since God did not give the law to him, he doesn't have to follow any of it?

I am merely pointing out that the law was never given to anyone outside of Yahweh's chosen tribe. Technically, gentiles have never been required to "Remember the Sabbath", because Yahweh considered gentiles to be "dogs".

The Law was more about how Hebrews dealt with other Hebrews. When Yahweh says "Thou shalt not kill", it means Hebrews should not kill other Hebrews.

Shortly after the Law was given to Moses, Yahweh orders a grand slaughter of gentiles living in the Promised Land.

"Thou shalt not kill" did not apply to "dogs".

Owlmirror said...

«"The Law was more about how Hebrews dealt with other Hebrews. When Yahweh says "Thou shalt not kill", it means Hebrews should not kill other Hebrews.

Shortly after the Law was given to Moses, Yahweh orders a grand slaughter of gentiles living in the Promised Land.


I think we are arguing past each other. I am not saying that the law, on its face, was not profoundly xenophobic. I am noting the inconsistency of claiming that the OT defines God and comes from God, and is the source of Christianity, while at the same time claiming that the law of the OT is not something that Christians have to follow.

Walter said...

I think we are arguing past each other. I am not saying that the law, on its face, was not profoundly xenophobic. I am noting the inconsistency of claiming that the OT defines God and comes from God, and is the source of Christianity, while at the same time claiming that the law of the OT is not something that Christians have to follow.

Ahh, OK. I gotcha now.

Scott said...

I am sure there is some logic in there somewhere, but being challenged as I am, I haven't been able to find it. Could you please point it out and show how the serial killer connects to the theocracy of Israel?

Jerry,

Serial killers are not merely career criminals who happen to commit murder during their crimes. They develop elaborate and complex systems in which they use to pick victims, locations and times. They can also develop and elaborate rituals and practices which they use during the act. This is in contrast to a gang banger who might go around killing off their members of rival gangs over turf wars, drug deals, etc.

In other words, there is usually a method to their madness, so to speak, which can often appear logical and may even require a great deal of intelligence to pull off.

However, just because there is a overarching system or process behind Smiths actions, which might actually be brilliant in a twisted way, this does not absolve him of the fact that, in the end, he murdered people in cold blood. Smith did not have to commit murder to express his brilliance or challenge his intelligence. He chose murder in contrast to any number of other options.

In my example, I was appealing to Smith's elaborate system in which he carefully and methodically chose his victims an attempt to deflect the objection that he was indeed a murderer. Essentially, I dressed up Smiths murders by describing them using more elaborate terms. I also tried to distance Smiths from his actions by associating them with a well established definition: Serial Killer.

When I noted how barbaric it was of God to demand the Israelites remember his role in saving them from death at the hands of the Egyptians, or be killed at the hands of their own people, you implied that God was justified in doing so be cause Israel was a Theocracy.

But this is nothing more than a fancy way of saying God demands his people dish out his punishments, including death sentences. This in no way addresses whether a death sentence in the case of failing to remember God having saving Israelites was actually merited or was not barbaric. Nor does the existence of the term Theocracy somehow legitimatize it's implementation.

Furthermore, it was God who chose to setup Israel as a Theocracy in the first place. This is in contrast to other options, such as punishing people himself. Of course, if God did not actually exist, then a Theocracy is the only option as a non-existent God cannot dish out his own punishments.

Bluemongoose said...

Owlmirror:

So are you talking about a random number on your hard drive, or did you spell randnum2 correctly? Also, does this have to do with the hard drive identifier?

God changing His mind. You're adding your own narrative again. You conveniently leave out the sin part, thereby absolving humans (especially you) of their responsibility in this equation. Drowning. Again, you conveniently omit the sin element here. Same with Soddom and Gomorrah. How do you know God changed His mind on the Abe and Isaac situation? What if He knew what would happen from the jump and thereby never changed His mind? What happens here is that human perception is clouded from knowing God's intentions b/c of our limited perceptions. Showing off in Egypt. What if it wasn't showing off; but, rather, if God had done a small miracle here, then no one would have been convinced it was Him at the wheel? 10 Commandments. Here again is your personal spin. One and three. If you read from the very beginning of Genesis, you'll see references to the Trinity. Jesus. Why do you assume God actually changed His mind here? If He operates outside of the entity we know of as time, then He would have known what was going to happen from beginning to the end of time and would have no need to change His mind.

The Bible is a record of God's fickleness, or you just keep throwing out your own narratives to serve your purposes.

Bluemongoose said...

SConnor:

Prior dialogue. Your opinion. But ultimately in a relativistic society where God doesn't exist and there are no absolutes on right and wrong, you can't definitively say you're right. Unless you contradict yourself...

Putting up with frothing at the mouth. Again, I dare you to go up to your teachers/professors or even go into you local grocery store and start yelling out obscenities and insults. See how long you stay on the premises.

"I don't care if people use profanity..." Notice how you prefaced your statement with "I don't care". In a relativistic society, just b/c you don't care doesn't mean others don't care; and you can't force your standards on anybody else. Also, you can't say what I bring is B.S. b/c there are not definitive boundaries on legitimacy in a world with no God.

Circular reasoning. Just trying to better understand where you were coming from.

What I do "in essence". Completely your opinion. You can't definitively state anything in a relativistic society.

John Loftus. So are you admitting there's a double standard?

Justifying quitting. What does justify my discontinuing our conversation in a prior thread is your lack of respect for others.

Why do you believe what I brought is infantile/kindergarten? You must do your follow-ups.

Bluemongoose said...

SConnor:

Continuing on...

2 wrongs don't make a right. Again, you blend lines. Even John says he won't put up with disrespect. But ultimately you blend lines on issues again. I left b/c you were disrespectful by using cuss words and were mudslinging. You make it seem like you're trying to be benevolent here, but the you continue on with your diatribes. Pathetic, infantile, etc. You can use all the derragatory adjectives you want, but to the quiet reader of our debates, you come off in a negative light b/c you prove over and over again that when your arguments tank, you will resort to making defamatory comments.

Your illustration. Why do you assume this is an either/or situation?

Evidence the Bible is evil. What are you talking about? Skeptics can't say there is evil if there is no God. Doing so admits there are absolute lines on morality.

The fact that you prop your erroneous arguments with mudslinging speaks volumes.

The God of Bluemongoose said...

Blue said:
"I left b/c you were disrespectful by using cuss words and were mudslinging. "

Need we revisit your past sins of arrogant boasting in this thread, my follower?

As you said earlier:
"Check and mate. Thank you! Thank you! Don't forget to tip your waiter. Try the veal!"

Hmm. Where is the charity and the public repentance for such acts? Perhaps in tonight's prayers you will mention them to me but you should still apologize here. Love covers a mutlitude of sins, my sheep. We are waiting to see if you are one of my own.

- The God of Bluemongoose

sconnor said...

Prior dialogue. Your opinion.

...AND evidence -- one only has to go back to the original posts to see All you offered were lame, trite responses that never really addressed the issues at hand just so you could say you responded.

Putting up with frothing at the mouth. Again, I dare you to go up to your teachers/professors or even go into you local grocery store and start yelling out obscenities and insults. See how long you stay on the premises.

Inaccurate analogy. I routinely have lively and informal discussions with friends and relatives using cuss words, which do NOT distract from the salient and germane arguments presented. Furthermore, I routinely put up with christian guests who can be disrespectful on other informal blogs. Again you only use this as a lame whiny excuse: oh my virgin ears burn, whaaaaaaa.

"I don't care if people use profanity..." Notice how you prefaced your statement with "I don't care". In a relativistic society, just b/c you don't care doesn't mean others don't care; and you can't force your standards on anybody else. Also, you can't say what I bring is B.S. b/c there are not definitive boundaries on legitimacy in a world with no God.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo. Your argument was: You wouldn't put up with that in real life, so why should I put up with it here?

I countered that feeble argument by sharing with you that, I do indeed put up with it -- real life and on other informal blogs. It was NOT an argument insinuating that you should put up with it, because I put up with it. Can...you...grasp...that?

I could care less if you put up with it or not. But evidently it hasn't stopped you from replying to me altogether, which tells me that the cussing really isn't the reason why you stopped replying to my 56 comments and arguments. It's because you are incapable of really addressing them. Claiming virgin ears is just a B.S. excuse.

Circular reasoning. Just trying to better understand where you were coming from.

Evidently your intellectual capacity can NOT absorb that what you are doing is using circular reasoning to justify your supposed knowledge of god. Take your time, obviously it is a difficult concept to wrap your brain around.

But you do admit circular reasoning is impotent by comparing it to human reason -- again thanks for that sophomoric argument.

John Loftus. So are you admitting there's a double standard?

No -- what I am qualifying is that your shallow argument that john "does it too", is an infantile argument -- the equivalent of a kindergartner saying, little johnny did it too, as if it make your position acceptable.

If anything this is John's playground -- he is the catalyst to these debates where he starts them, may jump in and out, but then let's other people make valid arguments that he agrees with letting them speak for themselves.

sconnor said...

~continued~

Justifying quitting. What does justify my discontinuing our conversation in a prior thread is your lack of respect for others.

And yet you feel compelled to continue on vomiting up more whiny excuses, and respond to my other aguments, which begs the question, if you can address me here and now with the unbearable strain of my cuss words hovering above your burning ears, why can't you address the original 56 arguments? Hmmmmmmmm?

Why do you believe what I brought is infantile/kindergarten? You must do your follow-ups.

I did -- wooooosh right over your head.

2 wrongs don't make a right. Again, you blend lines. Even John says he won't put up with disrespect. But ultimately you blend lines on issues again. I left b/c you were disrespectful by using cuss words and were mudslinging. You make it seem like you're trying to be benevolent here, but the you continue on with your diatribes. Pathetic, infantile, etc. You can use all the derogatory adjectives you want...

I contend that my arguments are germane and salient. Using words like "pathetic" and "infantile" are a matter of FACT because positing the kindergarten argument of little Johnny does it too -- is infantile. Additionally, I'm not issuing forth belligerent ad hominems in lieu of relevant arguments. In FACT you already conceded that my arguments were very important: Again, I don't want to minimize your statements b/c they are all important points and your questions deserve answers...

but to the quiet reader of our debates, you come off in a negative light b/c you prove over and over again that when your arguments tank, you will resort to making defamatory comments.

I already covered this: Even, IF every atheist, unbeliever and skeptic in the world was a F-ing belligerent -- frothing-at-the-mouth -- mother-F-er, it still does NOT make your imaginary god-character or your delusional claims anymore credible. More B.S. diverging tactics and extraneous claptrap -- on your part -- that does NOTHING to further your lame arguments.

You should also know -- I am NOT an atheist. I have a belief in an afterlife and maintain there could be some sort of ultimate reality but unlike you I do not psychotically profess it to be truth, nor do I wallow in massive delusional -- using god's supposed voice as my own -- making unsubstantiated, interpretive claims about god's will and character.

Furthermore (considering your virgin ears) my use of profanity is just another spice in my stew. What's more, even if I laced my questions, arguments and and rebuttals with a tapestry of vulgarities, using profane verbiage every other word -- it would not abolish the relevancy of my arguments.

But again here you are responding to me anyway. If you can respond to me here, while the taste of those disrespectful cuss words and pseudo-insulting words like "infantile" (oh my!) still linger in your mouth, why can't you respond to the 56 -- "all important" -- arguments you were bound and determined to address?

sconnor said...

~continued~

Your illustration. Why do you assume this is an either/or situation?

So I take it you can't address the logic of my argument either?

Evidence the Bible is evil. What are you talking about? Skeptics can't say there is evil if there is no God.

Oh here we go.

1. Read this carefully -- it is abundantly clear you can not digest information: I do NOT believe in your god-concept -- the one you constructed from your own idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.

2. There is NO objective evidence that the bible is god's word.

3. I am NOT trying to prove god is evil.

4. When we say god is evil we are referencing your bible and pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies in scripture that are antithetical to your god-concept, being ALL-loving ALL-merciful, benevolent, etc. It is NOT an admission of god's existence; it is NOT an affirmative assertion that god is evil.

5. It is an admission and my contention that : bible-god is a fictional character and this fictional god-character is an evil entity based on what the bible says about his character and by his own actions and commands in those works of FICTION.

It baffles me why you can NOT grasps this simple notion.

6. So just to be clear I do not believe in your personal christian god-concept. Any argument used against your god-concept is provisional. We are attacking your god-concept by pointing out inconsistencies, gaps of logic or contradictions of YOUR DEFINITION of god that you have fabricated by your idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture and stunted imaginings.

7. Furthermore it should be understood that unbelievers are debating in the hypothetical. For example: "IF" god is ALL-good why does he let children suffer in vile unimaginable ways? Or "IF" god is an intelligent designer why was he morbidly negligent in creating an umbilical cord that can choke the baby in utero that can lead to death or brain damage causing the baby to suffer for the rest of her life.

8. So NOT only do you have objective evidence that the bible is god's word you also have a bible that is inconsistent about god's character and will.

Do...you...understand?

The fact that you prop your erroneous arguments with mudslinging speaks volumes.

The FACT that you continue to respond to my salient and germane arguments means you find them worthy of responding to and the FACT that you continue to respond (even with allegations of mudslinging and cussing) shows YOU ARE willing to respond -- You're just NOT willing to respond to the 56 arguments that you insisted were "all important points".

Again you continue to spin your wheels offering lame contradictory excuses.

--S.

Andre said...

I just read John's post on the nature and value of free will- great, great post.
I just wanted to comment on David Wood's claims. First, I would like to know if Adam & Eve had this same "epistemic distance" that Satan had between him and God? Second, if being in God's unmediated presence would cause no one to sin, meaning, everyone would be saved. Its obvious God doesn't want everyone to be saved. David is claiming that God knows that being in his unmediated presence no one would ever disobey him. If God knows all this stuff, it comes back to the point that he could have simply skipped this life altogether instead of pretending he doesn't know who will love him as a result of moral freedom.

Owlmirror said...

«"So are you talking about a random number on your hard drive, or did you spell randnum2 correctly? Also, does this have to do with the hard drive identifier?

Heh. It's obvious that God doesn't tell you anything at all, or you wouldn't have to ask me, now would you?

The filename is "randnum2". The file itself contains a sequence of 1024 ASCII characters which are all numeric digits.

«"God changing His mind. You're adding your own narrative again.

Nah.

«"You conveniently leave out the sin part, thereby absolving humans (especially you) of their responsibility in this equation.

Why should sin, regardless of who is responsible for it, matter? God did change his mind.

Of course, you have no follow up about humans being responsible for sin. God knows all; therefore God is responsible for all.

«"Drowning. Again, you conveniently omit the sin element here.

God sins? Sure, I agree that God sinned against his children by murdering them. But that's still irrelevant to the point that God changed his mind.

«"How do you know God changed His mind on the Abe and Isaac situation? What if He knew what would happen from the jump and thereby never changed His mind?

If he knew what would happen, the whole point of the exercise was meaningless.

So God must have changed his mind.

«"What happens here is that human perception is clouded from knowing God's intentions b/c of our limited perceptions.

Comes to the same thing.

«"Showing off in Egypt. What if it wasn't showing off; but, rather, if God had done a small miracle here, then no one would have been convinced it was Him at the wheel?

In other words, showing off. You have no follow up.

«"One and three. If you read from the very beginning of Genesis, you'll see references to the Trinity.

You see no such thing -- unless you add your own narrative from your own skewed opinion.

«"Jesus. Why do you assume God actually changed His mind here? If He operates outside of the entity we know of as time, then He would have known what was going to happen from beginning to the end of time and would have no need to change His mind.

If God operates outside of time, he had no need to wait for thousands of years to do it. So he must have changed his mind.

«"The Bible is a record of God's fickleness, or you just keep throwing out your own narratives to serve your purposes.

The bible is a record of God's fickleness.

Bluemongoose said...

Bob:

Sarcasm. Your opinion. Are you being too sensitive? But I don't see you championing this viewpoint when it may seem as thought others are being sarcastic to theists or worse, mudslinging. Isn't the statement that what I wrote is condescending, tiring and pedestrian all of those things in and of itself?

Blendng lines. You're getting somewhere now. Talking about two separate issues is different from trying to say subject A is the same as subject B. I ask the questions I do and phrase my debates the way I do in an effort to flush this out. Sometimes the individuals I have these kinds of discussions with don't even realize they are blending lines. So it becomes necessary to illuminate the problem.

"Secret". I'll give you a hint: Go back over my discussions in this thread, particularly with Walt.

Your earthshaking comment. Notice how you prefaced this statement with "I have a feeling..." You know where I'm going with this.

Bluemongoose said...

Walt:

Multitude of Christian denominations. There are two things at work here: 1) human free will; and 2) the Enemy (Satan, Lucifer, etc. that cause problems in this area. Mind you, I'm not saying free will is a bad thing b/c it's not; however, where ever you have free will, then you have the potential for evil. People have the free will to choose to follow God or not; and then you can factor in the fallibility issue, so there's the potential for human misrepresentations.

(Ref. 2) The Enemy's goal is to hurt God. And what better way to do that than to take away what yahweh loves the most, His kids? So how do you keep yourself from being deceived? Simple, have a relationship with Yahweh. Just talk to Him; He'll tell you. I know, sounds too simple. "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise."

These two ingredients make for a proverbial witch's brew of confusion. But, again, just b/c there are problems doesn't mean there are no solutions.

Mormonism. Debating this issue takes quite a while b/c there's a lot of ground to cover. I'll give you a sample: It starts with the fact that Mormons don't worship the same god as Christians do. How do I know that? B/c their God has different parameters than "Yahweh of the Bible" does. For instance, the Mormon god used to be a human, following successors of other humans turned gods, ad infinitum (put to rest by Isaiah 43:10). Their trinity is different, in that it also has different parameters: the holy father, holy mother and Jesus. They believe Jesus is God's son, but that Jesus is really just the archangel Michael. They also believe Satan (Lucifer) is Jesus' brother.

That may whet your apetite or scare you off altogether. But there's more where that came from, should you choose this is the route you want to go. Let me know.

Bluemongoose said...

Scott:

Human fallibility and misinterpretation. The reason I was glad you recognized the problem here is b/c I want you to come away from the "human reasoning is the only way we verify reason" position. Sometimes skeptics stuck in this perspective try to say things like, "the authenticity of the Bible can't be proved through human reasoning, so that de facto makes it bunk". I'm just eliminating that option here.

"I can't help but notice that it sounds like..." Ah, ah, ah. You're contradicting yourself. Remember, you agreed about the pesonal bias thing. What you personally perceive could be the incorrect way to perceive.

"God's personality seems..." There you go again assuming. Scott, you'd be better served by just asking why questions to clarify perception issues. Try that one again.

"Last time I checked, the 75%..." Again, you're arguing from the human perspective angle. How do you know 75% is an exact figure? And can we be sure of the authenticity of the poll if it is conducted by humans?

100% sure. Notice how you said, "If I had felt 100% sure.." Why do you believe your personal emotions are a foundation on which to build anything?

Gravity. So b/c humans may not know the answer, does that mean there is ultimately no answer?

Whether or not I need to verify anything. This is where reliance on Yahweh, the maker of knowledge and truth, comes in handy. But, yes, if we trully did completely rely on Yahweh, there would be no hunger, cancer and unclean energy. Sadly, this is what happens when we declare our total autonomy, separate and apart from God. Ask me why!

Other means: Reliance and dependence on Yahweh.

Communication. "This knowledge comes with responsibility." Be careful not to blend lines here. Having responsibility doesn't mean God must force us to see things His way. Remember the free will issue.

Gas grill. Your illustration implies God does nothing to stop atrocities. But how do you know that if all you use is your finite human perception? How can you judge the perspective of the infinite? Back to your illustration. What if I did everything within my power to warn the individual about the potential dangers of misuse, and he/she ignored me?

False dilemma. Why do you assume God doesn't give clear choices? What if this was an issue of despite God giving the clearest explanations, people refused to accept them? It again becomes a free will issue.

Responsibility of God. Why do you assume you're using my definition of God? What if you were adding to it in order to get something different than what I originally described to you? The fact that God has "significantly more knowledge" doesn't change the fact that He won't step on our free will to make us do something or see things His way. Violating that would trully be the mark of a despot.

Owlmirror said...

«"Mind you, I'm not saying free will is a bad thing b/c it's not

That which leads to eternal damnation is not a bad thing?

«"The Enemy's goal is to hurt God.

Satan's goal is to serve God.

Job 2:6 -- The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your hands;

«"And what better way to do that than to take away what yahweh loves the most, His kids?

The only way Satan can "take away" something from God is if Satan is more powerful than God himself. Nice. Maybe we should worship Satan instead!

«"Simple, have a relationship with Yahweh. Just talk to Him; He'll tell you.

Or talk to yourself and pretend that you're talking to Yahweh and that Yahweh talks back to you. Make-believe!

It's all the same thing: lying to yourself.

«"For instance, the Mormon god used to be a human, following successors of other humans turned gods, ad infinitum (put to rest by Isaiah 43:10).

LOL. The same verse contradicts Christianity!

«"Their trinity is different, in that it also has different parameters: the holy father, holy mother and Jesus.

No, their tritheistic beliefs are exactly the same as yours: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

«"They also believe Satan (Lucifer) is Jesus' brother.

Supported by Job 1:6. (Lucifer is not Satan. "Lucifer" is from Isaiah 14:12, and is not a supernatural being except in late Christian exegesis.)

«"The fact that God has "significantly more knowledge" doesn't change the fact that He won't step on our free will to make us do something or see things His way. Violating that would trully be the mark of a despot.

But God does trample on free will in the bible, and will trample on our free will after we die. So it follows that God is indeed a despot.

Cromm said...

But, yes, if we trully did completely rely on Yahweh, there would be no hunger, cancer and unclean energy.

Funniest thing I read all day.

Tell you what Blue, how about you and all the other Yahweh worshipers, assuming you can find any that worship the same version of Yahweh as yourself, all pack yourselves onto an isolated commune somewhere. There, totally reliant on Yahweh for the providence of your food, medicine and energy, I'm sure you'll flourish!

Bluemongoose said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bluemongoose said...

Gandolf:

Your use of the adjective "stupidly". Now, now. don't prop up your failing arguments with derrogatory comments. In the end they don't make what you post any less/more incorrect. But, gee, I thought you skeptics were above that sort of thing.

Reverting. Ah, ye olde circular reasoning argument. Except you let sketpics off the hook when they use the "human reasoning is the onnly way to verify reason" circular reasoning. Gandolf, there are questions about the Bible and Christianity going on here. Where else would we look for the answers but in the Bible? Would we look for answers to math questions in a history book?

Recall I said human reasoning is not our ultimate and sole source for verifying authenticity. You are deliberately confusing issues.

L.O.L. The joy of atheistic indoctrination and ignorance.

Bluemongoose said...

The God of Bluemongoose:

You are a biased fraud, evidenced merely by the fact that you nitpick at what I post and leave the skeptics' posts, overflowing with derrogatory personal remarks, alone. Where are your cries for ethics in that regard?

Engage me in debate, unless you're too scared you'll lose in front of everyone and be exposed for the pernicious iconoclast that you are.

Bluemongoose said...

SConnor:

Why do you assume just b/c I'm exposing atheist/skeptic arguments against theology as bunk, that I'm being mean? Perhaps this is a last ditch effort to prop up your failing arguments that can't stand on their own merits? Show me where I've criticized others' faults. Why are you using a dcotrine you bleive to be false as a weapon against anyone? Unless you believe it has merit, this wouldn't make any sense...

Owlmirror said...

«"Except you let sketpics off the hook when they use the "human reasoning is the onnly way to verify reason" circular reasoning.

It's not circular, it's tautological. You can't have any reasoning at all without reasoning.

«"Where else would we look for the answers but in the Bible?

If God were actually real, God could and would give the answers.

«"You are a biased fraud

Yes, just like Yahweh is indeed a biased fraud. Suddenly, when it suits you, you become an atheist!

«"evidenced merely by the fact that you nitpick at what I post and leave the skeptics' posts

Yes, exactly. Just like Yahweh attacks skeptics and leaves his believers alone. Not so much fun when you're on the receiving end of that, is it?


«"Engage me in debate, unless you're too scared you'll lose in front of everyone and be exposed for the pernicious iconoclast that you are.

I've noticed that you've stopped engaging me in debate. Must be because you're too scared you'll lose in front of everyone and be exposed for the pernicious hypocrite that you are.

Hahahaha! I win!

sconnor said...

bluemongoose

Why do you assume just b/c I'm exposing atheist/skeptic arguments against theology as bunk, that I'm being mean?

What the hell are you talking about? Mean? References please.

Perhaps this is a last ditch effort to prop up your failing arguments that can't stand on their own merits?

Oh -- you mean the "failing arguments" that you said, are all important points and your questions deserve answers...

...the ones, which you subsequently really didn't answer, then bailed and then continued to regale us with pathetic whiny excuses -- those arguments?

Show me where I've criticized others' faults. Why are you using a doctrine you believe to be false as a weapon against anyone? Unless you believe it has merit, this wouldn't make any sense...

.......and you still continue to engage me. So much for your deluded infantile arguments of not addressing my arguments because I cuss. Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.

Address the first set of questions (without circular reasoning and kindergarten defenses) and my last post, then I'll address your qestion.

56 arguments and growing...........

I can, also, use your words: stop making lame excuses and engage me in debate, unless you're too scared you'll lose in front of everyone and be exposed for the pernicious iconoclast that you are.

--S.

Scott said...

Human fallibility and misinterpretation. The reason I was glad you recognized the problem here is b/c I want you to come away from the "human reasoning is the only way we verify reason" position.

Blue, notice how you said "you want." Just because you "want" there to be some magical way to avoid the problem of human cognition, doesn't mean such a way actually exists in reality.

I'm just eliminating that option here.

That you've actually eliminated anything has yet to be established.

You're contradicting yourself. Remember, you agreed about the pesonal bias thing. What you personally perceive could be the incorrect way to perceive.

No, I'm not. Remember, I suggested there were ways to compensate for the problem of human cognition. Not overcome them completely.

There you go again assuming. Scott, you'd be better served by just asking why questions to clarify perception issues. Try that one again.

I'd be better served? You mean you'd be better served. What I did here is applied the null hypothesis in regards to God's supposed actions vs his supposed attributes and goals. The result is that what we observe is what one would expect if God was actually a construct created by human beings instead of an omniscient and omnipotent being.

How do you know 75% is an exact figure? And can we be sure of the authenticity of the poll if it is conducted by humans?

It's not an exact figure, not does it need to be for my point to be valid. Despite God's patience, roughly two thirds of the worlds population will still end up in Hell according to Christianity.

Scott said...

-- Continued --

Why do you believe your personal emotions are a foundation on which to build anything?

I used the world "felt" as a indication of certainty. How you would describe your level of certainty and why?

Gravity. So b/c humans may not know the answer, does that mean there is ultimately no answer?

Apparently you failed to actually read my response. Please read it carefully...

Surely there is some mechanism that causes gravity, but we currently do not (and may never) know it.

This is where reliance on Yahweh, the maker of knowledge and truth, comes in handy.

If relying on Yahweh is as handy as you claim, then you should have no problem saving all of those scientists and researchers centuries of time by revealing all of these truths directly.

We're waiting....

But, yes, if we trully did completely rely on Yahweh, there would be no hunger, cancer and unclean energy. Sadly, this is what happens when we declare our total autonomy, separate and apart from God. Ask me why!

Blue, are you sure it's not because you declared your total independence from Shiva or Allah? Or perhaps it's because you've decided that you're no longer bound to human limitation, despite still being human?

You've completely ignored my question a second time.

*** Do you not agree that communication not a two way street? ***

Reliance and dependence on Yahweh.

Still waiting on all those answers, which you don't need to verify to have knowledge of.

Be careful not to blend lines here.

What does "blending lines" mean and why do I need to be careful not to?

Remember the free will issue.

Remember that giving us clear choices would not require God force us to choose one of those choices.

Gas grill. Your illustration implies God does nothing to stop atrocities.

My illustration is designed to show that, even when dealing with finite human beings, we associate knowledge with significant responsibility. If God is truly as all knowing as you claim, then the vast majority of responsibility in regards to communication falls on God.

How can you judge the perspective of the infinite?

Apparently you don't have any problems judging what an infinite God would do or know. Why should your judgement be any better than mine. Or any better than a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist?

What if I did everything within my power to warn the individual about the potential dangers of misuse, and he/she ignored me?

Do you think I could ignore God if he did everything within his power?

Why do you assume God doesn't give clear choices?

Wait, I thought God couldn't give clear choices? Which is it?

What if this was an issue of despite God giving the clearest explanations, people refused to accept them? It again becomes a free will issue.

Clarity as compaired to what? Allah or Mormonism? You've setting a very low bar for clarity. What if you've mistaken you're belief that the Christian God exists, among other religious claims, as clarity where none actually exists?

Responsibility of God. Why do you assume you're using my definition of God?

Oh.. that's right. You think God would rather sentence us to an eternity of suffering and torture due to a decision made with incomplete information, rather than reveal himself to us so we can make an informed choice. What was I thinking?

Bluemongoose said...

SConnor:

Prior dialogue x 2. So you're saying your idea of evidence is simply that you personally feel what I brought was lame and trite? Never addressed the responses at hand. Yes, I did, just not the way you expected me to. You still suffered a defeat b/c I came at one of you unguarded angles. Still a defeat even if you weren't expecting it.

Inaccurate analogy. So are you saying that cussing and derrogatory remarks are good just b/c some of your friends don't mind being cussed at and called derrogatory names? There's your relativism monster again.

Other Christian guests. 1) Was it your perception that they were being disrespectful? 2) If they were actually disrespectful, did it make it right? Why are you still judging one individual by what other people do? Can I judge you by what your friends or siblings do -- or even by what other skeptics do?

"Cuckoo". Is that the best you can do, SConnor? Why use such an ignoble way of deffending what you believe? It shows you don't have much confidence in your worldview and that it can't stand on its own merits. What you put up with. Again, can you go into your local grocery store and rant and rave with "sentence enhancers" like you do here? "Can..you..grasp..that?"

Intellectual capacities. Again, here you go frothing at the mouth when your arguments tank and can't stand on their own merits. You give a lot of credit to the "angry atheist" mantra.

John Loftus x2. Again, I left that prior dialgoue b/c of your lack of veneration for others. I won't put up with your animus. You again show you will give John the benefit of your double standard b/c you accuse me and not him. I have yet to see you post anything confronting John.

He is the catalyst to these debates? Are you serious? Oh, heaven forbid I should say anything that could be construed as negative against the high and mighty name of John Loftus, right? Are you some kind of yes man for John? Don't you think he's old enough to fight his own battles?

Owlmirror said...

«"So you're saying your idea of evidence is simply that you personally feel what I brought was lame and trite? Never addressed the responses at hand. Yes, I did, just not the way you expected me to.

Who expects someone to be deliberately lame and trite?

«"Can I judge you by what your friends or siblings do -- or even by what other skeptics do?

You seem to think that it's just fine for God to judge the innocent by what the guilty do.

«"Again, can you go into your local grocery store and rant and rave with "sentence enhancers" like you do here?

You mean ranting and raving with "sentence enhancers" like "you're blending lines"?

«"Intellectual capacities. Again, here you go frothing at the mouth when your arguments tank and can't stand on their own merits.

Your arguments tank and can't stand on their own merits because of your obviously faulty intellectual capacities.

«"Again, I left that prior dialgoue b/c of your lack of veneration for others. I won't put up with your animus.

Kind of like atheists leave Christian dialoge because of your lack of veneration for others. Atheists won't put up with your animus -- or Yahweh's animus.

«"You again show you will give John the benefit of your double standard b/c you accuse me and not him.

Just like you give God the benefit of your double standard because you accuse us and not him.

«"I have yet to see you post anything confronting John.

I have yet to see you post anything confronting God.

«"He is the catalyst to these debates? Are you serious?

LOL.

Oh, heaven forbid I should say anything that could be construed as negative against the high and mighty name of Yahweh, right? Are you some kind of yes man for Yahweh? Don't you think he's old enough to fight his own battles?

sconnor said...

bluemongoose

Prior dialogue x 2. So you're saying your idea of evidence is simply that you personally feel what I brought was lame and trite?

No the evidence is your responses were lame and trite. Additionally they were steeped in circular reasoning. These are facts -- not how I personally feel.

Furthermore you quit and NEVER finished responding to them leveling lame excuses as to why you quit. so that's less then lame and trite -- that's nil

Never addressed the responses at hand. Yes, I did, just not the way you expected me to.

No. No you didn't -- again, you quit.

And like I said you responded just for the sake of responding. None of your supposed answers actually addressed my questions and comments.

You still suffered a defeat b/c I came at one of you unguarded angles. Still a defeat even if you weren't expecting it.

Yeah stick with that deluded assessment.

~Let's try something here~

So you're saying I suffered a defeat b/c you simply personally feel I sufferd a defeat?

Can you see how idiotically infantile that arguemnt is? It's your lame aguement from above: So you're saying your idea of evidence is simply that you personally feel what I brought was lame and trite?

Inaccurate analogy. So are you saying that cussing and derrogatory remarks are good just b/c some of your friends don't mind being cussed at and called derrogatory names? There's your relativism monster again.

No -- Again a strawman on your part. I'm making an analogy beteween commenting on this informal public blog with other informal public blogs.

Your the one who constructed a strawman and tried to compare it to other unrelated situations. Of course I wouldn't cuss at let's say a job interview. Again my use of cussing which is fairly limited is used mostly as a qualifying adjective at informal public blogs.

Other Christian guests. 1) Was it your perception that they were being disrespectful? 2) If they were actually disrespectful, did it make it right?

No, they just used words that you would subjectively construe as bad words, because it is an informal public blog.

Why are you still judging one individual by what other people do? Can I judge you by what your friends or siblings do -- or even by what other skeptics do?

Oh like you judge john's actions? Again you misconstrue my argument I'm saying this is an informal blog where John let's people use cuss words with in reason. It's his playground. I have never been reprimanded by my cavalier use of cuss words.

Furthermore you used the whiny excuse of cuss words so you could bail on answering the 56 questions and comments.

I haven't changed my style -- in the least -- and still continue to use cuss words and you still continue to address me, which tells me your argument for not addressing my 56 points is fallacious -- nothing but a pathetic attempt at not addressing my points.

sconnor said...

~continued~

"Cuckoo". Is that the best you can do, SConnor? Why use such an ignoble way of deffending what you believe? It shows you don't have much confidence in your worldview and that it can't stand on its own merits. What you put up with. Again, can you go into your local grocery store and rant and rave with "sentence enhancers" like you do here? "Can..you..grasp..that?"

I can assure you if a grocer put my eggs in a bag and then proceeded to put jugs of milk and other heavy items on them crushing them I would have other words other than cuckoo.

What's more the use of the word "cuckoo" was a legitimate characterization of you, of insanely misrepresenting my argument. I not only said cuckoo but I backed it up with a salient argument which you have either ignored or misrepresented.

Notice what I said specifically, and how it went woooosh right over your head, so that you could only resort to misrepresenting my argument.

Your argument was: You wouldn't put up with that in real life, so why should I put up with it here?

I countered that feeble argument by sharing with you that, I do indeed put up with it -- real life and on other informal blogs. It was NOT an argument insinuating that you should put up with it, because I put up with it. Can...you...grasp...that?

All I did was counter your erroneous assertion that I do NOT put up with it because indeed I do put up with it. You continue to vomit up your strawman that I'm trying to make an argument that Just because others do it you should do it too -- that's cuckoo and I demonstrated how that was cuckoo.

Intellectual capacities. Again, here you go frothing at the mouth when your arguments tank and can't stand on their own merits. You give a lot of credit to the "angry atheist" mantra.

Well I can assure you I am NOT angry. I'm tired of your infantile, fallacious arguments and B.S. diverging tactics but I'm perfectly content.

And since it hasn't penetrated your dense cranium -- I am NOT an atheist.

And you have over and over again demonstrated that you do not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend circular reasoning. You also compound this problem -- once again showing your lack of intellectual thought -- by not defending your use of circular reason, specifically -- but instead assert that the use of reason is circular and is fallacious also thereby admitting circular reason is impotent. That's cuckoo -- nuts.

sconnor said...

~continued~

John Loftus x2. Again, I left that prior dialgoue b/c of your lack of veneration for others. I won't put up with your animus.

Which over and over again, you have demonstrated that you WILL put up with my style by continuing to address me. Again you are cuckoo -- nuts. The time you have used to address me here could have been used to address my 56 questions and comments. This would lead ANYONE, who is reading this, to think that you have done NOTHING but vomit up whiny B.S. excuses because you are indeed incapable of addressing my points.

You again show you will give John the benefit of your double standard b/c you accuse me and not him. I have yet to see you post anything confronting John.

Again, another diverging strawman. A B.S. excuse for not addressing my points.

Also, I can use your kindergarten defense too: You want the god of bluemongoose to address your points but why should he address your points when John doesn't address your points -- nanny, nanny boo, boo.

I can not believe you resort to that kindergarten argument. It is painfully obvious you can NOT address my arguments so your only defense is to say other people do not address arguments -- whaaaaaaa!

He is the catalyst to these debates? Are you serious? Oh, heaven forbid I should say anything that could be construed as negative against the high and mighty name of John Loftus, right?

Diverging strawman -- once again.

I don't care if you critique John -- SAY what ever you damn well please about him.

Additionally it is a factual assessment -- john regularly gets the debate started.

Are you some kind of yes man for John? Don't you think he's old enough to fight his own battles?

He can do whatever he wants. Again its his playground. But using the lame argument that john doesn't address argument so you don't have to is a strawman and a lame whiny excuse.

Which would be the same whiny B.S. excuse used against the god of bluemongoose to get of debating with you. I don't have to engage you; john doesn't engage people so why should I engage you? Isn't that a double standered? -- nah, nah, nah, na, na.

I beginning to think your days our numbered here.

I can hardly wait for john to ban you for your use of infantile and fallacious B.S. arguments.

No doubt you'll pat yourself on the back delusionaly thinking you have accomplished something and that you were banned because your arguments were so stellar no one could refute them, when in reality you wallowed in morbid ignorance, massive fallacies, circular reasoning and pathetic kindergarten defenses.

--S.

Cromm said...

Blue is using almost the exact same responses he or she tried out on me in the slavery thread. He/she sticks to the same script regardless of what you say, or how badly he/she is embarrassed in previous discussions.

sconnor said...

Cromm

Blue is using almost the exact same responses he or she tried out on me in the slavery thread. He/she sticks to the same script regardless of what you say, or how badly he/she is embarrassed in previous discussions.

I concur.

Blue is so pathetically oblivious to her strained rationalizations, loopy logic, circular reasoning, contradictory reasoning and kindergarten defenses, that she really isn't supporting ANY of her deluded arguments nor is she contributing ANYTHING to the discussion.

In fact, She has used every fallacious argument out there, and if this was an accredited college debate course she would be laughed right out of class with a big scarlet F pinned to her shirt.

--S.